alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                     Exhibit 12(b)

                            Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
                Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
        Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends



                                                                          1998     1999     2000      2001     2002
<S>                                                                     <C>      <C>       <C>      <C>      <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:
  Total Interest charges                                                $178,220 $153,034  $158,949 $174,368 $144,840
  Interest applicable to rentals                                          16,927   16,451    18,307   18,520   16,483
                                                                        ---------------------------------------------

Total fixed charges, as defined                                          195,147  169,485   177,256  192,888  161,323

Preferred dividends, as defined (a)                                       32,031   29,355    15,742   13,017    6,190
                                                                        ---------------------------------------------

Combined fixed charges and preferred dividends, as defined              $227,178 $198,840  $192,998 $205,905 $167,513
                                                                        =============================================

Earnings as defined:

Income (loss) from continuing operations before extraordinary items and
  the cumulative effect of accounting changes                            $46,393 $125,000  $180,343 $179,444 $174,078
  Add:
    Income Taxes                                                          31,773   75,165   103,603   82,038   65,997
    Fixed charges as above                                               195,147  169,485   177,256  192,888  161,323
                                                                        ---------------------------------------------
Total earnings, as defined (b)                                          $273,313 $369,650  $461,202 $454,370 $401,398
                                                                        =============================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined                              1.40     2.18      2.60     2.36     2.49
                                                                        =============================================

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and
 preferred dividends, as defined                                            1.20     1.86      2.39     2.21     2.40
                                                                        =============================================

(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed by
    dividing the preferred dividend requirement by one hundred percent
    (100%) minus the income tax rate.

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1636

DINO MENBERE, Petitioner,
versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A76-452-081) Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 13, 2007 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott E. Bratton, MARGARET WONG & ASSOCIATES, LPA, Cleveland, Ohio, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Ethan B. Kanter, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dino Menbere, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying as untimely her motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. An alien may file one motion to reopen within ninety days of the entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229a(c)(7)(A),(C) (West 2005 & Supp. 2007); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2007). We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2007); INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Nibagwire v. Gonzales , 450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Cir. 2006). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS , 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc). In explaining the degree of deference given to the agency’s discretionary review, this court has observed that the decision to deny a motion to reopen “need only be reasoned, not convincing.” Id. at 310 (quotation marks and citation omitted). We will reverse a denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 741, 745 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007).- 3 - There is no doubt that Menbere’s motion to reopen was untimely. We further find no error with the Board’s finding that Menbere did not show due diligence excusing the late filing. Accordingly, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 15, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20251 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LARRY LATROY SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CV-3715 USDC No. 4:01-CR-738-2

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Larry Latroy Smith seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his convictions for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, and possession of counterfeit checks. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Smith has not shown that jurists of reason would debate the district court’s denial of his claims that appellate counsel was ineffective (1) for not advising him to appeal the districtNo. 04-20251 -2- court’s assessment of a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) for direct money laundering and (2) for not advising him to appeal the district court’s assessment of three levels pursuant to § 3B1.1 for his aggravating role (manager) in the offense. See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Smith’s motion for COA is DENIED as to these claims. Because Smith raised for the first time in his COA motion his claim that his sentence is unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), this court need not consider it.
See Whitehead v. Johnson , 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998). Smith has shown that jurists of reason would debate whether the district erred in denying his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for advising him not to appeal the district court’s denial of the third point for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1(b). See Slack , 529 U.S. at 484. Smith’s motion for COA is GRANTED with regard to this claim. However, Smith has not shown in either his COA motion or his appeal brief that counsel was ineffective. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); United States v. Reinhart , 357 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir. 2004). At sentencing, the district court overruled the Government’s objection to its refusal to assess a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice. There was support in the record for the Government’s position, and the Government specifically reserved its right to appeal on this issue. Since an appeal by Smith on the § 3E1.1(b) claim mightNo. 04-20251 -3- have provoked a cross-appeal by the Government on the obstruction-of-justice issue, defense counsel’s advice to Smith not to appeal the denial of the third point under § 3E1.1(b) was within the wide range of reasonable professional conduct. See Strickland , 466 U.S. at 689. Smith is not entitled to § 2255 relief on this claim. See id.
COA DENIED IN PART; COA GRANTED IN PART; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3347 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 372
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3347

  To extend the National Flood Insurance Program through December 31, 
                                 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 11, 2010

Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

                              May 12, 2010

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the National Flood Insurance Program through December 31, 
                                 2010.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Extension.--Section 129 of the Continuing Appropriations 
Resolution, 2010 (Public Law 111-68), as amended, is further amended by 
striking ``by substituting'' and all that follows through the period at 
the end, and inserting ``by substituting December 31, 2010 for the date 
specified in each such section.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be 
considered to have taken effect on February 28, 2010.
                                                       Calendar No. 372

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3347

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To extend the National Flood Insurance Program through December 31, 
                                 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 12, 2010

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 111 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13610]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than June 24, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Steve Foley, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Benjamin W. Lindsey, and Benjamin W. Lindsey, Jr., both of 
Lenox, Georgia; to acquire voting shares of Robinson Bancshares, Inc., 
and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Bank of Lenox, both of 
Lenox, Georgia.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. The Dorothy F. Baggerly Grantor Retained Annuity Trust, Steve 
Baggerly as Trustee, both of Guymon, Oklahoma; to become part of the 
family group acting in concert to acquire voting shares of Panhandle 
Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Bank 
of the Panhandle, both in Guymon, Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 5, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-13610 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3370 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the process by which 

an individual files jointly for social security and dependency and indemnity compensation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2010 

Mr. AKAKA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

process by which an individual files jointly for social 

security and dependency and indemnity compensation, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENT OF PROCESS FOR FILING 

4 JOINTLY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND DE5 PENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION. 

6 Section 5105 of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a)— 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3370 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘shall’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘may’’; and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘Each such form’’ and in4 serting ‘‘Such forms’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘on such a 

6 form’’ and inserting ‘‘on any form indicating an in7 tent to apply for survivor benefits’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32(i)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and    
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.









|/s/ Jay A. LewisJay A. Lewis
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Entergy Louisiana, LLC
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	March 1, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements of Realmark Property Investors Limited Partnership
     VI-A for the nine months ended September 30, 1998, and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                 0
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     29,716
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 862,342
<PP&E>                                        20,416,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,303,581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                15,579,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,770,384
<BONDS>                                       11,365,114
<COMMON>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  15,579,121
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,135,173
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,132,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               769,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (997,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (997,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (6.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Myron CUNNINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-14545

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 7, 2009.

*870Robert G. Davies, Edwin F. Knight, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gwendolyn L. Spivey, William Rourk Clark, Jr., Federal Defender Office, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BIRCH, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Myron Cunningham appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 706 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“the Guidelines”), which reduced the base offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. On appeal, Cunningham argues that the district court erred because: (1) it had the authority necessary to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2); and (2) it failed to analyze the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, as required by our precedent.

“We review a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on a subsequent change in the sentencing guidelines, for abuse of discretion.” *United States v. Williams,*549 F.3d 1337, 1338 (11th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (quoting *United States v. Brown,*332 F.3d 1341, 1343 (11th Cir.2003)). “However, where the issue presented involves a legal interpretation, our review is *de novo.” Id.*at 1338-39 (citation omitted).

A district court may modify a term of imprisonment in the case of a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, we have held that when a defendant is subject to a statutory mandatory minimum that replaces his guideline range, that defendant is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 706. *Williams,*549 F.3d at 1342 (“Because Williams was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum that replaced his original sentencing guideline range, he was not sentenced according to the base offense level in § 2D1.1, even taking into account the § 5K1.1 downward departure. He thus would not fall within the scope of Amendment 706.”). In Williams, we pointed out that this ineligibility is not rectified by a downward departure below the statutory minimum when that departure is *871made pursuant to a § 5K1.1 motion for substantial assistance. *Id.*at 1341.

Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error. Because Cunningham was subject to a mandatory minimum term of life imprisonment pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), Amendment 706 did not change his guideline range, even though he ultimately received a § 5K1.1 downward departure. *See id.*at 1340-42. Therefore, Cunningham was ineligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction, and we affirm the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Condition at March 31, 1998 and the Statement of
Income for the three months ended March 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             525
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   525
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,835
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   (1,241,015)
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       525
<SALES>                                             90
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    90
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,837)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,837)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,837)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>