alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Global Golf Holdings Incorporated
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Ford Sinclair, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Global Golf Holdings Incorporated;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;
 
 4.  The registrants certifying officers are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being repaired;
 b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5.  The registrants certifying officer has disclosed, based on his most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or person performing the equivalent function):
 a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 
 6.  The registrants other certifying officers have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: October _____, 2003/s/    Ford SinclairFord SinclairChairman and CEO
#### EVERETT v. STATE.

No. 24671.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 15, 1950.

Gordon R. Wellborn, Henderson, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine, of $200 and confinement in jail for a term of one year.

Art. 483, P.C., fixes the punishment for unlawfully carrying a pistol at a “fine of not less -than $100.00 nor more than $500.00 or by confinement in jail for not less than one month nor more than one year.”

It is insisted that the two methods of punishment are separate and distinct and that both a finé and confinement in jail may not be inflicted.

The case of Irwin v. State, 25,Tex.App. 588, 8 S.W. 681, appears to be in point, and sustains appellant’s contention. There, under the misdemeanor theft statute, Art. 1422, P.C., as it existed prior to the amendment of 1927, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 1422, the punishment affixed was a fine and confinement in jail, or confinement in jail without a fine.

Under that statute, we held that the accused is entitled to have each of the alternative punishments submitted to. the jury— that is, the jury may assess a punishment of a fine and term in jail, or a term in jail without a fine.

. By analogy, the holding in the Irwin case finds support in the cases of Thomas v. State, 85 Tex.Cr.-R. 246, 211 S.W. 453, and Busey v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 23, 218 S.W. 1048.

, The conclusion is here reached that the punishment affixed by statute to the offense of- unlawfully carrying a pistol is either a, fine, .or a term in jail — not both. The. two methods of punishment are stated in the alternative and not the conjunctive; there is, not an express provision authorizing both. '

It appearing that the punishment, assessed against appellant was not authorized by statute, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### GREEN v. STATE.

No. 26290.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1953.

A. C. Chaney, Cleburne, for .appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin,, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the .fraudulent disposition-of mortgaged property; the punishment,. two years.

*574The indictment alleged' that the mortgaged property was sold to one Lavon Hind-man. . ■

The prooí showed that the sale was made to one D. L. Owen, who gave his personal check in payment therefor, and that Hind-mand had nothing-whatsoever to do with the transaction. It was shown that some loose type of partnership existed between Owen and Hindman, who were engaged in the used car business in which each hought and sold on his own and then divided the profits. It was not shown that Hind-man ever exercised any care, control or management over the pickup truck purchased from the appellant. Owen himself later resold the truck to one Gaines.

The proof in this case would have sustained an allegation that the sale was made to Owen whether- he purchased it individually or for a partnership, -but will not support an allegation that the sale was made to Hindman.

Because of the fatal variance between the allegation and the proof, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 32.1 to 10-QSB
----------------------

                            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 Prologic Management Systems,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John W. Olynick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (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 for the periods presented.



                                              /s/  John W. Olynick
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              John W. Olynick
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              Prologic Management Systems, Inc.
                                              August 14, 2003
#### NATTALI v. STATE.

No. 23997.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1948.

W. J. Baldwin, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the County Court of Jefferson County of the sale of whisky on Sunday. The information alleged the primary offense and in a subsequent paragraph, for the purpose of enhancing the punishment, it was averred that appellant had been previously convicted in 1943 in the County Court of selling liquor in a wet area without a permit. Punishment was assessed by a jury at a fine of $350.00 and 120 days in jail.

An agent of the Liquor Control Board testified to the sale. This was denied by appellant. The jury settled that issue against appellant.

On cross-examination of appellant it was elicited from him that he was at the time of the trial forty-one years old and that twenty years ago, when he was only twenty years old, he had been convicted in two burglary cases. This evidence was objected to on the ground that the convictions were too remote to be available as impeaching evidence against appellant. The objection should have been sustained. Armstrong v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 433, 227 S.W. 485; Lott v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 591, 60 S.W.2d 223; Taylor v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 376, 179 S.W. 113; White v. State, 57 Tex.Cr.R. 196, 122 S.W. 391; Branch’s Ann. Tex. P.C., page 103, Sec. 170, where many other cases will be found cited.

It is not shown upon what ground the trial court admitted proof of these remote convictions. If the court thought it became admissible on account of the misdemeanor conviction in 1943 he was in error. On page 103, Sec. 169, Branch’s Ann. Tex. P.C. is found the following text which is supported by many cited cases. “Defendant or any other witness cannot legally be impeached by proof that he was arrested for or charged with or convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the local option law, it not being a misdemeanor imputing moral turpitude.” See also Shepherd v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 307, 174 S.W. 609; Johnson v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 547, 191 S.W. 1165; 45 Texas Jurisprudence, page 238, cases under Note 17, Sec. 318-a.

It was also averred in the information that appellant had been convicted of a misdemeanor — -selling beer to a minor — in Jefferson County in 1939. It having been discovered that this was an error this averment was abandoned. During the argument of appellant’s attorney he was criticis-ing the attorneys for the State for inserting such averment in the State’s pleading. The court stopped the argument and permitted proof to-be made, over appellant’s objection, as to how said averment got into the pleadings by mistake. This matter is brought forward in Bill of Exception No. 2. We do not discuss the question. It will not arise on another trial.

For the error in admitting proof of the remote convictions of appellant the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
#### LAY et al. v. SHARP.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 12, 1954.

B. B. Snyder, Williamsburg, for appellants.

W. B. Early, Williamsburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Whitley Circuit Court, W. L. Rose, Judge, denying appellants the right to the use of a passway.

*929Appellants base their claim to the pass-way upon an alleged grant and prescriptive use for the statutory period. The evidence is conflicting as to whether the passway now claimed is the same passway referred to in the grant and as to whether its use was adverse or permissive. The Chancellor’s finding on both points is sustained by the evidence.

The motion for an appeal is' overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3522 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3522

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for sale 
current group health insurance coverage in satisfaction of the minimum 
    essential health insurance coverage requirement, 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 ``Employee Health Care Protection Act 
of 2014''.

SEC. 2. IF YOU LIKE YOUR GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP IT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (including any amendment made by 
such Act or by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 
2010), a health insurance issuer that has in effect health insurance 
coverage in the group market on any date during 2013 may after such 
date offer such coverage for sale through December 31, 2018, in such 
market outside of an Exchange established under section 1311 or 1321 of 
such Act (42 U.S.C. 18031, 18041). A group health plan shall not be 
treated as not complying with the requirements of such Act (or the 
amendments made by such Acts) insofar as it provides health benefits 
through health insurance coverage that is permitted under the previous 
sentence.
    (b) Treatment as Grandfathered Health Plan in Satisfaction of 
Minimum Essential Coverage.--Health insurance coverage described in 
subsection (a) shall be treated as a grandfathered health plan for 
purposes of the amendment made by section 1501(b) of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
    (c) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
affecting the authority of States with respect to the regulation of 
health insurance coverage in the group market.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 11, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3522

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for sale 
current group health insurance coverage in satisfaction of the minimum 
    essential health insurance coverage requirement, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
Exhibit 12.1

CALCULATION OF CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

Year Ended December 31,2009

2008

2007

2006

2005(Dollars in thousands)Earnings:(Loss) income before income taxes

$
(24,694
)
$
375

$
22,233

$
26,507

$
21,726Fixed Charges:Interest on deposits


13,462


20,035


24,211


19,588


12,849Interest on subordinated debt, repurchase agreements, and other borrowings


2,864


4,409


2,801


2,937


3,058Rent expense interest factor


853


905


881


792


801Total fixed charges:Including interest on deposits

$
17,179

$
25,349

$
27,893

$
23,317

$
16,708Excluding interest on deposits

$
3,717

$
5,314

$
3,682

$
3,729

$
3,859Ratio of earnings to fixed charges:Excluding interest on deposits


(5.64
)

1.07


7.04


8.11


6.63Including interest on deposits


(0.44
)

1.01


1.80


2.14


2.30


---

For
purposes of calculating the ratios of earnings to fixed charges, earnings consist of income (loss) before income taxes and fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest on
subordinated debt, repurchase agreements and other borrowings, and the proportion deemed representative of the interest factor within rent expense. These ratios are presented both including and
excluding interest on deposits.

The
earnings coverage deficiency for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $24,694,000, both excluding and including interest on deposits.

CALCULATION OF CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS

Year Ended December 31,2009

2008

2007

2006

2005(Dollars in thousands)Earnings:(Loss) income before income taxes

$
(24,694
)
$
375

$
22,233

$
26,507

$
21,726Fixed Charges:Interest on deposits


13,462


20,035


24,211


19,588


12,849Interest on subordinated debt, repurchase agreements, and other borrowings


2,864


4,409


2,801


2,937


3,058Preferred stock dividends


2,028


222








Rent expense interest factor(1)


853


905


881


792


801Total fixed charges:Including interest on deposits

$
19,207

$
25,571

$
27,893

$
23,317

$
16,708Excluding interest on deposits

$
5,745

$
5,536

$
3,682

$
3,729

$
3,859Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividends:Excluding interest on deposits


-3.30


1.07


7.04


8.11


6.63Including interest on deposits


-0.29


1.01


1.80


2.14


2.30


---



(1)This
amount is the portion of rent expense (generally one-third) deemed representative of the interest factor.


For
purposes of calculating the ratios of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividends, earnings consist of income (loss) before income taxes and fixed charges. Fixed charges
consist of interest on subordinated debt, repurchase agreements and other borrowings, the proportion deemed representative of the interest factor within rent expense, and preferred stock dividends.
These ratios are presented both including and excluding interest on deposits.

The
earnings coverage deficiency for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $24,694,000, both excluding and including interest on deposits.

---



QuickLinks
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 

# TIME AND DATE:

10 a.m., Wednesday, November 8, 2000. 

# PLACE:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

  

*Summary Agenda:*                     Because of its routine nature, no discussion of the following item is anticipated. The matter will be voted on without discussion unless a member of the Board requests that the item be moved to the discussion agenda.                 

1. Proposed 2001 Private Sector Adjustment Factor. 

*Discussion Agenda:*

2. Proposed 2001 fee schedules for priced services. 

3. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting. 

# Note:

                        This meeting will be recorded for the benefit of those unable to attend. Cassettes                               ( print page 66254)                            will be available for listening in the Board's Freedom of Information Office, and copies may be ordered for $6 per cassette by calling 202-452-3684 or by writing to: Freedom of Information Office, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.                    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board, 202-452-3204. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

You may call 202-452-3206 for a recorded announcement of this meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement. (The Web site also includes procedural and other information about the open meeting.) 

Dated: November 1, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-28346 Filed 11-1-00; 10:55 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7

      DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

Directors of the Company who are also Company employees receive no additional or
special compensation for serving as directors.

Following is a description of the compensation arrangements for the Company's
non-employee directors.

CASH COMPENSATION. Effective as of the beginning of fiscal year 2006, the
Company's directors, including its Director Emeritus, who are not employees
receive an annual cash fee of $32,000, payable in four equal quarterly
installments of $8,000 at the beginning of each fiscal quarter. In addition,
effective as of the beginning of fiscal year 2006, each non-employee director
who serves as a chair of the committee of the Company's Board of Directors
receives the following annual cash fees, in each case payable in four equal
quarterly installments at the beginning of each fiscal quarter: chairperson of
the Audit Committee -- $10,000; chairperson of the Compensation and Stock Option
Committee -- $5,000; and chairperson of the Nominations and Corporate Governance
Committee -- $3,000.

All non-employee directors also receive reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses
for attendance at each Board or committee meeting.

EQUITY COMPENSATION. The Company's non-employee directors, but not its Director
Emeritus, also receive equity compensation for serving as directors.

For service during the 2005 fiscal year and in lieu of any other option or other
equity grant for service during that fiscal year, each of the Company's
non-employee directors received a one-time grant, on January 30, 2006, of (1)
467 shares of Class A common stock (which is equal to $32,000 divided by $68.55,
the fair market value of the stock on the day of grant) and (2) a fully vested
option to purchase 1,867 shares of the Company's Class A common stock (which is
equal to four times the number of shares granted under clause (1) above), with
an exercise price of $68.55, which was the fair market value of the stock on the
date of grant. The options are exercisable for a period of 6 years, subject to
earlier termination following termination of service as a director.

For service during each fiscal year after 2005, the Company's non-employee
directors will receive annual grants, as of the first business day of the fiscal
year immediately following such fiscal year, of (1) a number of shares of stock
equal to $32,000 divided by the fair market value of the Company's Class A
common stock on the date of grant and (2) a fully vested option to purchase such
number of shares of the Company's Class A common stock as is equal to four times
the number of shares of restricted stock awarded under clause (1) above, with an
exercise price equal to the fair market value of the Company's Class A common
stock on the date of grant. The options will be exercisable for a period of 6
years, subject to earlier termination following termination of service as a
director.
### -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 39 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/24 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●