alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.5

ACUPAC PACKAGING, INC.  FIXED CHARGE RATIO COMPUTATION  (GUARANTORS ONLY)

|                                                      |                              | For The Period June 2, 1999 to
December 31, 1999 |        | 2000 |   | 2001  |    
|----------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ | ------ | ---- | - | ----- | ---
|
|Income (loss) before taxes                            |                              | $                                                | 931    |      | $ | 258   |    
|Fixed charges reflected in income (loss) before taxes |                              |                                                  |        |      |   |       |    
|                                                      | Interest expense             |                                                  |        | 3    |   |       | 750
|                                                      | One third of rental expenses |                                                  |        | 62   |   |       | 144
|                                                      |                              |                                                  |        |      |   |       |    
|Total fixed charges                                   |                              | $                                                | 65     |      | $ | 894   |    
|                                                      |                              |                                                  |        |      |   |       |    
|Income before taxes plus fixed charges above          |                              | $                                                | 996    |      | $ | 1,152 |    
|                                                      |                              |                                                  |        |      |   |       |    
|Fixed charge ratio                                    |                              |                                                  | 15.32x |      |   | 1.29x |    
|                                                      | Fixed charge deficiency      |                                                  |        |      |   |       |    

---

QuickLinks
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



In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Secured Digital  Applications,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Voon Fui Yong,  Chief  Accounting  Officer  (principal  financial
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:


     (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 result of  operations of the
Company.



/s/ Voon Fui Yong
-------------------
Voon Fui Yong
Chief Accouting Officer
May 22, 2006
#### Ex parte GEISLING.

No. 25598.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 21, 1951.

No attorney on appeal.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Relator, an inmate of the penitentiary of Texas, has filed an original application for writ of habeas corpus in this court *834alleging’ that the judgment and sentence in cause No. 7727 in the District Court of Hopkins Qranty is void; and praying for release.

Certified copies of such judgment and sentence show that relator pleaded guilty to the offense of robbery with firearms, and the jury assessed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for life and he was sentenced accordingly.

Such judgment and sentence we held, in a companion case to that of relator, to be void. See Ex parte Whitten, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 169, 205 S.W.2d 588.

It appears that in addition to the above sentence, relator is legally held by the penitentiary authorities under other felony convictions and therefore is not entitled to discharge.

The application for release by habeas corpus is denied.

Opinion approved by the court.
-80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 05/30 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
Case 3:22-cr-00208-K Document 13 Filed 05/24/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 22
Case 3:22-cr-00208-K Document 13 Filed 05/24/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 23
Case 3:22-cr-00208-K Document 13 Filed 05/24/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 24
Case 3:22-cr-00208-K Document 13 Filed 05/24/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 25
Case 3:22-cr-00208-K Document 13 Filed 05/24/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 26
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LARRY DARNELL PRICE, JR., §

TDCJ No. 1779157, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1279-B

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §

§

 Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in

this case. An objection was filed by Petitioner. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions

of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and

reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding

no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge.

The Court therefore TRANSFERS Petitioner’s unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. 2254

habeas application to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for appropriate action.

And, because the Court is transferring the application to the Fifth Circuit, a certificate of

appealability (a COA) is not necessary. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir.

2015) ("[A] transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is not a final order within the meaning of §

2253(c)(1)(B), and the appeal of such an order does not require a COA."); Guel-Rivas v. Stephens,

599 F. App'x 175, 175 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (applying Fulton's holding to transfer of a

Case 3:22-cv-01279-B-BN Document 10 Filed 07/14/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 46
-2-

successive Section 2254 application).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 14 2022. th

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01279-B-BN Document 10 Filed 07/14/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 47
#### Arnett M. HOWARD et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF SINKING FUND OF CITY OF LOUISVILLE et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 20, 1952.

W. A. Armstrong, D. E. Armstrong, Louisville, for appellants;

Gilbert Burnett, City Atty., Alex Humphrey, Asst. City Atty., Louisville, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

This case was before this Court on a demurrer to the petition. Commissioners of Sinking Fund, of City of Louisville v. Howard, Ky., 248 S.W.2d 340. The judgment of the Circuit Court overruling defendants’ demurrer, was reversed for reasons set out in that opinion. Upon return of the case to the Circuit Court, judgment was entered in conformity with our opinion. This. is an appeal from that judgment. No new issue or additional question is presented, and the Court has not changed its' view on any of the questions formerly presented.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28997]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-00-239]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Danvers River, MA.

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a 
temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations governing 
the operation of the Massachusetts Bay transportation Authority (MBTA)/
Amtrak Bridge, at mile 0.05, across the Danvers River between Beverly 
and Salem, Massachusetts. This deviation allows the bridge owner to 
keep the bridge in the closed position from 6 a.m. on Saturday November 
18, 2000, through 6 p.m. on Sunday November 19, 2000. This action is 
necessary to facilitate replacement of the submarine power cables at 
the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from November 18, 2000, to November 
19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John McDonald, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, at (617) 223-8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The MBTA/Amtrak Bridge, at mile 0.05, across 
the Danvers River, has a vertical clearance of 3 feet at mean high 
water, and 12 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The 
existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 
117.595(b).
    The bridge owner requested a temporary deviation from the 
drawbridge operating regulations to facilitate the necessary 
maintenance for the replacement of the submarine power cables at the 
bridge. This deviation from the operating regulations allows the bridge 
owner to keep the bridge in the closed position from 6 a.m. on 
Saturday, November 18, 2000, through 6 p.m. on Sunday, November 19, 
2000. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do 
so at all times during the closed period.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed 
with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as 
soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is 
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
G.N. Naccara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 00-28997 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, November 3, 2000, 12:30 pm to November 3, 2000, 2:00 pm, NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 31, 2000, 65 FR 64977-64979.                

The meeting will be held November 8, 2000, 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm. The location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: November 6, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-29144  Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-18-2009

Holly L. Cardy v. Steven D. Barnes

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-3519

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Holly L. Cardy v. Steven D. Barnes" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 78.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/78
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 08-3519

_____________

HOLLY L. CARDY

v.

STEVEN D. BARNES; ERIC R. HEIL; CHAD 

FINDLAY; CITY OF FRANKLIN, PENNSYLVANIA; 

RYAN ASHBAUGH; BOROUGH OF SUGARCREEK

 CHAD FINDLAY,

 Appellant

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 07-cv-106)

District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 17, 2009

Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.

Filed: December 18, 2009

_______________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_______________
2

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

We have jurisdiction to review a summary judgment order denying qualified

immunity “only to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Ziccardi v. City of Phila.,

288 F.3d 57, 61 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985)). 

In this case, the accounts of the incident underlying the claim of excessive force and the

competing assertion of qualified immunity raise material issues of fact. As explained by

the District Court:

We have an alleged eyewitness ... [a]nd he testified that the plaintiff was –

that she was picked up approximately a foot off the ground and violently

slammed to the ground. At which time he claimed he audibly heard her

ankle bone snap. ... In contrast, Officer Findlay testified that he performed a

controlled takedown maneuver, which did not involve violently slamming

the plaintiff to the ground as she claimed. But involved a twisting

procedure whereby the plaintiff was taken down to her stomach.

(App. at A6-A7.) Later the Court stated, “the fundamental flaw in the defendants’

qualified immunity analysis is that [it is] based upon the factual premise or predicate ...

that the takedown occurred in a controlled and non-violent manner. That contention,

however, ... is hotly disputed by the plaintiff.” (App. at A12-A13.) 

Because there is a fundamental factual dispute pertaining to the question of

qualified immunity, we lack jurisdiction and, accordingly, will dismiss the appeal.
# FILED
March 3, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

SOUTHLAND REALTORS, INC., ) KNOX CIRCUIT ) Plaintiff/Appellee ) NO. 03A01-9710-C V-00455 ) v. ) HON. HAROLD WIMBERLY ) JUDGE TABOR CONSTRUCTION ) COMPANY, INC., ) ) Defendant/Appel

lant ) AFFIRMED

Thomas R. Henle

y, Knoxville, for

Appellant. C. Paul Harrison, Knoxville, for Appellee.


### O P I N IO N

INMAN, Senio

r Judge The trial court a

llowed the plaintiff

a recovery of a c

ommission for the sale of real estate. The defendant appeals, insisting that (1) the plaintiff was not a party to the sale s agency contract a nd thus had no standing to f ile this action, (2) the agency contract expired before performance, (3) the plaintiff “performed no usef

ul work,” and (4)

the record “cannot

support a judgment for anyone.” Ea

ch of these issues al

leges that the trial

court erred in fa

iling to grant summary judgme

nt. The record does not

reveal whether t

he motion was brought t

o the attention of the tri al judge, but in the interest of the disp osition of the case we may assume it was ov

erruled since the c ase was tried on the merits. Thisbrings us to a critica l difficulty, that b

eing the absence of a

transcript or statement of the evidence. A review of the propounded issues is precluded because of the absence of a transcript of the testimony. We cannot decide the issue s solely on the basis of the techni cal record. Sherrod v. Wix, 849 S.W.2d 780 (T enn. App. 1992). In avoidance of this e lementary principl

e, the appellant a

rgues that his appeal is from the refusal to grant summary judgment, as contrasted to an appeal from an adve

rse judgment follow

ing a trial on the mer

its. Aside from the fact that the motion was not supported as R ULE 56 requires, Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (T

enn. 1993), as a ge

neral rule the over

ruling of the motion was interlocutory an d hence not appealab le. See, Williamson C ounty Broadcasting Co. V. Wil liamson County Bd. Of Ed ucation, 549 S.W.2d 371 (Tenn. 1977). The judgment is aff

irmed at the costs of

the appellant.

____________________________ William H. Inma

n, Senior Judge CONCUR:

_______________________________ Herschel P. Fr

anks, Judge

_______________________________ Don T. McMurra

y, Judge
#### COMPTON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 30, 1953.

Fritz Krueger, Somerset, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MILLIKEN, Justice.

The appellant was convicted for the offense of selling intoxicating liquor in dry territory in September, 1950, and the judgment imposed a fine of $50 and thirty days in jail as his punishment. The Commonwealth’s chief witness admitted that he *704bought a half-pint of whisky at the appellant’s tourist court as alleged in the indictment, but he would not identify the appellant as the individual from whom he bought it. This witness admitted that he had signed “some papers,” but he did not admit their contents. A deputy sheriff testified that he saw the truck of the chief witness for the Commonwealth parked in front of the appellant’s tourist place and, knowing the reputation of the appellant, he followed the truck and took its driver and his hurriedly discarded half-pint into custody.

The Attorney General does not contend that the evidence supports the judgment. Since the appellant has not been identified as the seller, there obviously is reasonable doubt of his being guilty, and hence he is entitled to an acquittal. Criminal Code of Practice, Section 238. ' 7⁄8

The judgment is reversed.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

                                   AMENDMENT

                                    TO THE

                            ARTHROCARE CORPORATION

                           1993 INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN

     Pursuant to the authority reserved to the Board of Directors (the "Board")
                                                                        -----
of ArthroCare Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of State of
Delaware, under Section 15(a) of the ArthroCare Corporation 1993 Incentive Stock
Plan (the "Plan"), the Board hereby amends the Plan as follows.
           ----

          1.  Sections 4(b)(vii) and (xii) of the Plan are hereby deleted in
their entirety, and Sections 4(b)(viii) through (xiv) are hereby renumbered
accordingly to reflect such deletions.

          2.  Section 20 is hereby added to the Plan to read in its entirety as
follows:

          "20.      Repricing Prohibited.  Notwithstanding any provision in this
                    --------------------
     Plan to the contrary, no Option or Stock Purchase Right may be amended to
     reduce the price per Share of the Shares subject to such Option or Stock
     Purchase Right below the exercise or purchase price, as applicable, as of
     the date the Option or Stock Purchase Right is granted.  In addition, no
     Option Exchange Program may be entered into with respect to any Options
     granted hereunder except in connection with the assumption or substitution
     of an Option in connection with a corporate transaction pursuant to Section
     13."

                              * * * * * * * * * *

     I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment to the Plan was duly adopted
by the Board of Directors of ArthroCare Corporation, effective as of March 24,
2000.

     Executed on this 27th day of July, 2000.


                                    /s/ Michael W. Hall
                                    --------------------------
                                    Secretary

                                       1
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) I, James G. Bradley, Chief Executive Officer of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation
(the registrant), certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation;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 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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this quarterly 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 quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal controls over
financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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
registrants board of directors:  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal controls over financial reporting. Dated: May 11, 2004
    /s/ James G. BradleyJames G. BradleyChief Executive Officer 30