alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 7
                                                                       ---------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Year ended December 31,
                                                                  1997         1998         1999         2000         2001
                                                          -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  (in(pound)millions)
<S>                                                              <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>
Earnings
      Loss before income taxes                                   (332)        (333)        (521)        (761)       (1,796)
      Extraordinary loss on extinguishment of debt                   -            -         (20)            -          (15)
      Share of losses of affiliates and impairment                  22           19            6           15           216
      Dividend income from affiliates                                -            -            -            -
      Interest expense                                             142          206          293          385           472
      Interest portion of net rent expense                           1            1            -            -             -
                                                          -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Loss available for fixed charges                           (167)        (107)        (242)        (361)       (1,123)
                                                          -----------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Charges
      Interest expense                                           (142)        (206)        (293)        (385)         (472)
      Interest portion of net rent expense                         (1)          (1)            -            -             -
                                                          -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Fixed charges                                              (143)        (207)        (293)        (385)         (472)
                                                          -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          -----------------------------------------------------------------
Deficiency of earnings to fixed charges                          (310)        (314)        (535)        (746)       (1,595)
                                                          -----------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2412 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on preparations based on 

ethanediamide, N-(2-ethoxyphenyl)-N′-(4-isodecylphenyl)-. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on preparations 

based on ethanediamide, N-(2-ethoxyphenyl)-N′-(4-isodecylphenyl)-. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PREPARATIONS BASED ON ETHANEDIAMIDE, N4 (2-ETHOXYPHENYL)-N′-(4-ISODECYLPHENYL)-. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.04.05 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 preparations based on ethanediamide, N-(2-ethoxyphenyl)- 

8 N′-(4-isodecylphenyl)-) is amended by striking the date in 

9 the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2412 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 31, 2022

No. 04-21-00416-CV

Kimi-Lyn MURRAY,

Appellant

v.

Phillip MURRAY,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-19449

Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

On May 24, 2022, appellant filed her brief. Appellant’s brief violates Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 9.9 in that pages 38, 53, 59, 69, 111, and 115 of the brief include sensitive 

data, specifically the birth date and name of a person who was a minor when the underlying suit 

was filed, and such data has not been redacted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. 

We therefore ORDER that appellant’s brief is STRICKEN. We further ORDER

appellant to file an amended appellant’s brief in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.9 by June 10, 2022.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 31st day of May, 2022

FILE COPY
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
**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, Steve Bajic, President, Secretary, Treasurer and a director of Goldrange Resources, Inc. (Principal Executive Officer), hereby certifies, 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-QSB of Goldrange Resources, Inc. for the interim period ended December 31, 2006 (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 Goldrange Resources, Inc.

Dated:  January 30, 2007

 

/s/ Steve Bajic                                                                              

Steve Bajic

President, Secretary, Treasurer 

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial 

Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Goldrange Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Goldrange Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

CW1039710.1
50091.

#### FRANKS v. REID et al.

Webb, Judge.

Plaintiff in this personal injury action appeals with a certificate for immediate review from the order of the trial court granting defendants’ motion, under CPA § 36 (b) (Code Ann. § 81A-136 (b)), to withdraw any admissions made by them resulting from failure to answer requests for admissions, and allowing them fifteen days in which to answer the requests. *Held:*

1. "Any matter admitted under this section [requests for admission] is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission. Subject to the provisions of section 81A-116 governing amendment of a pretrial order, the court may permit withdrawal or amendment *95when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense on the merits.” CPA § 36 (b) (Code Ann § 81A-136 (b)).

Submitted January 7, 1975

Decided February 7, 1975

2. " '[T]he test now stated in Rule 36b for withdrawal of admissions is tailored more precisely to the purposes of Rule 36 generally, and . . . the admission that otherwise would result from a failure to make timely answer should be avoided when to do so will aid in the presentation of the merits of the action and will not prejudice the party who made the request.’ ” *National Bank of Ga. v. Merritt,*130 Ga. App. 85, 86 (202 SE2d 193). "In such cases, it is important that the discretion of the trial court, intelligently disposed to this end, not be curtailed by the appellate courts.” *Coolik v. Hawk,*133 Ga. App. 626.

3. The order under review recites: "Defendants’ May 23,1974 motion to permit the withdrawal of any answers made by them to plaintiffs request for admissions having come on regularly for hearing and after consideration of all the evidence including the entire record together with defendants’ motion and exhibits and plaintiffs response and exhibits attached thereto filed on September 3,1974, and after hearing argument of counsel for all parties, the court finds that the defendants have made the required legal showing, and the court, in its discretion, does hereby consider, order and adjudge that the defendants be and are hereby permitted to withdraw any admissions made by them . . .”

4. We find no sufficient reason to interfere with this order. See *A & D Barrel & Drum Co. v. Fuqua,*132 Ga. App. 827, 832 (2c) (209 SE2d 272). Compare *Porter v. Murlas Brothers Commodities,*134 Ga. App. 96 and cits. *Moore v. Hanson,*224 Ga. 482 (162 SE2d 429) does not require a different result, since that case was decided prior to Ga. L. 1972, pp. 510, 528, which amended CPA § 36 (b).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.*

*96Rehearing denied February 20, 1975

*Larry Cohran,*for appellant.

*Dennis & Fain, Dennis J. Webb,*for appellees.
#### Sarah DALESANDRO v. Hector H. DALESANDRO.

No. 89-CC-0263.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1989.

In re Dalesandro, Sarah; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 89CW-0044; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “G”, No. 87-11343.

Granted. The order of the Court of Appeal dated January 24, 1989 is reversed; the trial date of February 2, 1989 is upset; and the case is remanded to the trial court for expeditious disposition of all pending issues.

WATSON, J., dissents from the order.
CERTIFICATIONS
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


UNDER
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the filing by Lixte Biotechnology Holdings, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2009 (the “Quarterly Report”) with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, I, John S. Kovach, 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 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.




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




Date:  August
      11, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      JOHN S. KOVACHJohn
      S. KovachChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer)
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Q'Max America. Inc., d/b/a Q' Max America Solutions, Inc., d/b/a

Q'Max Solutions, d/b/a Q'Max Solutions, Inc. v. Screen Logix, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 003 19

- CV

Trial court case number: 2015

- 05002

Trial court: 125th District Court of Harris County

The court reporter’s request for an extension to file the record is GRANTED, IN PART

. The court reporter’s record is due within 7 days of the date of this orde r, with no further

extensions

.

This is an accelerated appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE § 51.04(a)(4) (West 2015) . Therefore, the court reporter’s record was

originally due ten (10) days from the date o f the notice of appeal, which was filed on April 1,

2015. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Ac ting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 1 6 , 2015
#### HYSTER COMPANY v. Joe REEVES, III d/b/a Reeves Tractor Company (First National Bank, Bienville Parish—intervenor).

No. 89-C-1193.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Hyster Company; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 20377-CA; Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 28691.

Prior report: La.App., 541 So.2d 363.

Denied. Result is correct.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JENNIFER M. STRAW AND THOMAS P. STRAW, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO

ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF ELIJAH C. STRAW, DECEASED; AND ROWAN J. STRAW, A MINOR, BY AND

THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, JENNIFER M.

STRAW AND THOMAS P. STRAW.

v.

KIRK A. FAIR AND GOLON MASONRY RESTORATION, INC.

v.

PITTSBURGH LUBES, INC. D/B/A JIFFY LUBE, TOWER AUTO SALES & SERVICE, NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE

PARTS ASSOCIATION

- NAPA AUTO

PARTS T/D/B/A NAPA

v.

THOM AS P. STRAW

PETITION OF: PITTSBURGH LUBES,

INC. D/B/A JIFFY LUBE :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 320 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

JENNIFER M. STRAW AND THOMAS P. STRAW, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO

ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF ELIJAH C. STRAW, DECEASED; AND ROWAN J. STRAW, A MINOR, BY AND

THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND :

:

:

:

:

: No. 321 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court[ 320 WAL 2018 and 321 WAL 2018 ]

- 2

NATURAL GUARDIANS, JENNIFER M.

STRAW AND THOMAS P. STRAW

v.

KIRK A. F AIR AND GOLON MASONRY RESTORATION, INC.

v.

PITTSBURGH LUBES, INC. D/B/A JIFFY LUBE, TOWER AUTO SALES & SERVICE, NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE

PARTS ASSOCIATION

- NAPA AUTO

PARTS T/D/B/A NAPA

v.

THOMAS P. STRAW

PETITION OF: PITTSBURGH LUBES,

INC. D/B/A JIFFY LUBE :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of February, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph Floyd CARMOUCHE, Defendant-Relator.

No. K88-351.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

June 13, 1988.

Writ Granted in Part with Order; Denied in Part June 29, 1988.

Thomas E. Guilbeau, C. Michael Hill, Lafayette, for relator.

*867Morgan J. Goudeau, III, Dist. Atty., Opelousas, for respondent.

Before GUIDRY, YELVERTON and KNOLL, JJ.

ORDER

WRIT DENIED.

Relator’s application claims five assignments of error which we deny, for the following reasons:

> 1. Relator has failed to show that his mental condition at the time of the offense will be a significant issue at trial that would require appointing the following experts: (1) a neuropsychologist; (2) a neurologist; (3) a psychiatrist with expertise in the field of mental retardation; and, (4) a psychologist with expertise in the field of mental retardation. Relator has entered a simple plea of not guilty. He has already been thoroughly examined by the Aca-diana Psychiatry And Psychology Group. Relator’s application is void of any evidence to suggest that he is suffering from some form of mental disorder other than a mild form of mental retardation, which was the diagnosis of the Acadiana Psychiatry And Psychology Group. Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in denying relator’s request for funds for further testing by experts concerning his mental condition. *Ake v. Oklahoma,*470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985).

> 2. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling denying relator funds to hire the National Center On Institutions and Alternatives.

> 3. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling that the inculpatory statements of relator appearing in Dr. W.A. Hawkins’ report *may*be admissible or proper rebuttal at the penalty phase *only.*Furthermore, we find that this ruling is premature and totally dependent upon the evidence presented by defendant at the penalty phase. Therefore, to the extent necessary, right is reserved to relator to re-urge his objection at the appropriate time at the penalty phase of this proceeding.

> 4. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling denying relator funds for experts in the field of fingerprint analysis and serology. Relator failed to adequately show that the State’s experts might be erroneous in their opinions or that another expert might necessarily be expected to disagree with their conclusions. *State v. Balfa,*506 So.2d 1369 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1987), writ denied, 512 So.2d 436 (La.1987); *State v. Hodge,*457 So.2d 152 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1984), writ denied, 459 So.2d 545 (La.1984).

> 5. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling denying relator’s motion to suppress physical evidence seized pursuant to a consent search.
#### Gail STAHL, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 86-1384.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 10, 1987.

*79Gail Stahl, in pro. per.

John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant/claimant appealed to the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, challenging the findings of the Appeals Referee regarding the incident that led to the termination of her employment. The Referee found that appellant was disqualified from receiving benefits due to her misconduct during her employment, to-wit: she was insubordinate to her superior and created a disturbance at the employer’s premises by shouting obscenities at her superior while other employees and customers were in the area. The issue before the Commission was whether appellant’s behavior constituted misconduct within the meaning of sections 443.036(24)1 and 443.-101 (Disqualification for Benefits), Florida Statutes (1985). Upon review by the Commission, the decision of the Referee was found to be in accord with the essential requirements of law, and was affirmed. This appeal was taken from the Commission’s order.

We affirm the order under review upon a holding that the underlying findings of the Referee, which are supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, established misconduct which disqualified appellant for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law. *See Heifetz v. Dep’t of Business Regulation,*475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (agency may not reject hearing officer’s finding unless there is no competent, substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred); *Hines v. Dep’t of Labor & Employment Security,*455 So.2d 1104, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (district court must affirm where competent, substantial evidence supports appeals referee’s decision that employee’s actions — insubordinate and offensive challenge of foreman’s authority in presence of other employees— constituted misconduct); *Citrus Central v. Detwiler,*368 So.2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (reversing agency order overturning appeals referee’s finding of employee misconduct, which finding was supported by adequate evidence); *Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce,*354 So.2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (quashing agency’s order reversing appeals referee’s finding of employee misconduct where record established substantial, competent evidence of repeated behavior by employee evincing in*80tentional and substantial disregard of employer’s interests).

Affirmed.

1

. 443.036(24) MISCONDUCT. — "Misconduct" includes, but is not limited to, the following

> (a) Conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee; or (b) Carelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer.
#### Lentz’s Estate.

*Witnesses*— Competency•—Witness *called generally by objecting side*— Subsequent *competency for all purposes.*

1. Where a witness is called generally by a party later objecting to his competency he is thereby rendered competent for either side for all purposes.

*<*Practice, *Supreme Court*— Findings *of auditor*— Affirmance *by lower court*— Appeal.

*2.*Where the findings of fact of an auditor are based upon sufficient evidence, followed by correct legal conclusions, and are approved by the lower court, they will not he disturbed on appeal.

Submitted May 6,1918.'

Appeals, Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 160, Jan. T., 1917, from decree of O. C. Lycoming Co., March T., 1913, No. 26, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in Estate of Harry W. Lentz, Deceased.

Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer and Wauling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appeal from adjudication. Before Whitehead, P. J.

The lower court dismissed the’ exceptions to and confirmed the report of the auditor, James B. Krause, Esq. George W. Lentz, Sarah Lentz, Mary J. Lentz; and Wil*531liam P. Beeber and William L. Colt, surviving executors of the last will and testament of J. Artley Beeber, deceased, who was executor of the last will and testament of Harry W. Lentz, deceased, exceptants, appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was in dismissing exceptions to the adjudication.

*Wm. W. Porter,*with him *Henry I. Fox*and *Henry Freedley,*for George W. Lentz, Sarah Lentz and Mary J. Lentz.

*8. T. McCormick,*of *McCormick & Hippie,*with him *Dimner Beeber,*for William P. Beeber and William L. Colt.

June 3, 1918:

Per Curiam,

The findings of fact by the learned auditor were all based upon sufficient evidence, and were followed by correct legal conclusions. We have not been convinced that there is any error in his well considered report, which was properly approved by the court below. In dismissing these cross appeals nothing more need be said, unless it be to add that when W. P. Beeber was called as a witness generally by those now objecting to his competency, they made him a competent witness for either side for all purposes: Seip v. Storch, 52 Pa. 210; Bennett v. Williams, 57 Pa. 404.

Decree affirmed and appeals dismissed at the costs of the respective appellants.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2372 

To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers of man-made fibers 

assembled as candle rings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. VOINOVICH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers of manmade fibers assembled as candle rings. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS OF MAN-MADE FIBERS 

4 ASSEMBLED AS CANDLE RINGS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Artificial flowers of manmade fibers assembled as 

candle rings (provided for in 

subheading 6702.90.35) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2372 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS