alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

              SIMONDS INDUSTRIES INC. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
      STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                      (Amount in thousands, except ratios)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        -----------  -------------------------------------------------------
                                        Predecessor                        Company
                                        -----------  -------------------------------------------------------
                                           5 Months    7 Months                  Year Ended
                                            Ended       Ended     ------------------------------------------
                                           5/26/95     12/30/95    1996        1997        1998        1999
                                        -----------  ----------   ------      ------    ----------    ------
<S>                                       <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Earnings:
  Pre-tax income from continuing
     operations                           (3,602)      4,731       7,054       8,752       2,321       2,652
  Add fixed charges:
     Interest on indebtedness                650       2,880       4,399       4,963       7,900      10,948
     Portion of rents representative
       of the interest factor                 92         113         203         213         275         305
                                          ------       -----      ------      ------      ------      ------
Income as adjusted                        (2,860)      7,724      11,656      13,928      10,496      13,905

Fixed charges:
  Interest on indebtedness                   650       2,880       4,399       4,963       7,900      10,948
  Capitalized interest
  Portion of rents representative
    of the interest factor                    92         113         203         213         275         305
                                          ------       -----      ------      ------      ------      ------
  Total Fixed Charges                        742       2,993       4,602       5,176       8,175      11,253

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges           N/A         2.6         2.5         2.7         1.3         1.2
                                          ======       =====      ======      ======      ======      ======
</TABLE>


                                      -69-
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Private Media Group, Inc. (the Company) for the annual period ending
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Ilan Bunimovitz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Johan Gillborg, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Ilan Bunimovitz    
|Ilan Bunimovitz        
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|May 24, 2010           
|                       
|/s/ Johan Gillborg     
|Johan Gillborg         
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|May 24, 2010           

This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF BDO AUDIBERIA AUDITORES**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-31076), Form S-3 (File No. 333-109607) and Form S-3(File No. 333-40936) of Private Media Group, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule II of Private Media Group, Inc., which report appears in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

Barcelona, Spain

 

March 30, 2005 

 

BDO Audiberia Auditores 

 

/s/ BDO Audiberia Auditores 

----
STATE v. Gregory Charles BASKINS

273P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 27, 2018

Mr. Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N.C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, P.O. Box 629, Raleigh, NC 27602

Laura Altman, Reid Cater, Attorney at Laws, for Baskins, Gregory Charles.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State.

*587The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of August 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of August 2018."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19822]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 70 FR 180.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: 11 a.m., Monday, 
October 3, 2005.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The closed meeting to discuss a Derivatives 
Clearing Organization Review has been canceled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-19822 Filed 9-29-05; 12:29 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### Lake Weir Light & Water Company, a Corporation, *Appellant,*v. L. M. Goldstein, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed February 13, 1928.

*E. H. Jarman,*for Appellant;

*Hampton & Green,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BAO QING YAO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF B. SESSIONS , Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71328

Agency No. A200

- 575

- 281

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 14, 2017 **

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Bao Qing Yao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order d eny ing his motion to reconsider

and reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider.

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 22 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 71328

Mohammed v. Gonzales

, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen for

failure to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, where Yao was personally

informed of t he biometrics requirement t o obtain relief

, and where the BIA

addressed the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination that Yao had abandoned

his applications for relief , even though Yao’s former counsel did not raise the issue

in his brief to the BIA. See Mohammed , 400 F.3d at 793 ( to demonstrate

ineffective assistance of counsel, alien must show counsel failed to perform with

sufficient competence and that alien was prejudice d by counsel’s performance).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Yao’s unexhausted contentions regarding a

continuance or a lack of warning about abandonment from the IJ

. See Barron v.

Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) ( court lacks jurisdiction to review the

merits of a legal claim not presented in a dministrative proceedings below )

.

To the extent Yao seeks review of the BIA’s December 1, 2014 order

dismissing his appeal , this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(1) (petition for review must be filed within 30 days of a final order of

removal); Singh v. INS

, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (“ This time limit is3 15

- 71328

mandatory and jurisdictional, and cannot be tolled.”)

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40038 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus J. GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ-DUQUE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-450-1

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * J. Guadalupe Hernandez-Duque appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez-Duque contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Hernandez-Duque maintains thatNo. 03-40038 -2- he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment and supervised release which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Hernandez-Duque acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0358 and DA 22 - 0498

_________________ WESTVIEW MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC,

Plaint iff, Appellee , and Cross - Appellant. v. DAVID LOCKHART AND DOREEN LOCKHART,

Defendants and Appellants. GREENER MONTANA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, TRAVIS MARTINEZ, Individually and KRISTYN MARTINEZ, Individually,

Plaint iffs and Appellees, v. HYDI CUNNINGHAM,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Appellants in the captioned matters mo ved to consolidate these appeals , and on January 19, 2023, the C ourt too k the motions under advisement pending completion of briefing . Both cases have now been fully briefed. A fter consideration, the Court has determined to consolidat e the two cases. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that these cases are consolidated for purposes of appeal under Cause No. DA 22 - 0358, and captioned as above. The appeal will be placed on a future conference agenda.
Electronically signed by: Beth Baker Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 19 2023

05/19/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0358
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-609V

UNPUBLISHED

CARL FELTS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: June 8, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Simina Vourlis, Law Offices of Simina Vourlis, Columbus, OH, for petitioner.

Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On April 24, 2019, Carl Felts filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a 

result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October 21, 2016. Petition at 1. 

The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On June 5, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, Respondent concluded that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set 

forth in the Vaccine Injury Table and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation. Id. at

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

11. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for 

compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
#### Orange Investment Company, a Corporation, *Appellant,*v. Citizens Bank of Madison, a Corporation; Anna K. Sanchez, Joined by her Husband, S. E. Sanchez, as Next Friend, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed March 14, 1928.

*485*Maguire & Voorhis,*for Appellant;

*Dickenson & Dickenson,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

"Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2**
CERTIFICATION
     I, Kevin A. Landgraver, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Collegiate Funding Services, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 09, 2005
By: /s/ Kevin A. Landgraver
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-21-0000481

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

SCOTT BUKOSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

JULIA J. WHEELER, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

PUNA DIVISION

(REPORT NO. 3DRC-21-0001064)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and McCullen, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that:

(1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief

were due on or before October 18, 2021, and November 15, 2021,

respectively;

(2) Self-represented Defendant-Appellant Julia J.

Wheeler (Wheeler) failed to file either document or request an

extension of time;

(3) On November 22, 2021, the appellate clerk entered a

default notice informing Wheeler that the time for filing the

statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the

matter would be called to the court's attention on December 2,

2021, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of

the appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)

Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Wheeler could request relief from

default by motion;

(4) The appellate clerk mailed the notice of entering

case on calendar and the default notice to Wheeler at her address

on record. The United States Postal Service did not return the

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-21-0000481

20-APR-2022

08:07 AM

Dkt. 24 ODSD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

notice of entering case on calendar but returned the default

notice as "unclaimed" and "unable to forward"; and

(5) Wheeler has not filed a notice of change of

address, consistent with HRAP Rule 25(f), or taken any further

action in this appeal since filing the notice of appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, April 20, 2022.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

2
**Exhibit 31.1**
CERTIFICATION
     I, J. Barry Morrow, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Collegiate Funding Services, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 09, 2005
By: /s/ J. Barry MorrowJ. Barry Morrow