alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 12


                         ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
       CONSOLIDATED COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (A)
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED                        SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                      JUNE 30,                                 JUNE 30,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2000            1999                      2000            1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                         <C>             <C>                       <C>             <C>
Net earnings (loss)                                         $(192,695)      $  12,312                 $(175,626)      $  19,085
Federal and state income tax
 expense (benefit)                                            (10,685)          8,115                         0          12,308
Earnings (loss) before income tax expense (benefit)
                                                             (203,380)         20,427                  (175,626)         31,393
Fixed charges:
  Interest                                                     51,730          43,317                    99,485          86,594
  One-third of all rentals                                        766             814                     1,521           1,593
  Preferred stock dividend
    of subsidiary trust                                         2,248           2,248                     4,495           4,495
  Total fixed charges                                          54,744          46,379                   105,501          92,682
Earnings (loss) before income
 taxes (benefits) and fixed
 charges                                                     (148,636)         66,806                   (70,125)        124,075
Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges                                                    N/M (B)        1.44 x                     N/M (B)        1.34 x
</TABLE>

(A)      For purposes of computing these ratios, "earnings" represent income
         before income taxes plus fixed charges. "Fixed charges" consist of
         interest expense, one-third (the proportion deemed representative of
         the interest factor) of rental expense on operating leases, and
         preferred stock dividends of subsidiary trust.

(B)      The ratio calculated based on the current period's loss is negative and
         therefore not meaningful. In order to achieve a ratio of 1.00, earnings
         before income taxes and fixed charges would need to increase by
         $203,380 for the three month period ended June 30, 2000, and $175,626
         for the six month period ended June 30, 2000.


                                       46
#### WOOTEN v. STATE.

No. 24925.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 1, 1950.

No .attorneys, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of robbery, and his punishment was assessed by the jury at five years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception.

The evidence offered by the State, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain the cfbnviction, and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
**Exhibit
      32.01**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**





**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**





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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Viseon, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), the undersigned, in the
      capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that to his 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.




Dated:
              February 19, 2007/s/John
                C. HarrisJohn
                C. Harris
              Chief
                Executive Officer
DEPT Of 

SERVED JANUARY 29, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


OFFICE OF HEARINGS 


WASHINGTON, DC 


IN THE MATTER OF 


PROSPECT AVIATION, CORP., 


Respondent. 


FAA DOCKET NO. CP09EA0022 


(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 


DMS NO. F AA-2009-0732 


NOTICE OF HEARING 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the hearing in this case will be held on 

February 9,2010, beginning at 10:00 a.m., local time at the following location: 

Moorhead Federal Building 

1000 Liberty Avenue 

Courtroom 1108 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

Please allow time to pass through security. 

,Ja~ Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket No. CP09EA0022 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

CORRECTED SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 


800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 


Washington, DC 20591 


Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 


Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

ONE COpy 

Gregory C. Taylor, President 

Prospect Aviation Corporation, Respondent 

Beaver County Airport 

145 Cessna Drive 

Beaver Falls, P A 15010 

TEL: 724-843-3222 

Layden C. Sadecky, Respondent's Counsel 

664 Fourth Street 

Beaver, P A 15009 

TEL: 724-774-6272 

FAX: 724-774-6271 

Christian L. Lewerenz, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Acting Regional Counsel 

Eastern Region, EA-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3272 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The HOJ;lorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings,M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

·1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East BuildiJ;lg Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attomey202-366-0437 

Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use.the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence A venue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2WlOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

I
The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4234

___________

Josette C. Teaff, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Arlington Hotel; Cathy Armstrong; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Michele Boatwright, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 30, 1997

 Filed: January 7, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Josette C. Teaff appeals the district court&s grant of summary judgment to one 1

defendant and the dismissal of two others in her action brought under Title VII, 42

U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17. After a careful review of the record and the parties&

submissions on appeal, we conclude the district court was correct and an extended

discussion is unnecessary. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.37

Exhibit 10.37--Bonus Pool Arrangement--Revised and Restated

Temecula Valley Bank ("Bank") previously reported on February 7, 2006 by Form
8-K that it earmarked approximately 10% of the pre tax, pre bonus net income of
Temecula Valley Bancorp Inc ("Company"), payable by the Bank, to pay annual
incentive bonuses to certain officers of the Bank. This Exhibit restates and
amends the prior Exhibit10.35 to name three additional executive officers that
are eligible to may participate in the bonus pool.

Within the group entitled to participate in pool are the executive officers
designated below as well as other officers of the Bank. The bonus paid to some
officers is discretionary and for others, the amount is fixed in the Employment
Agreement of the involved individual.

o    For the year ended December 31, 2005, pursuant to the Employment Agreement
     of Stephen H. Wacknitz, CEO, President and Chairman of the Bank, he is
     entitled to receive 6% of the pre tax, pre bonus net income of the Company.
     For the year ended December 31, 2006, pursuant to his Employment Agreement,
     he is entitled to receive 5% of the pre tax, pre bonus net income of the
     Company.

o    Pursuant to the Employment Agreement of William McGaughey, Senior Executive
     Vice President/Director of Finance and SBA, he is entitled to receive the
     greater of $100,000 or 1.5% of the pre-tax net income of the Company,
     payable by the Bank.

o    Pursuant to the Employment Agreement of Frank Basirico, Senior Executive
     Vice President/ Chief Administrative Officer, he is entitled to receive 1%
     of the pre-tax, post bonus net income of the Company, payable by the Bank.

o    Upon the recommendation of the Executive Compensation Committee and
     approval by the Board of Directors, the following executives may receive an
     annual incentive bonus based upon performance:

     a.   James Andrews, Executive Vice President/Real Estate Industries Group
          (will not participate in the pool in 2006 as his bonus will be 2.5% of
          pre-tax profits of his department)
     b.   Donald A. Pitcher, Executive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
     c.   Martin E. Plourd, Executive Vice President/Chief Operating Officer
     d.   Donald L. Schempp, Executive Vice President/North San Diego County
          Regional Manager
     e.   Thomas Shepherd, Senior Executive Vice President/Chief Credit Officer
     f.   Scott J. Word, Executive Vice President/ Senior Lending Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00669-CV

Bruce D. Atherton & Associates, P.L.L.C., and Bruce D. Atherton, Appellants

v.

William Cordes, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY, 155TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2009V-227, HONORABLE DAN R. BECK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties have filed a joint motion to abate appeal pending approval of a settlement

agreement. We grant the motion and abate the appeal for ninety days, until May 5, 2011. On or

before that date, the parties are to report to this Court about the status of the underlying cause. 

Should the trial court approve the parties’ settlement agreement, the parties are to promptly file a

motion to reinstate and dismiss the appeal.

____________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Abated

Filed: February 4, 2011
EXHIBIT 32





CAREADVANTAGE, INC


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Dennis J. Mouras, Chief Executive Officer and acting principal financial officer of CareAdvantage, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: May 16, 2011





/s/ Dennis J. MourasDennis J. MourasChief Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial Officer
#### REEVES v. STATE.

No. 26293.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction, is for the theft of one head of cattle. The penalty assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

The record contains no notice of appeal except a docket entry thereof. The statute, Art. 827, C.C.P., provides that such notice shall be given in open court and entered of record. A notation on the trial docket is not a sufficient record of such notice. See Clark v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 218 S.W.2d 210; Hughes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 218 S.W.2d 479, and many cases there cited; also Wood v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 218 S.W.2d 480. -

No- notice of appeal being shown herein, the appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           328
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    572
<ALLOWANCES>                                      66
<INVENTORY>                                      453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,373
<PP&E>                                            43
<DEPRECIATION>                                     7
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            783
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         203
<OTHER-SE>                                       340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,691
<SALES>                                          871
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 871
<CGS>                                            336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    713
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 377
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  146
<INCOME-TAX>                                      58
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               88
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                      88
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .04
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Texas et al., Petitioners, v. Jim H. GLASS et al., Respondents. Jim H. GLASS et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Texas et al., Respondents.

Nos. 26843, 26844.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 21, 1943.

For former opinion, see 167 S.W.2d 296.

Elbert Roberts, of Houston, for Glass.

Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., and Geo. W. Barcus and Ocie Speer, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

Dan W. Jackson, Cr. Dist. Atty., Conrad J. Landrum, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., Lewis & Knipp, and Ernest A. Knipp, all of Houston, for Harris County.

PER .CURIAM.

The above-numbered and entitled applications for writs of error were filed in the cause of State et al. v. Glass et al., in the Court of Civil Appeals at Galveston. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is reported in 167 S.W.2d 296, and we refer to that opinion for a full statement of the facts and issues involved. Heretofore, on February 17, 1943, we “Refused for Want of Merit” both of the above applications. It is now ordered that the orders above indicated be, and the same are hereby, set aside, and that both of said applications be refused.
#### GRUBBS v. GRUBBS.

No. 11211.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Aug. 5, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 26, 1942.

J. D. Williamson, of Waco, for appellant.

R. A. Grubbs, of Newark, N. J., pro se.

MURRAY, Justice.

Mrs. Lucie Brulay Grubbs instituted this suit in the District Court of Cameron County, on January 8, 1942, against her then husband, R. A. Grubbs, who resided in a foreign jurisdiction, seeking a judgment of divorce dissolving the marriage of herself and defendant, awarding her the care and custody of their child, Richard L. Grubbs, requiring defendant to pay to her monthly the sum of $25 for the support of the child' until he should reach the age of sixteen years, and for costs of court.

The defendant was cited by notice to serve non-resident, served upon him in the County of Essex in the State of New Jersey, and filed no answer in the suit. The trial judge after a hearing entered judgment granting the divorce, awarding the custody of the child to his mother, but refused to enter judgment for the $25 per month, and adjudged the costs against the plaintiff.

Mrs. Grubbs has appealed only from the action of the court in refusing to require the defendant to make monthly payments in the sum of $25 and in refusing to adjudge the costs against defendant.

The trial judge found from sufficient evidence that $25 per month was required for the support of the minor and that appellee was financially able to make such payments, but concluded that he was without jurisdiction to enter such order because appellee had been served only by notice to non-resident and had not appeared in the case by answer or otherwise.

 We conclude that the trial court properly refused to enter judgment for the monthly installments and the costs of court,, inasmuch as such an order would be one operating in personam and not in rem. Appellant contends that such an order would’ not be one for debt but simply an obligation growing out of the marital status. Appellant further points out that such a judgment can only be enforced by contempt proceedings, as expressly provided by Art. 4639a, Vernon’s Civ.Stats., and as was expressly held in Ex parte Birkhead, 127 Tex. 556, 95 S.W.2d 953. Notwithstanding such matters, such judgment would be a personal judgment and cannot properly be entered against a non-resident served only by notice.

Furthermore, the entry of- such a judgment would be a vain thing. It would not be entitled to full faith and credit by a *217sister state because it is interlocutory in nature and may be changed from time to time. Gaffey v. Criteser, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W. 1166; Id., Tex.Com.App., 222 S.W. 193. It could not be enforced in this State unless jurisdiction could be had over the person of the defendant.

Many o'S. the arguments presented by appellant are highly persuasive, but we have come definitely to the conclusion that a judgment against a husband for periodical payments for the benefit of his minor child is an order operating in personam and can be properly entered only where personal service is had or an appearance is made.

The judgment is affirmed.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3210 

AN ACT 

Making continuing appropriations for military pay in the 

event of a Government shutdown. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3210 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pay Our Military Act’’. 

3 SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF 

4 THE ARMED FORCES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are hereby appropriated for 

6 fiscal year 2014, out of any money in the Treasury not 

7 otherwise appropriated, for any period during which in8 terim or full-year appropriations for fiscal year 2014 are 

9 not in effect— 

10 (1) such sums as are necessary to provide pay 

11 and allowances to members of the Armed Forces (as 

12 defined in section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United 

13 States Code), including reserve components thereof, 

14 who perform active service during such period; 

15 (2) such sums as are necessary to provide pay 

16 and allowances to the civilian personnel of the De17 partment of Defense (and the Department of Home18 land Security in the case of the Coast Guard) whom 

19 the Secretary concerned determines are providing 

20 support to members of the Armed Forces described 

21 in paragraph (1); and 

22 (3) such sums as are necessary to provide pay 

23 and allowances to contractors of the Department of 

24 Defense (and the Department of Homeland Security 

25 in the case of the Coast Guard) whom the Secretary 

26 concerned determines are providing support to mem-
3 

•HR 3210 EH

1 bers of the Armed Forces described in paragraph 

2 (1). 

3 (b) SECRETARY CONCERNED DEFINED.—In this sec4 tion, the term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ means— 

5 (1) the Secretary of Defense with respect to 

6 matters concerning the Department of Defense; and 

7 (2) the Secretary of Homeland Security with re8 spect to matters concerning the Coast Guard. 

9 SEC. 3. TERMINATION. 

10 Appropriations and funds made available and author11 ity granted pursuant to this Act shall be available until 

12 whichever of the following first occurs: (1) the enactment 

13 into law of an appropriation (including a continuing ap14 propriation) for any purpose for which amounts are made 

15 available in section 2; (2) the enactment into law of the 

16 applicable regular or continuing appropriations resolution 

17 or other Act without any appropriation for such purpose; 

18 or (3) January 1, 2015. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 29 

(legislative day September 28), 2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3210 

AN ACT 

Making continuing appropriations for military pay 

in the event of a Government shutdown.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7050

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

AMANDA DARLENE GREENE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00133-WO-1)

Submitted: December 9, 2016 Decided: December 15, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amanda Darlene Greene, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Lloyd Iverson, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Amanda Darlene Greene appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying 

Greene’s exemption request, and ordering two garnishees to remit 

money and property of Greene to the United States. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Greene, No. 1:15-cr-00133-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. July 11, 

2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED