alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12

                    MSW ENERGY HOLDINGS LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                   (Unaudited)

                            (in thousands of dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       For the Three         For the Nine
                                                       Months Ended          Months Ended
                                                       September 30,         September 30,
                                                           2004                  2004
                                                      ----------------     -----------------
EARNINGS:
<S>                                                    <C>                  <C>
        Pre-tax income from continuing operations
            before adjustment for minority
            interest
            in consolidated subsidiary                    $ 26,276               $ 38,139

        Add (deduct):
            Earnings attributable to Ref-Fuel
               Holdings prior to consolidation                --                   (6,545)
            Fixed charges
                                                            18,408                 35,566
            Distributed earnings of Ref-Fuel
               Holdings prior to consolidation
                                                              --                   31,374
                                                          --------               --------
         Earnings, as adjusted                            $ 44,684                 98,534
                                                          ========               ========

FIXED CHARGES:
        Interest expense                                  $ 18,408                 35,566
                                                          --------               --------
        Fixed charges                                     $ 18,408                 35,566
                                                          ========               ========
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES:
                                                              2.43x                  2.77x
                                                          ========               ========

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF OFFICERS

OF ABLEAUCTIONS.COM, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 USC § 1350







Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) the undersigned officer of Ableauctions.com, Inc. (the Company) does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



This Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  March 31, 2006





/s/ Abdul Ladha

__________________________________

Abdul Ladha, President

and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

















1
#### Franklin Warren, Respondent, *v.*John Chadwick, *Appellant.*

— Judgment affimed, unless the defendant within ten days after .service of the order to be entered herein, deposits the promissory *145note mentioned in the opinion with the clerk of Niagara county to be delivered to the plaintiff; if such deposit is made, the . judgment reversed and new trial ordered before another referee, costs to abide event, unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the judgment by deducting from it the sum of seventy-five dollars, in which case the judgment as so reduced is affhmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Opinion by Smith, P. J., and Hardin, J.
kpmg

          KPMG LLP                               Telephone  (604) 691-3000
          Chartered Accountants                  Telefax  (604) 691-3031
          Box 10426, 777 Dunsmuir Street         www.kpmg.ca
          Vancouver BC  V7Y 1K3
          Canada






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
 on Form S-8 of Destiny Media Technologies Inc. (the ?Company?) of our
 report dated October 11, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
 of the Company as at August 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related
 consolidated statements of operations, stockholders? deficiency, and cash
 flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the August 31,
2002 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company.  Our report dated October
11, 2002 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has
incurred recurring losses from operations and has a working capital
deficiency that raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a
going concern.  The financial statements do not include any adjustments
that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.


?KPMG LLP? (signed)


Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, British Columbia
November 27, 2002

[[[[      KPMG  LLP,  a Canadian owned limited liability partnership
 established under  the  laws  of  Ontario,  is  the  Canadian  member firm
 of KPMG International,  a  Swiss  nonoperating  association.
#### FRANKLIN CONKLIN, RESPONDENT, v. WALDO C. GENUNG, APPELLANT.

Submitted December 9, 1918

Decided March 3, 1919.

On appeal from an order of the Chief Justice.

For the respondent, *McCarter & English.*

For the appellant, *Melven*W. *Kassar.*

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Supreme Court pursuant to an order made by the Chief Justice upon the plaintiff’s motion to strike out answers filed by the defendants;' and the defendant Waldo C. Genung alone appeals.

The action was brought to recover from the defendant and others a deficiency due upon two bonds after foreclosure proceedings — the one principal and the other collateral. The *619principal bond was executed by Schneider & Genung, a corporation, in which Herman C. Schneider and Waldo C. Genung, the other defendants, and the persons executing the collateral bond, were interested. The mortgage securing these bonds was foreclosed and the premises covered thereby were sold by the sheriff of Essex county, a deficiency resulting at the sale. Although the defendants Genung & Schneider were not parties to the foreclosure suit, they had notice thereof and also notice of the sheriff’s, sale.

The answer in which Genung joined sets up three separate *defences*— first, that less than the amount of the face of the bond and mortgage was loaned at the time of the execution thereof — in effect, usury; *second,*that the defendant Genung was discharged by the extension of the mortgage for one year at the request of Schneider, Genung, Kirch Company, without his knowledge and consent, and *third,*the defence of usury somewhat differently expressed than in the first defence.

The first and third defences are not discussed in the appellant’s brief, nor are they made grounds of appeal.

Upon due notice to the defendants a motion to strike out the answers on the ground that they were sham and frivolous, untrue in point of fact and constituted no defence at law, was brought on for hearing before the Chief Justice upon depositions on both sides, and, after hearing, the Chief Justice made an order that the defences be struck out and that final judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendants for the sum due, naming it, and thereupon judgment was duly entered. From that judgment Genung alone has appealed.

The order made by the Chief Justice, striking out the answers recites that the defences made are sham and frivolous. He filed no opinion.

We have examined the depositions and have reached the conclusion that the defences are sham and frivolous, and that the Chief Justice rightly decided the application before him. The judgment under review will therefore be affirmed, with costs.

*620*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 13.

*For reversal*— None.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: William Douglas Law v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00694

- CR

Trial court case number: 1354133

Trial court: 180th District Court o f Harris County

The trial court permitted appellant’s appointed counsel to withdraw, but did not appoint appellate counsel for appellant.

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remove it from this Court’s active docket

. We

direct the trial court to enter a written order appointing appellant counsel on appeal, containing counsel’s name, state bar number, address, and phone number. The order must be a separate written order, and not a docket sheet, because a docket sheet may not be considered by this

Court. See Rush v. Barrios , 56 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (an appellate court may not consider docket entries since t hey are only made for the

clerk’ s convenience and are usually unreliable).

The written order of the trial c ourt appointing counsel on appeal shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and sent to this Court within 15 days of the date of this order

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental

clerk’s record containing the trial court’s written order appointing counsel is filed in this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Rebeca Huddle  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 28, 2012
Before the Third Division,

March 28, 1950

No. 54146.

#### Wing Chong Lung *v.*United States,

protests 889415-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

*405Opinion by

Cune, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited, the merchandise in question was held dutiable as follows: (1) Kumquats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342) at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 as oranges; (2) wai san, sliced, yuk chuk, sliced, and sar sum, sliced, the same as that involved in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs, advanced; and (3) bak hop the same as that passed upon in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States, supra,*was held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as crude drugs.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Winecom Inc.
(the "Company") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 15, 2011


/s/ Shamir Benita
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shamir Benita, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
(Principal Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
#### Harold A. Webb d. b. a. Webb’s *v.*United States

No. 7286.

Invoice dated Hawick, Scotland, March 13, 1942.

Certified March 16, 1942.

Entered at Utica, N. Y., April 24, 1942.

Entry No. U-64.

(Decided June 17, 1947)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliveb, Presiding Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into by and between the respective parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.2



I, Nicholas Radesca, certify that:



|   |                                                                                                                                                
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2012 of Business Development Corporation of America;



|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



| | 
| | 



|     
|-----
|     
|Date:
|
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000919 20-SEP-2017 08:19 AM
#### Ira L. Otis and others, *Respondents, v.*George Keith and others, *Appellants.*

— Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to renew the motion.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 871 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 871

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 provide for the eligibility of Transportation Security Administration 
  employees to receive public safety officers death benefits, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2023

   Ms. Brownley (for herself and Mrs. Watson Coleman) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 provide for the eligibility of Transportation Security Administration 
  employees to receive public safety officers death benefits, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Honoring Our Fallen TSA Officers 
Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE TO 
              RECEIVE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' DEATH BENEFITS.

    Section 1204(14) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284(14)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
                    ``(H) an employee of the Transportation Security 
                Administration who is performing official duties of the 
                Administration, if those official duties are related to 
                protecting the Nation's transportation systems to 
                ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.''.

SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

     This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply with 
respect an injury sustained by an individual described in subparagraph 
(H) of section 1204(14) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284(14)), as added by this Act, on or after 
October 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-22-00146-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022-000753-1

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr, Birdwell, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

ERIKA JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

SUNSET POINTE HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, LTD., Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant’s brief was due on August 19, 2022. On September 9, 2022, we 

notified Appellant that her brief had not been filed as the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We warned that we could dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, Appellant filed a brief and an 

accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimeliness. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 10.5(b)(1), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). 

On the tenth day, we received a motion requesting an extension. But the 

motion did not comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.1

 See Tex. R. App. P. 

10.5(b)(1). We notified Appellant that her motion was noncompliant, we listed out 

the noncompliant aspects, and we warned that we could return the filing or deny the 

motion unless Appellant corrected the deficiencies within ten days. More than thirty 

days have passed since then—and more than sixty days have passed since the original 

deadline for Appellant’s brief—but we have not received a response.

Because Appellant has failed to file a brief, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: November 3, 2022

1

Appellant’s motion lacked, among other things, a certificate of conference, a 

certificate of service, and a signature. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, 10.1(a).
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highland Hospitality Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James L. Francis, President and Chief Executive 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 my 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. 

Date: November 7, 2006
EXHIBIT 10.3

British Columbia
Ministry of Employment and Investment
Energy and Minerals Division
Mineral Titles Branch

Mineral Tenure Act
Section 57 and 58

|BILL OF SALE ABSOLUTE   |        
|----------------------- | -------
|INDICATE TYPE OF TITLE: | Mineral
|MINING DIVISION         | Vernon 

SELLER:

I, Stephen Kenwood, of 133629 Marine Drive, White Rock, BC, (604) 535-8146, Client Number 134185.

PURCHASER:

Manu Forti Group Inc., 225 - 425 Carrall Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6B 6E3, (604) 762-7002.

For and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) paid to me, do hereby sell the interest as specified below in the following mineral titles:

|Claim Name or Lease Type | Units (Hectares) | Tag Number | Record Number | Percentage of Title Being Sold
|------------------------ | ---------------- | ---------- | ------------- | ------------------------------
|CRUZ                     | 20 (500 ha)      | 246614     | 413322        | 100%                          

I declare that I have good title to these tenures and every right to sell the same, in witness whereof, I have today signed my legal name.

August 20, 2004

|/s/ "Stephen Kenwood" | /s/"Rod Husband"    
|--------------------- | --------------------
|Stephen Kenwood       | Rod Husband, Witness
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8635 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8635

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to double the value of 
       certain tax benefits relating to children and dependents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2024

  Mr. Molinaro (for himself and Ms. Davids of Kansas) 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 double the value of 
       certain tax benefits relating to children and dependents.

    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 ``Affordable Child Care Act''.

SEC. 2. CHILD AND DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT DOUBLED.

    (a) In General.--Section 21(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$3,000'' and inserting 
        ``$6,000'', and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$6,000'' and inserting 
        ``$12,000''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 21 of such Code is amended by 
striking subsection (g) and redesignating subsection (h) as subsection 
(g).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.

SEC. 3. DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LIMIT DOUBLED.

    (a) In General.--Section 129(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$5,000 ($2,500'' and 
        inserting ``$10,000 (half such dollar amount)'', and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (D).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.

SEC. 4. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CHILDCARE CREDIT DOUBLED.

    (a) In General.--Section 45F(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``$150,000'' and inserting ``$300,000''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.
                                 <all>
```