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

                        AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
     Statement Regarding: Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                          and Preferred Stock Dividends
                  (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIO AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Twelve months   Twelve months  Twelve months
                                                               Ended           Ended           Ended
                                                            December 28,    December 29,    December 30,
                                                                2002            2001           2000
                                                             (unaudited)     (unaudited)     (unaudited)
                                                            -------------   -------------  -------------
<S>                                                         <C>             <C>            <C>
Consolidated pretax income (loss) from
       continuing operations                                   12,934          (23,798)         1,657
Interest                                                       18,705           28,639         26,447
Interest portion of rent expense                                8,194            8,500          7,051
                                                               ------          -------         ------

EARNINGS                                                       39,833           13,341         35,155
                                                               ======          =======         ======



Interest                                                       18,705           28,639         26,447
Interest portion of rent expense                                8,194            8,500          7,051
                                                               ------          -------         ------

FIXED CHARGES                                                  26,899           37,139         33,498
                                                               ======          =======         ======


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                               1.48             0.36           1.05
                                                               ======          =======         ======

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6653

TYQUON A. FEIMSTER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LIEUTENANT MORROW, Ms.; SERGEANT WILLIAMS, Ms.; CORPORAL 

LIGHTFOOT, Mr.,

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

JOE BARRON, Mr., Sheriff,

 Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00046-LO-MSN)

Submitted: October 4, 2019 Decided: October 22, 2019

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyquon A. Feimster, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyquon A. Feimster appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action for 

noncompliance with a court order requiring him to return a form consenting to the 

collection of installment payments for a filing fee, from his inmate trust account. On 

appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 

34(b). Because Feimster’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district 

court’s disposition, Feimster has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and deny Feimster’s motion 

to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund VIII, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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 the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      
|----------------------
|Date: March 25, 2009  
|                      
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi
|Paritosh K. Choksi    

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of

ATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member)

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.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 6, 2015

NO. 03-15-00393-CV

Mary Decker, Appellant

v.

Clifford Homes, LLC, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 23, 2015. Appellant has 

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 13, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00903

- CV

LIGHTNING OIL COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC fka Anadarko E&P Company, LP,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 01

- 12171

- DCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant ’ s reply brief wa s filed on April 21, 2015. On May 6, 2015, Appellant

submitted an amended reply brief and filed an unopposed motion to file an amended reply brief.

Appellant ’ s unopposed motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s amended reply brief is f iled.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.7.

PER CURIAM

Attested to:

____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-36036, 333-60662, 333-74434, 333-69833,
333-69835, 333-69839, 333-69837, 333-72835 and 333-96385), Form S-3 (No.
333-65909) and on Form S-4 (No. 333-61541) of Pennzoil-Quaker State Company of
our report dated January 28, 2002 relating to the consolidated financial
statements of Excel Paralubes, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
as Exhibit 99.1.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Houston, Texas
March 8, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20848]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Public Hearing on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact 
Statement and Draft Management Plan for the Proposed Mission-Aransas 
National Estuarine Research Reserve in Texas

AGENCY: The Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal 
Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Public Hearing Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Estuarine Reserves Division of 
the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National 
Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, will hold two public hearings for 
the purpose of receiving comments on the Draft Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan (DPEIS/DMP) 
prepared on the proposed designation of the Mission-Aransas National 
Estuarine Research Reserve in Texas. The DPEIS/DMP addresses research, 
monitoring, education and resource protection needs for the proposed 
reserve.
    The Estuarine Reserves Division will hold two public hearings, the 
first hearing at 10:30 a.m. on November 9th, Hearing Room E1.012 in the 
Capital Extension, Texas State Capital, 1400 Congress Ave., Austin, TX 
78701. A second hearing will be held at 4 p.m. on November 10, 
Saltwater Pavilion, 810 Seabreeze Drive, Rockport Beach Park, Rockport, 
TX 78383.
    The views of interested persons and organizations on the adequacy 
of the DPEIS/DMP are solicited, and may be expressed orally and/or in 
written statements. Presentations will be scheduled on a first-come, 
first-heard basis, and may be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes. 
The time allotment may be extended before the hearing when the number 
of speakers can be determined. All comments received at the hearing 
will be considered in the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS) and Final Management Plan.
    The comment period for the DPEIS/DMP will end on November 23rd, 
2005. All written comments received by this deadline will be considered 
in the preparation of the FEIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laurie McGilvray (301) 713-3155 
extension 158, Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal 
Resource Management, National Ocean Service, NOAA, 1305 East West 
Highway, N/ORM2, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Copies of the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Management Plan are available upon 
request to the Estuarine Reserves Division.

Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.420 (Coastal Zone 
Management) Research Reserves

    Dated: October 11, 2005.
Eldon Hout,
Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
[FR Doc. 05-20848 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
**Exhibit10.4**

 

Aventine Renewable EnergyHoldings, Inc. Director Compensation

 

**CashCompensation**

 

·                                          $50,000 annual cash retainer, payable in equal quarterly installments;

·                                          Additional $25,000 annual retainer to the chairman of the Board;

·                                          Additional committee chair retainers of $10,000 per year for the chair ofthe audit committee and $5,000 for other committee chairs;

·                                          $1,500 per Board meeting attended ($750 for telephonic meetings); and

·                                          $750 per committee meeting attended, either in person or by phone.

 

**EquityCompensation**

 

·                                          Annual grant atthe beginning of each year in the amount of $35,000 in restricted stock units (“***RSU***”), which vest after one year ofthe grant;

·                                          Additionalannual grant at the beginning of each year in the amount of $40,000 RSU to thechairman of the Board;

·                                          After vesting,RSU must be held for the duration of a director’s Board service, and they willonly be converted into shares after retirement or other termination.

 

Note: the CEO will not be entitled to any of theforegoing terms.

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7506

BREYON D. MIDDLEBROOKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DUANE TERRELL, Administrator Marion Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney,

Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00223-FDW)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., RUDOLF, WIDENHOUSE & FIALKO, 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Breyon D. Middlebrooks seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 

Middlebrooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

PAUL DAVID NORTH, JR.

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2 1 DB 2019 (No. 48 RST 2019)

Attorney Registration No. 33054

( Lehigh County )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4 th day of June

, 201 9 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated May 2 3 , 2019 , is approved and it is ORDERED that

Paul David North, Jr.

, who has been on Administrative Suspension

, has never been

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that h e has the moral qualifications,

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth,

shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this

Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing

of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Lawrence W. Briscoe, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Maxygen, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: April 28, 2009 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Lawrence W. Briscoe
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                         |  | Lawrence W. BriscoeChief Financial Officer
#### INVESTMENT PROPERTIES OF ASHEVILLE, INC., and BAXTER H. TAYLOR v. CHARLES S. NORBURN

No. 7128SC642

(Filed 12 January 1972)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Martin, Harry C., Judge,*22 February 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Buncombe County.

Plaintiffs brought this action seeking to recover $19,456.88, the cost of grading and preparing a parcel of land belonging to Martha Norburn Mead Allen, defendant’s sister, for construction of a large motel complex. Plaintiffs alleged: From and after 10 May 1965 plaintiffs negotiated with defendant, as agent for his sister, in regard to a long term lease under which plaintiffs would prepare the land and erect a large motel complex. Defendant executed a guaranty agreement whereby he guaranteed to plaintiffs that he would be personally liable for the costs of preparing the land if the lease agreement was not consummated and his sister did not pay the costs of preparing the land. The land preparation was performed and completed by Asheville Contracting Company; Martha Norburn Mead Allen refused to pay, whereupon plaintiffs paid Asheville Contracting Company and defendant is now obligated to plaintiffs on his guaranty agreement.

*411Plaintiffs instituted a separate action against Martha Nor-burn Mead Allen to recover the $19,456.88 costs of preparing the land. In the action against her, they alleged her primary obligation to pay.

The two cases were consolidated for trial and resulted in a verdict against Martha Norburn Mead Allen in the sum of $19,456.88 in the action against her; and resulted in a dismissal of this action against Charles S. Norburn upon a verdict of the jury finding there was no consideration for defendant’s guaranty agreement.

Martha Norburn Mead Allen has appealed from the verdict and judgment adverse to her, and an opinion by Judge Britt finding no error in her trial is being filed contemporaneously with the filing of this opinion.

*Bennett, Kelly & Long, by Harold K. Bennett, and Hendon & Carson, by George Ward Hendon, for plaintiffs.*

*Williams, Morris & Golding, by James F. Blue III, for defendant.*

BROCK, Judge.

We have given careful consideration to all of the assignments of error and arguments brought forward by plaintiff but we are impelled to the conclusion that the judgment should be affirmed. In our opinion the case was properly submitted to the jury upon applicable principles of law and that no error has been made to appear which would justify a new trial.

No error.

Judge Britt concurs.

Judge Vaughn dissents.
EXHIBIT 32


                              SOLPOWER CORPORATION

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                          PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, James H.  Hirst,  solely for the  purpose  of  complying  with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002,  hereby  certify that the Annual  Report of Solpower  Corporation  on Form
10-KSB  for the  fiscal  year  ended  March 31,  2003  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that  information  contained  in such Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB  fairly
presents  in all  material  respects  the  financial  condition  and  results of
operations of Solpower Corporation.

Date: May 19, 2005

By: /s/ James H. Hirst
   ------------------------------
   James H. Hirst
   Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official pa per version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 29,507 9 TERRY D. GIBSON, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DONA AÑA COUNTY 12 Stephen Bridgforth, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellant 17 Jeffrey C. Lahann 18 Las Cruces, NM 19 for Appellee 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 VIGIL, Judge. 22 The State of New Mexico appeals the di strict court’s dismissal of the grand 23 jury indictment charging Terry D. Gibson with several criminal offenses. This 242 Court filed a calendar notice proposing dismissal because the notice of appeal was 1 untimely filed. The State filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly 2 considered. 3 The State’s memorandum in opposition asks this Court to excuse the late 4 filing because it was caused by an inadvertent failure to allow for the fact that the 5 month of March has thirty-one days, not thirty. [MIO 3] Rule 12-201(A)(2) 6 NMRA requires that a notice of appeal be filed within thirty days after the 7 judgment or order appealed from is filed in the district court clerk's office. We 8 have held that the timely filing of a noti ce of appeal is a mandatory precondition to 9 the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction. See State v. Upchurch , 2006-NMCA10 076, 139 N.M. 739, 137 P.3d 679 (dismissing state’s appeal when notice of appeal 11 filed one day late). The docketing statem ent does not mention any circumstances of 12 the type that might excuse the late filing. See, e.g., Trujillo v. Serrano , 117 N.M. 13 273, 871 P.2d 369 (1994) (holding that late filing of notice of appeal may be 14 excused where court error caused the delay). 15 Because the notice of appeal was not tim ely filed, we dismiss this appeal. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

18 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 19 WE CONCUR: 203 1 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 2

3 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 4