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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                         BAY VIEW CAPITAL CORPORATION
              COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Six Month Ended
                                                                         6/30/00     6/30/99
                                                                        --------    --------
<S>                                                                      <C>         <C>
Earnings:
          Earnings before income tax expense                            $  3,247    $ 27,613
          Add:
          Interest on advances and other borrowings                       66,126      56,600
          Interest component of rental expense                             1,326         958
                                                                        --------    --------
          Earnings before fixed charges excluding
            interest on customer deposits                                 70,699      85,171
          Interest on customer deposits                                   81,121      67,077
                                                                        --------    --------
          Earnings before fixed charges                                 $151,820    $152,248
                                                                        ========    ========


Fixed Charges:
          Interest on advances and other borrowings                     $ 66,126    $ 56,600
          Interest component of rental expense                             1,326         958
                                                                        --------    --------
          Fixed charges excluding interest on
            customer deposits                                             67,452      57,558
          Interest on customer deposits                                   81,121      67,077
                                                                        --------    --------
          Total fixed charges                                           $148,573    $124,635
                                                                        ========    ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges including interest
  on customer deposits                                                      1.02        1.22

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges excluding interest
  on customer deposits                                                      1.05        1.48

</TABLE>
#### AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT, Inc. et al. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD et al.

Civ. A. No. 1295-51.

United States District Court District of Columbia

May 29, 1951.

*661George M. Morris, Albert F. Beitel, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Georg Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., Ross O’Donoghue, John H. Manner, O. D. Ozinent, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

BASTIAN, District Judge.

This case came on for hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and, as well, on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and plaintiffs’ motion to set the case for early hearing. During the argument, it developed that there were no substantial matters of fact involved and it was agreed by both sides that the Court might treat plaintiffs’ motion as one for summary judgment, to the end that the case might come to a speedy conclusion in this Court and, if an appeal be taken by either party, the Court of Appeals would be in position to render final judgment of af-firmance or final judgment on reversal.

The Court will grant plaintiffs’ motion for a summary judgment on the ground that the regulation complained of was entered without such a hearing as is necessary under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., or, for that matter, under the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended, 49 U.S.C.A. § 401 et seq.

Without going into a statement of the facts, which, as above stated, are undisputed, it would appear that plaintiffs have substantial investments, serious contractual commitments, and have developed valuable business and good will, all of which will be jeopardized unless the regulation is voided by the Court.

The Court believes that the defendant Board was proceeding properly by its regulation of May 20, 1949, wherein it was provided that no large irregular carrier (these include plaintiffs) could engage in non-scheduled or irregular operations after June 20, 1949, unless by that date the carrier filed with the Board an application for exemption. This regulation of May 20, 1949 provided that the carrier, upon filing such application, might continue to operate pending a hearing.

As a matter of fact, plaintiffs seasonably filed such applications, formal notices for hearing were set, and hearings before an Examiner on the applications were completed but no decision has yet been issued. While these applications were pending, the order complained of (Economic Regulations, Amendment 1 to Part 291, Serial No. ER-1S9) was announced, without a proper notice of hearing and opportunity to present evidence and argument. The position taken by the Board is one which would hack away at the Administrative Procedure Act.

It may be noted that no question of public safety is involved in the instant case.

There is nothing in the ruling of Judge Holtzoff in the case of Arrow; Airways, Inc., v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Civil Action No. 4502-50,1 which is at variance with the Court’s ruling in this case.

The Court will, therefore, on appropriate notice, sign findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

1

. No opinion for publication.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                          PRIDE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X



The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the condensed
consolidated  financial  statements for the six months ended May 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.

</LEGEND>
       


<S>                                                    <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      nov-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           dec-01-1996
<CASH>                                                 19,471 
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1,635,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            1,741,752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0
<PP&E>                                                 29,604,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                         4,934,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         37,274,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  0
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               3,991
<OTHER-SE>                                             5,400,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           37,274,552
<SALES>                                                8,269,602
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       8,269,602
<CGS>                                                  6,621,333 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          6,621,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       316,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     810,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (502,313)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (502,313)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (502,313)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.25)
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

(For Revocation of Probation or Supervised Release)

v.

Case Number: 1:12-CR-00174-001

KELWINN T. HILL USM Number: 12817-003

a/k/a Kelwinn Tyrone Hill Brandy B. Hambright, Esquire

Defendant’s Attorney

THE DEFENDANT:

admitted guilt to violation of the statutory conditions and standard condition #9 of the terms of supervision as set forth in the 

petition dated 9/13/2016.

was found in violation of condition(s) after denial of guilt.

The defendant is adjudicated guilty of these violations:

Violation Number Nature of Violation Violation Ended

Statutory

Statutory

9

New Offense

New Offense

Technical

07/28/2016

07/28/2016

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not violated condition(s) ________________________ and is discharged as to such violation(s) condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30 days of any 

change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are 

fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States Attorney of material changes in 

economic circumstances.

 

September 28, 2016

Date of Imposition of Judgment

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

Signature of Judge

CALLIE V. S. GRANADE

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Name and Title of Judge

October 5, 2016

Date signed

Case 1:12-cr-00174-CG-C Document 45 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 2
AO 245D (SDAL 01/16) Judgment in a Criminal Case Judgment -- Page 2 of 2

DEFENDANT: KELWINN T. HILL, a/k/a Kelwinn Tyrone Hill

CASE NUMBER: 1:12-CR-00174-001

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of:

TWENTY-FOUR (24) MONTHS.

The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

at a.m. p.m. on 

as notified by the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons:

before 2 p.m. on 

as notified by the United States Marshal.

as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

Defendant delivered on to 

at , with a certified copy of this judgment.

 

UNITED STATES MARSHAL

By 

DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

Case 1:12-cr-00174-CG-C Document 45 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 2
Order entered August 29, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00195
- CR
VINCENT BERNARD JENK INS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. F11
- 53064
- V



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES this appeal. On July 7, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether the record could be supplemented with the State’s notice to seek enhancement on punishment. W e ADOPT the findings that: (1) the record can be supplemented with the State’s notice to enhance the punishment range ; (2) prosecutor Summer Elmazi se nt “Notice of State’s Intent to Enhance Punishment Range” to trial counsel Deandra Grant via facsimile on June 16, 2011 ; and (3) the June 16, 2011 N otice of State’s I ntent to E nhance P unishment R ange wa s included in the supplemental record.We ORDER appellant to file the brief within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this

order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 Pursuant
to
 18
U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As
Adopted pursuant to
 Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I, Greg
A. LeClaire, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
ClearOne Communications, Inc.
 
 
 
 Date:
      May 14, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Greg A. LeClaireGreg
      A. LeClaireChief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A
signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications, Inc.
and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

vs. ) CRJMINAL ACTION 08-00182-KD

)

RECO DICKERSON, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on defendant Reco Dickerson's motion for amendment to

his Presentence Investigation Report (doc. 98)r. ln the motion, Dickerson argues that his

Presentence Lrvestigation (PSI) report erroneously stated that he pointed his handgun at two other

persons and demanded return of cocaine. Dickerson points out that in his Position with Respect

to Sentencing Factors, he objected to this part of the PSI which cast him as the initial aggressor.

Dickerson also points out that the facts contained in the PSI differ from the agreed-upon Offense

Conduct in the Factual Resume wherein there is no mention of Dickerson pointing the gun.

Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, the motion is GRANTED.

The Court reviewed Dickerson's motion, the PSI, the Factual Resume, the Position of

Defend.ant with Respect to Sentencing Factors, and the Transcripts of the sentencing hearings.

Upon review of the transcript, it appears that the Court ascertained at the second hearing that

there was insufficient evidence that Dickerson pointed the gun and demanded the retum of the

cocaine (Transcript, p. 8-10). Accordingly, the Court has amended Dickerson's Statement of

Reasons and the Amended Statement has been provided to the Bureau of Prisons. The Court

' The motion docketed at document 100 is a duplicated of the motion docketed at

document 98.

Case 1:08-cr-00182-KD-B Document 101 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 2
amended the Statement of Reasons to indicate that it adopts the presentence investigation report

with the following changes under the section captioned "Additional Comments or Findings":

"The Courl finds that paragraph #8 of the presentence report is amended to strike the accusation

that Dickerson pointed the gun at Cole and Wheeler."

The Clerk of the Courl is directed to mail a copy of this order and a copy of the Amended

Statement of Reasons to Dickerson.

DONE and ORDERED this Mav 24.2010.

/s / Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cr-00182-KD-B Document 101 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 2
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 Annual Report of Theater Xtreme Entertainment Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Oberosler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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: September 22, 2008



/s/ Robert Oberosler

Robert Oberosler,

Chief Executive Officer
11576.

#### GRAY *v.*THE STATE.

Decided July 14, 1920.

The evidence authoried a conviction of the offense of pointing a pistol.

Accusation of pointing a pistol; from city court of Macon — Judge Guerry. April 30, 1920.

*H. F. Rawls, W. J. Grace,*for plaintiff in error.

*Will Gunn, solicitor,*contra.

Luke, J.

This case is here upon the overruling of a motion for a new trial, based upon the usual grounds which challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the defendant’s conviction. The case was by agreement heard by the judge of the city court without the aid of a jury, the testimony offered by the State justified the conviction of the defendant, and the judge believed this testimony in preference to the testimony of the defendant. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
NUMBER 13-14-00432-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF Y. C., A CHILD

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 398th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Arabella Tijerina, filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the 398th

District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number F-1074-10-I. Appellant has 

filed an unopposed motion to dismiss or withdraw the appeal and requests that this Court 

dismiss and/or withdraw the appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s unopposed 

motion to dismiss or withdraw the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be 

granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the 
2

appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the 

appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing 

will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

12th day of February, 2015.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 74713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29436]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the Information 
Collection Request (ICR) notice section ``Burden Statement,'' which the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission published in the Federal Register 
on November 19, 2014. The ICR describes the nature of the information 
collection and its expected costs and burden.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Brown, Division of Market 
Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5093; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99fdfbebf6eef7d9faffedfab7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d494f5f425a436d4e4b594e034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>. This contact can also provide a copy of the ICR.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 19, 2014, in FR Doc. 2014-
27402, on page 68870, correct the table entitled ESTIMATED ANNUAL 
REPORTING BURDEN, which appears across three columns following the 
Burden Statement paragraph in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, to read:

           Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                17 CFR 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Number of Respondents................................       3,998
Total Annual Responses......................................      88,768
Hours per Response..........................................     0.71225
                                                             -----------
    Total hours.............................................      63,225
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: December 11, 2014.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-29436 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>