alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Donald Ray SPILLERS v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, INC., et al.

No. 54029.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 9, 1973.

In re: Donald Ray Spillers applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Ouachita, 282 So.2d 546.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the Annual Report of FelCor Lodging Trust Incorporated (the “Registrant”) onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity asindicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.   March 15, 2006 /s/ Andrew J. Welch     Andrew J. Welch  Chief Financial Officer
# C_2015246EN.01000502.xml

| 28.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/5

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2015/C 246/08)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 16.5.2015 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 16.5 - 31.12.2015 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or Group of stocks | POK/56-14 |
| Species | Saithe (Pollachius virens) |
| Zone | VI; Union and international waters of Vb, XII and XIV |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 13/TQ104 |

Date and time of closure

16.5.2015

Duration

16.5 - 31.12.2015

Member State

Spain

Stock or Group of stocks

POK/56-14

Species

Saithe (Pollachius virens)

Pollachius virens

Zone

VI; Union and international waters of Vb, XII and XIV

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

13/TQ104

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of ABC Acquisition Corp 1502 (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),I, Nitin Amersey, 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 my 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 operations of the Company as of the date and for the periods expressed in the Report.
  /s/ Nitin AmerseyNitin AmerseyChief Financial OfficerDecember 14, 2010
    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
----

               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE            

of 14 October 2004            

in Case T-44/02: Dresdner Bank AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition - Article 81 EC - Price-fixing agreement and ways of charging for currency exchange services - Germany - Procedure in default)

(2004/C 314/33)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-44/02: Dresdner Bank AG, established in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/25/EC of 11 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty — (Case COMP/E — 1/37.919 (ex 37.391) — Bank charges for exchanging euro-zone currencies — Germany) (OJ 2003 L 15, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

----
#### Edna JONES, Appellant, v. CITY RENT-A-CAR, INC., a Florida corporation, and Charles M. Silverman, Appellees.

No. 71-414.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 1, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 25, 2018

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00581-CR

CRAIG DOUGHTY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 78393-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault of a child, criminal 

episode, and two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child, criminal episode. In 

accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court 

sentenced appellant to 25 years’ imprisonment for the first count and 25 years’ total 

for the second and third counts, with the sentences to run concurrently. We dismiss 

the appeal. 

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in 
2 

which the court certified that this is a plea bargain case and the defendant has no 

right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is 

included in the record on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports

the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Donovan, Wise, and Jewell. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO


 


2011 SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”),
dated as of January 29, 2014, is by and among Champions Oncology, Inc. (the “Company”), Battery Ventures IX,
L.P. (“Ventures”) and Battery Investment Partners IX, LLC (together with Ventures, “Battery”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company, Battery and
certain other parties are parties to the Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Securities Purchase Agreement”)
dated as of March 24, 2011; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Battery
wish to amend certain provisions of the Securities Purchase Agreement;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual promises made herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Company and Battery hereby agree as follows.


 


1.         The definition of “Change
of Control” in Section 1.4 of the Securities Purchase Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:


 


“Change of Control” means the occurrence
of any one or more of the following events: (i) the sale or other disposition to an unrelated party of all or substantially all
of the assets of the Company, in one transaction or a series of transactions (other than financing arrangements); or (ii) a merger,
consolidation or share exchange involving the Company and any other person or entity (other than for the purposes of reincorporation),
in which the Company or one of its subsidiaries is not the surviving entity, after approval of the Board of Directors.


 


2.         All other provisions of the Securities
Purchase Agreement shall remain intact. This Amendment shall be interpreted in accordance with the governing law and jurisdiction
provisions of Section 7.7 of the Securities Purchase Agreement. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment may
be executed and delivered by facsimile transmission or email.


 


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]


 






    	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 





	 	CHAMPIONS ONCOLOGY, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Joel Ackerman	 
	 	Name:	Joel Ackerman	 
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BATTERY VENTURES IX, L.P.	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	Battery Partners IX, LLC	 
	 	 	General Partner	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	/s/ Scott Tobin	 
	 	 	Name:	Scott Tobin	 
	 	 	Title:	Member Manager	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BATTERY INVESTMENT PARTNERS, IX, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	Battery Partners IX, LLC	 
	 	 	Managing Member	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	/s/ Scott Tobin	 
	 	 	Name:	Scott Tobin	 
	 	 	Title:	Member Manager
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIG FLOWER HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001048662
<NAME> BIG FLOWER HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,307
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  152,480
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,342
<INVENTORY>                                     46,510
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               216,381
<PP&E>                                         520,211
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,059,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          233,938
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          115,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           195
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,059,047
<SALES>                                      1,376,706
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,376,706
<CGS>                                        1,072,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,072,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               272,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,371
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,996
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,626)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,945
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33,571)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (13,463)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (47,034)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.51)
        

</TABLE>
O pinion filed June 2, 2017



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11

- 06

- 00 252

- CV

__________

SHAWN CADY , Appellant

V.

GARY WAMPOLE , Appellee

On Appeal from the 118 th District Court
Howard County, Texas
T rial Court Cause No. 43290

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, Shawn Cady , filed a notice of appeal in 2006

. We abated this
appeal in 2008 based upon the parties’ joint motion to abate

. Pursuant to the parties’
request, this appeal was abated pending the outcome of third

- party damage litigation.
After numerous status inquiries by the clerk of this court, we received a letter in

December 2016 from the attorney for Gary Wampole indicatin g that the third

- party litigation ha d concluded and that he had no objection to this appeal being dismissed

. Appellant has not filed a motion to dismiss or otherwise c ontact ed this court in over2

five years. Accordingly, on May 19, 2017, this court notifi ed the parties by letter

that this court intended to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution

. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42 .3 (b)

. We also notified the parties that any objection or response to this
court’s letter must be filed on or before May 30, 2017. We have not received any

response to the May 19 letter.
Consequently, w e dismiss th is appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.3 (b)

.

PER CURIAM

June 2, 2017
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J., and Bailey , J.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 12

              INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                   (unaudited)

                                 (in thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED      SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                      -------------------    -------------------
                                      Aug. 26,   Aug. 31,    Aug. 26,   Aug. 31,
                                         2000       1999        2000       1999
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                   <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>
Earnings from continuing
   operations before income taxes     $13,458    $ 8,210     $21,119    $15,569
Plus: Fixed charges (1)                 6,554      6,062      12,915     13,067
Less: Capitalized interest               (111)      (205)       (342)      (329)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earnings available to cover
   fixed charges                      $19,901    $14,067     $33,692    $28,307
===============================================================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges       3.04       2.32        2.61       2.17
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>


(1) Fixed charges consisted of the following:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      THREE MONTHS ENDED      SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                      -------------------    -------------------
                                      Aug. 26,   Aug. 31,    Aug. 26,   Aug. 31,
                                         2000       1999        2000       1999
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                    <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Interest expense, gross                $4,468     $3,852     $ 8,675    $ 8,447
Rentals (Interest factor)               2,086      2,210       4,240      4,620
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Total fixed charges                  $6,554     $6,062     $12,915    $13,067
===============================================================================
</TABLE>
# C_2015367EN.01001001.xml

| 5.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/10

---

FUSION FOR ENERGY JOINT UNDERTAKING

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2014

(2015/C 367/36)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.fusionforenergy.europa.eu/aboutfusion/keydocs.aspx

---
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3750

To provide for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion in accordance

with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 1993.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1994

Mrs. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services

A BILL

To provide for nuclear disarmament and economic conversion

in accordance with District of Columbia Initiative Measure Number 37 of 1993.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nuclear Disarmament

5 and Economic Conversion Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND

7 ECONOMIC CONVERSION.

8 The United States Government—
2

•HR 3750 IH

1 (1) shall disable and dismantle all its nuclear

2 weapons and refrain from replacing them at any

3 time with any weapons of mass destruction;

4 (2) shall undertake vigorous good faith efforts

5 to eliminate war, armed conflict, and all military op6 erations;

7 (3) shall actively promote policies to induce all

8 other countries to join in these commitments for

9 peace on earth; and

10 (4) shall redirect resources that are currently

11 being used for nuclear weapons programs to use—

12 (A) in converting all nuclear weapons in13 dustry employees, processes, plants, and pro14 grams smoothly to constructive, ecologically

15 beneficial peacetime activities during the 3

16 years following the effective date of this Act,

17 and

18 (B) in addressing human needs such as

19 housing, health care, education, agriculture,

20 and environmental restoration.

21 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

22 This Act shall take effect when the President certifies

23 to the Congress that all foreign countries possessing nu24 clear weapons have established legal requirements com-
3

•HR 3750 IH

1 parable to those set forth in section 2 and those require2 ments have taken effect.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             251
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,486
<INVENTORY>                                         27
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,092
<PP&E>                                             922
<DEPRECIATION>                                     687
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,893
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,312)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,461
<SALES>                                          6,018
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,594
<CGS>                                            7,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,133
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   671
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,888)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,888)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,888)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
#### Mrs. Elsie HATCHER v. Dason E. ALEXANDER et ux.

No. 46560.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 13, 1972.

Dan Coit, Meridian, for appellant.

James B. Everett, Decatur, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Chief Justice:

Mrs. Elsie Hatcher filed suit in the Chancery Court of Newton County against Dason E. Alexander and his wife, Mrs. Clara Bee Alexander. The defendants' general demurrer was sustained, the bill of complaint was dismissed, and complainant appeals.

The bill of complaint averred that complainant was the owner of fifteen acres of land described by metes and bounds. She deraigned her title and averred that complainant had been in adverse possession of the land since 1936. The bill averred that the defendants, over protest of the complainant, wilfully entered the complainant’s property, cut a quantity of timber, destroyed a large number of young trees, and otherwise damaged the property with a bulldozer and tractor. It averred that the defendants fenced a portion of complainant’s land and claimed it as their own.

Complainant prayed for a decree adjudging that she was the owner of the land, cancelling the claims of defendants as clouds on her title, judgment for statutory damages for cutting the trees and for the value of the timber cut, and for an in*425junction enjoining the defendants from trespassing on complainant’s property. She also prayed for cancellation of a part of a deed dated November 26, 1954, but there are no allegations justifying any relief with respect to said deed. In fact, the copy of the deed was not annexed to the bill.

The bill of complaint in this case is inadequate in many respects, but we are of the opinion that it was sufficient to state a cause of action. The defendants concede that the bill of complaint states a cause of action for the recovery of damages, but contend that no relief of an equitable nature could be granted under the bill. We are of the opinion, however, that the bill is sufficient to charge that the defendants claimed some of complainant’s land, fenced it, and erected “posted” signs. Conceding that the question is fairly close because of the vagueness of the bill of complaint, we hold the demurrer should have been overruled.

In accordance with the trend of modern judicial opinion it has been definitely established as a rule by our latest cases that attempt should not be made to settle close and difficult questions of law and right on a demurrer. If the demurrer raise merely a doubtful question or if the case be such that the cause of justice will probably be promoted by a determination of the ultimate right only on answer and proof, the court ought to exercise a fair judicial discretion to that end, although it may be that in technical point the grounds of the demurrer are sustainable in strict law. (Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice, 2d ed. § 310 at 297 (1950)).

Upon remand of this case, it would undoubtedly be useful to the parties and helpful to the court to amend the bill to clarify the relief sought.

Reversed and remanded.

JONES, BRADY, INZER and SUGG, JJ., concur.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00368-CR

JAVIER DE LA ROSA JR.

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-CR-17-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, 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.

February 12, 2015