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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)

The ratio of earnings to fixed charges for each of the five most recent fiscal
years was as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                      YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
   2002            2001          2000          1999           1998
------------    ----------    ----------    ----------     ----------
<S>             <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>
   2.69           13.41         16.30          6.95           6.33
</TABLE>

The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is computed by dividing fixed charges
into earnings before income taxes and before the cumulative effect of a change
in accounting principle plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest
expense and that portion of net rental expense deemed representative of
interest.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         1067700
<NAME>                        R.A.B. Enterprises, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        4,934
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                42,602
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (4,489)
<INVENTORY>                                  74,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            126,685
<PP&E>                                       54,059
<DEPRECIATION>                              (16,492)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              295,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        84,154
<BONDS>                                      80,340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   42,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                295,191
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            157,334
<CGS>                                       119,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                37,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            156,908
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            4,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (3,683)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (1,350)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (2,333)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               3,194
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    861
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0



</TABLE>
No. 09-9684.

#### Johnnie L. Reed, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1083, 130 S. Ct. 2130,

176 L. Ed. 2d 751,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3153.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 523.
No. 09-9112.

#### Clyde Meikle, Petitioner v. James Dzurenda, Warden.

559 U.S. 1053, 130 S. Ct. 2351,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3083.

176 L. Ed. 2d 569,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Opinion issued January 29, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00091-CV

———————————

IN RE ALPHAMAR GROUP, INC., Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Alphamar Group, Inc., has filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

asserting that the trial court indicated at a hearing that it would be imposing “death 

penalty sanctions” against relator striking relator’s evidence and precluding relator 

from introducing evidence at trial.1In conjunction with petition, relator has filed a 

1 The underlying case is M&M Protection, LLC v. Alphamar Group. Inc., cause 

number 1093580, pending in the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County, 

Texas, the Honorable LaShawn Williams presiding.
2

motion for an emergency stay of trial proceedings pending our decision on the 

petition. We deny the petition and dismiss the stay motion as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Hightower.
Exhibit 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, John Jones, Chief Executive Officer of Joning Corp. certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Joning Corp.

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and 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 report is being prepared;

     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 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 other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

     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 officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether 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.


October 11, 2004

/s/  John Jones
-----------------------------
     John Jones
     Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 44 (Monday, March 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4867]



[[Page 10117]]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11681 and <greek-i>11682]


Illinois Disaster <greek-i>IL-00020

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for public assistance only for the state of Illinois (FEMA-
1826-DR), dated 03/02/2009.
    Incident: Severe winter storm.
    Incident Period: 01/26/2009 through 01/28/2009.
    Effective Date: 03/02/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/01/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/02/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 03/02/2009, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:  Alexander, Gallatin, Hardin, Johnson, Massac, Pope, 
Pulaski, Saline, Union.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit             4.500
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11681B 
and for economic injury is 11682B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-4867 Filed 3-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-29941) pertaining to the Premier Bancshares, Inc. Directors' Stock 
Option Plan and the Premier Bancshares, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, in the 
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-59475) pertaining to the Premier 
Bancshares, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan and the Premier Bancshares, Inc. 
Directors' Deferred Stock Unit Plan (formerly the Premier Bancshares, Inc. 
Directors' Stock Option Plan), in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 
333-60245) and related Prospectus of Premier Bancshares, Inc. for the 
registration of 1,000,000 shares of its common stock, in the Registration 
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-60249) pertaining to the Premier Bancshares, Inc. 
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Post-Effective 
Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to Registration Statement on Form S-4 No. 333-65025)
pertaining to the Frederica Bank & Trust Directors' Stock Option Plan of our 
report dated February 5, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial 
statements of Premier Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in this Annual 
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.

                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

March 22, 1999
Atlanta, Georgia
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4828 

To provide grants to units of local government and States to hire personnel 

to monitor the activities of sex offenders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2006 

Mr. BOSWELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide grants to units of local government and States 

to hire personnel to monitor the activities of sex offenders. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cops for Kids Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may make 

7 grants to States and units of local government to develop 

8 programs to hire personnel to monitor the activities of sex 

9 offenders in the community. 
2 

•HR 4828 IH 

1 (b) PRIORITY.—In awarding a grant under this Act, 

2 the Attorney General shall give priority to a unit of local 

3 government or State with the greatest need as determined 

4 by the number of sex offenders in such unit of local gov5 ernment or State. 

6 (c) MATCHING FUNDS.—To be eligible to receive a 

7 grant under this Act, A State or unit of local government 

8 shall contribute not less than 50 percent of the costs of 

9 developing a sex offender monitoring program, including 

10 hiring personnel and providing training. 

11 SEC. 3. USES OF FUNDS. 

12 A grant awarded under this Act may be used to de13 velop a monitoring program of sex offenders, including— 

14 (1) hiring personnel; 

15 (2) developing training programs for such per16 sonnel; and 

17 (3) purchasing equipment for the program. 

18 SEC. 4. DEFINITION. 

19 For purposes of this Act— 

20 (1) the term ‘‘sex offender’’ means an indi21 vidual required by law to register as a sex offender; 

22 (2) the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the fifty 

23 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the 

24 United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of 
3 

•HR 4828 IH 

1 the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American 

2 Samoa; and 

3 (3) the term ‘‘unit of local government’’ means 

4 any city, county, township, town, borough, parish, 

5 village, or other general purpose political subdivision 

6 of a State. 

7 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

8 There are authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 

9 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to carry out 

10 this Act. 

Æ
October 17, 2017



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CITY OF HOUSTON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 17

- 00234

- CV V.

FRANK GUTKOWSKI, IND IVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ESTATE OF PATRIC IA GUTKOWSKI, DECEAS ED, TAMMIE RENE

GUTKOWSKI AND CARL G UTKOWSKI , Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the order denying appellant City of Houston’s plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, signed March 8, 2017, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find that the trial court erred in ruling that appellant Ci ty of Houston’s governmental immunity was waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act . We therefore order the court ’s order below REVERSED and RENDER judgment dismissing the claims of appellee s , Frank Gutkowski, Individually and as Representative for the Estate of Patricia Gutkowski, Deceased, Tammie Rene Gutkowski and Carl Gutkowski against appellant City of
Houston

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid join tly and severally by appellee s , Frank Gutkowski, Individually and as Representative for the Estate of Patricia Gutkowski, Deceased, Tammie Rene Gutkowski and Carl Gutkowski.

We further o rder this decision certified below for observance.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6634** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. CARLOS WOODS , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Dist rict of Maryland , at Baltimore
. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. ( 1:07

- cr - 00127

- WDQ

- 1 ; 1:10

- cv - 01321

- WDQ )

Submitted : July 21, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Carlos Woods, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Jason M. Weinstein, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions ar e not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Carlos Woods seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a cer tificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). 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)
. When the district court denies relief on the meri ts, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional r ight. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Woods has n ot made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and3 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
No. 09-9126.

#### Bryan Keith Shelton, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1042, 130 S. Ct. 2074,

176 L. Ed. 2d 423,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2781.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Order entered November 8 , 2012 

In The 

Court of ZippeaW 

jriftb IlDisstritt of Texali at 31Ballass 

No. 0542-00559-CR 

DONALD CAINE, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-31232-Y 

ORDER 

The Court GRANTS court reporter Sharon Hazlewood's motion for extension of time to 

file the reporter's record. 

We ORDER Ms. Hazlewood to file the reporter's record within FIFTEEN DAYS from 

the date of this order.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

OMAR GALLARDO TORRES

,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 1 9

- 30021

D.C. No. 18

- 17

- SE H

- 01

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon

, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 12 , 201 9

Seattle

, Washington

Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN , Circuit Judges, and PRATT, * * District Judge.

Defendant

- Appellant Omar Gallardo Torres, a citizen of Mexico, appeals the

district court’s imposition of a five

- year term of supervised release that the court

labeled “inactive” while Gallardo Torres is outside the United States under a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JAN 23 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALSlawful deportation order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Collins , 684 F.3d 873, 888 (9th

Cir. 2012) , and affirm

.

A term of supervised release cannot be tolled, stayed, or suspended while a

person i s outside the United States pursuant to a lawful deportation order. 1 See

United States v. Ignacio Juarez , 601 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam);

United States v. Murguia

- Oliveros , 421 F.3d 951, 952, 954 (9th Cir. 2005).

However, the district cou rt here did not impose a tolled, stayed, or suspended term

of supervision. Rather, the court acknowledged that while Gallardo Torres was not

residing in the count r

y , he could not be directly and actively supervised by the

Probation Office and would theref ore be under inactive supervision. If Gallardo

Torres thereafter returned to the United States, he would then be subject to active

supervision.

AFFIRMED.

1 Gallardo Torres’s claim is ripe for review on direct appeal because h is supervised release term forms “a part of the district court’s sentence, which is a final judgment subject to immediate appeal

. ” United States v. Rodriguez

Rodriguez , 441 F.3d 767, 771

– 72 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a))

.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4810 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4810

To amend the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 relating to 
   Academic Competitiveness Grants to preserve State authority over 
                      secondary school curricula.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2006

Mr. Bishop of Utah introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
              the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 relating to 
   Academic Competitiveness Grants to preserve State authority over 
                      secondary school curricula.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO RECOGNIZE RIGOROUS SECONDARY SCHOOL PROGRAMS OF 
              STUDY.

    Section 401A(c)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as added by 
section 8003 of the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005, is 
amended by striking ``established by a State or local educational 
agency and recognized as such by the Secretary'' each place it appears 
in subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B)(i) and inserting ``recognized as such 
by the chief State school officer of the State within which such 
secondary school is located''.
                                 <all>
```