alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued November 17, 2022

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 22
- 00 393
- CV

——————————— IN RE JACOB R. COX AND SERVICEPLUS, LLC , Relator s
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator s , Jacob R. Cox and ServicePlus, LLC, filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus challenging two discovery orders signed by the trial court on April 25, 2022, including: (1) an “O rder Compelling Production,” which grant ed the motion2

to compel of real party in interest, Bestway Oilfield, Inc., and (2) an order denying
relators’ motion t o compel

. 1
In connection with their mandamus petition, relator s also filed a n “ Emergency
Motion for Temporary Relief,” requesting that, pending consideration of the ir mandamus petition, the Court stay enforcement of the trial court’s April 25, 2022

“ Order Compelling Production. ” The Court granted relators’ motion on May 26, 2022, staying enforcement of the “ O rder C ompelling P roduction. ” We deny relators ’ petition for writ of mandamus and lift the stay imposed by

our May 26 , 2022 order. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Hightower, and Guerra

.

1 The underlying case is Bestway Oilfield, Inc. v. Jacob R. Cox and ServicePlus, LLC , Cause No. 2020

- 32320, in the 270th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Dedra Davis presiding.
### 74734446205 M1HE150109350229209 M1HEXL
X X Page 1 NON-CBI SUBMISSION

### X

Page 2 NON-CBI SUBMISSIONLou Fabrizio Regulatory Affairs Specialist HENKEL CORPORATION One Henkel Way Rocky Hill CT 06067 Lou.Fabrizio@henkel.com
Sean Burdzy Research Chemist Henkel One Henkel Way Rocky Hill CT 06109 Sean.Burdzy@henkel.com 860-571-2497 

## X X

X X Page 3 NON-CBI SUBMISSION

## X

6-Mercapto-1-Hexanol 1633-78-9 

## X C6H14OS See Attachment 001 (6-MERCAPTO-1-HEXANOL Structure and CAS.doc)
6-MERCAPTO-1-HEXANOL Structure and CAS.doc Page 4 NON-CBI SUBMISSION1) 4-allyloxy Benzophenone, CAS 42403-77-0

2) 6-mercapto-1-hexanol, CAS 1633-78-9 3) Acryloyl Chloride, CAS 814-68-6 First step of the reaction is a radical reaction between the thiol and vinyl moieties. Second step of reaction is an esterification. 100% Page 5 NON-CBI SUBMISSIONPage 6 NON-CBI SUBMISSIONPage 7 NON-CBI SUBMISSION6-Mercapto-1-Hexanol
Page 8 NON-CBI SUBMISSION

### 3000 7000



## X

Chemical intermediate to cureable monomer 100 100 100 0 0 0
Page 9 NON-CBI SUBMISSION

## X 3000 99 8 

## 2 X Henkel 30 Inwood Road Rocky Hill United States CT 06067

Page 10 NON-CBI SUBMISSIONSee Attachment 002 (Use of mercaptohexanol in production of Benzophenone Acrylate Process.xls)

Use of mercaptohexanol in production of Benzophenone Acrylate Process.xls Page 11 NON-CBI SUBMISSIONHenkel Salisbury 485 Cedar Springs Road Salisbury United States NC 28147

Page 12 NON-CBI SUBMISSIONReagent Charging Ventaliation, respirators, gloves liquid, 100% 1 8 30 Final product collection Ventaliation, respirators, gloves liquid, 0% 1 8 30 Product quality control Ventilation, gloves liquid, 0% 20 8 45 Filtration Ventaliation, respirators, gloves liquid, 0% 8 8 30
Page 13 NON-CBI SUBMISSION

## X NONE NONE 

## X NONE NONE 

## X NONE 1 0 0 Other: None mercaptohexanol reacts completely 0

Page 14 NON-CBI SUBMISSION

### 0

Page 15 NON-CBI SUBMISSIONPage 16 NON-CBI SUBMISSIONPage 17 NON-CBI SUBMISSION001 structure 6-MERCAPTO-1-HEXANOL Structure and CAS.doc Pt.I, Sec.B, 1e. 1 002 process Use of mercaptohexanol in production of Benzophenone Pt.2, Sec.A, 1d. 1

Page 18 NON-CBI SUBMISSION

## X Measured 0981 Measured 225
Page 19 NON-CBI SUBMISSION

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 001 Attachment Name structure 

## Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.I, Sec.B, 1e. Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number M1HE150109350229209

## ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number 002 Attachment Name process 

## Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.2, Sec.A, 1d. Does not contain CBI 

## Report Number M1HE150109350229209
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
registrant's March 31, 1998 audited balance sheet, income statement and
cash flow statement, and notes thereto, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   13,156,053
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,214,053
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     1,049,093
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               1,015,666
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,434,865
<COMMON>                                     2,278,901
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          2,586,984
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               4,865,885
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         5,643,250<F1>
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  169,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               5,756,995
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               16,434,865
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,006,886
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             7,427
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     836,357
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     843,784
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        163,102
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             868,843
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               1,031,945
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       146,849
<NET-INCOME>                                   885,096
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  885,096
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       129,489
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0<F2>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          94,283
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14
<FN>
<F1>See Note 4 to financial statements; includes long term note payable.
<F2>Not reported on an interim basis.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS


I, David W. Dorman, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of AT&T
Corp., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
         30, 2004 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies
         fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

2.       Information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
         of AT&T Corp.


Dated:   August 3, 2004


                                                /s/ David W. Dorman
                                                -------------------------------
                                                David W. Dorman


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff 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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [AZ-910-0777-26-241A]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Arizona Resource Advisory Council meeting notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces a meeting of the Arizona Resource Advisory Council (RAC). The meeting will be held on August 4, 2000, in Phoenix, Arizona. The RAC meeting will begin at 9 a.m and will conclude at approximately 4 p.m. The agenda items to be covered include the review of the March 31 and May 11, 2000, meeting minutes; BLM State Director's Update on legislation, regulations and statewide planning efforts; National Off-Highway Vehicle Use Strategy Presentation/RAC Discussion; Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Presentation; Arizona Trails System; Update Proposed Field Office Rangeland Resource Teams; Reports from BLM Field Office Managers; Reports by the Standards and Guidelines, Recreation and Public Relations, Wild Horse and Burro Working Groups; Reports from RAC members; and Discussion of future meetings. A public comment period will be provided at 11 a.m. on August 4, 2000, for any interested publics who wish to address the Council.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, 222 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2203, (602) 417-9215.

Denise P. Meridith,

Arizona State Director.

[FR Doc. 00-16283  Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-32-M
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00351

- CR
Ex Parte Noe De Jesus Puga
On Appeal from the 138th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2017

- DCR

- 00682

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appe al, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 31, 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 870 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 870

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to change the determination 
  of the 50,000-barrel refinery limitation on oil depletion deduction 
          from a daily basis to an annual average daily basis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 1999

 Mr. McCrery (for himself, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Baker, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. 
    John, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. 
 Thornberry, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Largent, Mr. English, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. 
Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Istook, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Hefley, Mr. 
 Lucas of Oklahoma, and Mr. Pickering) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to change the determination 
  of the 50,000-barrel refinery limitation on oil depletion deduction 
          from a daily basis to an annual average daily basis.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DETERMINATION OF LARGE REFINER EXCEPTION TO OIL DEPLETION 
              DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 613A(d)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to certain refiners excluded) is amended to read as 
follows:
            ``(4) Certain refiners excluded.--If the taxpayer or a 
        related person engages in the refining of crude oil, subsection 
        (c) shall not apply to the taxpayer for a taxable year if the 
        average daily refinery runs of the taxpayer and the related 
        person for the taxable year exceed 50,000 barrels. For purposes 
        of this paragraph, the average daily refinery runs for any 
        taxable year shall be determined by dividing the aggregate 
        refinery runs for the taxable year by the number of days in the 
        taxable year.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies to 
taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
# Comments on: 18-1432: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. v. VALVE CORPORATION [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
No. 10-10981.

#### Wilson *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Argued and submitted March 10,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration in part; otherwise affirmed June 28, 1995

#### Barbara PETERSEN, dba Husband’s Plumbing, *Petitioner, v.*EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, *Respondent.*

(93-T-0078A; CA A84588)

898 P2d 222

Jeffrey E. Potter argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Jack A. Gardner and Lombard, Gardner, Honsowetz, Potter & Budge.

Stephen L. Madkour, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Hasel-ton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*384PER CURIAM

This is the companion case to *Petersen v. Employment Dept. (A84589),*135 Or App 344, 898 P2d 210 (1995). With the exception that this case did not involve the provision of services before October 4, 1989, the material facts and issues presented in this case are identical to those in that case. We adopt and reiterate our analysis in *Petersen*pertaining to the period October 4, 1989 through December 31, 1992.

Assessment for services provided by Jones, David, and Smith reversed and remanded for reconsideration; otherwise affirmed.
Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Ave, SW. 

Renton, Washington 98057-3356 

February 22, 2011 

Mr. Baruch Marom 

Gulfstream Aerospace LP 

c/o IAI Dept. 4199 

70100, Israel 

Dear Mr. Marom: 

We have received your petition, GALP Ref #FAA/11033/CG, dated January 29, 2011. In 

that letter, you requested an exemption from the requirements of § 25.813(e) of Title 14 of 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) for the Gulfstream Model G250 airplane that is 

currently being evaluated for FAA type certification. The exemption, if granted, would 

allow installation of a forward compartment door between passenger seats and emergency 

exits. 

Your request, which you sent to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Document 

Management System, Docket No. FAA-2011-0113, will be processed by this office. We 

have determined that any grant of exemption in this case would not set a precedent. 

Therefore, we are waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication and the public 

comment period. Although we have waived the publication and comment period, you 

should not interpret this action as approval of your request. We will issue an decision after 

we have thoroughly analyzed your request. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Dan Jacquet, (425) 227-2676, daniel.jacquet@faa.gov. 

/s/ 

Maria G. Delgado 

Transport Standards Staff 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service
Winston H. Hickox Agency Secretary

The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov

.

California Environmental Protection Agency

Printed on Recycled Paper 

# Air Resources Board Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D. Chairman 1001 I Street • P.O. Box 2815 • Sacramento, California 95812 • www.arb.ca.gov Gray Davis Governor

MEMORANDUM TO: David Potter

Senior Staff Counsel Office of Administrative Law 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1290 Sacramento, CA 95814-4602 FROM: W. Thomas Jennings

Senior Staff Counsel
DATE: April 30, 2001 SUBJECT: LIGHT- AND MEDIUM-DUTY L EV ALIGNMENT & HDGE RULEMAKING

REGULATORY ACTION NO. 01-0319-02S

In response to our telephone conversation on April 27, 2001, I enclose the following material: (1) Seven copies of the following replacement pages for the Final Regulation Order. They reflect the nonsubstantial changes described below to sections 1956.8 and 1961, title 13, California Code of Regulations. Please substitute them for the corresponding pages in the Final Regulation Order we submitted on March 19, 2001. (a) Page 4 : In the fourth line of section 1956.8(d), "as lasted" is corrected to "as last". (b) Page 7: Section 1961(a)(12) is shown, with a correction of the internal lettering from lower case to upper case. (c) Pages 8-11: Repagination due to showing section 1961(a)(12); in addition, section 1961(b)(1)(C) is identified on page 10 as having no changes. (2) Seven copies of the following replacement pages of the California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 and Subsequent Model Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, appended to the Final Regulation Order we submitted on March 19. 2001.David Potter

April 30, 2001 Page 2 (a) Page E-3, Table 1.1.1: in the row "MDVs 10,001-14,000 lbs. ALVW –

120,000 mile – ULEV," the NMOG g/mi value is changed from "0.197" to

" 0.197 0.257 " to correctly reflect the standard in the corresponding table in section 1960.1(h)(2), title 13, CCR. (b) Page H-3: In section H.1.4.6, " tune label " is corrected to " tune-up label ".
#### § 51-6.15 Disputes.

Disputes between a nonprofit agency and a contracting activity arising out of matters covered by parts 51-5 and 51-6 of this chapter shall be resolved, where possible, by the contracting activity and the nonprofit agency, with assistance from the appropriate central nonprofit agency. Disputes which cannot be resolved by these parties shall be referred to the Committee for resolution.

[62 FR 66529, Dec. 19, 1997. Redesignated at 63 FR 16439, Apr. 3, 1998.]
Exhibit 10.29
 CONSOLIDATED EBITDA
    Six Months
    
    
    Three Months
    
    
    Nine MonthsEnded
    
    
    Ended
    
    
    EndedJune 30,
    
    
    December 31,
    
    
    June 30,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2008Consolidated Net Loss
    
    $
    (2,389
    )
    
    $
    (1,552
    )
    
    $
    (3,941
    )Any extraordinary or non recurring gains or lossesLoss from disposed operations, net of tax
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,300
    
    
    
    1,300(Gain) Loss on sale of subsidiaries
    
    
    (113
    )
    
    
    500
    
    
    
    387Non-cash charges that do not result in future cash obligationsLoss (Gain) from fair value of notes and warrants
    
    
    527
    
    
    
    (23
    )
    
    
    504(Gain) Loss from Sale of Fixed Assets
    
    
    212
    
    
    
    3
    
    
    
    215Non-cash expenses associated with stock compensation expense
    
    
    304
    
    
    
    194
    
    
    
    498Adjusted Net Loss before
    
    $
    (1,459
    )
    
    $
    422
    
    
    $
    (1,037
    )Interest Income
    
    
    (426
    )
    
    
    (336
    )
    
    
    (762
    )Interest Expense
    
    
    4,245
    
    
    
    1,642
    
    
    
    5,887Income tax expense
    
    
    323
    
    
    
    21
    
    
    
    344Depreciation Expense
    
    
    2,952
    
    
    
    1,425
    
    
    
    4,377Amortization Expense
    
    
    557
    
    
    
    279
    
    
    
    836Any non-cash transactions
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Foreign currency losses
    
    
    197
    
    
    
    148
    
    
    
    345Adjustments related to Inventory
    
    
    207
    
    
    
    246
    
    
    
    453Bad Debt Expense
    
    
    153
    
    
    
    42
    
    
    
    195Hedge or non-hedge derivative adjustments
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Consolidated EBITDA
    
    $
    6,749
    
    
    $
    3,889
    
    
    $
    10,638Other Financial Disclosure Required based on terms of notes:Consolidated Net Interest Expense
    
    $
    3,819
    
    
    $
    1,306
    
    
    $
    5,125Consolidated Net Debt (Total Debt less Cash and Cash Equivalents) at June 30, 2008
    
    $
    38,862
    
    
    $
    19,516
    
    
    $
    38,862Quotient of Consolidated Net Debt divided by one and one third of Consolidated EBITDA
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2.74Covenant Requirement  not more than
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4.50Covenant Status
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    PASSED
 41
#### MARY QUAIN, Respondent, *v.*MOSES RUSSELL and MORTIMER RUSSELL, Appellants.

*“Oml damage aei ”*— intoxication *of husband*— when *wife ingwed by.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.

The action was brought to recover damages, under the “ civil damage act ” (chap. 646 of 1873), by the plaintiff, who is the wife of the person to whom the liquor was sold. The case has already been before the General Term (8 Hun, 319), where it was held that a good cause of action was stated in the complaint.

Upon this appeal the General Term, after holding that the evidence given upon the trial was sufficient to sustain all the material allegations of the complaint, said:

*“*On the question whether the plaintiff was injured in person ox property or means of support, through the intoxication of her husband, caused by the selling to him of intoxicating liquors by the defendant, the evidence was abundantly sufficient to support the verdict in her favor. The proof was to the effect that the plaintiff owned a small piece of land; had six minor children under her care; that the family was supported in whole or in part by the cultivation of her land by her husband, and by his labor performed for others; that her husband squandei-ed her money during his *377debauch; fell down stairs and was injured so that he was unable to help himself or labor for about four weeks, during which time the plaintiff was in destitute circumstances and suffered for want of food and fuel. Certainly here was evidence tending to show, and in fact showing, that the plaintiff was injured by her husband’s intoxication in her person, property and means of support, and the jury was well warranted in this finding in the plaintiff’s favor in that regard. * * *

The license to the defendant from the board of excise of the town giving him permission to sell intoxicating liquors, did not bar the plaintiff’s action. *(Balter*v. *Pope,*9 N. Y. S. C. [2 Hun], 550.) The only effect of the license was to mitigate damages, and was admissible as evidence for that purpose. The verdict was for fifty dollars only. i This sum cannot be deemed excessive under the facts found in the case.”

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

*Albert Hobbs,*for the appellants.

*B-urlte & KiTbwm,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Bockes, J.;

Boardman, J., concurred.

Learned, P. J.

As the views taken by me, when the case was , here before, were overruled by a majority of the court, I concur in this opinion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.