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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                          PENNZOIL-QUAKER STATE COMPANY
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   1995        1996          1997        1998         1999
                                                ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
<S>                                             <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Income from continuing operations
     before equity income from partnerships     $ (46,772)   $   4,980    $  (4,948)   $ (78,755)   $(347,464)
Distribution of income from partnerships               --           --        4,359       32,888       26,533
Amortization of capitalized interest                  337          575        1,292        1,904        1,510
Income tax provision                              (24,043)      (1,103)       6,245      (38,338)    (194,447)
Interest charges                                   79,632       73,468       80,167       90,552      111,786
                                                ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
Income before income tax provision
     and interest charges                       $   9,154    $  77,920    $  87,115    $   8,251    $(402,082)
                                                =========    =========    =========    =========    =========
Fixed charges                                   $  82,677    $  83,571    $  87,608    $  90,807    $ 111,786
                                                =========    =========    =========    =========    =========
Amount by which fixed charges exceed earnings   $  73,523    $   5,651    $     493    $  82,556    $ 513,868
                                                =========    =========    =========    =========    =========

                                     DETAIL OF INTEREST AND FIXED CHARGES


Interest charges per Consolidated Statement
  of Income which includes amortization of
  debt discount, expense and premium            $  63,861    $  65,174    $  69,221    $  70,198    $  80,588
Add:  portion of rental expense
  representative of interest factor (1)            18,816       18,397       18,387       20,609       31,198
                                                ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
  Total fixed charges                           $  82,677    $  83,571    $  87,608    $  90,807    $ 111,786
Less:  interest capitalized per Consolidated
  Statement of Income                               3,045       10,103        7,441          255           --
                                                ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
  Total interest charges                        $  79,632    $  73,468    $  80,167    $  90,552    $ 111,786
                                                =========    =========    =========    =========    =========
</TABLE>

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

(1) Interest factor based on management's estimates and approximates one-third
    of rental expense.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7594

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ELLUS LAROUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District

Judge. (CR-98-7-FO)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 21, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ellus Larous, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ellus Larous appeals the district court’s orders denying his

motion filed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (West 2000) and his motion

for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Larous, No. CR-98-7-FO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 1 & 31, 2000). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000381 09-MAY-2019 09:34 AM
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Power
Technology, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and President, and the
Treasurer and principal financial officer of the Company hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Power
Technology, Inc.

Dated: May 28, 2004


                                    By:  /s/ Lee A. Balak
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                         Lee A. Balak
                                         Chief Executive Officer, President and
                                         Principal Financial and Accounting
                                         Officer


                                       23
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Anthony CLEGG

No. 101P15-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Patrick S. Wooten, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Dylan J.C. Buffum, Attorney at Law, for Clegg, Christopher Anthony

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 10th of October 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4873 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4873

    To exempt the natural aging process in the determination of the 
   production period for distilled spirits under section 263A of the 
                     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2010

 Mr. Chandler (for himself, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Rogers of 
   Kentucky, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, and Mr. Yarmuth) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To exempt the natural aging process in the determination of the 
   production period for distilled spirits under section 263A of the 
                     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF NATURAL AGING PROCESS IN DETERMINATION OF 
              PRODUCTION PERIOD FOR DISTILLED SPIRITS UNDER SECTION 
              263A.

    (a) In General.--Section 263A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to general exceptions) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Exemption of natural aging process in determination 
        of production period for distilled spirits.--For purposes of 
        this subsection, the production period for distilled spirits 
        shall be determined without regard to any period allocated to 
        the natural aging process.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to production periods beginning after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
Sec.1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of WLG Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher Wood,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, David L. Koontz, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge that:





1. The
Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.





This
certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be
disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as
specifically required by law.





Date:
November 13, 2009




By:
              /s/ Christopher Wood
              
              By:
              /s/ David KoontzName:
      Christopher Wood
              
              
              Name:
      David KoontzTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)
              
              
              Title:
      Chief Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial and
                Accounting
      Officer)
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                   LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

SUBSIDIARY                                                  JURISDICTION
<S>                                                      <C>
Simon Property Group, L.P.                                      Delaware
SPG Realty Consultants, L.P.                                    Delaware
SPG Properties, Inc.                                            Delaware
The Retail Property Trust                                  Massachusetts
Simon Property Group (Illinois), L.P.                           Illinois
Simon Property Group (Texas), L.P.                                 Texas
Shopping Center Associates                                      New York
DeBartolo Capital Partnership                                   Delaware
Simon Capital Limited Partnership                               Delaware
SDG Macerich Properties, L.P.                                   Delaware
M.S. Management Associates, Inc.                                Delaware
M.S. Management Associates (Indiana), Inc.                       Indiana
DeBartolo Properties Management, Inc.                               Ohio
Mayflower Realty LLC                                            Delaware
Rosewood Indemnity, Ltd.                                            Ohio
Marigold Indemnity, Ltd.                                        Delaware
Simon Business Network, LLC                                     Delaware
Simon Brand Ventures, LLC                                       Delaware

</TABLE>

         Omits names of subsidiaries which as of December 31, 2000 were not, in
the aggregate, a "significant subsidiary".





                                      47
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4887 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4887

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that health 
 coverage provided by the Department of Defense is treated as minimal 
                          essential coverage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2010

 Mr. Skelton (for himself, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms. Bordallo, Ms. 
 Shea-Porter, Mr. Nye, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Ms. Pingree of Maine, 
  Mr. Loebsack, Ms. Giffords, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Boren, Mr. Kissell, Mr. 
     Langevin, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Smith of 
    Washington, Mr. Taylor, and Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California) 
 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 ensure that health 
 coverage provided by the Department of Defense is treated as minimal 
                          essential coverage.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEALTH COVERAGE AS 
              MINIMAL ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.

    (a) In General.--Section 5000A(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986, as added by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act, is amended--
            (1) by striking clause (iv) and inserting the following new 
        clause:
                            ``(iv) medical coverage under chapter 55 of 
                        title 10, United States Code, including 
                        coverage under the TRICARE program;'';
            (2) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (v);
            (3) by striking the period at the end of clause (vi) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (4) by inserting after clause (vi) the following new 
        clause:
                            ``(vii) the Nonappropriated Fund Health 
                        Benefits Program of the Department of Defense, 
                        established under section 349 of the National 
                        Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
                        (Public Law 103-337; 10 U.S.C. 1587 note).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act and shall be executed immediately after the 
amendments made by such section 1501(b).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with Amendment No. 2 to the QuarterlyReport of HPIL HOLDING (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nitin Amersey, hereby certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

|   | (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 as  of the date and for the periods expressed in the Report. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| */s/ Nitin Amersey*     |
|-------------------------|
| Nitin Amersey           |
| Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |
| May 10, 2013            |

 

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Reportor as a separate disclosure document.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the quarterly report of Global-e Investments, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jamie Kerr, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer, and I, John Shaffer, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

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



(2)

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





/s/ Jamie Kerr

Jamie Kerr

Chief Executive Officer

July 27, 2005



/s/ John Shaffer

John Shaffer

Chief Financial Officer

July 27, 2005
Honorable C.C. Broughtor 

Assist& Comty Af%xWney 

Childrass, Texas 

Deer Sir2 ODinion No. O-5576 

Be: Setiae men illegally possess 3.2 

her without Taxaa TW paid on it, 

whmpoisessed mff Pest E&huge, in 

. dry ‘z-e.. 

Your letter dated August 23, 1943, requesting WB opinion ,of this departmlrt 

concerning the above matter reads in part, to-wit: 

"All of Childross County is a dry area. The Childress Army Air School is 

looated two miles west of Childress md 3.2 bear is sold at the Post 

Exohlnge to Servias Men. The Servioe Yea have besa bringing such beer from 

the post into the city of Childress for their OWB consumption. 

"It is the opinion of the Trial,Ju@ge Advooate at the post thct such 

beer is not subjeot to State Tu, so long as the Service Mm have it im thsir 

prsssssion off of the post for thbir own consumption. 

"After a study of the Texas Liquer Cmtrol Act, it is my opinion that suoh 

liquor is not subjeot to seizure while in the possltision of the Army Off%. 

trials on the, post, but when it,is taken off of the post by am individual, 

mm though he is a servioe man, such bebr is subjeot te the Texas State 

Tax, and such individual is violating the Texas Liquor,Control Act in 

possessing the sme without the Texas Tax having been paid." 

w assum that the Post Erohange at the Childress Ar!o$ Air Sohoo; was established 

under proper military authority. It is the opi~iom of this department wheln 3.2 

beer, without the Texas Tax paid 01 it, is possessed off af and without the jurisdiction of 'the area on which srid U. S. Nilitrry Post has beea sst*blished, fbt 

such possession is illegal regardless whather possessed by service man or citizens. 

we are enclosing Opinion No. O-5400 rddrossed,to Ho& R. 0. Oswalt, County 

Attorney, Wilbarger County, Texas, ia which we field that it was illegal for a 

citizen to import, transport and possess ia I dry area mstmped beer for his 

own personal use0 
Hon. C. C. Broughton, Page 2 

Yours very truly 

ATTOENEYGENERALOFTEXAS 

s/ Jesse Owess 

JO:Fo:LW 

By 

Jesse o-ems 

Assistant 

APPFcOVED Sept. 11, 1943 

s/Gerald Mann 

AlTORNEYGENEFtALOFTEXM 

APPROVED OPINION COMXITTEE
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

I, Robert H. Lorsch, certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MMRGlobal, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, and (ii) the information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of MMRGlobal, Inc.

|/s/ Robert H. Lorsch
|--------------------
|Name:               
|Title:              
|Date:               

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being "filed" as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to liability under that section.
This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

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 Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7835

LEVON MINTZ, a/k/a Lavon Mintz,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WAYNE C. MCCABE, Warden Lieber Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:11-cv-01270-JFA)

Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: February 28, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levon Mintz, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Levon Mintz seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 

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) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, 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 petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Mintz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Mintz leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion 

for leave to remand, deny a certificate of appealability, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED