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

                                                                      Exhibit 12

                                AMERIKING, INC.
               CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Dec. 29, 1998 to        Dec. 30, 1997 to
                                                         March 29, 1999          March 30, 1998
                                                      ---------------------    -------------------- 
                                                      W/O PIK     With PIK     W/O PIK     With PIK
                                                      Dividends   Dividends    Dividends   Diviends          
                                                      ---------------------    --------------------  
<S>                                                   <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>  
EARNINGS
Income (loss) before income taxes benefit               (858)      (858)         (435)      (435) 
Interest expense                                       4,502      4,502         4,008      4,008
Amortization of deferred financing costs                 250        250           199        199
Portion of rents representative of interest            2,087      2,087         1,722      1,722 
Preferred stock PIK dividends                             --        143            --        113
                                                       -----      -----         -----      -----
Total earnings                                         5,981      6,124         5,494      5,607
                                                       -----      -----         -----      -----
FIXED CHARGES
Interest expense                                       4,502      4,502         4,008      4,008
Amortization of deferred financing costs                 250        250           199        199
Portion of rents representative of interest            2,087      2,087         1,722      1,722 
Preferred stock PIK dividends                             --        143            --        113
Total Fixed Charges                                    6,839      6,982         5,929      6,042 
                                                       -----      -----         -----      -----
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                      0.87       0.88          0.93       0.93
                                                       -----      -----         -----      -----
INSUFFICIENT EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED CHARGES            (858)      (858)         (435)      (435)
                                                       -----      -----         -----      -----
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter
63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as an officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SRI on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of SRI.



|                       |  |     |  |                                               
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|Date: November 5, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ D. Jon McGuire                            
|                       |  |     |  | D. Jon McGuire                                
|                       |  |     |  | Sr. Vice President of Strategic Sourcing      
|                       |  |    
|Date: November 5, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Wallace D. Ruiz                           
|                       |  |     |  | Wallace D. Ruiz                               
|                       |  |     |  | Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Jose Cruz VELAZQUEZ-AISPURO; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73195.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.**

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Carlos Vellanoweth, Esq., Vellanoweth & Gehart, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Rosanne M. Perry, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Jose Cruz Velazquez-Aispuro, his wife Jesus Guadalupe Velazquez-Pelazuelos, *763and their son Ignacio seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to remand and upholding an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying the parents’ applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003); *see also Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft,*320 F.3d 858, 874 (9th Cir.2003) (“Under BIA procedure, a motion to remand must meet all the requirements of a motion to reopen and the two are treated the same.”). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners’ contention that the IJ misunderstood the standards governing cancellation of removal is not supported by the record. Moreover, the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [petitioners were] prevented from reasonably presenting [their] case.” *Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ motion to remand, because the BIA considered the evidence they submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 10.20



|                                                       |  |     
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----
|Paul A. Perrault President and Chief Executive
Officer |  | LOGO

April 1, 1999

Mr. John Kelly

Executive Vice President

Commercial Banking & Trust

Dear John:



|This | letter will serve as confirmation of our earlier conversation.
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------

In the
event of your separation from Chittenden for any reason, you will receive a severance payment equal to one years base salary at the rate in effect at the time of separation.

John, I appreciate your continued support, and trust that the above reflects Chittendens commitment to you.



|                    
|--------------------
|Sincerely,          
|                    
|/s/ Paul A. Perrault

Two Burlington Square * P.O. Box 820 * Burlington, Vermont * 05402-0820 * 802-660-1400
#### Maria Teresa GRANADOS OLVERA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71597.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Sherilyn Peace Garnett, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Thomas Fatouros, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Mark C. Walters, Esq., Office of Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Teresa Granados Olvera, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order upholding an immigration judge’s order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review due process claims de novo. *See Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Granados Olvera contends that the IJ violated her due process rights by denying her motion for continuance. Contrary to Granados Olvera’s contention, the proceedings were not so fundamentally unfair that she was prevented from reasonably presenting her case. *See Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). Moreover, Granados Olvera failed to show that evidence of her son’s after school program attendance would have affected the outcome of proceedings. *See id.*(requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
| (logo) WELLS            FARGO | Corporate Trust ServicesMAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel:  410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

 

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. 

c/o Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

375 Park Avenue 2nd floor

J0127-023

New York, New York 10152-023

 

 

 

 

RE:  Annual Statement of Compliance

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (in such capacities, “Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the “reporting period”):

 

 

(a)     A review of Wells Fargo’s activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the “Servicing Agreement(s)”) has been made under my supervision; and

 

(b)     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.

 

 

 

March 3, 2015

 

/s/  Brian Smith 

BRIAN SMITH 

Vice President

 

 

To:  Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. 

 

Schedule A

 

 

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

 

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2013, by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer,, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Service r, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WFRBS Series 2013- C14 relating to the White Marsh Mall Loan combination, a pari passu portion of which is included in the Series WFRBS 2013-LC12 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.

 

 

To:  Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. 

 

Schedule B

 

 

Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

 

Not Applicable
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
TeleSpectrum Worldwide Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kevin Flannery, President of the Company, hereby 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 Section 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/ Kevin Flannery
---------------------------------
Kevin Flannery
Chairman of the Board & President
September 24, 2002

                                       30
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 of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc;
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Jean-Pierre  Dallaire  Chief  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:  March 31, 2006

                                  /s/ Jean-Pierre Dallaire
                                  ------------------------
                                 Jean-Pierre Dallaire   Chief Accounting Officer
#### Elaine Pachter, Respondent, v Bernard Hodes Group, Inc., Appellant.

Submitted March 17, 2008;

decided March 20, 2008

Motion by National Retail Federation for leave to appear amicus curiae on consideration of the certified questions herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### Tucson V. WESTMORELAND, Claimant-Appellee, v. James B. PEAKE, M.D., Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2006-7369.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 11, 2008.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, LOURIE and LINN, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs responds to the court’s November 21, 2007 order and moves to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in *Westmoreland v. Nicholson,*No. 04-0392, 2006 WL 1725930 (June 9, 2006), and remand for further proceedings. The Secretary states that Tucson V. Westmoreland does not oppose.

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals for a determination whether Westmoreland was given proper notice pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act without first determining whether any error was prejudicial. The Secretary appealed.

This appeal was stayed on the appellant’s motion pending a decision in *Simmons v. Nicholson,*487 F.3d 892 (Fed.Cir. 2007). On November 21, 2007, the court directed the Secretary to respond how this appeal should proceed in view of this court’s decision in *Simmons.*In response, the Secretary moves to vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and remand based on this court’s decision in *Mlechick v. Mansfield,*503 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.2007).

*Mlechick*held that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims cannot refuse to consider the rule of prejudicial error if the Board relied on both pre- and post-decisional communications. *Id.*at 1346. Rather, in cases such as this, where the Secretary has attempted to show the no*275tice error was nonprejudicial, the court should review the pre-decisional communications “to determine if any differences between the notice given and the notice required by [section 5103(a) ] ‘affected the fundamental fairness of the adjudication’ being mindful that the burden is on [the Secretary] to make such a showing.” *Id.*

The Secretary states, “[t]his Court’s decision in *Mleehick*directly addresses the issued raised in this appeal.” Because this case involves the same issue as that decided in *Mleehick,*the court agrees that it is appropriate to vacate and remand.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 22, 2014

NO. 03-12-00544-CR

Willie James Sauls, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 167TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no error in the court’s

judgment requiring reversal. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. However, 

there was error in the judgment and sentence that requires correction. Therefore, the Court 

modifies the trial court’s judgment and sentence as follows: to reflect that appellant pleaded not 

true to the two enhancement paragraphs. The judgment of conviction, as modified, is affirmed.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
<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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 his 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 operation of the Company.



Date:    November 19, 2003        By:      /s/ Joseph M. Cummins
                                     -----------------------------------------
                                           Joseph M. Cummins
                                           President, Chief Executive Officer
                                           and Chief Financial Officer


                                       14
Exhibit 31.2
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals, 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(s) 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:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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):
    /s/ JOHN R. BEAVERJohn R. BeaverSenior Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial Officer
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



The undersigned executive officer of Black Rock
Petroleum Company certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



| | ● | the annual report on Form 10-K
of the Company for the year ended April 30, 2021, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ● | the information contained in
the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:  August 31, 2022 | /s/ Zoltan Nagy                                            
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                       | Zoltan Nagy                                                
|                       | Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
 Officer, Director
Filed 1/22/18 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2018 ND 6

In the Interest of Z.B., Minor Child

----------

State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

Z.B., a child; the Executive Director of the North

Dakota Department of Human Services,  Respondents

and

G.B., her father, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20170395

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Dann E. Greenwood, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

James A. Hope, State’s Attorney, Dickinson, ND, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

Joseph L. Mrstik, Dickinson, ND, for respondent and appellant G.B.; submitted on brief.  

Interest of Z.B. 

No. 20170395

Per Curiam.

[¶1]G.B. appealed a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights in Z.B.  On appeal, G.B. argues the juvenile court clearly erred in finding Z.B. was deprived, in foster care for 450 out of the previous 660 nights, G.B. abandoned Z.B., social services set unreasonable reunification goals, and the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating G.B.’s parental rights.  The juvenile court terminated G.B.’s parental rights based on findings of (1) deprivation, (2) abandonment, and (3) the number of nights spent by Z.B. in foster care exceeding 450 out of the previous 660 nights.  Any one of these three findings provides adequate and independent grounds for termination.  Because the juvenile court’s findings relating to deprivation and number of nights spent in foster care were not clearly erroneous, we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jon J. Jensen

Jerod E. Tufte