alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1





                                                                      EXHIBIT 12


                              PAGING NETWORK, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                      MARCH 31,
                                                ----------------------
                                                  1998          1997
                                                --------      --------
<S>                                             <C>           <C>      
Earnings:
  Net loss ...................................  $(92,372)     $(37,314)
  Fixed charges, less capitalized interest ...    43,302        43,460
                                                --------      --------
     Earnings ................................  $(49,070)     $  6,146
                                                ========      ========


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense, including interest
       capitalized ...........................  $ 40,245      $ 38,355
  Amortization of deferred financing costs ...     1,112         2,471
  Interest portion of rental expense .........     6,524         5,634
                                                --------      --------
     Fixed charges ...........................  $ 47,881      $ 46,460
                                                ========      ========


  Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .........  $     --      $     --
                                                ========      ========

  Deficiency of earnings available to cover
      fixed charges ..........................  $(96,951)     $(40,314)
                                                ========      ========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of GSI Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lee-Lean Shu, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



June 4, 2010/s/ LEE-LEAN SHU Lee-Lean Shu President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in
typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 13.2 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 Form 20FR12G Registration Statement of Aquasol Envirotech Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.   Date: August 23, 2006   "Ken Z. Cai " Ken Z. Cai Chairman of The Board & Director
Exhibit 32

Certification  Pursuant
To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002

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 Form 10-KSB
Annual Report of Xfone, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | o | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | o | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|March 31 , 2005 |  | XFONE, INC.BY: /S/ Guy Nissenson 
Guy Nissenson President,
   Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer,
   Principal Accounting Officer, and Director
|--------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 54533.

#### Chew Chong Tai Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 545157-G, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited, the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained as follows: (1) Bak hop, lotus nuts, sui sit, yuk chuk, wai san, sar sum, lo hon qua, mok qua, and yuen yuk assessed at 35 percent ad valorem under paragraph 775 and paragraph 752, or at 50 percent under paragraph 774 as vegetables or fruits, prepared, or at 10' percent under paragraph 34 as drugs, advanced, stipulated to be the same as the-merchandise passed upon in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States (5*Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372), were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as crude drugs; (2) wai san, sliced; yuk juk, sliced; and sar sum, sliced, assessed at 35 percent under paragraph 775 as vegetables, prepared, similar to those the subject of *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States, supra,*were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs, advanced; (3) a portion of the merchandise, namely 2%oths-percent thereof by weight, assessed as milled rice at 2cents per pound under paragraph 727, similar to that the subject of Abstract 48704, was held dutiable at five-eighths of 1 cent per pound under said paragraph as broken rice; (4) merchandise assessed at 50 percent under paragraph 774 similar to that passed upon in Abstract 29022 was held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 775 as vegetables, prepared or preserved; (5) birds’ nests assessed at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 the same as those the subject of *Quong Lee & Co.*v. *United States*(20 C. C. P. A. 192, T. D. 45981) were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph. 1558 as nonenumerated unmanufactured articles; (6) birds, prepared or preserved, assessed at 10 cents per pound under paragraph 712, the same as the ducks in. oil passed upon in *Wa Chong Co.*v. *United States*(61 Treas. Dec. 1118, T. D. 45695), were held dutiable under said paragraph upon the basis of a weight, excluding that of the oil, the weight of oil in these instances being as noted on the involved invoices by the customs examiner; and (7) merchandise assessed at 20' percent as nonenumerated manufactured articles under paragraph 1558 the same as the sugarcane in Abstract 27793 was held dutiable under paragraph 504 at 75-percent of the rate of duty applicable to manufactured sugar of like polariscopio test, the weight of sugar in the cane and its polarization being as noted on the-invoices by the customs examiner.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3289

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Thein Maung, also known as Joseph Ramarn

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: May 17, 2024

Filed: May 22, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Thein Maung appeals after he pleaded guilty to multiple counts relating to a

scheme to defraud the government and other individuals. His counsel has moved to

withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court1

 did not err in

imposing the below-Guidelines sentence that Maung received, as the record reflects

that the court properly calculated the Guidelines range and considered the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors, and there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor,

or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United

States v. Meza-Lopez, 808 F.3d 743, 745-46 (8th Cir. 2015); United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Moore, 581

F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FARES MUSTAFA

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 3290

[ June 9, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Scott Suskauer

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502011CF004854A

.

William Mallory Kent of Kent & McFarland Attorneys at Law,

Jacksonville, for appellant.

No appearance required for appell ee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, C IKLIN and G ERBER

, JJ.,concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 31.1 I, Dennis Rushovich, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB/A of Hartville Group, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated: November 21, 2005       /s/ Dennis Rushovich          Dennis Rushovich, CEO
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 108 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 108

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage 
                   penalty in the standard deduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

 Mr. Knollenberg introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage 
                   penalty in the standard deduction.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Penalty Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard deduction) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and 
        inserting ``twice the dollar amount in effect under 
        subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'';
            (2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
            (3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in 
        subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.''; and
            (4) by striking subparagraph (D).
    (b) Technical Amendments.--
            (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) of such Code is 
        amended by striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows 
        through ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with 
        respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be 
        applied''.
            (2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended 
        by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
        ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount referred 
        to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20227

COMMISSIONER

August 18,2005

MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS

FROM: ~CHARDL.GREGG ~~ ~ <f/¥(f' .

SUBJECT: ExemptIon from Mandatory Cross-servICIng under the Debt CollectIon

Improvement Act of 1996

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) requires Federal agencies to refer

their debts which are 180 days or more delinquent to the Department of the Treasury

(Treasury), Financial Management Service (FMS) for cross-servicing. The DCIA provides

several statutory exemptions and authorizes Treasury to exempt additional classes of debts

from this requirement. Treasury may exempt a class of debts from cross-servicing based on

the request of an agency, or may exempt a class of debts on its own initiative.

After careful consideration, we have decided to exempt from mandatory cross-servicing

debts that are being collected at the creditor agency through the use of administrative wage

garnishment (A WG) if the following conditions exist: (1) actual collections from A WG have

been received prior to the debt becoming eligible for mandatory cross-servicing; and (2) if

the creditor agency expects the debt to be collected through A WG within three years from

the date of the first collection by A WG.

We have exempted this class of debts from cross-servicing because the exemption is

consistent with the purposes of the DCIA, specifically, (1) it maximizes the collections of

delinquent debts by encouraging early use of A WG in the debt collection process, and (2) it

minimizes the cost of collection by eliminating duplicative collection efforts. Additionally,

the exemption of debts being collected by the creditor agency through A WG parallels the

DCIA statutory exemption for debts that will be collected through internal offset within three

years.

This exemption does not exempt debts from mandatory referral to the Treasury Offset

Program, nor does this exemption prohibit an agency from referring an exempt delinquent

debt to cross-servicing where the creditor agency deems it appropriate.

In addition to providing this memorandum to you, we have placed a copy of the

memorandum on our website at http://www.fms.treas.gov, and have notified our staff

contacts within your agency of its availability. If there are any questions concerning this

exemption, please have your staff contact Gerry Isenberg, Debt Management Services, at

(202) 874-7131.
IV 

House Calendar No. 6 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 70 

[Report No. 115–6] 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) disapproving 

the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the 

Stream Protection Rule. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2017 

Mr. NEWHOUSE, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

38) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department 

of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolu3 tion (H.J. Res. 38) disapproving the rule submitted by 

4 the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Pro5 tection Rule. All points of order against consideration of 

6 the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall 

7 be considered as read. All points of order against proviVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:46 Jan 30, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR70.RH HR70

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 70 RH 

1 sions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous ques2 tion shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution 

3 and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 

4 intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 

5 divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

6 member of the Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) 

7 one motion to recommit. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 6 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 70 

[Report No. 115–6] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution 

Stream Protection Rule. by the Department of the Interior known as the (H.J. Res. 38) disapproving the rule submitted 

JANUARY 30, 2017 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            W-H ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2003 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth T. White, Jr., the Chief Executive
Officer of W-H Energy Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that:

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 in
respect of those items required to be described or presented in such Report
under Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                            /s/  Jeffrey L. Tepera
                                     -----------------------------------------
                                     Name:    Jeffrey L. Tepera
                                     Date:    November 13, 2003


This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or
"filed" for any purpose whatsoever.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Electronic Tariff Filings Docket No. RM01-5-000

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL ETARIFF TYPE OF FILING CODES

(December 1, 2016)

Take notice that, effective January 3, 2017, the Chief Administrative Law Judge 

requires that all settlements in Parts 35, 154, 284 and 3411 proceedings set for trial-type 

evidentiary hearing and/or settlement judge procedures before a Presiding Judge or 

Settlement Judge must be filed in eTariff. Filers are required to use the following list of 

available eTariff Type of Filing Codes (TOFC) to make these filings in eTariff. 2

TOFC Filing Title Filing 

Category

Description of Change

1380 ALJ Settlement Compliance Settlement in a Part 35 FPA Traditional 

Cost of Service and Market Based Rate 

Program proceeding

1390 ALJ Settlement Compliance Settlement in a Part 35 FPA Market Based

Rate Program proceeding

1400 ALJ Settlement Compliance Settlement in a Part 154 NGA Gas 

Pipelines Program proceeding

1410 ALJ Settlement Compliance Settlement in a Part 284 NGPA 311 Gas 

Pipelines Program proceeding

1420 ALJ Settlement Compliance Settlement in a Part 341 Oil Pipelines 

Program proceeding

For more information, contact H. Keith Pierce, Office of Energy Market 

Regulation at (202) 502-8525 or send an email to FERCOnline@ferc.gov. 

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

 1 18 C.F.R. Parts 35, 154, 284 and 341 (2016).

2 The type of filing business process categories are described in the 

Implementation Guide for Electronic Filing of Parts 35, 154, 284, 300, and 341 Tariff 

Filings (November 14, 2016), found on the Commission’s website, 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/etariff/implementation-guide.pdf.

20161201-3053 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/01/2016
Document Content(s)

RM01-5-000.DOCX.......................................................1-1

20161201-3053 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 12/01/2016