alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNISOURCE ENERGY CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                             March 31,
                                                         1999        1998
                                                        ------      ------
                                                     - Thousands of Dollars -
                                                     (except per share data)

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:

 Net Loss                                              $(5,528)    $(7,035)

 Average Shares of Common Stock Outstanding             32,287      32,139
                                                      ---------    --------

Basic Loss Per Share                                   $ (0.17)    $ (0.22)
                                                      =========    ========


DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

 Net Loss                                              $(5,528)    $(7,035)

 Average Shares of Common Stock Outstanding             32,287      32,139
 Effect of Dilutive Securities:
  Warrants                                                   -           -
  Options                                                    -           -
                                                      ---------    --------
 Total Shares                                           32,287      32,139
                                                      ---------    --------

Diluted Loss Per Share                                 $ (0.17)    $ (0.22)
                                                      =========    ========

     4.6 million of the 7.6 million warrants outstanding are exercisable into
TEP common stock.  However, the dilutive effect is the same as it would be if
the warrants were exercisable into UniSource Energy Common Stock.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2021

No. 04-21-00009-CV

Ernest BUSTOS,

Appellant

v.

ENCINO PARK HOMEOWNERS,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-18828

Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record and reporter’s record in this appeal are past due. See TEX. R. APP. P.

35.1. The trial court clerk responsible for preparing the clerk’s record has filed a notification of 

late record, stating that appellant has failed to (1) request preparation of the clerk’s record and 

(2) pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

35.3(a).

We therefore ORDER appellant to file written proof in this court no later than ten (10) 

days after the date of this order showing that: (1) he has requested that the trial court clerk 

prepare the clerk’s record and that the official court reporter prepare the reporter’s record in 

compliance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 34.5 and 34.6, respectively; and (2) either

the clerk’s and court reporter’s fees for preparation of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record 

have been paid or payment arrangements have been made, or appellant is entitled to appeal 

without paying the fees. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5, 34.6; 20.1(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 145.

If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.
_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of June, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2

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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of United-Guardian, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert S. Rubinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and 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.



|                        |                          
|----------------------- | -------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2007 | By:/s/ Robert S. Rubinger
|                        | Robert S. Rubinger       
|                        | Chief Financial Officer  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to United-Guardian, Inc. and will be retained by United-Guardian, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission 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 Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

      ( print page 21074)    

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 7 Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. The TAP will use citizen input to make recommendations to the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 16, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227, or 206-220-6096. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Area 7 Committee will be held Wednesday, May 16, 2007 from 2 p.m. Pacific Time to 3:30 p.m. Pacific Time via a telephone conference call. The public is invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to Janice Spinks, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or you can contact us at                     *www.improveirs.org*. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Janice Spinks. Miss Spinks can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096.                 

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. 

Dated: April 20, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E7-8034 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:13-cr-108

Carlos Mendez-Guezar 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 35) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: October 30, 2013 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:13-cr-00108-JLG-EPD Doc #: 36 Filed: 10/30/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 523 

Commending the Oregon State University baseball team for winning the 

2006 College World Series. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2006 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. SMITH) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commending the Oregon State University baseball team for 

winning the 2006 College World Series. 

Whereas on June 26, 2006, the Oregon State University 

baseball team won the College World Series in Omaha, 

Nebraska by defeating the University of Georgia Bulldogs by a score of 5–3, the University of Miami Hurricanes by a score of 8–1, the Rice University Owls by 

scores of 5–0 and 2–0, and the University of North Carolina Tarheels in 2 championship series games by scores 

of 11–7 and 3–2; 

Whereas the success of the season depended on the hard 

work, dedication, and performance of every player on the 

Oregon State University baseball team, including Erik 

Ammon, Darwin Barney, Bret Bochsler, Reed Brown, 

Dallas Buck, Brian Budrow, Mitch Canham, Bryn Card, 
2 

•SRES 523 ATS 

Brett Casey, Cory Ellis, Derek Engelke, Josh Forgue, 

Cole Gillespie, Ryan Gipson, Tyler Grahm, Mark 

Grbavac, Kevin Gunderson, Koa Kahalehoe, Greg Keim, 

Jon Koller, Chris Kunda, Eddie Kunz, Joey Lakowske, 

Greg Laybourn, Lonnie Lechelt, Mike Lissman, Anton 

Maxwell, Jake McCormick, Shea McFeely, Jonah Nickerson, Joe Paterson, Casey Priseman, Sean Rockey, Bill 

Rowe, Scott Santschi, Alex Sogard, Dale Solomon, Michael Stutes, Rob Summers, Daniel Turpen, Geoff Wagner, and John Wallace; 

Whereas numerous members of the Oregon State University 

baseball team were recognized for their performance in 

the regular season in the PAC–10 Conference, including 

Cole Gillespie, who was named PAC–10 Baseball Player 

of the Year, Chris Kunda, who was named PAC–10 Defensive Player of the Year, Darwin Barney, Dallas Buck, 

Cole Gillespie, Kevin Gunderson, and Jonah Nickerson 

who were named to the first team All PAC–10 baseball 

team, and Mitch Canham, Chris Kunda, and Shea 

McFeely who were named to the honorable mention All 

PAC–10 baseball team; 

Whereas Head Coach Pat Casey was named PAC–10 Baseball Coach of the Year; 

Whereas Jonah Nickerson was recognized as the Most Outstanding Player of the tournament; and 

Whereas the College World Series victory of the Oregon State 

University ended a terrific season in which the team compiled a record of 50–16: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates the Oregon State University 

3 baseball team, Head Coach Pat Casey and his 
3 

•SRES 523 ATS 

1 coaching staff, Athletic Director Bob DeCarolis, and 

2 President Edward John Ray for an outstanding 

3 championship season; and 

4 (2) respectfully requests the Secretary of the 

5 Senate to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolu6 tion to the President of Oregon State University. 

Æ
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE CHRISTOPHER I. HALLIDAY,

2011-1039 

(Serial No. 09/922,487) 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

CHRISTOPHER I. HALLIDAY, Morgan Lewis and 

Bockius, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for 

appellant. 

RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor, United States Patent 

and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for 

appellee. With him on the brief were BENJAMIN D. M.

WOOD and SCOTT C. WEIDENFELLER, Associate Solicitors. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (RADER, Chief Judge, PROST, and 

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

July 7, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
Case No. 13,945.

#### THOMPSON v. CARBERY.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 35.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1811.

Witness — Competency—Interest—Surety on Replevin-Bond.

A surety in a replevin-bond is not a competent witness for the plaintiff in replevin, although he has an indemnifying bond.

[See Case No. 13,946.]

Replevin. Ignatius Middleton, one of tbe sureties in tbe replevin-bond, being sworn in chief, and asked if he was interested in the cause, said he was not. He was then examined and cross-examined. It was afterward discovered by the defendant’s counsel that he was a surety in the replevin-bond. He acknowledged himself to be the person, but said he nad a bond of indemnification, which he produced. The plaintiff then called him again, to examine him further. The defendant objected, and THE COURT refused to suffer him to be further examined; and told the jury that what he had already testified was not evidence.
No. 49848.

#### Protest 101156-K of Hugo Brand Tannery Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the hides are of the same kind in all material respects as those involved in *Rice*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 118, C. D. 807) and Abstracts 49533 and 49535. In accordance therewith the claim at 5 percent was sustained.
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Regency Affiliates, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Neil N. Hasson,
Chief Financial 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:





(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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the
periods presented.





Dated:  September
17, 2009





By: /s/ Neil N.
Hasson


Neil
N. Hasson


Chief
Financial Officer
Exhibit 15(a)
                                                               
                                                               
November 10, 1998


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that our report dated November 6, 1998 (issued pursuant
to the provisions of Statement on Auditing Standards No. 71) has 
been incorporated by reference by UniSource Energy Corporation in 
the Prospectuses constituting part of its Registration Statements 
on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-43765, 333-43767, 333-43769, 333-53309, 
333-53333 and 333-53337), its Registration Statement on Form S-3 
(No. 333-31043-99), and its Registration Statement on Form S-4 
(No. 333-60809) and by Tucson Electric Power Company in the 
Prospectus constituting part of its Post-Effective Amendment 
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-55732).
We are also aware of our responsibilities under the Securities Act 
of 1933.

Yours very truly,


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE CHRISTOPHER I. HALLIDAY,

2011-1039 (Serial No. 09/922,487)

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

C HRISTOPHER I. H ALLIDAY , Morgan Lewis and Bockius, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for appellant.

R AYMOND T. C HEN , Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were B ENJAMIN D. M.

W OOD and S COTT C. W EIDENFELLER , Associate Solicitors.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (R ADER

, Chief Judge , P ROST

, and
O’M ALLEY

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 7, 2 01 1 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
Swanson, Brian (OST) From: 

### ,.· sent: To: Subject: Mr. SwansonTim Killeen <tkbluelake@hotmail.com> Saturday, August 18, 2012 7:35 AM Swanson, Brian (OST) Brainerd airport

We use BRD often for business and personal use and our hope is to have Sky West be the regional airline. Please considerthem when making the decison. Thankyou! Timothy

### J. Killeen, CFO Black Forest Pharmacy Services 

### &Affiliates
Case No. 9,930.

#### MUNROE v. TOWERS.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 187.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term. 1819.

Bait. — Puincifai, Dischakged in Insolvency — Scire Facias.

Bail will not be exonerated upon scire facias, by the discharge of the principal under the insolvent act [2 Stat. 237], unless the discharge was before the appearancerday of the first scire facias returned executed, or of the second returned nihil.

The scire facias, in this cause, was issued cn the 15th of September, ISIS, returnable to the next November term.

At November term, 1819, Mr. Mason, for defendant, Towers, moved the court to discharge the bail because the principal, McLaughlin, had been discharged under the. insolvent act, in Washington, on the appear*999:ance-day of the first scire facias, returned executed. That as the defendant was in actual custody in Washington during the whole of that term, and had petitioned for relief under the insolvent act, upon showing that fact the court might have ordered an exon-eretur; and the court may now consider that as having been done, which might have been done. The court here would not have ordered the principal to be brought from Washington by habeas corpus to be surrendered here. 1 Bae. Abr. (Am. Ed.) 343. D; Colem. cas. 66; Donnelly v. Dunn, 1 Bos. & P. 450; Robertson v. Patterson, 7 East, 405, 3 J. P. Smith, 556.

Mr. Taylor, contra.

The bail should not be discharged, unless they could have surrendered the principal at the time of his discharge under the insolvent act; and the appearance-day of the scire facias was too late. The act of Virginia, of the 12th of December, 1792, § 31, p. 79, is peremptory that the surrender must be before the appearance-day of the first scire facias returned executed, or the second returned nihil. The court would not have entered an exoneretur before the actual discharge of the principal because they could not know that he would be discharged.

THE COURT

(MORSELI,. Circuit Judge, absent)

refused to discharge the bail.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA FILED

PR 06-0544

IN RE PETITION OF PATRICIA BIK FOR

REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN

THE BAR OF MONTANA

MAY 1 9 2020

Bovven Greenwood

CAerk of Supreme Court

State nf Montana

ORDER

Patricia Bik has petitioned this Court for reinstatement to active status in the State

Bar of Montana. Bik was placed on inactive status in January 2020 for failing to comply

with the Rules for Continuing Legal Education for the reporting year ending March 31,

2019. Attached to the Petition is a letter from the State Bar stating that Bik has now

completed all CLE requirements for that reporting year. The Petition states that Bik is not

currently subject to disciplinary proceedings and has not committed any acts or omissions

sanctionable under the Rules of Professional Conduct while on inactive status. Good cause

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Patricia Bik for reinstatement to

active status in the State Bar of Montana is GRANTED. Upon payment of any remaining

dues, fees, and the state license tax to the State Bar of Montana, Bik shall be reinstated.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to the Petitioner and the State

Bar of Montana.

.‘"S1

DATED this 1 day of May, 2020.

Chief Justic

f

„.9-1 /4 ,t1-1,

05/20/2020

Case Number: PR 06-0544
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:12-cv-472 

v. Judge Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge King 

CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on the Motion of Defendant 

Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority for an Order Compelling 

Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth Siegler to File an Amended Complaint that 

Complies with Federal Civil Procedure Rule 10(b) (“Defendant’s 

Motion”), Doc. No. 17. Defendant argues that plaintiff “failed to 

number her claims [in the complaint] . . . [and] failed to limit her 

paragraphs to a single set of circumstances, all making it not 

practicable for Defendant to set forth all available defenses and 

causing Defendant to set forth general denials to the allegations in 

the Complaint.” Id. at p. 2. Plaintiff, who is proceeding without 

the assistance of counsel, opposes defendant’s motion. Memorandum 

Contra Document 17, Doc. No. 19. Defendant has not filed a reply. 

 Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that 

all claims be set forth in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as far 

as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

10(b). Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. No. 1-3, does not strictly comply 

with Rule 10(b) because the paragraphs are not numbered and they are 

Case: 2:12-cv-00472-JLG-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 04/29/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
not limited “to a single set of circumstances.” Nevertheless, pro se

complaints are to be held to “less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 596 

(1972). See also Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 

2011) (quoting Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). 

Plaintiff’s Complaint specifically identifies each defendant 

against whom relief is sought and expressly sets forth five claims for 

relief. See Complaint, pp. 39-42. The Court is satisfied that the 

Complaint is sufficiently specific so as to give the Columbus 

Metropolitan Housing Authority, the only defendant remaining in the 

action, notice of the claims against it. Under the circumstances, 

the Court will not require plaintiff to file an amended complaint. 

Defendant’s Motion, Doc. No. 17, is therefore DENIED. 

April 29, 2013 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00472-JLG-NMK Doc #: 24 Filed: 04/29/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
**Exhibit 32****CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TORULE 13a-14(b) ORRULE 15d-14(b)****OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND18 U.S.C. §1350**     The certification set forth below is being submitted inconnection with the **Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q**forthe quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the“Report”) for the purpose of complying withRule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “ExchangeAct”) and 18 U.S.C. §1350.     Dominic J. Pileggi, the Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth W.Fluke, the Chief Financial Officer, of Thomas & BettsCorporation (the “Corporation”), each certifies that,to the best of his knowledge:          1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and           2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents,    in all material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of the Corporation.Dated this 5th day of May, 2006.     /s/ Dominic J. Pileggi           Dominic J. Pileggi *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*      /s/ Kenneth W. Fluke           Kenneth W. Fluke *Senior Vice President and* *Chief Financial Officer*