alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<CAPTION>

<S>                            <C>         
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,215
<SECURITIES>                                       898
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,598
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,795
<PP&E>                                           1,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,204
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,179
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,280
<SALES>                                          9,817
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,817
<CGS>                                            7,370
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   458<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  63
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    982
<INCOME-TAX>                                       381
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                601
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       601
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84
<FN>

<F1> Includes research and development costs and costs for purchased
in-process
technology.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
#### Alexander Davidson *vs.*Freeman A. Fisher.

August 5, 1889.

Statute of Limitations — Action against Bankrupt.— Section 5106, Rev. St. TJ. S. 1878, does not prohibit the *commencement*of an action upon a provable claim against a person who has been adj udged bankrupt under the national bankruptcy act.

Action brought in the district court for Hennepin county, in March, 1888, upon a promissory note for $570, made by defendant to plaintiff in Chicago, 111., bearing date September 16, 1876, and payable 75 days thereafter. Defence the statute of limitations. Defendant removed from Illinois to this state in 1879, and has ever since resided here. The bankruptcy proceedings relied on by plaintiff to avoid the bar of the statute are stated in the opinion. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in defendant’s favor, entered pursuant to direction of *Baxter,*J., (acting for a judge of the fourth district.)

*F. D. Culver*and *A. B. Choate,*for appellant.

*F. H. Boardman*and *W. A. Lancaster,*for respondent.

Collins, J.

The plaintiff in this action claims that his cause of action was suspended on June 30, 1877, upon which day defendant was duly adjudged bankrupt in proceedings in the state of Illinois under the national bankruptcy act. We are not advised as to what *364steps were taken in these proceedings subsequent to the adjudication, and prior to May 31, 1882, on which day, defendant having petitioned therefor, a discharge was refused by the court. The plaintiff’s claim is wholly predicated upon section 5106, Eev. St. U. S. 1878, which provides, among other things, that no creditor whose debt is provable shall be allowed to prosecute to final judgment any suit in law or equity until the question of the debtor’s discharge shall have been determined, and pending this the bankrupt has the right, if there be n'o unreasonable delay upon his part in an endeavor to obtain his discharge, to cause all proceedings and suits to be stayed. The question which is thus presented is, was the plaintiff prohibited from commencing an action upon his note from the day of the adjudication in bankruptcy, in June; 1877, to the day the discharge was refused, in May, 1882? If he was, section 21, *c.*66, Gen. St. 1878, excepts the period of time between these dates from the operation of the statute of limitations. The language used in this act seems plain and unequivocal. It does not inhibit the commencement of actions, for it anticipates that they will be brought, and authorizes proceedings to stay the same. It also contemplates their prosecution for certain purposes. The statute simply forbids a prosecution to final judgment, except upon leave. It cannot be construed to mean anything more than that, where bankruptcy proceedings are brought to the attention of the court in which a suit is being prosecuted against a bankrupt, that court shall not proceed to final judgment until the question of discharge shall have been determined. *Boynton*v. *Ball,*121 U. S. 457, (7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 981.) See, also, *Hall v. Greenbaum,*33 Fed. Rep. 22; *Ray*v. *Wight,*119 Mass. 426; and, on a statute similar, *Trafton*v. *Hill,*80 Me. 503, (15 Atl. Rep. 64.)

Judgment affirmed.
Amendment to Employment Contract of CEO



 Exhibit 10.17 
  
 Allegheny Energy Service Corporation 
 800 Cabin
Hill Drive 
 Greensburg, PA 15601 
  
 February 18, 2004 
  
 Paul J. Evanson 
 c/o Allegheny Energy, Inc. 
 800 Cabin Hill Drive 
 Greensburg, PA 15601 
  
 Dear Paul: 
  
 You and Allegheny Energy Service Corporation (“AESC”) for itself and as agent for its parent, Allegheny Energy, Inc. (“AEI”), the
affiliates and subsidiaries of AESC and AEI, and any successors or assigns of any of the foregoing, entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of June 9, 2003. Pursuant to Section 5(a)(i) of the Agreement, you were
entitled to receive a grant of stock options for 1,500,000 shares of AEI Common Stock under the AEI Long-Term Incentive Plan on January 2, 2004. However, as you are aware, such grant could not be made without obtaining authorization under the Public
Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935, and such authorization was not obtained until February 10, 2004. 
  
 Accordingly, you, AESC and AEI hereby agree that the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1. Amendment to Section 5(a)(i) of the Agreement. Section 5(a)(i) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows: 
  
 “(i) Option
Grant. On the fifth business day following the date that AESC obtains authorization under the Public Utilities Holding Company Act of 1935 (the “Authorization Date”), AESC shall grant the Executive stock options (the
“Options”) for 1,500,000 shares of AEI Common Stock under the Allegheny Energy, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”) at a per share exercise price equal to the per share closing price of AEI Common Stock
on the date of grant, as quoted in the NYSE Composite Transaction Listing in The Wall Street Journal. Such grant shall be evidenced by an award agreement substantially in the form of Exhibit A.” 
  
 2. Amendments to Section 5 (c)(i) of the Agreement. The references to
January 2, 2004 and January 1, 2004 in clauses (1) and (2) of Section 5(c)(i) of the Agreement are hereby amended to refer to the Authorization Date and the 2004 Closing Price is defined to mean the per share closing price of AEI Common Stock on the
Authorization Date as quoted in the NYSE Composite Transaction listing in The Wall Street Journal. 
  










 Mr. Paul J. Evanson 
 January 18, 2004 
 Page 2 
  

 Except as specifically amended hereby, all of the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain
unchanged and are hereby ratified and confirmed. Please signify your agreement with the foregoing by signing the attached copy of this letter in the place indicated. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	Allegheny Energy Service Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ David B. Hertzog

	 	 	

	 	 	 David B. Hertzog

	 	 	 Vice President & General Counsel

	
	Allegheny Energy, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ David B. Hertzog

	 	 	

	 	 	 David B. Hertzog

	 	 	 Vice President & General Counsel



  

	
	AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
	
	 /s/ Paul J. Evanson

	

	 Paul J. Evanson
EXHIBIT 12
 INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
STOCK DIVIDENDS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2009 and 2008
(Dollars in thousands)
 March 31,
    
    
    March 31,2009
    
    
    2008(Unaudited)Earnings:Net Income
    
    $
    202,957
    
    
    $
    149,502Add:Provision for income taxes
    
    
    111,945
    
    
    
    82,483Fixed charges
    
    
    360,789
    
    
    
    389,501Less:Capitalized interest
    
    
    (4,609
    )
    
    
    (8,575
    )Earnings as adjusted (A)
    
    $
    671,082
    
    
    $
    612,911Fixed charges and preferred stock dividends:Preferred dividend requirements
    
    $
    1,300
    
    
    $
    1,308Ratio of income before provision for income taxes to net income
    
    
    155
    %
    
    
    155
    %Preferred dividend factor on pretax basis
    
    
    2,015
    
    
    
    2,027Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    
    355,394
    
    
    
    380,113Capitalized interest
    
    
    4,609
    
    
    
    8,575Interest factors of rents
    
    
    786
    
    
    
    813Fixed charges as adjusted (B)
    
    
    360,789
    
    
    
    389,501Fixed charges and preferred stock dividends (C)
    
    $
    362,804
    
    
    $
    391,528Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ((A) divided by (B))
    
    
    1.86
    x
    
    
    1.57
    xRatio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
((A) divided by (C))
    
    
    1.85
    x
    
    
    1.57
    x
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Flow International Corporation, a Washington corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending July 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), I, Charles M. Brown, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Douglas P. Fletcher, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§ 1350), 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/    CHARLES M. BROWN                         |  | September 10, 2007
|Charles M. Brown Principal Executive Officer    |  |                   
|                                                | 
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. FLETCHER                      |  | September 10, 2007
|Douglas P. Fletcher Principal Financial Officer |  |
#### Central Trust Co. of New York, *v.*Greene, Judge.

*Mandamus.*

(Decided July 2, 1907.

44 South. 540.)

*Mandamus;*Appeal; *Time of Taldny.*— Under the express provisions of section 2827, Code 1890, appeals from final judgment in mandamus proceedings must be taken within thirty days after final judgment, and unless taken within the time prescribed, such appeal will not be entertained.

Aittoal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. Charles A. Senn.

Mandamus on the relation of the Central Trust Co. of New York against Samuel E. Greene, judge of prohate, to compel the said judge to record a mortgage upon the tender of the proper record fee. The judge declined unless the tender was also accompanied by the mortgage franchise tax of fifteen cents per hundred dollars. The city court dismissed the writ upon the hearing, from which relator appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Tillman, Grubb/ Bradley & Morrow, for appellant.

—Council discuss the unconstitutionality of the act requiring the payment of mortgage tax and cite authorities in support thereof.

Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

The appeal was taken too late and should have been dismissed. — Section 2827, Code 1896.

DENSON, J.

From final judgments in mandamus proceeding's the statute prescribes that appeals shall be *574taken within thirty clays after judgment is rendered.— Code, § 2827.

The judgment appealed from in this ease was rendered on the 21st day of November, 1906, and the appeal was taken on the 24th day of January, 1907. The point made by the appellee that the appeal is too late must be sustained.

Appeal dismissed.

Tyson, C. J., and Haralson and Simpson, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Mark T. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of Tarsis Resources Ltd. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2014, as 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



2.

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: January 30, 2015





/s/  Mark T. Brown

Mark T. Brown,

Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-41

)

MICHAEL C. BURE )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on February 18, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 18 day of February, 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
EXHIBIT 99


                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned,  certify that, to the best
of our knowledge,  this periodic report of CAPITAL REALTY  INVESTORS-II  LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,  filed on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly  period ended September 30,
2002,  and  containing  the  financial  statements,   fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information  contained in the periodic report fairly  presents,  in
all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the
issuer.


                                    CAPITAL REALTY INVESTORS-II
                                      LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                    (Issuer)

                                    by:  C.R.I., Inc.
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Managing General Partner



November 6, 2002                         by:  /s/ William B. Dockser
----------------                              ----------------------------------
DATE                                          William B. Dockser,
                                                Director, Chairman of the Board,
                                                and Treasurer
                                                (Principal Executive Officer)




November 6, 2002                         by:  /s/ Michael J. Tuszka
----------------                              ----------------------------------
DATE                                          Michael J. Tuszka,
                                                Vice President
                                                and Chief Accounting Officer
                                                (Principal Financial Officer)


     This  certification  is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1762 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow look-through treatment 

of payments between related foreign corporations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2005 

Mr. CANTOR (for himself, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. JINDAL, and 

Mr. FEENEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow lookthrough treatment of payments between related foreign 

corporations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LOOK-THROUGH TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS 

4 BETWEEN RELATED CONTROLLED FOREIGN 

5 CORPORATIONS UNDER THE FOREIGN PER6 SONAL HOLDING COMPANY RULES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 954(c) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to foreign personal hold-
2 

•HR 1762 IH 

1 ing company income) is amended by adding at the end 

2 the following new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(6) LOOK-THRU RULE FOR RELATED CON4 TROLLED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.—For purposes 

5 of this subsection, dividends, interest, rents, and 

6 royalties received or accrued from a controlled for7 eign corporation which is a related person shall not 

8 be treated as foreign personal holding company in9 come to the extent attributable or properly allocable 

10 (determined under rules similar to the rules of sub11 paragraphs (C) and (D) of section 904(d)(3)) to in12 come of the related person which is not subpart F 

13 income. For purposes of this paragraph, interest 

14 shall include factoring income which is treated as in15 come equivalent to interest for purposes of para16 graph (1)(E). The Secretary shall prescribe such 

17 regulations as may be appropriate to prevent the 

18 abuse of the purposes of this paragraph.’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

20 this section shall apply to taxable years of foreign corpora21 tions ending after January 1, 2005, and to taxable years 

22 of United States shareholders with or within which such 

23 taxable years of foreign corporations end. 

Æ
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00334-SLC document 138-22 filed 10/26/17 page 1 of 2
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00334-SLC document 138-22 filed 10/26/17 page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
32


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 on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of Cambridge
Holdings, Ltd. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, each of the
undersigned Gregory Pusey and Jeffrey G. McGonegal, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and
belief:




(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:  May
13,
2010








/s/
      Gregory Pusey
              Gregory
      Pusey, President and Chief Executive
Officer









Dated:  May
13,
2010




/s/
      Jeffrey G. McGonegal
                Jeffrey
      G. McGonegal, Senior Vice President-Finance
      and Chief Financial Officer


* * * *
*








A signed
original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge Washoe County Alternate Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk Joseph Keith Gould

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) I947A
[Nos. 36096-5-I; 37120-7-I; 36796-0-I; 38132-6-I.

Division One.

August 25, 1997.]

#### The City of Bellevue, *Respondent,*v. Factoria Center Investments, Inc., et al., *Appellants.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-2-32814-0, Carol A. Schapira, J., entered February 8, April 19, and July 19, 1995 and January 30, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Baker, C.J., concurred in by Coleman and Kennedy, JJ.