alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Trans World Entertainment Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Robert J. Higgins,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and John J. Sullivan,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                       
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | 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.

|                                      |  |                               | 
|------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- | 
|/s/ Robert J. Higgins                 |  | /s/
 John J. Sullivan         | 
|                                      |  |                               | 
|Robert J. Higgins                     |  | John J. Sullivan              | 
|Chairman and Chief
 Executive Officer |  | Executive Vice President
 and | 
|                                      |  | Chief Financial Officer       | 
|June 9, 2011                          |  | June 9, 2011                  | 

---
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23
<PAGE>   2
Consent of Independent Auditors

            We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 Registration No. 33-93480) pertaining to the 900,000 shares
of Common Stock issuable under the 1989 Stock Option Plan, as amended (the
"Option Plan"); the 150,000 shares of Common Stock issuable under the 1995
Employee Stock Purchase Plan; and 306,000 shares issuable under certain options
granted outside the Option Plan in February 1995 of our report dated February
25, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
ECCS, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 1996.

            We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 Registration No. 333-15529) pertaining to the 150,000 shares
of Common Stock issuable under the 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan
and 600,000 shares of Common Stock issuable under the 1996 Stock Plan of our
report dated February 25, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of ECCS, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1996.






ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Princeton, New Jersey

March 28, 1997
Exhibit 10.3

(TLD Funding Group letterhead)


                           PROMISSORY NOTE - GUARANTY

     In  consideration  of value received,  GOLD AND MINERALS  COMPANY,  INC. AN
ARIZONA  CORPORATION,  AND LARRY LOZENSKY  (hereinafter  "Borrowers")  do hereby
jointly and severally promise to pay to CEE & GEE FUNDING,  INC. dba TLD funding
Group an Arizona corporation  (hereinafter  "Lender") the amount of $365,947.03,
such amount accruing  interest at the rate of 1.5% per month.  This amount is to
be paid with  interest  only for a period of 36 months  subject to review by the
lender on an annual basis.

         First  payment  due on July 15th,  with 21 days of interim  interest to
         charged at $182.97 per day.

         Security Interest as specified in the appropriate UCC-1 Filing.

     Such payments shall be first applied to interest and then to the principal.
Payments  will be due and  payable  on a  mutually  agreed  to day of the  month
between the lender and the  borrower.  Payments not made within five (5) days of
due date and shall be subject to a late charge of 5% of said payment.  This Note
may be paid in full at any time without  penalty  charges.  Lender  reserves the
right to demand payment,  in full or in part, with accrued interest charges,  at
any time with due cause of fraud,  neglect,  or malfeasance.  Borrower agrees to
pay all reasonable expenses,  including court costs and attorney fees, as may be
incurred  during  collection  proceedings  in the event of default on this Note.
Each maker,  surety,  guarantor or endorser of this note waives  presentation of
payment, notice of non-payment,  protest and notice of protest and agrees to all
extensions,  renewals,  or release,  discharge or exchange of any other party or
collateral without notice.


GOLD AND MINERALS, INC., (Borrowers)          TLD FUNDING GROUP (Lender)

(Signature)                                   (Signature:
Larry Lozensky, President  5/25/99            John R. Balding, President 5/25/99

(Signature)
Larry Lozensky, Individual 5/25/99
ANEXO A 

Relación de reclamaciones objeto de la Quingentésima cuadragésima tercera 

objeción global 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22747-2 Filed:10/28/22 Entered:10/28/22 18:32:05 Desc:

Anexo A Page 1 of 2
Quingentésima Cuadragésima Tercera Objeción Global

Anexo A: Reclamos para Desestimar

NOMBRE

FECHA DE 

PRESENTACIÓN DEUDOR

N.o DE 

RECLAMACIÓN

MONTO DE LA 

RECLAMACIÓN 

ALEGADA

NÚMERO DE 

CASO

10/30/2019 17 BK 03566-LTS Sistema de Retiro de los 172193-1

Empleados del Gobierno del 

Estado Libre Asociado de 

Puerto Rico

 1 PABON VELAZQUEZ, ANA C.

P.O. BOX 661

ARROYO, PR 00714

Indeterminado*

Base para: La Evidencia de Reclamo no proporciona un fundamento para presentar un reclamo contra el Sistema de Retiro de los Empleados del Gobierno del Estado Libre Asociado 

de Puerto Rico. La Evidencia de Reclamo y la documentación de respaldo solo exponen una obligación entre el Demandante y el Hospital Municipal de Arroyo, que no forma parte de 

los procedimientos iniciados al amparo del Título III. Una parte de este reclamo se le transfirió al proceso de Reconciliación de Reclamos Administrativos (RRA) y se resolverá de 

acuerdo con sus procedimientos. Dado que esta objeción no constituye una objeción a la parte del reclamo en el proceso de la ACR, los Deudores se reservan el derecho de objetar la 

parte restante del reclamo fundándose en cualquier otro motivo.

06/29/2018 17 BK 03283-LTS El Estado Libre Asociado de 83956

Puerto Rico

 2 ROSARIO GUTIERRES, VILMA I.

JENARO A. MEDINA ROSARIO, ESQ.

PO BOX 79366

CAROLINA, PR 00984-9366

$24,000.00*

Base para: La Evidencia de Reclamo no proporciona un fundamento para presentar un reclamo contra el Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico. La Evidencia de Reclamo y la 

documentación de respaldo solo indican una obligación entre el Demandante y el Municipio de San Juan, así como otros demandados, que no forman parte de los procedimientos 

iniciados al amparo del Título III.

TOTAL $24,000.00*

* Indica que la reclamación contiene montos por liquidar o indeterminados 1

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22747-2 Filed:10/28/22 Entered:10/28/22 18:32:05 Desc:

Anexo A Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     EXHBIT 12.1

                       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      Year Ended December 31,
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2000         1999         1998         1997         1996
                                     ----         ----         ----         ----         ----
<S>                                <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>
Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense on
     indebtedness
     (including
     amortization of debt
     expense and discount)         $   36,082   $   14,146  $      191   $       446  $       422

   Interest expense on
     portion of rent
     expense
     representative
     of interest                        3,251        2,951       1,299         1,072          843
                                   ----------   ----------  ----------   -----------  -----------

  Total Fixed Charges              $   39,333   $   17,097  $    1,490   $     1,518  $     1,265
                                   ==========   ==========  ==========   ===========  ===========

Earnings (Loss):
   Net loss before
     provision for income
     taxes and cumulative
     effect of change in
     accounting principle          $ (235,331)  $  (41,944)  $ (22,957)    $ (21,148) $    (7,559)
   Fixed charges per
    above                              39,333       17,097        1,490         1,518       1,265
                                   ----------   ----------  ----------   -----------  -----------
  Total Earnings (Loss)            $ (195,998)  $  (24,847)  $ (21,467)     $(19,630) $    (6,294)
                                   ==========   ==========  ==========   ===========  ===========

Ratio of Earnings to
   Fixed Charges                        (4.98)       (1.45)      (14.41)      (12.93)       (4.98)
                                   ==========   ==========  ==========   ===========  ===========

Coverage deficiency (1)            $(235,331)   $  (41,944)  $ (22,957)     $(21,148) $    (7,559)
                                   ==========   ==========  ==========   ===========  ===========
</TABLE>

(1) The Company's Coverage deficiency for 2000 includes non-recurring charges
    aggregating $184,868 arising from purchased in-process research and
    development and debt conversion expenses of $134,050 and $50,818,
    respectively.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 3, 2015

No. 04-14-00358-CV

Juanita SPRUTE, M.D. and Jefferson Family Practice Associates,

Appellants

v.

Arnold L. LEVEY,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-02406

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s and Cross-Appellee’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Briefs is granted. The briefs are due on April 2, 2015. No further extensions.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(dollars in thousands, except ratio data) Year Ended December 31,2003
    
    2002
    
    2001
    
    2000
    
    1999Fixed Charges:Interest expense on
indebtedness
(including
amortization of debt
expense and
discount)
    
    $
    23,723
    
    
    $
    23,746
    
    
    $
    24,638
    
    
    $
    22,088
    
    
    $
    4,330Interest expense on
portion of rent
expense
representative
of interest
    
    
    7,604
    
    
    
    7,206
    
    
    
    6,159
    
    
    
    3,251
    
    
    
    2,951Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    31,327
    
    
    $
    30,952
    
    
    $
    30,797
    
    
    $
    25,339
    
    
    $
    7,281Earnings (Loss):Net loss before
provision for income
taxes and
cumulative effect
of change in
accounting
principle
    
    $
    (185,324
    )
    
    $
    (219,716
    )
    
    $
    (117,152
    )
    
    $
    (235,331
    )
    
    $
    (41,944
    )Fixed Charges per above
    
    
    31,327
    
    
    
    30,952
    
    
    
    30,797
    
    
    
    25,339
    
    
    
    7,281Total Earnings (Loss)
    
    $
    (153,997
    )
    
    $
    (188,764
    )
    
    $
    (86,355
    )
    
    $
    (209,992
    )
    
    $
    (34,663
    )Ratio of Earnings to
Fixed Charges
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Coverage deficiency
(1)(2)(3)
    
    $
    (185,324
    )
    
    $
    (219,716
    )
    
    $
    (117,152
    )
    
    $
    (235,331
    )
    
    $
    (41,944
    )
  (1)
    
    The Companys Coverage deficiency for 2002 includes charges aggregating
$46,396 arising from the Companys impairment charge relating to its
investment in CAT and a charge for construction design changes of $32,158
and $14,238, respectively.  (2)
    
    The Companys Coverage deficiency for 2001 includes charges aggregating
$26,208 arising from the Companys impairment charge relating to its
investment in Transgene and debt conversion expenses of $22,314 and
$3,894, respectively.  (3)
    
    The Companys Coverage deficiency for 2000 includes charges aggregating
$184,868 arising from purchased in-process research and development and
debt conversion expenses of $134,050 and $50,818, respectively.
#### WILLIAM S. HODSON, Appellant, v. JOHN J. McANERNEY et al., Respondents.

Kansas City Court of Appeals,

December 9, 1912.

1. BILLS OF EXCEPTION: Abstract of Record. A bill of exceptions cannot be allowed to prove itself by its Own recitals ' but must be authenticated by record entries which, in turn, must be shown in the abstract of the record proper.

2. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT: Not a Demurrer. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is not a demurrer and hence is not a part of the record. It is a matter of exception and can only be made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions.

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *Wm. D.*Rusk, Judge.

AFFIRMED'.

*A. Boivers*for appellant.

*Mytton S Parkinson*for respondents.

JOHNSON, J.

This is a suit in equity to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale and exchange of real estate. The petition states a good cause of action, the answer pleads affirmative defenses which need not he stated in the view we take of the case, and the reply traverses all of the facts relating to the affirmative defenses save one, the truth of which is admitted. On the theory that this admission precluded a recovery, defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court sustained the motion and rendered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.

The abstract of the record filed by appellant contains what purports to be a bill of exceptions but in that part devoted to the record proper omits all reference to the record entries relating to the filing of the *469bill. It has been ruled time and again that a bill of exceptions cannot be allowed to prove itself by its own recitals but must be authenticated by record entries which, in turn, must be shown in the abstract of the record proper. [Hutton v. Clark, 145 Mo. App. 188; Redd v. Railroad, 122 Mo. App. 93; Woodward v. Insurance Co., 156 Mo. App. 244; Thorp v. Railroad, 157 Mo. App. 495; Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625.]

We cannot consider the bill of exceptions and, therefore, cannot review the action of the circuit court in sustaining the motion for judgment on the pleadings. A motion of this character and ruling thereon can only be brought to the attention of an appellate court by an exception to the ruling duly preserved in a bill of exceptions. In Godfrey v. Godfrey, 228 Mo. l. c. 513, it is held: “Such motion is no part of the record unless made so by the bill of exceptions. [Mechanics’ Bank v. Klein, 33 Mo. 559; Sternberg v. Levy, 159 Mo. l. c. 629.] In the latter case *yfre*said: ‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings is not a demurrer. It partakes of some of the qualities of a demurrer but it is not a demurrer, and hence it is not a part of the record. It is a matter of exception and can only be made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions. ’ The question therefore raised by this motion is not before the court.”

Finding no error m the record properly before us the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138907

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138907 COA: 284886 Wayne CC: 07-020267-FC SONYA BARNES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 5, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 602.18 Definitions.

*Court* means any entity conducting a legal proceeding.

*Demand* means any order, subpoena, or other legal process for testimony or documents.

*Direct costs* means FCA's costs to search for, review, and reproduce documents to respond to a request. Direct costs include the pro rated cost of the salary of the employee performing the work (based on the basic rate of pay plus 16 percent to cover benefits) and the cost of operating reproduction equipment.

*Document* means any record or other documentary materials, such as books, papers, maps, photographs, and machine-readable materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics (for example, electronic format) in our possession and control when we receive the request.

*Employee* means any present or former FCA employee, any present or former FCA Board member, any former Federal Farm Credit Board member, any present or former FCA-appointed receiver or conservator, and any present or former agent or contractor.

*FCA Counsel* means the General Counsel, a Department of Justice attorney, or counsel authorized by FCA to act for the FCA or an employee.

*General Counsel* means the FCA's General Counsel or designee.

*Legal proceeding* means any administrative, civil, or criminal proceeding, including a discovery proceeding, before a court when FCA is not a named party and has not instituted the legal proceeding.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22334-2 F

Envelo
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3300 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3300

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 15500 Pearl Road in Strongsville, Ohio, as the ``Walter F. Ehrnfelt, 
                      Jr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 15, 2003

   Mr. LaTourette (for himself, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. 
  Regula, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Portman, Mr. Gillmor, Mrs. 
  Jones of Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Ney, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Strickland, Ms. 
 Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Tiberi, and Mr. Turner of 
    Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 15500 Pearl Road in Strongsville, Ohio, as the ``Walter F. Ehrnfelt, 
                      Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. WALTER F. EHRNFELT, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 15500 Pearl Road in Strongsville, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Walter F. Ehrnfelt, Jr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Walter F. 
Ehrnfelt, Jr. Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021417EN.01002701.xml

| 14.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 417/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 417/27

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 26 May 2021 in the case of Norep AS v Haugen Gruppen AS

(Case E-2/21)

(2021/C 417/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 26 May 2021 from Norges Høyesterett (Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2021, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Norep AS v Haugen Gruppen AS on the following questions:

| 1. | Shall the term ‘negotiate’ in Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653 be interpreted as presupposing involvement with orders from customers to the principal, with the result that the orders may not go directly from customers to the principal, as the facts in the present case is described in Chapter 3 above?[ (1)] |
| --- | --- |

1.

Shall the term ‘negotiate’ in Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653 be interpreted as presupposing involvement with orders from customers to the principal, with the result that the orders may not go directly from customers to the principal, as the facts in the present case is described in Chapter 3 above?[ (1)]

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the negative, which factors are relevant in the assessment of whether sales-related activity is to be deemed to be ‘negotiation’ for the purposes of Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the negative, which factors are relevant in the assessment of whether sales-related activity is to be deemed to be ‘negotiation’ for the purposes of Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653?

---

(1)  For full text of the Request for an Advisory Opinion, see https://eftacourt.int/download/2-21-request-ao/?wpdmdl=7454

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 2078 0 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Mike Piedra,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 437

- 3

Before **Davis, Elrod,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Mike Piedra has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Piedra has not filed a response. We hav e reviewed counsel’s brief and the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 1, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-20780 Document: 00515922333 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2021No. 19

- 20780

2 relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
**GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and
the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 19-20780 Document: 00515922333 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2021
IES Order Results Sanitized