alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12(b)


        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                      AND PREFERRED SHARE DIVIDENDS
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(millions, except ratios)                                        Year Ended
                                              --------------------------------------
                                              1997     1996     1995    1994    1993
                                              ------  ------  -------  ------- ------
<S>                                           <C>     <C>     <C>      <C>     <C>
Fixed Charges                                                                                    
 Interest and amortization of debt discount
   and expense on all indebtedness            $1,409  $1,365  $1,373   $1,279  $1,318

  Add interest element implicit in rentals       147     121     119      114     105
                                              ------  ------  ------   ------  -------
                                               1,556   1,486   1,492    1,393   1,423
  Preferred dividend factor                        -      41      89      234     209
  Interest capitalized                             3       5       4        1       3
                                               -----   -----   -----   ------  -------
Total fixed charges                           $1,559  $1,532  $1,585   $1,628  $1,635

Income (loss)                                                                                   
 Income (loss) from continuing operations     $1,188  $1,271  $1,025     $857    $625
 Deduct undistributed net income (loss)
  of unconsolidated companies                     13       8       9       (7)      6
                                              ------  ------  ------   ------- ------
                                               1,175   1,263    1,016     864     619
Add                                                                                     
 Fixed charges (excluding interest 
  capitalized and preferred 
  dividend factor)                             1,556   1,486    1,492   1,393   1,423
 Income taxes (benefit)                          912     834      703     614     329
    Income (loss) before fixed charges and
      income taxes                            $3,643  $3,583   $3,211  $2,871  $2,371
                                                                                        
Ratio of income to combined fixed charges
  and preferred share dividends                 2.34    2.34     2.03    1.76    1.45
</TABLE>
        
In 1996, all the 8.88% Preferred Shares, First Series were redeemed and
therefore in 1997 the Company made no other preferred share dividend
payments.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5237 

To add joining a foreign terrorist organization or engaging in or supporting 

hostilities against the United States or its allies to the list of acts 

for which United States nationals would lose their nationality. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2010 

Mr. ALTMIRE (for himself and Mr. DENT) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To add joining a foreign terrorist organization or engaging 

in or supporting hostilities against the United States 

or its allies to the list of acts for which United States 

nationals would lose their nationality. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Terrorist Expatriation 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY. 

7 Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

8 (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5237 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a)— 

2 (A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), 

3 by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; 

4 (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the pe5 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

6 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(8)(A) providing material support or resources 

8 to a foreign terrorist organization; 

9 ‘‘(B) engaging in, or purposefully and materi10 ally supporting, hostilities against the United States; 

11 or 

12 ‘‘(C) engaging in, or purposefully and materi13 ally supporting, hostilities against any country or 

14 armed force that is— 

15 ‘‘(i) directly engaged along with the United 

16 States in hostilities engaged in by the United 

17 States; or 

18 ‘‘(ii) providing direct operational support 

19 to the United States in hostilities engaged in by 

20 the United States.’’; and 

21 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

22 ‘‘(c) For purposes of this section— 

23 ‘‘(1) the term ‘foreign terrorist organization’ 

24 means an organization so designated by the Sec25 retary pursuant to section 219(a); 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5237 IH

1 ‘‘(2) the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict 

2 subject to the laws of war; and 

3 ‘‘(3) the term ‘material support or resources’ 

4 has the meaning given the term in section 2339A of 

5 title 18, United States Code.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7119
STEVEN FRANCIS PENDERGAST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-522-PJM) Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Francis Pen dergast, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Pendergast v. Sizer , No. CA-97-522-PJM (D. Md. July 28, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5446 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as 

the ‘‘Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5446 EH

1 SECTION 1. HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE MOORE POST OF2 FICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, 

5 Florida, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Harry T. 

6 and Harriette Moore Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Harry T. and Har11 riette Moore Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 15, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5446 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostMoore Post Office’’. Cocoa, Florida, as the ‘‘Harry T. and Harriette al Service located at 600 Florida Avenue in
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          124674
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   409209
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                577601
<PP&E>                                          858335
<DEPRECIATION>                                  210380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1961899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           574990
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         40336
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1961899
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                343719
<CGS>                                           366086
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   366086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     19543
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDDIE J. WARREN

No. 7418SC333

(Filed 1 May 1974)

Criminal Law § 161— exception to entry of judgment

Exception to the entry of judgment presents the face of the record for review.

*450Appeal by defendant from *Crissman, Judge,*24 September 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Guilford County.

Defendant was indicted for the first degree murder of Jerry McCoy. The State elected to try defendant for second degree murder. He was convicted of that crime, and judgment imposing a prison sentence of not less than 15 nor more than 20 years was entered.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Lester V. Chalmers, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Bob Scott for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

The only exception in the record is to the entry of the judgment. This exception presents the question of whether error appears on the face of the record. *State v. Williams,*235 N.C. 429, 70 S.E. 2d 1. Defendant was tried on a proper indictment in a court of competent jurisdiction. The verdict supports the judgment, and the sentence imposed is within the applicable statutory limits. We find no error.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the six
      months ended June 30, 2008 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sherry L. Spurlock, Chief Financial
      Officer South Texas Oil Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, 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 the Company.




Date:
      August 19, 2008


/s/
              Sherry L.
              SpurlockSherry
              L. SpurlockChief
              Financial Officer
#### Daniel J. MURPHY v. Patricia (Rossignol) DALEY, et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Oct. 31, 1990.

Decided Nov. 29, 1990.

*1213Daniel J. Murphy (orally), Lewiston, for plaintiff.

Joanne I. Simonelli (orally), Lewiston, for defendant.

Before ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, COLLINS and BRODY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Daniel J. Murphy appeals from a decision and order entered by the Superior Court (Androscoggin County, *Alexander, J.)*following a non-jury trial in a real estate partition action. We find no merit in any of Murphy’s contentions on appeal and we affirm.

Partition of jointly held property is available through the equity jurisdiction of the Superior Court. 14 M.R.S.A. § 6051(7) (1980); *Libby v. Lorrain,*430 A.2d 37, 39 (Me.1981). Equitable partition is a more flexible procedure than a civil action for partition, 14 M.R.S.A. § 6501 (1980), and may be carried out by physically dividing the property in a sale or by other means if physical division would materially injure the rights of the parties. *Id.*Once equity jurisdiction attaches, the court has authority to decide the entire controversy, including any affirmative defenses and requests for alternative relief asserted by the defendant. *Sargent v. Coolidge,*433 A.2d 738, 741 (Me.1981). In the present case, the Superior Court’s equity jurisdiction attached when Murphy brought this action seeking partition of the property. From that time on, the court had jurisdiction to decide the entire controversy and properly rendered an equitable partition of the property.

By any objective standard, Murphy’s appeal is frivolous. *See, St. Hilaire v. St. Hilaire,*567 A.2d 1349 (Me.1990). Under the circumstances, M.R.Civ.P. 76(f) authorizes the imposition of sanctions. *Id.*To deter abuse of the appellate processes, we impose Rule 76(f) sanctions of treble costs and $500 in attorney fees.

• The entry is: Judgment affirmed.

Further ordered that appellant Daniel J. Murphy pay to appellee Patricia (Rossignol) Daley treble costs and $500 toward attorney fees.

All concurring.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, John Swallow, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Timberline Resources Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 control 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 control over financial reporting.





Date: May 30
, 2006.



/s/ John Swallow

_______________________

John Swallow

(CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randal Hardy, Chief Executive Officer and 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, 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: May 15, 2009

| |                                                                                                                                                              
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By:   /s/ Randal Hardy
_____________________________
Randal Hardy
Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
Principal Executive and Financial Officer







The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, MANHATTAN 

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY, 

New York, NY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0354

Issued: July 7, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 10, 2022 appellant sought an appeal from a purported January 4, 2022 decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-0354.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

(FECA).1 This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of 

the date appellant filed his appeal.2 The Board notes that the case record as transmitted to the 

Board neither contains a final adverse decision of OWCP dated January 4, 2022, nor a final 

adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current 

appeal.

3

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of 

issuance of a decision of OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

As there is no final adverse decision of OWCP, issued within 180 days of the filing of this 

appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0354 must be dismissed.4 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0354 is dismissed.

Issued: July 7, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance. 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         23,549 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                 111,176 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10,480 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              124,245 
<PP&E>                                        597,651 
<DEPRECIATION>                                353,974 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                383,498 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         172,802 
<BONDS>                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                    1,223,442 
<OTHER-SE>                                          0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  383,498 
<SALES>                                        44,042 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               44,042 
<CGS>                                               0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  60,164 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,404 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,526)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,526)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.012)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.012)
        

</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report  included  in  this  Form  10-K,  into  the  Company's  previously  filed
Registration  Statements  on Form S-8 File Nos.  33-30249,  33-38201,  33-45610,
33-45614,  33-80084,  33-60343,  33-60389  and on Form S-3 File  Nos.  33-31409,
33-44769, 33-89178 and 333-13859.


/s/ Arthur Andersen                  
Rochester, New York,
March 28, 1997