alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.2
 Doral Financial
CorporationComputation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred
Stock Dividends
 For the six month period endedJune 30, 2009Including Interest
      on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax loss from
      continuing operations
    
    $
    (50,836
    )Plus:Fixed Charges
      (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    154,076Total
      Earnings
    
    $
    103,440Fixed
      Charges:Interest expensed and
      capitalized
    
    $
    152,822Amortized premiums,
      discounts, and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    90An estimate of the
      interest component within rental expense
    
    
    1,164Total Fixed Charges
      before preferred dividends
    
    
    154,076Preferred
      dividends
    
    
    11,386Ratio of pre tax loss
      to net loss
    
    
    1.335Preferred dividend
      factor
    
    
    15,200Total fixed charges
      and preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    169,276Ratio of Earnings to
      Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    (A)Excluding Interest
      on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax loss from
      continuing operations
    
    $
    (50,836
    )Plus:Fixed Charges
      (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    84,997Total
      Earnings
    
    $
    (34,161
    )Fixed
      Charges:Interest expensed and
      capitalized
    
    $
    83,743Amortized premiums,
      discounts, and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    90An estimate of the
      interest component within rental expense
    
    
    1,664Total Fixed Charges
      before preferred dividends
    
    
    84,997Preferred
      dividends
    
    
    11,386Ratio of pre tax loss
      to net loss
    
    
    1.335Preferred dividend
      factor
    
    
    15,200Total fixed charges
      and preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    100,197Ratio of Earnings to
      Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    (A)
 (A)
    
    Due to the Companys pre-tax loss for the six month period ended June 30,
      2009 the ratio coverage was less than 1:1. The Company would have to
      generate additional earnings of $65.5 million to achieve a ratio of
      1:1 during the first half of 2009.
<TABLE> <S> <C>





<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                             65,321
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  542,833
<PP&E>                                             17,425
<DEPRECIATION>                                      9,363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    645,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,793,879
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                         5,000
<COMMON>                                            9,062
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,148,565)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      645,314
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     606,371
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 60,124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (256,861)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (256,861)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (256,861)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.00)



</TABLE>
#### W. E. Clark *v.*A. Lee’s Assignee, et al.

Public Schools — Principal of a Public School.

The principal of the public schools of the city of Paris is an employee of the state, and the money in the hands of the officers of said city for school purposes is public money held by the officers as agents of the state.

Common-School System.

The state has undertaken to maintain a system of common schools and this is a state system.

Pay of Teachers — Attachment.

The state must be allowed without interference by creditors to employ and pay teachers, and the amount due from the state to its teachers cannot be reached by attachment.

APPEAL PROM BOURBON CIRCUIT COURT.

November 23, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

In the matter of managing and supporting the common schools established within its territorial limits, the city of Paris acts in its political capacity. It is a part of the machinery of the state government, by and through which the system of common schools, established by the institution, is maintained.

It is immaterial whether in strict law, the appellant, who is the principal of the public school of the city of Piaris, is or not an officer. He is an employe of the state. The moneys in the hands of the officers of the city of Paris, set apart by law for school purposes, are public moneys, and are held by those officers as agents and representatives of the commonwealth; and this is the case as well with the moneys received by special taxation in the municipal*883ity of Paris, as that turned over to its officers by the school commissioner of the county of Burbon.

*Brent & McMillan, for appellant.*

*Buckler & Patón, for appellees.*

The state has undertaken to maintain a system of common schools. To do this, it must be allowed, without interference by creditors, to employ and pay competent teachers. The amount due from the state to the teacher of a public or common school cannot be reached by attachment. *Tracy & Loyd v. Hornbuckle & Wife,*8 Bush 336.

The funds attached in this case are school funds, and they were attached in the hands of an officer set apart by law, to hold and disburse them in accordance with law. The attachments should have been discharged. Judgment *reversed*and cause remanded for a judgment conformable to the views herein expressed.
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, Sean M. Cary, certify, 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 Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2006 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 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley
Vineyards Inc.


Date: Nov 14, 2006
By:    /s/ Sean M. Cary
Name: Sean M. Cary
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 14-00194-CG

)

JOHNNY HAROLD LEE, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the United States’ Motion to 

Dismiss Counts One and Two of the Indictment (Doc. 20).

Upon due consideration and pursuant to Rule 48 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure, the motion is hereby GRANTED; therefore, Counts One and 

Two of the Indictment filed on June 31, 2014 against Johnny Harold Lee are 

hereby DISMISSED.1

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of October, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 In light of the foregoing and the representation of the United States in its 

Response to the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 19), the Defendant’s Motion 

to Suppress (Doc. 15) is deemed to be MOOT.

Case 1:14-cr-00194-CG-N Document 22 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 of WorldQuest Networks, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Victor E. Grijalva, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
Treasurer 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, to the
best of my knowledge:


         (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 result of operations of
         the Company.



By:      /s/  Victor E. Grijalva
   -------------------------------------------
     Name:    Victor E. Grijalva
     Title:   Vice President, Chief Financial
              Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

March 6, 2003
1

October 24-25, 2005 Meeting of the NIBS/MMC Committee to Translate the 

NIST World Trade Center Investigation Recommendations Into Building 

Codes And Standards - Committee Membership 

Chairs

Herman W. Brice 

Palm Beach Country Fire-Rescue Department 

Gerald H. Jones , P.E. 

Code Official, Retired 

Members

Scott W. Adams 

Park City Fire Service District 

Representing: NFPA 

George Capko, Jr., PE 

FM Global 

Representing: NFPA 

William M. Connolly, AIA 

New Jersey Department of 

Community Affairs 

Representing: ICC 

Carl Galioto, FAIA 

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP 

Representing: architecture 

Ronald O. Hamburger , P.E., S.E. 

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. 

Representing: engineering 

Paul K. Heilstedt , P.E., Hon. AIA 

Heilstedt & Associates, LLC 

Representing: ICC 

John D. Hooper 

Magnusson Klemencic 

Representing: ASCE SEI 

Stephanie A. King , PhD, PE 

Weidlinger Associates, Inc. 

Representing: risk assessment 

Marsha Mazz 

U.S. Accessibility Board 

Representing: Access Board 

Dennis Mileti, PhD 

Representing: social science/egress 

Lawrence G. Perry, AIA 

Code Consultant 

Representing: BOMA 

Timothy A. Reinhold, Ph.D., PE 

Institute for Business and Home Safety 

Representing: insurance 

Martin H. Reiss, P.E. 

The RJA Group, Inc. 

Representing: NFPA 

James T. Ryan 

City of Overland Park 

Representing: ICC 

Jim W. Sealy, FAIA 

Architect/Consultant 

Representing: architecture 

Robert Smilowitz, PhD, P.E. 

Weidlinger Associates 

Representing: engineering 
2

NIST Liaisons

Richard W. Bukowski, P.E. 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Stephen A. Cauffman 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

S. Shyam Sunder, Sc.D 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

NIBS/MMC Staff

David A. Harris, FAIA 

National Institute of Building 

Sciences 

Claret M. Heider 

National Institute of Building 

Sciences 

Bernard F. Murphy, P.E. 

National Institute of Building Sciences
#### S. F. Buckley, et al., v. Richard Board.

Real Estate, Purchaser in Good Faith — Party Not Prejudiced by a Judgment Has No Cause of Complaint.

What constitutes a valid consideration is a matter of law, and a purchaser of real estate claiming to have paid a valid consideration should show what he did pay, that the court may judge of its validity.

Party Not Prejudiced by Judgment.

A party not prejudiced by the judgment has no cause of complaint.

*17APPEAL PROM ANDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 28, 1874.

*Drafñn &*Portwood, *for appellants.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Mrs. Whittaker, the only party whose interest is affected by the judgment, did not answer the petition, nor does she appeal from the judgment. O’Hara’s answer interposed no defense; he was particular to deny all the negative averments of the petition, but carefully avoided stating what consideration, if any, passed from him to Whittaker at the time the house and lots were conveyed to him. It is true he claims to have purchased in good faith, and to have paid a good and valid consideration.

What constitutes a good and valid consideration is a matter of law; O’Hara should have stated what the consideration was; and the court could then have determined whether it was good and valid. As to Mrs. Whittaker and O’Hara, the petition might properly have been taken for confessed. Buckley has no cause for complaint He owes on the purchase of the house and lots over three hundred and twenty-five dollars. The judgment against him does not amount to that sum. The payment of the judgment entitles him to a credit *pro tanto*on his note to Mrs. Whittaker. If he desired the court to compel Mrs. Whittaker to convey in accordance with her bond for title, he should have made his answer a cross petition against her.

Neither of .the appellants being in any degree prejudiced by the judgment, it must be *affirmed.*
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
  (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.
 Name:
    
    /s/ Alan B. Levan

Alan B. LevanTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    May 14, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6860

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KENNETH DWAYNE LOCKLEAR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:96-cr-00044-BR-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 8, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Dwayne Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. Frank DeArmon Whitney,

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

To the extent Locklear’s motion could have been construed as

a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), relief would not be

warranted because the decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005), is not retroactively applicable on collateral review.

See United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Dwayne Locklear seeks to appeal the district

court’s order construing his “place holder motion” as a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion and denying relief. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Locklear has not made the requisite

showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
- 3 -

dismiss the appeal. 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
EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. ("CRM")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerome S. Flum,
Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge:

      (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.

                                              By: /s/ Jerome S. Flum
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                      Jerome S. Flum
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

August 16, 2004


                                       22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00680-CG-B

CARL WATSON, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00680-CG-B Document 12 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
10.3





Terms of
Employment Arrangement


between
Bay National Bank


and
Richard J. Oppitz





Mr.
Oppitz is employed on an at will basis at a rate of pay of $175,000 as of
January 1, 2008. Mr. Oppitz is also eligible for incentive bonuses at the
discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, and is
entitled to all benefits available to full time employees of Bay National
Bank.





The
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Bank approved
discretionary bonuses to Mr. Oppitz of $10,000 in December 2007 and $56,000 in
December 2006. These bonuses were paid in the subsequent calendar
year.
#### Robert W. RIGG, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 03-3037.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 3, 2004.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, *739for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATURES WAY MARINE, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-0316-CG-M

)

EVERCLEAR OF OHIO, LTD., and 

NIRK MAGNATE HOLDING CORP.,

)

)

)

Defendants. )

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the verdict of the jury entered on November 24, 2014 

(Doc. 207), and the Court’s Order entered on April 17, 2015 (Doc. 225), it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED, that JUDGMENT is hereby entered 

in favor of Plaintiff, Natures Way Marine, LLC, and against Defendants, Everclear 

of Ohio, Ltd and Nirk Magnate Holding Corp. Damages are hereby awarded to 

Natures Way Marine, LLC for breach of contract in the amount of $205,512.00, and 

attorneys’ fees are awarded to Natures Way Marine, LLC in the amount of 

$69,336.15. Prejudgment interest is awarded at an annual interest rate of 3.25%. 

Post judgment interest is awarded at the statutory rate of .22% pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1961.

It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED, that JUDGMENT

is entered in favor of Counter-Defendant, Natures Way Marine, LLC, and against 

Counter-claimants, Everclear of Ohio, Ltd and Nirk Magnate Holding Corp. 

Accordingly, the counterclaims filed by Everclear of Ohio, Ltd (Doc. 68), and the 

Case 1:12-cv-00316-CG-M Document 226 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 2
counterclaims filed by Nirk Magnate Holding Corp (Doc. 67) are hereby 

DISMISSED with prejudice.

Costs are to be taxed against the Defendants/Counter-claimants.

DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00316-CG-M Document 226 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOTITLE 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 Enzo Biochem, Inc., and
Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Elazar Rabbani, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |                                                                                                                                                           
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
 Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| |                                                                                                                                                           
| | (2) The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                       |     |                          
|---------------------- | --- | -------------------------
|Dated: March 12,
 2009 | By: | /s/ Elazar Rabbani, Ph.D.
|                       |     |                          
|                       |     | Elazar Rabbani,
 Ph.D.   
|                       |     | Chief Executive
 Officer 

---
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTING FIRM**
     We have issued our report dated March 4, 2005, accompanying the consolidated financialstatements included in the Annual Report of WQN, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the years ended December31, 2004 and 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in theRegistration Statements of WQN, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-107847, effective August 11, 2003,File No. 333-54498, effective January 29, 2001, File No. 333-40350, effective June 28, 2000 andFile No. 333-40348, effective June 28, 2000).
/s/ Grant Thornton LLP