alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99(i)


                            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 J. C. Penney Funding Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  October 26, 2002 (the  "Report"),
I, Michael P. Dastugue,  Chairman of the Board 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.

DATED this 6th day of December 2002.

                                                  /s/ Michael P. Dastague
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Michael P. Dastugue
                                                Chairman of the Board
                                                J. C. Penney Funding Corporation
<page>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 99(ii)


                            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 J. C. Penney Funding Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  October 26, 2002 (the  "Report"),
I, William J. Alcorn,  Vice  President and  Controller 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.

DATED this 6th day of December 2002.

                                                  /s/ William J. Alcorn
                                                --------------------------
                                                William J. Alcorn
                                                Vice President and Controller
                                                J. C. Penney Funding Corporation
August 20, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF I .S.M., A CHILD

NO. 14

- 13

- 00411

- CV

_______ _________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on February 7, 2013 . Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant , Gala Hill. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**EXHIBIT 32(b)**
**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Richard L. Travis, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Peerless Mfg. Co. (the“Company”), certify, that pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 ofthe United States Code:
(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period endedSeptember 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in theReport. /s/ Richard L. Travis, Jr.Richard L. Travis, Jr.Chief Financial OfficerDate: November 15, 2004
*The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350; it is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act, and is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardlessof any general incorporation languages in such filing.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOW, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000077231
<NAME> PENNSYLVANIA ENTERPRISES INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  246,218,000
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  9,901,000
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      67,453,000
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                    36,791,000
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             360,363,000
<COMMON>                                    48,157,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                   20,770,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         54,516,000
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             123,443,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          739,000
<PREFERRED>                                 18,804,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                        85,392,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>               29,679,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       80,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             102,226,000
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              360,363,000
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   89,491,000
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         5,599,000
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  73,665,000
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  79,264,000
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     10,227,000
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             389,000
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              10,616,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     2,211,000
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,405,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    353,000
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                8,052,000
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     2,793,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                    4,837,000
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                      19,233,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .83
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-50113

Conference Calendar

 

ARTURO SOLIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL GRAND JURY MATERIALS,

(Of December 1995 and February 

1996 Terms),

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-98-CV-323

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

October 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Arturo Solis, Texas prisoner #519192, has filed a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial of his

motion for (1) leave to file a petition for disclosure of grand

jury material; (2) reconsideration; and (3) recusal. The

district court denied Solis’ motion to proceed IFP on appeal and

certified that an appeal would be frivolous and not taken in good
No. 99-50113

-2-

faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197,

202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Solis has failed to show that his appeal presents a

nonfrivolous issue. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24. Thus, 

his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED and his appeal is DISMISSED

as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

With the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous, along with

the dismissal of Solis’ appeals in Solis v. Harwell, No. 98-50287

and Solis v. Johnson, No. 98-50592, Solis now has six “strikes”

for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Solis is reminded that he

is barred from filing any civil action or appeal IFP unless he is

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 12 (a)
                              J. C. Penney Company, Inc.
                            and Consolidated Subsidiaries

         Computation of Ratios of Available Income to Combined Fixed Charges
                       and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement






                                              52 weeks              53 weeks
                                                ended                 ended
                                               July 31,               Aug. 1,
     ($ Millions)                                1999                  1998
                                              _________           ____________

     Income from continuing operations        $     911             $     842
        (before income taxes, before
        capitalized interest, but after
        preferred stock dividend)

     Fixed charges

     Interest (including capitalized
     interest) on:

        Operating leases                            225                   180
        Short term debt                             123                   100
        Long term debt                              556                   559
        Capital leases                                2                     6
        Credit facility                               -                     -
        Other, net                                   (5)                   (9)
                                              _________             _________
     Total fixed charges                            901                   836

     Preferred stock dividend, before taxes          36                    35
     Combined fixed charges and preferred     _________             _________
        stock dividend requirement                  937                   871

     Total available income                   $   1,848             $   1,713
                                              =========             =========

     Ratio of available income to combined
        fixed charges and preferred stock
        dividend requirement                        2.0                   2.0
                                              =========             =========




     The interest cost of the LESOP notes guaranteed by the Company is not
     included in fixed charges above.

     The Company believes that, due to the seasonal nature of its business,
     ratios for a period of time other than a 52 week period are inappropriate.
#### KELLY v. ELLIOTT.

No. 6286.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 18, 1941.

Julian E. Bailes, of Natchitoches, for appellant.

C. B. McClung, of Natchitoches, for ap-pellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Plaintiff sued upon an open account of sales of dairy products to defendant during the year 1939 and the early part of 1940. Defendant interposed exceptions of no cause of action and want of capacity of plaintiff to institute and prosecute suit. These exceptions were overruled. Answer was then filed. The exceptions were again urged. Liability for payment of the account is denied. Defendant affirmatively averred that while the account once existed it had been novated by. the execution by him of a series of promissory notes. After trial on the merits, judgment for plaintiff was rendered for the amount sued for from which defendant appealed.

In this court appellant has made no appearance; no brief has been filed by him or on his behalf. This attitude warrants us in assuming that the appeal has been abandoned. In such circumstances it is the rule of this court to dismiss an appeal as having been abandoned. Appeal in this case was obviously taken for delay but we are not asked to inflict the statutory penalty authorized in such cases. However, we have read the record and find that the judgment is well supported by the evidence adduced and for this reason we have decided to affirm the judgment appealed from rather than dismiss the appeal; and for these reasons, said judgment is hereby affirmed with court costs.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CARMONA-ROJAS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-70270 

Agency No. A098-761-930 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 28, 2023**

Seattle, Washington

Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GUTIERREZ,*** Chief 

District Judge.

Juan Carmona-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of 

a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, Chief United States District Judge 

for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 30 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

reconsider, reopen, terminate, or remand.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 

791 (9th Cir. 2005); Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020), we 

deny the petition for review. 

1. Carmona argues that the BIA should have reconsidered his case and 

terminated proceedings against him because his notice to appear, which lacked the 

date and time for his initial hearing, deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction. 

Intervening caselaw forecloses this argument. See United States v. BastideHernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[T]he failure of an NTA to 

include time and date information does not deprive the immigration court of 

subject matter jurisdiction.”). 

2. Carmona contends that the BIA erred in rejecting his motion to reopen 

for failure to attach a new application for cancellation of removal. We need not 

address this argument because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the 

motion on the alternative ground that Carmona did not make a prima facie showing

that his qualifying relatives would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual 

hardship from his removal. The motion to reopen did not proffer new facts 

regarding hardship, nor was it accompanied by affidavits or other evidentiary 

material demonstrating hardship to Carmona’s children. See 8 U.S.C. 

1 Carmona does not seek review of the BIA’s denial of stay of removal. 
3 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(B). Indeed, neither Carmona’s original cancellation application nor 

his motion to reopen identify any specific hardship his U.S.-citizen children would 

face upon his return to Mexico. 

3. Carmona challenges the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte 

power to reopen. We lack jurisdiction over this challenge because Carmona 

identifies no legal or constitutional error underlying the BIA’s denial of sua sponte 

reopening. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1237–38 (9th Cir. 2020). 

PETITION DENIED.
Exhibit 12



     PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES TOTAL
                               ENTERPRISE

           Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


                                                  Millions of Dollars
                                              ---------------------------
                                              Three Months Ended March 31
                                              2000                   1999
                                              ---------------------------
                                                      (Unaudited)
Earnings Available for Fixed Charges
  Income before income taxes                  $542                     99
  Distributions in excess of (less than)
    equity in earnings of less-than-
    fifty-percent-owned companies                2                     (6)
  Fixed charges, excluding capitalized
    interest*                                   95                    100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              $639                    193
=========================================================================

Fixed Charges
  Interest and expense on indebtedness,
    excluding capitalized interest            $ 65                     71
  Capitalized interest                          16                      9
  Preferred dividend requirements of
    capital trusts                              13                     13
  Interest portion of rental expense            12                     11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              $106                    104
=========================================================================
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges             6.0                    1.9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Includes amortization of capitalized interest totaling approximately
 $5 million in both 2000 and 1999.


Earnings available for fixed charges include, if any, the company's equity
in losses of companies owned less than 50 percent and having debt for
which the company is contingently liable.  Fixed charges include the
company's proportionate share, if any, of interest relating to the
contingent debt.

In 1990 and 1988, respectively, the company guaranteed a $400 million bank
loan and $250 million of notes payable for the Long-Term Stock Savings
Plan (LTSSP), an employee benefit plan.  In 1994, the notes payable were
refinanced with a $131 million term loan, which was repaid in June 1998.
The $400 million loan was amended in 1994, 1995, and again in 1997.
Consolidated interest expense included a minimal amount of interest
related to LTSSP borrowings in both the first quarter of 2000 and 1999.


<PAGE>
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-OA7
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OA7


     The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series
(the "Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                     Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
#### Mrs. Lorraine H. GLASS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeff WHITE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 8288

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 31, 1955.

*60Watson & Williams, Natchitoches, for appellant.

John Makar, Natchitoches, for appellee.

GLADNEY, Judge.

This suit was consolidated for trial with that of White v. Glass, La.App., No. 8287, 78 So.2d 57.

In the instant case Mrs. Lorraine H. Glass, wife of C. G. Glass, was riding beside her husband when she suffered injuries in an intersectional collision at Natchitoches, Louisiana, on August 5, 1950. The relevant facts are substantially stated in suit No. 8287. Plaintiff’s claim for damages is predicated on her own testimony and that of her husband to the effect she was badly bruised, scratched and cut in the accident and suffered some nervous shock. No medical evidence was presented and plaintiff has not itemized her injuries nor offered specific evidence to show that such injuries were more than temporary and superficial. However, the record does reflect her own testimony and that of her husband which establishes that she did suffer injuries which consisted of bruises, the loosening of some teeth and a certain degree of shock.

The defense to this claim is that the accident was caused solely by the fault and negligence of plaintiff’s husband, C. G. Glass, and that Jeff White was in no wise negligent. For the reasons stated in suit No. 8287, we found the failure of Glass to stop before entering the intersection was the sole and proximate cause of the collision. It follows, therefore, that plaintiff and appellee, Mrs. Lorraine H. Glass, is not entitled to recover damages.

The judgment from which appealed should be and is hereby affirmed at appellant’s cost.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Intelligent
Buying, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:



The annual report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: April 13, 2013 |                            
|-------------------- | ---------------------------
|                     |                            
|                     | /s/ Eugene Malobrodsky     
|                     |                            
|                     | Eugene Malobrodsky         
|                     | Principal Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and will be retained by INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.