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



Exhibit 12
 ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Three Months Ended
    
    Nine Months Ended($ in thousands)
    
    September 30,
    
    September 30,2005
    
    2004
    
    2005
    
    2004Income from continuing operations
    
    $
    16,155
    
    
    $
    10,600
    
    
    $
    103,207
    
    
    $
    30,871Income tax expense
    
    
    10,329
    
    
    
    6,921
    
    
    
    31,871
    
    
    
    20,155Earnings before income taxes
    
    
    26,484
    
    
    
    17,521
    
    
    
    135,078
    (1)
    
    
    51,026Fixed charges:Interest on debt, deposits and other
borrowings
    
    
    13,012
    
    
    
    8,950
    
    
    
    34,736
    
    
    
    26,748Interest on subordinated debt payable
to preferred securities trust
    
    
    2,289
    
    
    
    2,289
    
    
    
    6,868
    
    
    
    6,868One-third of all rentals
    
    
    411
    
    
    
    378
    
    
    
    1,212
    
    
    
    1,420Total fixed charges
    
    
    15,712
    
    
    
    11,617
    
    
    
    42,816
    
    
    
    35,036Earnings before income taxes and fixed charges
    
    $
    42,196
    
    
    $
    29,138
    
    
    $
    177,894
    
    
    $
    86,062Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(2)
    
    
    2.69
    x
    
    
    2.51
    x
    
    
    4.15
    x
    
    
    2.46
    x
 
 (1)
    
    Earnings before income taxes in the nine months ended September 30, 2005 includes a
$67.7 million gain on transfer of consumer credit card business relating to our May 28,
2004 agreement with Bank of America.(2)
    
    For purposes of computing these ratios, earnings represent income before income
taxes plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense and one-third
(the portion deemed representative of the interest factor) of rental expense on
operating leases.
TRE ~TT’ORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN~S.%%XAS 

Jlr. Charlen E. B6whm6n 

Chief Clerk 

Oplnlon loo. O-2C92 

Rel Payment of Premlm on surety bond 

of State orriaial. 

19&O, 

This vi11 ac~owlt?d&e receipt OS your letter of M6rch 15, 

wherein you ask the opinion of this department upon the question 

whether the premium on the surety bond furnlrrhed by Charles Is. Baughnuin, 

Chief Clerk, Department of' Agriculture, m6y be paid by the Dep6rtment of 

'Agricultun, out 0r it6 contAngent fund. 

It appear63ihat the 6ppMpHatlOn blllp~otrltl66 no 6um 0f 

money 6peoIfI~lly for the payment of the bond ~remlums of employee6 of 

thelbpmt-n. 

&tIcle 49 Revised Civil Statutes, lm, provide6 Sor the 

appointment by the Commissioner of Agriculture of one ohlei alerk.~ mlale 

50r after presaribing the powers find dutie6 or the chief clerk &ate6 that 

maoh chief clerk shall, befOre ~enterlng upon the duties of hi6 positIon, 

tab the oath required of the ooml68Ioner, and enter Into bond ln the sum 

.of three &nmand dollar8 with two or more sureties to be approved by the 

Governor, and payable to.the State of Texaa, condltloned tar the falthf'ul 

perfonnanae 0r hl6 duties. There l6 np provIslon of general statute or 

current approprlatlon bIl1 authorizing rdmbursement to the chief clerk 

for expen6e6 incurred by him In fuml6hIn$ the bond required by statute. 

ft I6 the rule~thtit 6n ofiaer or sgent of the State Is allowed 

only 6uch cunpen6ation 6nd emolument6 &i! are expressly aonferred upon him 

as remuneration ror the discharge of his 0fWaial dutlee a6 6n 

the &ate. 

iollom 

X&alla v. City of Rockdale 112 Tex. 209, 246 s.W. 

that 6rq public officer or agent who demtnd6 mileage, 

purse6 mu6t point out 6ome statute authorizing It8 alloW6nce. Where 8 duty 

mquIr&ag 6n expenditure of money I6 imposed up0n.a public offlaer or 

agent, 6nd no provlulon I6 made to def%y the 6ame, 6uah offiaer or agent 

I8,deemed to be repaid for the e%penaes Incurred In the diecharge of 6uah 

611ty by whateVer ColnpanSatIOn IS alloyed and paid t0 him for hl6 6erVlOeS 

aa such ~ub1S.e 6gent. It I6 therefore apparent that, in order for the 

chief Clerk of the Department of AgrlaUlture to be entitled to relmbur6ement 

for the e%pen66 InaurredbyhIm In furnI6hingthebond requircpdby statute, 

there muat exist 6ome statutom provielon r0r the allowtnce and payment of 

the same. 
e., charie6 B. Be-, Page 2 o-2092 

Slaoe there I6 no provision of the statutes or 6pealXla 

item In the 6pproprlatIon bill, COntempl6ting elmbur6ement by the 

State to the Chief Clerk oi the Dep6rtment of japF laulture for the expenaes Incurred by hiw In furnlshlng the oiflcl61 bond required by law, 

you we advised that 6uch bond premium cannot be regarded a6 a oontingent 

Item of expen6e lawfully to be inaurred by the Dep6rtment, end, theretore, 6uah bond premium Mayo not be paid by the D6p6rtmentot Agriculture 

out of It6 contingent expentze fun& 

YOU’S very truly 

ATTORXEY OBNBRAL OF TEXAS 

By 6/ R.W. Fairchild 

R.Y. Falrohild 

A66i6tiltlt 

RWFapbprwc 

APPROVED APRIL 1, 1949 

6/ Ocrald C. &UKI 

A-QBNERALoFTBxA3 

Approved Opinion Conmlttee By a/ BWB Chairman
EXHIBIT 12.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
             Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                    ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of the Annual Report of Circle Group Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I,
Gregory J. Halpern, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board
of Directors of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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.

/s/ GREGORY J. HALPERN
------------------------------
Gregory J. Halpern
Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board

April 10, 2003
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1996 Incentive Stock Plan, the 1998
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1998 Director Option Plan, the 1999 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan of Abgenix, Inc. and the Canadian Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-89374 and 333-112285) and in the related Prospectuses, of our report dated February 3, 2004 (except the fourth
sentence of the first paragraph of Note 9, as to which the date is February 19, 2004), with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Abgenix, Inc. included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.



Palo
Alto, California
March 8, 2004

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3254 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3254

 Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of 
            the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 2013

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of 
            the Federal Government, 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 ``Fiscal Sanity Act for 
Appropriations''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is hereby appropriated for 240 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act--
            (1) for each project or activity for which budget authority 
        was provided in the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
        Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), an amount equal to 
        the budget authority provided in such Act, as reduced pursuant 
        to the Presidential sequestration order dated March 1, 2013, to 
        remain available for a comparable period of availability; and
            (2) for entitlements and other mandatory payments whose 
        budget authority was provided in appropriations Acts for fiscal 
        year 2013, and for activities under the Food and Nutrition Act 
        of 2008, such amounts as may be necessary to maintain program 
        levels as they existed on September 30, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,137]

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on October 2, 2000, in response to a petition filed on behalf on workers at Vincennces Manufacturing, Vincennces, Indiana.

The petitioning group of workers is subject to an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued Vincennces Manufacturing, Vincennces, Indiana (TA-W-37,960). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 6th day of October 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-27574 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### WHITE v. WHITE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 30, 1952.

N. F. Harper, Scottsville, for appellant.

W. D. Gilliam, Scottsville, for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Winnie White was granted a divorce from Clarence White. She was awarded alimony in the sum of $400 and was allowed $341.20 as full settlement of their business affairs. Clarence appeals and Winnie cross-appeals.

The learned Chancellor, The Honorable John B. Rodes, filed a written opinion which accurately and fully sets forth the essential facts in the controversy and his cogent reasons for granting the divorce, alimony and the property settlement. No useful purpose could be served in discussing the evidence in this opinion. It will suffice to say that the evidence was sufficient to justify the Chancellor’s granting the wife a divorce. It follows that she is entitled to alimony as a matter of law. Hardman v. Hardman, 308 Ky. 284, 214 S.W.2d 391; Griffin v. Griffin, 1S4 Ky. 766, 159 S.W. 597. The amount of alimony to be allowed is a matter that is within the sound discretion of the Chancellor. The facts and circumstances in this case show no abuse of discretion. Also, the sum allowed the wife as full settlement of their business relations appears to be equitable.

Judgment affirmed on appeal and on cross-appeal.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JEAN C. JEANNOT

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2293

[ October 5, 2017 ]

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

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Raag Singhal , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 00

- 013916CF10A

.

Jean C. Jeannot, Florida City, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER

, G ROSS and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### REYES v. STATE.

No. 26231.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 4, 1953.

*522No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. All matters of procedure appear to be regular, therefore nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1033

___________________________

James Arthur Cockhren; Margaret Louise Cockhren

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

H. Raymond Terpstra, II

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo

____________

 Submitted: August 18, 2015

Filed: August 21, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

James Cockhren and Margaret Cockhren appeal the district court’s dismissal

1

of their pro se complaint against an attorney. In their complaint, they asserted claims

The Honorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for the 1

Northern District of Iowa.
under the Truth in Lending Act, a state-law claim for breach of fiduciary duties, and

a state-law claim for loss of consortium. After careful de novo review, see Levy v.

Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review), we conclude that the

complaint failed to state a claim, see 15 U.S.C. § 1602(g) (defining “creditor” under

Truth in Lending Act); Shivvers v. Hertz Farm Mgmt., Inc., 595 N.W.2d 476, 479

(Iowa 1999) (discussing attorney’s duty of care); Huber v. Hovey, 501 N.W.2d 53,

57 (Iowa 1993) (discussing loss-of-consortium claim under Iowa law); see also

Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 747 (8th Cir. 2013) (court of appeals may

affirm on any basis supported by record). 

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 331 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to permit the centralized reporting 

of veteran enrollment by certain groups, districts, and consortiums of 

educational institutions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 22, 2013 

Mr. CALVERT (for himself and Mr. TAKANO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to permit the 

centralized reporting of veteran enrollment by certain 

groups, districts, and consortiums of educational institutions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CENTRALIZED REPORTING OF VETERAN EN4 ROLLMENT BY CERTAIN GROUPS, DISTRICTS, 

5 AND CONSORTIUMS OF EDUCATIONAL INSTI6 TUTIONS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3684(a) of title 38, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 331 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘32, 33,’’ 

2 after ‘‘31,’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

4 paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘edu6 cational institution’ may include a group, district, or con7 sortium of separately accredited educational institutions 

8 located in the same State that are organized in a manner 

9 that facilitates the centralized reporting of the enrollments 

10 in such group, district, or consortium of institutions.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to reports sub13 mitted on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with
#### Allen HERRIN, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 9, 1951.

Fritz Krueger, Somerset, for movant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., H. D. Reed, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7304

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER HASTINGS, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (2:98-cr-00600-PMD-1; 2:08-cv-70127-PMD) 

Submitted: October 30, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Christopher Hastings, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Christopher Hastings seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by 

the district court is debatable or wrong and that any 

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise 

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently 

reviewed the record and conclude that Hastings has not made the 

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,391
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         84
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,848
<PP&E>                                           2,856
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,894
<BONDS>                                            702
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,283
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,957
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,388
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  66
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    168
<INCOME-TAX>                                         8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                160
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       160
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Nelson A. Locke, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Amstar Financial Services, Inc.;

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 officer(s) 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 officer(s) 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 5, 2008

/s/Nelson A. Locke
------------------------
Nelson A. Locke
Chief Executive Officer