alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                        OUTSOURCING SERVICES GROUP, INC.
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED
                          NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
                 (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                             SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                        --------------------------
                                                                                        JULY 1, 2000  JULY 3, 1999
                                                                                        ------------  ------------
<S>                                                                                     <C>           <C>
Basic income (loss) per share:
  Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders...............................  $       (742) $        614
                                                                                        ============  ============
Weighted average number of outstanding common shares..................................     3,441,983     3,447,737
                                                                                        ============  ============
Basic income (loss) per share.........................................................  $      (0.22) $       0.18
                                                                                        ============  ============
Diluted income (loss) per share:
  Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders...............................  $       (742) $        614
                                                                                        ============  ============
Weighted average number of outstanding common shares assuming full dilution...........     3,580,483     3,586,237
                                                                                        ============  ============
Diluted income (loss) per share.......................................................  $      (0.22) $       0.17
                                                                                        ============  ============
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

                      SECURITY CAPITAL GROUP INCORPORATED
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                         (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Year Ended December 31,
                                       --------------------------------------------------
                                         1999       1998      1997      1996     1995 (a)
                                       --------   --------  --------  --------   --------
<S>                                    <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>
Net Earnings (loss) from Operations    $(59,666)  $ 67,480  $ 38,241  $ (9,693)  $(21,274)
Add:
  Interest Expense                      133,454     82,203   104,434   117,224    103,804
                                       --------   --------  --------  --------   --------

Earnings as Adjusted                   $ 73,788   $149,683  $142,675  $107,531   $ 82,530
                                       ========   ========  ========  ========   ========

Fixed Charges:
  Interest Expense                     $133,454   $ 82,203  $104,434  $117,224   $103,804
  Capitalized Interest                    8,209     26,703    69,883    11,448      4,404
                                       --------   --------  --------  --------   --------

  Total Fixed Charges                  $141,663   $108,906  $174,317  $128,672   $108,208
                                       ========   ========  ========  ========   ========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges          0.5        1.4       0.8       0.8        0.8
                                       ========   ========  ========  ========   ========
</TABLE>

(a) Excludes a one-time non-cash expense item ($158.4 million) incurred in
    acquiring the Financial Services Division from a related party.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50104

USDC No. W-94-CV-140

 

DANIEL T. PLOOF,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

W. GOOD, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - -

April 15, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel T. Ploof (Texas inmate #642997), moves this court for

leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) in his appeal from the

district court's dismissal of his suit pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.

41(b) for failure to prosecute. The motion for leave to proceed

IFP is GRANTED. 
No. 96-50104

-2-

The PLRA requires a prisoner appealing IFP in a civil action

to pay the full amount of the filing fee, $105. As Ploof does

not have funds for immediate payment of this fee, he is assessed

a partial filing fee of 96¢ in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Following payment of the partial filing fee, funds

shall be deducted from Ploof’s prisoner account until the full

filing fee is paid. Id. 

IT IS ORDERED that Ploof pay the appropriate filing fee to

the Clerk of the District Court for the Western District of

Texas. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the agency having custody of

Ploof’s inmate account shall collect the remainder of the $105

filing fee and forward for payment to the Clerk of the District

Court for the Western District of Texas in accordance with 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

A review of the trial transcript reveals no reversible

error; Ploof's conduct at trial rose to a level warranting

dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. McCullough v.

Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Boudwin v.

Graystone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985); Berry v.

CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992). 

The decision is AFFIRMED.
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 of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Tradequest International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
Johnson, 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 and belief:

         (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.

September 18, 2003               /s/ Peter Johnson
-------------------              -----------------------------------
                                 Peter Johnson
                                 Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>




Certification of Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Tradequest International, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Peter Johnson, Chief Financial Officer 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 and belief:

         (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.

September 18, 2003               /s/ Peter Johnson
-------------------              -----------------------------------
                                 Peter Johnson
                                 Chief Financial Officer
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
  1.
    
    the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date February 11, 2011
    /s/ Timothy K. ZimmermanTimothy K. ZimmermanPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate February 11, 2011
    /s/ Colleen M. BrownColleen M. BrownSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   31
#### Bartolome P. COSTA, Appellant, v. Alicia COSTA, Appellee.

No. 73-191.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 6, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1973.

Herman Cohen, Miami, for appellant.

John L. Hartnett, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J, and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Following a judgment entered April 8, 1971, granting the appellant husband a divorce from the defendant wife, in which the court retained jurisdiction to award an attorney’s fee, an order was made directing the husband to pay an attorney’s fee of $1,500 to the wife’s attorney. Approximately eighteen months after entry of the divorce judgment, the fee not having been paid, the court entered judgment therefor and authorized issuance of execution.

Predicated thereon, the wife’s attorney sought and obtained a writ of garnishment against Midtown Bank of Miami. The garnishee’s answer revealed that the amount it held to the credit of the husband was $612.07. The husband, proceeding under § 222.06 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., filed a motion to dissolve the writ of garnishment, supported by an affidavit of exemption in which his said bank account was listed as an asset for exemption.

This appeal is by the husband from an order of the court denying his motion to dissolve the garnishment. The appellant contends the order was in error in that thereby he was denied the benefit of exemption provided for by law. The appellee argues that exemption claimed by defendant is not available because of § 61.12 Fla. Stat., F.S.A., whereby there was authorized attachment or garnishment of so much as the court should order of the money or other things due to the head of a family “for the personal labor or service of the person or otherwise,” to enforce orders of the court “for alimony, suit money or support, or other orders in actions for divorce or alimony.”

We hold that the argument of the appel-lee as set out above cannot prevail, and the order appealed from must be reversed on authority of Graham v. Azar, Fla.1967, 204 So.2d 193, and Noyes v. Copper, Fla.App. 1968, 216 So.2d 799.

Under those decisions the provisions of § 61.12 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., overriding the ex*666emptions m proceedings for enforcement of orders for payment of alimony, support, etc. in such actions, are not applicable for collection of a judgment (with execution authorized) which has been entered for nonpayment thereof.

On the authority of the above cited cases, upon the showing made by the appellant husband in the trial court the garnishment should have been dissolved. The order appealed from is reversed.
EXHIBIT
31.1




CERTIFICATION






I, Marc
Sherman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:






1.
            I
      have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
      31, 2008 of QSGI INC. (the
“Registrant”);






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;






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 the
      Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
      report;






4.
            The
      Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      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, including its 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 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 over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and






5.
            The
      Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the 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 management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.




Date:
      March 30, 2009
            
            /s/ Marc ShermanMarc
      Sherman
              Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Brent TURNIPSEED.

No. 61881.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 7, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana through the District Attorney, Ossie Brown, applying for supervisory writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Douglas M. Gonzales, Judge of the 19th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 21st day of April, 1978, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, General Surety Underwriters, Inc., a Florida corporation and Stewart R. Pollock, Appellants, v. Kenyon C. CRUM and S. Norman Rosendale, d/b/a Crum Construction, Appellees.

No. 69-402.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1970.

*601Chester L. Skipper, of Ramseur, Brad-ham, Lyle, Skipper & Cramer, St. Peters-burg, for appellants.

H. Rex Owen, of Bussey, Simmons & • Owen, St. Petersburg, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellees were low bidders on a federal construction project. Their bid was rejected because of a defective and deficient “bid-bond” issued by appellant bonding company through its agent, appellant Pollock. Appellees recovered judgment in the court below for loss of profits suffered on account of the wrongful acts of the appellants in furnishing the aforesaid insufficient bond, and the trial court awarded interest on the amount found due from and after the date of the bid opening.

We find no reversible error on the merits of the appeal. However, we think the trial court erred in its computation of the award of interest. Having found an amount due the plaintiffs for loss of profits, interest should have been computed from and after the date upon which payment (i. e., the realized profits) would have been payable. This could not have been on the day the bids were opened. Rather, it would have been after the job was completed, or should have been completed, pursuant to the terms of the contract and the date upon which under the terms of the contract payment was due.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be, and it is hereby, affirmed except that the award of interest is reversed and set aside. The cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith and relating to a proper award of interest.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

PIERCE, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Minster *v.*Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company, Appellant.

Argued October 18, 1934.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, CujsrsrmGHAM, Baldrige, Stadteeld and Parker, JJ.

*563
      *Philip Price,*and with him *Bernard J. O’Connell,*for appellant.

*E. Spencer Miller,*for appellee.

January 4, 1935:

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

This was an action of trespass to recover the damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff, while a passenger on a car operated by the' defendant on its elevated line, by the premature closing of the doors of the car from which she was alighting, at the defendant’s station at 52d and Market Streets, throwing her against a post on the platform and badly injuring her.

The doors were operated mechanically by the conductor, and could not be closed or opened except by him.

There was sufficient evidence produced by the plaintiff to snpport her averments of defendant’s negligence and make out a case for the jury; and the jury evidently believed her and her witnesses rather than the witnesses called by the defendant.

At the trial the defendant presented a point for binding instructions, but on appeal presses only matters which would call for a new trial.

Its principal reason for asking for a new trial is that the trial judge in his charge did not submit to *564the jury, as a question of fact to be decided by them, whether the plaintiff was late in attempting to get off, and started to pass through the doors while they were in the act of being closed. The difficulty with this theory is that there was no evidence to support it. While the defendant’s conductor, who opened and closed the doors, testifying for the defendant, said that the plaintiff “started out of the doors” after he “started to close them,” he also said immediatelyafterwards, *“the doors had not moved a particle' hardly*when I reversed the doors;” that is, although he had *started*to close the doors before she began to go through them, he reversed the operation before the doors had moved to any appreciable extent, and the closing of the doors had nothing to do with her fall, which, it was alleged, was due to some other cause, such as tripping on the platform or the giving way of her ankle.

The court’s charge to the jury should be confined to a discussion of the facts in evidence and' the law applicable to them; it may properly omit all reference to a'theory which is not in accord with the evidence on either side. The questions of fact were for the jury: Penna. R. Co. v. Peters, 116 Pa. 206, 9 A. 317, and we find no error in their submission by the court.

.'The judgment is affirmed.
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



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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Energy Edge Technologies Corporation.



|/s/ James Boyd          | Date: May 20, 2014
|----------------------- | ------------------
|James Boyd             
|Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                     [NUSSBAUM YATES & WOLPOW, P.C. LETTERHEAD]


                 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors
CutCo Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Syosset, New York

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of CutCo
Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, 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 generally accepted auditing
standards. 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 financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of CutCo
Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998, and the results of
their operations and their consolidated cash flows for the year then ended,
in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

                              /s/ Nussbaum Yates & Wolpow, P.C.

Melville, New York
September 4, 1998
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3


              CONSENT OF PERSON NAMED AS ABOUT TO BECOME A DIRECTOR


         Pursuant to Rule 438 promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, I, James L. Broadhead, hereby consent to be named as a person about to
become a director of WCB Holding Corp. in this registration statement on Form
S-4.


                                                       /s/ James L. Broadhead
                                                       ------------------------
                                                       James L. Broadhead