alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 12.1
                Calculation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Six months
                                     Year ended          ended
                                      June 30,        December 31,           Years ended December 31,
                                       1996               1996           1997         1998           1999          2000
                                       ----               ----           ----         ----           ----          ----
<S>                                   <C>                <C>            <C>          <C>            <C>           <C>
Income available for fixed charges:
  Income (loss) from continuing
    operations before taxes           42,078             23,786         46,304       48,353          2,695        (4,934)
  Fixed charges                          339                485          1,319        1,305         23,989        44,290
                                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      42,417             24,271         47,623       49,658         26,684        39,356

Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense                        --                257            392          634         23,194        43,341
  Interest portion of rent expense       339                228            927          671            795           949
                                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         339                485          1,319        1,305         23,989        44,290

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges    125.1x              50.0x          36.1x        38.1x           1.1x            (a)
</TABLE>

(a) The Company's earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges for the year
ended December 31, 2000 by approximately $4,934.
#### Ruth P. Dimmick, *Appellant, v.*Elizabeth M. Cooley, *Respon*dent

Motion to modify order of last General Term so as to allow costs, etc., denied, without costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ALEX M. KEDDIE IV, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL

CAPACITY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF CROSSETT INC., A

PENNSYLVANIA BUSINESS CORPORATION,

Petitioner

v.

JANET M. GREGORY, IN HER

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS

PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CROSSETT, INC., AND DOUGLAS C. SMITH, IN HIS

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS VICE PRESIDENT OF CROSSETT, INC.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 154 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of September, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
No. 44103.

#### Petition 6014-R of Dr. Marc Golandsky (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

The petition was submitted upon the official papers which disclose nothing to justify disturbing the action of the collector. The petition was therefore denie*d.
No. 65604.

#### Bonwit Teller, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/22223 and 59/25411 (New York).

*472Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon knit outerwear similar in use to silk knit outerwear and following *United States*v. *Sternberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2012 (the Report) of Full Circle Capital Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, John E. Stuart, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of 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, as amended; and (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ John E. Stuart Name:  John E. Stuart Date:   September 13, 2012
Amendmentfor Persistence Mining Inc. UAS FAR 333 Exemption Package Addendum for Requirement 14 CFR 11.81 Public Docket No. FAA-2015-0566 ARMDS Rotor Small Unmanned AirVehicle Geological Mapping Aircraft Registration #N5414P

Prepared by: Brian Zamudio Director, Persistence Mining Inc. 5666 La Jolla Blvd #315 La Jolla, CA 92037 Zamudio@Me.com Public Docket No. FAA-2015-0566 Date: July 29, 2015

Persistence Mining Inc. (PMI) was granted a FAR 333 Exemption on July 20th, 2015. PMI seeks additional regulatory relief to allow commercial operation ofseven additional, commercial off-the-shelf small-unmanned aircraft systems. PMI hereby requests an amendment to its Petition for Exemption to authorize UAS operations for the purpose of mining and surveying.

A. Approval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and Operational Capability B. PMI requests to amend its Petition for Exemption in an effort to add the following "commercial ofthe shelf' vehicles:

• AirRobot • 3DRAero M • OJ/Inspire 1 • DJI Phantom 2 Vision • 3DRXB Multi-rotorSystem • Steady Drone Mavrik • 3DR

# solo•·

(**·~··~** ,.,..,....Operations for the purpose ofmining andsurveying are permitted underthe current Exemption. In summary, PM/request that FAA permit PM/ to conductmining and surveys, with the use ofadditionalsmall unmannedairsystems including the options to use of AirRobot, 3DRAero M, DJI/nspire 1, DJI Phantom 2 Vision, 3DRXB Multi-rotor System, Steady Drone Mavrik and 3DR Solo Ifyou have any questions regarding this amendment, or require any additional information to process PMI's Petition, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Brian Zamudio Director, Persistence Mining Inc. 5666 La Jolla Blvd #315 La Jolla, CA 92037 Zamudio@lcloud.com
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Stephen A. Aanderud, Chief Financial Officer of DayStar Technologies, Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of DayStar Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended March 31, 2006; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 12, 2006
Exhibit 23

Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants

To The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Desert Health Products, Inc. and Subsidiary

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Desert Health
Products, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2003 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' deficit, and cash flows for
the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Desert Health
Products, Inc. and Subsidiary at December 31, 2003 and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The
accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company
will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note C to the financial
statements, the Company has suffered substantial recurring losses from
operations that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going
concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are also described in
Note C. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of this uncertainty.


/s/ Semple & Cooper, LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 19, 2004
KYLE GORDON ROTHENBORG,

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

JOSLYN SUAN ROTHENBORG,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellant. 

 

 Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee Kyle Gordon Rothenborg’s 

Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed on November 8, 2014, 

is hereby rejected. 

Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-12-0000322 

15-DEC-2014 

10:49 AM 

SCWC-12-0000322 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(FC-D NO. 02-1-3956) 

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, December 15, 2014. 

Michael A. Glenn 

for petitioner 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

Dennis E. W. O’Conner, Jr.

and Lahela H. F. Hite 

for respondent 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
**42-146 (August 2001) through42-157 (May 2004)42-133 (May 1998)through42-145 (May 2001)42-57 (June 1980)through42-132 (February 1998)42-20 (April 1974)through42-56 (April 1980)and32-1526, vol. I(February 1971)through32-1526, vol. XIX(February 1974) 42-132, February 15, 1998 42-131, November 15, 1997 42-130, August 15, 1997 42-129, May 15, 199742-128, February 15, 199742-127, November 15, 199642-126, August 15, 199642-125, May 15, 199642-124, February 15, 199642-123, November 15, 199542-122, August 15, 199542-121, May 15, 199542-120, February 15, 199542-119, November 15, 199442-118, August 15, 199442-117, May 15, 199442-116, February 15, 199442-115, November 15, 199342-114, August 15, 199342-113, May 15, 199342-112, February 15, 199342-111, November 15, 199242-110, August 15, 199242-109, May 15, 199242-108, February 15, 199242-107, November 15, 199142-106, August 15, 199142-105, May 15, 199142-104, February 15, 199142-103, November 15, 199042-102, August 15, 199042-101, May 15, 199042-100, February 15, 199042-99, November 15, 198942-98, August 15, 198942-97, May 15, 198942-96, February 15, 198942-95, November 15, 198842-94, August 15, 198842-93, May 15, 198842-92, February 15, 198842-91, November 15, 198742-90, August 15, 198742-89, May 15, 198742-88, February 15, 198742-87, November 15, 198642-86, August 15, 198642-85, May 15, 198642-84, February 15, 198642-83, November 15, 198542-82, August 15, 198542-81, May 15, 198542-80, February 15, 198542-79, November 15, 198442-78, August 15, 198442-77, May 15, 198442-76, February 15, 198442-75, November 15, 198342-74, August 15, 198342-73, May 15, 198342-72, February 15, 198342-71, November 15, 198242-70, August 15, 198242-69, June 15, 198242-68, April 15, 198242-67, February 15, 198242-66, December 15, 198142-65, October 15, 198142-64, August 15, 198142-63, June 15, 198142-62, April 15, 198142-61, February 15, 198142-60, December 15, 198042-59, October 15, 198042-58, August 15, 198042-57, June 15, 1980National Aeronautics andSpace Administration**Jet Propulsion Laboratory**California Institute of TechnologyPasadena, CaliforniaHome**
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10042 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Bo Jack Kelley,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:20

- CR

- 54

- 1

Before **Higginbotham, Higginson,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Bo Jack Kelley appeals his within

- guidelines sentence of 360 months of imprisonment and 20 years of supervised release imposed following a guilty plea conviction for production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Kelley argues that t he district court plainly erred by using

* 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 September 10, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10042 Document: 00516009525 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2021No. 21

- 10042

2 facts not included in the indictment to determine the minimum and maximum reasonable sentence in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He concedes, however, that his claim is foreclosed by United States v. Tuma , 738 F. 3d 681, 693 (5th Cir. 2013) , but he wishes to preserve his claim for further review. The Government has moved, unopposed, for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits.

In Tuma , this court held that a district court may make findings of fact that increase a defendant’s sentence if those facts do not expose the defendant to an increased mandatory minimum sentence. Id. Here, t he judicial factfinding influenced only the advisory guidelines range and did not alter the mandatory minimum sentence; the factfinding was thus within the discretion of the district court. See id

. Furthermore, Kelley’s sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment. Consequently, as
K elley concedes and the Government asserts, his argument is foreclosed, such that “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969) , and summary affirmance is proper. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is
**DENIED**

. Case: 21-10042 Document: 00516009525 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2021
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.10.5

January 22, 2001

Mr. G. Brent Stanley
SVP - Human Resources
PG&E Corporation
One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA  94105

Dear Brent:

You are an essential member of our senior executive team and I view your
contribution as vital to getting the Corporation through its current challenges,
achieving the Corporation's objectives, and providing strong returns to
shareholders.

The Board of Directors recently approved a Senior Executive Retention program
which includes you.  Under this program, you will receive a grant of phantom
PG&E Corporation restricted stock units granted under the PG&E Corporation Long-
Term Incentive Plan.  The amount of your grant is $1,250,000 and it translates
into 128,205 units calculated at the closing price of PG&E Corporation common
stock on January 22, 2001, of $9.75 per share.  An extremely small number of
individuals are included in this arrangement.  For this reason, it is absolutely
necessary for you to restrict any conversation on this subject to me.

Your grant of phantom PG&E Corporation restricted stock units is effective
January 22, 2001, and will vest on December 31, 2004, subject to either one of
the following conditions:

  -  50 percent will automatically vest on December 31, 2004. The remaining 50
     percent will vest on December 31, 2004 only if the Corporation's
     performance, as measured by relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR) on a
     cumulative basis over four years, is at or above the 55th percentile of its
     comparator group; or

  -  if, at the end of the third year of the grant, December 31, 2003, the
     Corporation's performance as measured by relative TSR on a cumulative
     basis, is at or above the 75th percentile of its comparator group, the
     entire grant will vest.

You may elect to defer your actual award payments under the PG&E Corporation
Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan prior to the award cliff-vesting.  Such
deferrals will be made in PG&E Corporation phantom stock units on the first
business day of January of the year following vesting.  Awards not deferred will
be paid either entirely in PG&E Corporation stock or half in PG&E Corporation
stock and half in cash in January of the year following vesting.

Brent, I look forward to your continued strong contributions to PG&E
Corporation's success.

Sincerely,

ROBERT D. GLYNN, JR.
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

LINDA S. RESTREPO AND CARLOS E. RESTREPO D/B/A COLLECTIVELY RDI GLOBAL SERVICES AND R&D INTERNATIONAL

, §

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00288

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5 Appellant s , § of El Paso County, Texas

v. § (TC# 2012DCV04523)

§ ALLIANCE RIGGERS & CONSTRUCTORS, LTD.

, Appellee. §

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether the appeal should

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellants ’ notice of appeal indicates they seek to appeal

an order of the trial court refusing to set for a hearing Appellants’ motion to declare Alliance

Rigge rs & Constructors, Ltd. to be a vexatious litigant. 1 The basis for the trial court’s order is

that Alliance Riggers filed a motion to determine that Appellants are vexatious litigants before

Appellants filed their motion and that Alliance Riggers’ motion had been set for a hearing. On

the date Appellants filed the notice of appeal, the Court gave notice of its intent to dismiss the

1 See T EX .C IV .P RAC

. & R EM .C ODE A NN

. § §11.051, 11.053 (West 2002).2

appeal for want of jurisdiction and provided Appellants with an opportunity to show grounds for

continuing the appeal. Appel lants filed a petition for writ of prohibition in cause number 08

- 14

-

00292

- CV, styled In re Linda S. Restrepo and Carlos E. Restrepo, Relators , but they have not

filed a response to our inquiry regarding jurisdiction of th is appeal. 2

It is well settled that appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments, and such

interlocutory orders as the Legislature deems appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har

- Con

Corporation , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ruiz v. Ruiz , 946 S.W.2d 123, 12 4 (Tex.App.

- - El

Paso 1997, no pet.); T EX .C IV .P RAC

. & R EM .C ODE A NN

. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2014)(authorizing

appeals from certain interlocutory orders). It is undisputed that the order Appellants attempt to

challenge in this appeal is interlocutory. There i s no statutory provision authorizing an appeal

from th e trial court’s order refusing to set Appellants’ vexatious litigant motion for a hearing.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3(a).

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice November 7, 2014

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

2 The Court has also dismissed the petition for writ of prohibition for want of jurisdiction.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, certifies that to the best of his knowledge (1) this Quarterly Report of CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained
in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, and its results of operations for the quarters and nine months ended September 30, 2010
and 2009.



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                        |  | /s/ R. Byron Carlock, Jr.            
|Date: November 15, 2010 |  | R. BYRON CARLOCK, JR.                
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### HARRINGTON GLEN, INC., *ET ALS.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF LEONIA, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Mr. David S. Greenberg*and *Mr. Paul A. Wurtzel*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Donald A. Sterling*for the respondent.

May 29, 1967.

Granted.