alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12

                               HFS INCORPORATED
              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                            (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                    --------------------------------------------------------
                                       1992       1993        1994        1995        1996
<S>                                 <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>         <C>
Income before income taxes,
 minority interest, and
 extraordinary loss................   $28,703    $60,668    $ 90,643    $136,570    $284,393
Plus: Fixed charges................    26,077     21,730      20,182      23,456      40,731
Less: Capitalized interest ........        --       (440)       (246)         --        (560)
                                    ---------  ---------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Earnings available to cover fixed
 charges...........................   $54,780    $81,958    $110,579    $160,026    $324,564
                                    =========  =========  ==========  ==========  ==========
Fixed charges (1):
Interest, including amortization
 of deferred loan costs............   $25,117    $20,234    $ 18,685    $ 21,789    $ 34,812
Capitalized interest...............        --        440         246          --         560
Interest portion of rental
 payments .........................       960      1,056       1,251       1,667       5,539
                                    ---------  ---------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Total fixed charges................   $26,077    $21,730    $ 20,182    $ 23,456    $ 40,731
                                    =========  =========  ==========  ==========  ==========
Ratio of earnings to fixed
 charges...........................      2.10x      3.77x       5.48x       6.82x       7.97x
                                    =========  =========  ==========  ==========  ==========
</TABLE>

------------
(1)    Fixed charges consist of interest expense on all indebtedness
       (including amortization of deferred financing costs) and the portion of
       operating lease rental expense that is representative of the interest
       factor (deemed to be one-third of operation lease rentals).
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41282

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER VILLELA-ESPINOSA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

(5:04-CR-693-ALL)

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Villela-Espinosa appeals his conviction and sentence

for illegal reentry following deportation. Villela claims the

district court committed reversible error under United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), by sentencing him pursuant to a

mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines (Fanfan error).

The Government concedes that Villela has preserved this issue for
2

appeal. Such error is not structural. United States v. MartinezLugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2005). 

On the other hand, the Government has not shown beyond a

reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. See United States v.

Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,

Villela’s sentence is vacated, and this case is remanded for

resentencing. 

Villela also asserts the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutional

in the light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

Villela’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).

Although Villela contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule it

in the light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such

assertions on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding.

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Villela concedes his

assertion is foreclosed in the light of Almendarez-Torres and

circuit precedent; he raises it to preserve it for further review.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1918

ERIC AWA AKENJI, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-291-119) Submitted: June 21, 2006 Decided: July 24, 2006 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick G. Tzeuton, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Tonya K. Kowitz, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Eric Awa Akenji, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Akenji fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks. Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Akenji’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Akenji fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.- 3 - We also find that Akenji fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We find that Akenji fails to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### In the Matter of Anonymous, an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law, Appellant. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Respondent.

Submitted July 12, 2010;

decided September 14, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6300** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DARRELL WALTER HOLMES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News . Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 4:09

- cr - 00085

- MSD

- FBS

- 1; 4:13

- cv - 00113

- MSD )

Submitted : June 18 , 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Darrell Walter Holmes, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darrell Walt er Holmes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certifica te of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reason able jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holmes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mat erials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.3 DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


Name                                            Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----                                            -----------------------------

Epicor Software Argentina S.A.                  Argentina
Epicor Software (Asia) PTE Ltd.                 Singapore
Epicor Software (Aust) Pty Ltd                  Australia
DataWorks International Export Corporation      Barbados
Epicor Software B.V.I. Limited                  Britsh Virgin Islands
Epicor Software Canada, Ltd.                    Canada
Epicor Software France S.A.                     France
Epicor Software Deutschland GmbH                German
Epicor Software (Ireland) Limited               Ireland
Epicor Software (Holdings)                      Ireland
Epicor Software Mexico, S.A. de C.V.            Mexico
Epicor Software Nederland BV                    Netherlands
Epicor Software (NZ) Limited                    New Zealand
Epicor Software (North Asia) Limited            Hong Kong
Epicor Software Nordic AB                       Sweden
Epicor Software (Taiwan) Limited                Republic of China
Epicor Software (UK) Limited                    UK
Epicor Limited.                                 UK
Interactive (UK) Limited                        UK
Cypher Business Systems Limited                 UK
#### Boston *v.*The State.

1. A declaration by the accused, in substance, that he was casually present'when the homicide was committed, but that he took no part in it, and did not know that it was contemplated until after it occurred, is not a confession; and to submit to the jury the question whether it was a confession or not was error for which a new trial should have been granted. The law of confessions was not applicable to the facts

*5912. In order to establish an *alibi,*two things are necessary: first, that the state of facts relied upon be such that if true it was impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the offence when it was committed; and secondly, that this state of facts should be proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury. It need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; much less is it requisite that the evidence should show that it was impossible for the alleged facts to be false or fabricated.

June 4, 1894.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Bartlett. Bibb superior court. November .term, 1893.

R. L. Anderson and W. J. Grace, for plaintiff in error. J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and W. H. Belton, Jr., solicitor-general, *contra.*

*Judgment reversed.*
<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO:
                       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Omagine, Inc. on Form
10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the "Report"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, the undersigned certifies, 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 Omagine, Inc.


/s/Frank J. Drohan
------------------
Frank J. Drohan
Chief Executive & Financial Officer


March 4, 2009



The originally executed copy of this certification will be
maintained at the Registrant's offices and will be made
available for inspection upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

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 a Closed Meeting on Thursday, May 21, 2009 at 2 p.m.

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 matters at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, voted to consider the item listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 21, 2009 will be: institution and settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; and other matters related to enforcement proceedings.

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: May 14, 2009.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-11702 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

P
EXHIBIT 21

                          BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED
                   Subsidiary Listing as of February 27, 2004


Berkeley Technology Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

  Berkeley International Capital Limited (Guernsey, Channel Islands corporation)

  Berkeley International Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

  Frederick Morgan & Co. Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

        Berkeley International Technologies, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

               Berkeley International Advisors, Inc. (California corporation)

  London Pacific Advisers Limited (United Kingdom corporation)

  London Pacific Assurance Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

        LPAL Investments Limited (Guernsey, Channel Islands corporation)

  London Pacific Trust Company Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

        Berkeley (USA) Holdings Limited (California corporation)

        Berkeley International Asset Management (California corporation)

        Berkeley Institutional Investment, Inc. (California corporation)

        Berkeley International Capital Corporation (California corporation)

        London Pacific Secretaries Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)


_____________

Notes:
(1)   Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.

(2)   All subsidiaries are 100% owned and are listed above,  except that several
      subsidiaries that in the aggregate are insignificant have been omitted.
#### MILLER v. LONG et al.

Civ. No. 1346.

District Court, E. D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.

Aug. 10, 1945.

Henry T. Gaud and Hagwood, Rivers & Young, all of Charleston, S. C., for plaintiff.

Legge & Gibbs and J. C. Long, all of Charleston, S. C., for defendants.

WARING, District Judge.

Motions have been filed in the above-entitled cause to dismiss the complaint for *134failure to comply with Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The defendants allege that the complaint is signed by an attorney not admitted to practice in this court and that the summons contains the address of the same attorney and that the pleadings should be stricken out in accordance with the above-named rule.

I find as a matter of fact that the pleadings are signed by, and the name given in the summons is that of, Henry T. Gaud. Mr. Gaud was duly admitted to practice in this court by order of December 21, 1944, and he took the oath and qualified on that day. Upon that matter being shown, counsel for movant withdrew the motion admitting an error

The court feels that this motion was frivolous and based upon insufficient examination of the records of the court and admonishes counsel to be more careful in future in bringing unsupported and improper-, ly investigated charges.

In passing, however, I do note that the attorney signing the complaint failed to state his address, which is strictly enjoined by the above-mentioned rule. I shall of course not dismiss a complaint on such a technical ground. However, this action is not to be considered as a precedent palliating failure to observe the rules in the future. These rules have now been in effect since 1938 and it is about time that the members of the bar conformed to them. While not a serious infraction of the rules it is but another instance of carelessness which should not occur. I have heretofore instructed the clerk not to file pleadings which did not conform to the rules, but that instruction like my admonition to the bar, seems to be more honored by the breach than in the observance. I desire to take this occasion to put the bar on notice that these rules will have to be followed specifically and the clerk is hereby directed that no pleadings are to be filed which do not conform with the rules, and if such are presented, to return such defective pleadings to the parties offering them.

The motions to dismiss on the above set out grounds are hereby refused.
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  Telos  Corporation's,  a Maryland  corporation,  (the
"Company")  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, David S. Aldrich, 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, as amended; and

2)   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  August 13, 2002               By:  /s/ David S. Aldrich
                                          David S. Aldrich
                                          Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,664                  20,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,264                  83,264
<ALLOWANCES>                                       414                     414
<INVENTORY>                                     33,830                  33,830
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               142,463                 142,463
<PP&E>                                         738,005                 738,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                 449,049                 449,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 496,922                 496,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,491                  63,491
<BONDS>                                        200,000                 200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     166,933                 166,933
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   496,922                 496,922
<SALES>                                        146,312                 299,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,312                 299,823
<CGS>                                          141,945                 293,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,945                 293,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,623                  12,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,565                  10,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,821)                (16,145)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,821)                (16,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,821)                (16,145)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)                  (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)                  (0.43)
        

</TABLE>