alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



               STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
         FIXED CHARGES AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES


                                                   YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                    ----------------------------------------------------
                                      2000       1999       1998       1997       1996
                                    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                 <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Earnings before fixed charges
Income before extraordinary item    $181,583   $155,993   $116,677   $ 68,969   $ 37,631
Add:  Interest expense               104,229     94,712     74,155     46,521     33,967
      Depreciation expense on
       capitalized interest            1,809      1,396      1,001        650        502
      Amortization of deferred
       financing costs                 4,066      4,951      4,462      4,448      4,561
                                    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

Earnings before fixed charges       $291,687   $257,052   $196,295   $120,588   $ 76,661
                                    ========   ========   ========   ========   ========

Fixed charges:
Interest expense                     104,229     94,712     74,155     46,521     33,967
Amortization of deferred
  financing charges                    4,066      4,951      4,462      4,448      4,561
Capitalized interest                  17,784     15,288     16,317     11,802      7,708
                                    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Fixed charges                       $126,079   $114,951   $ 94,934   $ 62,771   $ 46,236
                                    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

Preferred share distributions         11,000     11,000     11,000      4,247          -
Preferred unit distributions          10,070      3,783          -          -          -
                                    --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
Combined fixed charges              $147,149   $129,734   $105,934   $ 67,018   $ 46,236
                                    ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges                         2.31       2.24       2.07       1.92       1.66
                                    ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
Ratio of earnings to combined
  fixed charges                         1.98       1.98       1.85       1.80       1.66
                                    ========   ========   ========   ========   ========

Certain amounts from prior periods have been restated to conform to current-year
presentation.
</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Ravon HARRINGTON

No. COA17-362

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 5, 2017

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph L. Hyde, for the State.

Robert L. Schupp for defendant-appellant.

STROUD, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon his guilty plea to robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for extraordinary mitigation. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Because defendant pled guilty and his only argument on appeal is regarding his sentencing, we need not provide a thorough background of the underlying crime in this case. At defendant's sentencing hearing, he moved for extraordinary mitigation because he contends that the armed robbery was gang-related and that he put himself at "great personal risk" by providing the names of "the gunmen [,]" "open[ing] himself up to potential retaliation from the gang." The trial court denied defendant's request for extraordinary mitigation although it did ultimately determine the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors and sentenced defendant in the mitigated range. On 21 November 2016, defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court which was allowed.

Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his request for extraordinary mitigation. This Court reviews the decisions of a trial court on extraordinary mitigating factors for an abuse of discretion. *State v. Melvin,* 188 N.C. App. 827, 830, 656 S.E.2d 701, 703 (2008). "An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial judge's determination is manifestly unsupported by reason and is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." *State v. Reed*, 355 N.C. 150, 155, 558 S.E.2d 167, 171 (2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

An extraordinary mitigating factor is "of a kind significantly greater than in the normal case[.]" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.13(g)(1) (2015). Although defendant contends that there were factors above and beyond the normal mitigating factors to warrant extraordinary mitigation, defendant failed to present any evidence at the hearing to support these factors. *See* N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.16(a) (2015) ("[T]he offender bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a mitigating factor exists.") Defendant relied only upon statements by his trial counsel that extraordinary mitigation existed, and "[c]omments by defense counsel are not evidence and are not sufficient to carry defendant's burden of proof of mitigating factors." *State v. Davis*, 206 N.C. App. 545, 550, 696 S.E.2d 917, 920 (2010). Because defendant presented no evidence at his hearing, *see* *id.*, to meet his burden of proving that an extraordinary mitigating factor exists, *see* N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.16(a), defendant has failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. *Reed*, 355 N.C. at 155, 558 S.E.2d at 171.

AFFIRMED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge DILLON concur.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10857

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Gary E. Larock, Jr.,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 6:13

- CR

- 44

Before **Smith, Clement,** and **Haynes ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Several years ago, Gary Larock, Jr., failed to register as a sex offender. That is a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). After getting caught, Larock pleaded guilty

. The district court sentenced him to just over three years’ imprisonment and fifteen ye ars ’ supervised release

. Since then, Larock has been in and out of prison for violating release

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum

s tances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 10, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10857 Document: 00516427365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2022No. 21

- 10857

2 conditions. When he violated his release conditions for the third time, t he probation office told the district court

. Larock admitted to his violations, and
the district court again revoked his supervised release, imposing ten months’ imprisonment and ten years’ supervised release.
Larock then filed this appeal . H is counsel believes it frivolous and has
moved to withdraw

. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s
Anders brief is “facially adequate”: It identifies “possibly important issues” that Larock might appeal, and it “furnish[es] th[is] court with references to the record and legal authorities to aid” our review. United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229, 232 (5th Cir. 2011) ( quotations omitted).

That means our task here is narrow. We look only to the parts of the
record “ that relate to the issues discussed in [counsel’s] brief.” Id. at 233 ( quotation omitted). If that search, plus the district court’s decision, reveals
no nonfrivolous appellate issue, we permit counsel’s withdrawal and dismiss the appeal. Ibid.

Counsel found no error in the revocation proceedings or the sentence. After reviewing the relevant par ts of the record and counsel’s brief, we agree. We see no nonfrivolous ground for appeal.

We **GRANT** counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and **DISMISS** Larock’s appeal. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2. Case: 21-10857 Document: 00516427365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2022
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin
R. Callahan, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 to the best of my knowledge,
that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Date: August 16, 2010

/s/ Kevin R. CallahanKevin R. CallahanChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 ofchapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as anofficer of Voyager Oil & Gas Inc., that, to his knowledge, theQuarterly Report of Voyager Oil & Gas, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Voyager Oil &Gas, Inc. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original ofthis statement has been provided to Voyager Oil & Gas, Inc. andwill be retained by Voyager Oil & Gas, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Date:  November 12, 2010 |   | /s/  *James Russell (J.R.) Reger* |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                          |   | James  Russell (J.R.) Reger       |
|                          |   | Chief  Executive Officer          |
|                          |   |                              |
| Date:  November 15, 2010 |   | /s/  *Mitchell R. Thompson*       |
|                          |   | Mitchell  R. Thompson             |
|                          |   | Interim  Chief Financial Officer  |

 

----
#### Kenneth CARR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 61960.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 12, 2003.

Ruth Sanders Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Anne E. Edgington, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Chief Judge, HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Judge and ROBERT G. ULRICH, Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Carr appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
##### 



Holly Energy Partners, L.P.
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings
To Fixed Charges
 Six Months
    
    Years Ended December 31,EndedJune 30, 2005
    
    2004
    
    2003
    
    2002
    
    2001
    
    2000Earnings:Net income
    
    $
    12,367
    
    
    $
    32,494
    
    
    $
    581
    
    
    $
    2,670
    
    
    $
    2,423
    
    
    $
    2,100Minority interest in consolidated subsidiary
    
    
    402
    
    
    
    1,994
    
    
    
    758
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Income from equity investee
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (894
    )
    
    
    (2,737
    )
    
    
    (2,284
    )
    
    
    (1,010
    )12,769
    
    
    
    34,488
    
    
    
    445
    
    
    
    (67
    )
    
    
    139
    
    
    
    1,090Add:Total fixed charges (per below)
    
    
    4,300
    
    
    
    2,279
    
    
    
    1,665
    
    
    
    1,657
    
    
    
    1,625
    
    
    
    1,625Distributed income of equity investee
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,487
    
    
    
    1,243
    
    
    
    1,650Total earnings
    
    $
    17,069
    
    
    $
    36,767
    
    
    $
    2,110
    
    
    $
    4,077
    
    
    $
    3,007
    
    
    $
    4,365Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    3,483
    
    
    $
    697
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    Estimate of interest within rental expense(1)
    
    
    817
    
    
    
    1,582
    
    
    
    1,665
    
    
    
    1,657
    
    
    
    1,625
    
    
    
    1,625Total fixed charges
    
    $
    4,300
    
    
    $
    2,279
    
    
    $
    1,665
    
    
    $
    1,657
    
    
    $
    1,625
    
    
    $
    1,625Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    3.97
    
    
    
    16.13
    
    
    
    1.27
    
    
    
    2.46
    
    
    
    1.85
    
    
    
    2.69
 
 (1)
    
    Represents 30% of the total operating lease rental expense which is that portion deemed to
be interest.
Exhibit 23.2**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements: 1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-120692),   2) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-94782),  3) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-22211),  4) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-43267),  5) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-39282),  6) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-65592), and  7) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-125571) of Liberty Property Trust andLiberty Property Limited Partnership and in the related Prospectuses of our reports datedMarch 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofLiberty Property Limited Partnership, Liberty Property Limited Partnership management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Liberty Property LimitedPartnership, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLPPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania
#### Andy Dwight PIERCE v. STATE.

CR-96-1668.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 27, 2000.

Ellen Louise Wiesner, Montgomery, for appellant.

William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen.; and Jeremy W. Armstrong and Beth Jackson Hughes, asst, attys. gen., for appellee.

*On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court*

BASCHAB, Judge.

On the authority of *Ex parte Pierce,*851 So.2d 606 (Ala.2000), we remand this case to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with the Alabama Supreme Court’s opinion. Specifically, the circuit court shall conduct “an evidentiary hearing on the question whether Pierce’s claim could have been raised at trial or on appeal and is thus barred pursuant to Rule 32.2(a)(3) or (a)(5).” *Pierce,*851 So.2d at 617. The circuit court shall take all necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes due return to this court at the earliest possible time and within 60 days after the release of this opinion. The return to remand shall include a transcript of the evidentiary hearing and the circuit court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

LONG, P.J., and MeMILLAN, COBB, and FRY, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-15-0000640 

05-APR-2016 

09:38 AM 

SCWC-15-0000640
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

In re Application of MAUI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LIMITED,


For Approval of the Amended and Restated Power Purchase Agreemen

With Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company
 

t


CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CAAP-15-0000640; PUC DOCKET NO. 2015-0094)
 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

Petitioner Sierra Club’s application for writ of
 

certiorari, filed on February 19, 2016, is hereby accepted and
 

will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be
 

notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 5, 2016. 

Isaac H. Moriwake and 

Kylie W. Wager,


for petitioner SIERRA CLUB 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald


/s/ Paula A. Nakayama


/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna


 /s/ Richard W. Pollack


/s/ Michael D. Wilson
 

Thomas C. Gorak and 

Mark J. Kaetsu
 

for respondent STATE OF

HAWAI'I, PUBLIC UTILITIES


COMMISSION 

Randall C. Whattoff,


James E. Abraham, and


Rebecca Dayhuff Matsushima


for respondent MAUI


ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.
SUMMEROUR v. CITY OF MARIETTA.

A16A0640

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 7, 2018

Donald Clarence Evans Jr., Thomas H. Camp, Cartersville, for Appellant.

Daniel Walter White, Douglas R. Haynie, Marietta, for Appellee.

Dillard, Chief Judge.

In *City of Marietta v. Summerour* ,1 the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part our previous decision in *Summerour v. City of Marietta* .2 Specifically, the Supreme Court affirmed our holding reversing the Superior Court of Cobb County's condemnation order on the ground that the City failed to fulfill its obligations under OCGA § 22-1-9. But the Supreme Court reversed our holding remanding the case for the superior court to consider whether the City's failure to comply with the aforementioned obligations constituted bad faith. Instead, the Supreme Court held that compliance with OCGA § 22-1-9 is an essential prerequisite to the filing of a condemnation petition, and thus, the City's failure to comply with the statute required dismissal of its petition regardless of whether or not it acted in bad faith. Accordingly, we adopt the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia as our own and direct the superior court to dismiss the City's condemnation petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

Reese and Bethel, JJ., concur.

1

302 Ga. 645, 807 S.E.2d 324 (2017).

2

338 Ga. App. 259, 788 S.E.2d 921 (2016).
STATE v. Jermel Toron KRIDER

68A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 24, 2018

Emily H. Davis, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Krider, Jermel Toron.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

Allison A. Angell, Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 23rd of April 2018 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of April 2018."

*173State of NC shall have up to and including the 7th day of May 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
EXHIBIT 31: Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Monte Ross, certify that:

        1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A
(Amendment #1) of Ultradata Systems, Incorporated;

	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 small business issuer's other certifying officers 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, 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 small business issuer'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; and

	c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

	5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

	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 small business issuer's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and

	b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal controls over financial reporting.

Date:  June 22, 2005                 /s/  Monte Ross
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Monte Ross, Chief Executive Officer
COURTNEY NC LLC v. BALDWIN

219P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Monette Baldwin, for Baldwin, Monette.

A. Bartlett White, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Stephanie D'Atri, Attorney at Law, for Courtney NC, LLC

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of July 2017 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."

Beasley, J. and Morgan, J. recused