alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

January 28, 1954

No. 57806.

protests 972308-G, etc. (Seattle).

#### W. T. Grant Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*387Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer and celluloid sleds similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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 Laredo Oil, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley E. Sparks, Chief Financial Officer 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 and belief:





(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.











/s/ Bradley E. Sparks


Bradley E. Sparks


Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer











Date: September 13, 2011
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

HARRY FOX,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. RICHARDS,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5063RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Plaintiff’s “Appeal” [Dkt. #22] of

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom’s Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Dkt. #21].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Strombom under 28 U.S.C. § 636. Under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(a), the non-dispositive order of a magistrate judge to whom the matter has been referred for

practical matters may be reviewed by the District Court upon the objection of a party. The Court construes

Mr. Fox’s “appeal” in this instance to be such an objection.

Magistrate Judge Strombom correctly determined that plaintiff is not entitled to the appointment of

counsel; therefore, plaintiff’s “appeal”/objection is DENIED.

Case 3:06-cv-05063-RBL Document 23 Filed 01/20/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 20th day of January, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05063-RBL Document 23 Filed 01/20/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,818,475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,894,947
<PP&E>                                         402,230
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,955
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,334,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,275,951
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,987
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,937,685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,334,854
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,820,742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,550
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,827,292)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,828,892)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,828,892)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.52)


</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00302-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.P.-M., A CHILD §

§

§

§

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

of Parker County (CIV-17-0143)

February 14, 2019

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment 

of the trial court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 3 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 4 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 5 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 6 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 7 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 8 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 9 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 10 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 11 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 12 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 13 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 14 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 15 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 16 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 17 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 18 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 19 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 20 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 21 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 22 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 23 of 24
Case 2:06-cv-00618-RSL Document 57-2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 24 of 24