alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 FIRST INDUSTRIAL, LP
 Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in Thousands)
 2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002(Loss) Income from Continuing Operations before
Income Taxes from Continuing Operations
    
    
    (36,884
    )
    
    
    (457
    )
    
    
    28,774
    
    
    
    16,759
    
    
    
    49,128Plus:Interest expense
    
    
    121,130
    
    
    
    108,537
    
    
    
    99,067
    
    
    
    95,198
    
    
    
    87,439Rentals
Deemed Representative of an Interest Factor
    
    
    643
    
    
    
    577
    
    
    
    433
    
    
    
    496
    
    
    
    572Amortization of DFC and IRPA
    
    
    2,664
    
    
    
    2,122
    
    
    
    1,928
    
    
    
    1,761
    
    
    
    1,858Net Earnings
    
    
    87,553
    
    
    
    110,779
    
    
    
    130,202
    
    
    
    114,214
    
    
    
    138,997Interest Expense
    
    
    121,130
    
    
    
    108,537
    
    
    
    99,067
    
    
    
    95,198
    
    
    
    87,439Rentals
Deemed Representative of an Interest Factor
    
    
    643
    
    
    
    577
    
    
    
    433
    
    
    
    496
    
    
    
    572Capitalized Interest
    
    
    5,063
    
    
    
    3,271
    
    
    
    1,304
    
    
    
    761
    
    
    
    7,792Amortization of deferred financing costs and IRPA
    
    
    2,664
    
    
    
    2,122
    
    
    
    1,928
    
    
    
    1,761
    
    
    
    1,858Fixed Charges
    
    
    129,500
    
    
    
    114,507
    
    
    
    102,732
    
    
    
    98,216
    
    
    
    97,661Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    (b
    )
    
    
    (b
    )
    
    
    1.27
    
    
    
    1.16
    
    
    
    1.42
 
 (a)
    
    For purposes of computing the ratios of earnings to fixed charges, earnings have been
calculated by adding fixed charges (excluding capitalized interest) to income from
continuing operations before income taxes allocable to continuing operations. Fixed charges
consist of interest costs, whether expensed or capitalized, portion of rent expense representative of interest factor, and amortization of deferred
financing costs.(b)
    
    For the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, the ratio coverage is
less that 1:1. The Consolidated Operating Partnership must generate additional earnings of
$41,947 and $3,728 for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively, to achieve a ratio
coverage of 1:1. 118
* 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. 00-10198

Summary Calendar

 

DON VENABLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KATHLEEN LEOS; ET AL.,

Defendants,

CHAD WOOLERY; LARRY FRIEDMAN; FRIEDMAN & ASSOCIATED;

ALAN B. RICH; DAVID REESE; SCHWARTZ & EICHELBAUM PC;

DENNIS J. EICHELBAUM,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CV-2187

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

September 27, 2000

Before DAVIS, JONES and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Don Venable, a self-professed watchdog over the Dallas

Independent School District (DISD), appeals the district court’s

grant of summary judgment for the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 action against Chad Woolery, General Superintendent of the

Dallas Independent School District, and the attorneys

representing Woolery.
No. 00-10198

-2-

Venable contends that the trial court erred in requiring him

to prove the elements of the allegedly analogous tort of

malicious prosecution as part of his First Amendment retaliation

claim. He also argues that the district court erred by requiring

him to demonstrate an elevated degree of injury.

In his single allegation of harm, that his access to his

$1,000 bond was delayed, Venable has not crossed the threshold of

actionable harm required under § 1983 on his claim for First

Amendment retaliation. Colson v. Grohman, 174 F.3d 498 (5th Cir.

1999); Pierce v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, Inst. Div., 37

F.3d 1146, 1150 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court did not err.

We further find that Venable’s appeal is without arguable

merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Venable’s petition for en banc

consideration and his motion to expedite such consideration are

DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TIMOTHY MURRAY, 

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00186-CR

Appeal from the

299th District Court

of Travis County, Texas 

(TC# D-1-DC-15-203175)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s pro se motion to dismiss appointed counsel. 

Because it is unclear from the motion whether Appellant is requesting the appointment of a 

different attorney or if he intends to represent him on appeal, the Court asked Appellant to clarify 

his request. In his response, Appellant states that he wishes to proceed pro se on appeal “for 

now” until he needs the assistance of appointed counsel or his family has retained counsel to 

represent him. This statement does not constitute a clear, unequivocal, and unconditional request 

for self-representation. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss counsel is DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 8

th day of March, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          19,239
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,275
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    745,813
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         416,279
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           413,963
<LOANS>                                      1,039,843
<ALLOWANCE>                                     17,758
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,315,784
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,000,336
<SHORT-TERM>                                   606,034
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             18,053
<LONG-TERM>                                    481,024
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     160,337
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,315,784
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 35,594
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               40,349
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   338
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                76,281
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              16,958
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,490
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           31,791
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,020
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 355
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 25,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,435
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      13,435
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,822
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.22
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,734
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  8,232
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                14,733
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      423
<RECOVERIES>                                        12
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               17,758
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            17,758
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John P. McAlister, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tripos, Inc.;

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;

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 registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 quarterly report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 10, 2005

 

     /s/ John P. McAlister

     John P. McAlister 

     Chief Executive Officer
#### John FREEMAN, et al. v. The LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH COUNCIL, et al.

No. 2011-CC-1101.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Durel Jr., President L.J.; Lafayette City-Parish Council et al.; — Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 2010-6284-D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Nos. CW 11-00385, CW 11-00424.

Denied.
#### N. S. Easton et al. v. G. F. Wash.

(No. 6806.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

E. De Armond, counsel for appellants.

Brown & Bliss, counsel for appellee.

June 7, 1890.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 129. *Appeal bond; valid though signed only by sureties.*Appellee recovered a judgment in justice’s court against appellants, and the latter appealed to the county court, and their appeal was dismissed upon motion of appellee. There are but two grounds stated in the motion to dismiss the appeal: (1) That the appeal bond was not filed within the time required by law. This ground is not sustained by the record. The judgment was rendered October 13, 1888. The appeal bond was approved October 23, 1882. [Sayles’ Civil St., art. 1639; 2 Civil Gas. Ct. App., §§ 550-552.] (2) That appellants’ names do not appear as signed on the appeal bond. An appeal bond is valid when signed only by the sureties. [1 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §§ 469, 783.] We are of the opinion that the appeal bond from the justice’s to the county court is sufficient, and that the court erred in dismissing the appeal. Therefore the judgment of dismissal is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a trial *de novo*in the county court.

Eeversed and remanded.
Exhibit 23.1 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS 

 

To the Board of Directors 

Bay Banks Of Virginia, Inc. 

Kilmarnock, Virginia 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8(No. 333-112947) and in the related Prospectus, of our report, dated January 30, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the 2003 Annual Report of Shareholders andincorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P.C. 

 

Winchester, Virginia 

March 26, 2004
#### Eddie Lee HOWARD, Jr., Petitioner v. STATE of Mississippi, Respondent.

No. 2010-DR-01043-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 2, 2010.

*CORRECTED ORDER*

WILLIAM L. WALLER, JR., Chief Justice.

This matter came before the Court en banc on Eddie Lee Howard’s Request for Post-Conviction DNA Testing and Motion for Post-Conviction Relief. The State has filed a response to the request and Howard has filed a reply to that response. Howard requests DNA testing of biological evidence and Howard contends that he has newly discovered evidence and seeks post-conviction collateral relief.

After due consideration, the Court finds that Howard’s request for DNA testing should be granted. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11(3) (Supp.2010). This matter should be remanded to the Circuit Court of *80Lowndes County to proceed pursuant to Section 99-39-11(4) of the Mississippi Code regarding locating items of biological evidence to be tested. The circuit court should determine which laboratory or laboratories will conduct the testing pursuant to Section § 99-39-11(5) of the Mississippi Code. The circuit court should determine who will pay for the testing. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11(6), (7) and (8). The circuit court may enter such other orders as may be appropriate pursuant to Sections 99-39-11(9) and (10) of the Mississippi Code. The Court further finds that all other issues raised by Howard, including his claims of newly discovered evidence, should be dismissed without prejudice to be refiled with the DNA test results.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Eddie Lee Howard’s Request for Post-Conyiction DNA Testing and Motion for Post-Conviction Relief is hereby granted in part and dismissed without prejudice in part. Howard’s request for DNA testing is hereby granted. This matter is remanded to the Circuit Court of Lowndes County to proceed as herein directed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other issues raised by Howard, including his claims of newly discovered evidence, are hereby dismissed without prejudice to be refiled with the DNA test results.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order be published. The Clerk of this Court shall spread this order upon the minutes of the Court and shall forthwith forward a true certified copy hereof to West Publishing Company for publication as soon as practical in the advance sheets of the *Southern Reporter, Third Series (Mississippi Edition).*

SO ORDERED, this the *2nd*day of December, 2010.
#### STATE ex rel. James FAULKIN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0787.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Faulkin, James; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 378-098; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0157.

Denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of OmniComm Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, being, Ronald T. Linares, 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.


/s/ RONALD T. LINARES
-------------------------------------------
Ronald T. Linares
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2004
(a)   Exhibit 11 - COMPUTATION OF BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE AND DILUTED
                        EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
                                                     September 30, 1999  September 30, 1999
                                                     ------------------  ------------------
                                                 (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                                         <C>                  <C>
Basic earnings per common share

Net income available to common shareholders                 $2,485               $6,860
                                                            ======               ======

Weighted average common shares outstanding              5,991,815             5,980,328
                                                        =========             =========

Basic earnings per common share                               $.41                $1.15
                                                              ====                =====


Diluted earnings per common share

Net income available to common shareholders                 $2,485               $6,860
                                                            ======               ======

Weighted average common shares outstanding               5,991,815            5,980,328

Add:  Dilutive effects of assumed exercises of
     stock options and warrants                            339,104              351,004

Weighted average common and dilutive potential
     common shares outstanding                           6,330,919            6,331,332
                                                         =========            =========

Dilutive earnings per common share                            $.39                $1.08
                                                              ====                =====


</TABLE>
#### Beverly FARMER, Individually and as the Provisional Tutrix of Virginia Martin et al. v. WILLIS-KNIGHTON MEDICAL CENTER.

No. 2010-CC-2394.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Willis-Knighton Medical Center;— Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 521,823; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 46,063-CW, 46,067-CW.

Denied.
#### Ex parte W.E. and S.E. (In re J.L. v. W.E. and S.E.).

1091755.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 3, 2010.

*638Jonathan L. Adams, Talladega, for petitioners.

LYONS, Justice.

WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.

COBB, C.J., and WOODALL, PARKER, and SHAW, JJ., concur.

MURDOCK, J., concurs specially.

STUART and BOLIN, JJ., dissent.

MURDOCK, Justice

(concurring specially).

I do not take issue with the result reached by the Court of Civil Appeals in its opinion in this case. *J.L. v. W.E.,*64 So.3d 631 (Ala.Civ.App.2010). I write, however, to note that dependency is a status created by law that either is true of a child or is not. That is, either a child is dependent or it is not. A child cannot be dependent vis-a-vis one parent but not dependent as to the other parent. If the child is not dependent “as to one parent,” then the child is not dependent.1 In this case, L.L. is no longer dependent, and I concur in the denial of certiorari review.

1

. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-15-102(8)a.2., defining a "dependent child” as including a child "[w]ho is without a parent, legal guardian, or legal custodian willing and able to provide for the care, support, or education of the child.”
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2424]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on February 8, 2010 
at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002, and a Closed Meeting on 
February 8, 2010 at 11 a.m.
    The subject matter of the February 8, 2010 Open Meeting will be:

    The Commission will hear oral argument in an appeal by vFinance 
Investments, Inc., a registered broker-dealer (the ``Firm''), and 
Richard Campanella, the Firm's former chief compliance officer 
(together with the Firm, ``Respondents'') from the decision of an 
administrative law judge. The law judge found that the Firm 
willfully violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 and Rules 17a-4(b)(4) and 17a-4(j) thereunder, by failing to 
preserve and promptly produce electronic communications, and that 
Campanella willfully aided and abetted and caused these violations. 
The law judge ordered Respondents to cease and desist, censured 
Campanella, and fined the Firm $100,000 and Campanella $30,000.

    The subject matter of the February 8, 2010 Closed Meeting will be:

    [P]ost argument discussion.

    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the item 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: February 1, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2424 Filed 2-1-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P