alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            298
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,602
<ALLOWANCES>                                      796
<INVENTORY>                                    19,377
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               34,741 
<PP&E>                                         16,824
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 76,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,473
<BONDS>                                       101,566
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (43,594)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   76,283
<SALES>                                        89,436 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               89,436
<CGS>                                          59,601         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  59,601 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               15,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  428
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              7,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 6,938
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,836
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             4,047
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   398
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,649
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12.3

PIEDMONT LABORATORIES, INC.  FIXED CHARGE RATIO COMPUTATION  (GUARANTORS ONLY)

|                                                      |                              | Year Ended December 31, |      
|----------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ----------------------- | -----
|
|
|Loss before taxes                                     |                              | $                       | (210 
|Fixed charges reflected in income (loss) before taxes |                              |                         |      
|                                                      | Interest expense             |                         |      
|                                                      | One third of rental expenses |                         |      
|                                                      |                              |                         |      
|Total fixed charges                                   |                              | $                       | 1,400
|                                                      |                              |                         |      
|Income before taxes plus fixed charges above          |                              | $                       | 1,190
|                                                      |                              |                         |      
|Fixed charge ratio                                    |                              |                         | 0.85x
|                                                      | Fixed charge deficiency      |                         | $    

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8090

In re: JOSE ELIECER LONDONO,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-87-321-A)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Eliecer Londono, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Eliecer Londono brought this mandamus petition seeking an

order compelling the clerk of the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Virginia to forward the record on appeal in

United States v. Londono, No. 94-7462 (CR-87-321-A), to this court.

Because we note that the clerk of this court received and filed the

record on appeal shortly after Londono filed this petition, we

conclude that petitioner has already received the relief he seeks.

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but deny

the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

AARON WHITELOCK and DONNA

WHITELOCK

,

Appellant s

,

v.

JENNIFER STEWART, DONALD

STEWART, STEVEN STEWART, and

KATHY STEWART, and d / b / a ROYAL

HORSE FARMS

,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00185

- CV

Appeal from the

13th Judicial District Court

of Navarro County, Texas

(TC# D21

- 29799

- CV )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below denying Appellants ’ TCPA motion

to dismiss

. We further order that Appellee s recover from Appellant s and their sureties, if any, see

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.5, for performance of the judgment and all costs, for wh ich let execution issue.

This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 20 23

.

L ISA J. SOTO

, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto

, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 109 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 109

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 6 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

        Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress respecting the 80th anniversary of 
                      the Anti-Defamation League.

Whereas the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is celebrating the 80th anniversary of 
        its founding in 1913;
Whereas ADL has been a major leader in our Nation's quest for justice and fair 
        treatment for all individuals alike by fighting bias, bigotry, and 
        racism and promoting understanding and respect;
Whereas in purpose and program, ADL espouses and fulfills the highest ideals and 
        aspirations of people of all faiths, races, and backgrounds, by 
        countering hatred and violence through the promotion of tolerance;
Whereas ADL's activities are a constant reminder to the world community never to 
        forget the Holocaust and to incorporate its lessons into political 
        systems and decisionmaking;
Whereas ADL has been a leading contributor to the cause of democracy, respect 
        for human rights and human dignity of all peoples, and the security of 
        Jewish communities around the world and of the State of Israel;
Whereas ADL's record of achievement sets an inspiring example of leadership and 
        participation in the struggle for justice;
Whereas ADL continues to grow in strength and scope while maintaining its 
        founding priority of educating the public about anti-Semitism and other 
        manifestations of prejudice; and
Whereas racism and other forms of intolerance still exist and in too many 
        instances lead to hate-inspired violence: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the Anti-Defamation League 
should be congratulated on its 80th anniversary and commended for 
effectively pursuing the goal of promoting greater tolerance throughout 
the world.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 5, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 31.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Melvyn Brunt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Dynabazaar, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

       Date: April 2, 2007                  By: /s/ Melvyn Brunt
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Melvyn Brunt
                                                Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

TRE’VON A. WOODARDS,

Plaintiff. 

v. No. 4:22-cv-0213-P

APPLE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On March 24, the instant case was removed to this Court and 

referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton. ECF 

No. 1. Many of the named Defendants have moved to apply the sanction

bar that Plaintiff has on him, to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, or for other 

relief. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 23–26. Magistrate 

Judge Cureton made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

(“FCR”) in this case on May 10, 2022. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff filed a Motion 

to Seek Leave to continue (ECF No. 28) but has not filed an objection to 

the FCR or its central conclusion that Plaintiff has not complied with 

his sanction bar nor has he sought leave to continue this action. Thus, 

the Magistrate Judge’s FCR is ripe for review. The undersigned 

reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned 

District Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the 

Magistrate Judge are correct. 

Case 4:22-cv-00213-P Document 29 Filed 05/25/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 284
2

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the reasoning in the Magistrate 

Judge’s FCR. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants 

pending in this action are DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED on this 25th day of May, 2022.

______________________________

Mark T. Pittman

United States District Judge

Case 4:22-cv-00213-P Document 29 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 285
. **OFFICE OF**  **THE, ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  ***=oymm**

**s=u=m*** **1** ***** **A-Is ”**  **e.ir.cc**

Homor&ble.Qso.

.I?.. Sbemd comphralle~of.Publio Aooount() AuatLn, Taxas

;(: ti ) I::. i;;. :.v in a letter a colleoto~,

~B.% ~P011~82~ 1..
. ,' I for the full’ Jmar’ dot the year ar- ~2 the deed? :~. rqta, you request question

**oontained** d Parks,Tar Asseeeor-. * ,le$t+r

reading

as
J or a letterdated o your Department, rd 

### to. property,that nt until**Au-at** 0r

t6r says la part,.*We bare in vetal pieoesof real estate, aast five yeara,~tltle has been bvernment

. Thla .I8

land that a k"m ukehaied

by'theIfarm

**Seourity Adah**  l&rat on, for Cl.ienta.ln this County. There **has been**  **no** assessment oarrled

on our rolls **d&tilUlt** these tr%Ott3, sines It was Corernment owned property,

and a8 suoh,

was exemptfrom taxatioli.liosorabls

Geo. Ii.

shappard,

page 2

.r .% :, '%ow in **August** bf 1969, 8oma oi' these propertier were deededto the indiolduali. cPleaso advise it we are to aesessthese Individualsioz the 1942 tax, if so, shouldessessnt be **rot** the rull year, or for tht.portion or .faar aftor &eta or deed!' Ws think ths **question** arksd **by Mr.**  Parks is spaoifisally ansuued by ths provisions ot Artiole .7161 **or** vernoi~'s Asnotatul

Oi+il Statutes,

Tsadis&

in part as rollsus:' *

. fr any property has, by r~son oi any s&al law, **oontraot or**  **Saot,, been**  utmpt of **has boon**  01-d to be 02iqtea rroin taxation ior **any** .phiodor limit or Use, and suoh **period** of sxemption shgllexpirsbetsasnJanuary 1, **and** Deosabei 81 of asy year, rraidprop**erty.s&aU..br** assessed and listadfor taxes as othqrpropsrty;

but tha.taxes

asssssed

a&ai.nst said property

shallbe for osly the **pro** rata of taxor for the portionof suoh year reniaining.*

**‘ phi8**  proiision **of** the **statute is**  pl& and mbiguous,

,andis oldarly

applioable

to the situation

presented in Mr.'Parks'

platter.

. ..It therarore

followsthat taxesmay only' be oolleoted **on the**  **property** owned,by the United3tatssCorernment, **but** sold to priratslndlrlduals dubsequent

to January 1 from the dats or the dsad tor.the,remai+g portion OS the year. Yours tory truly &lWfEYOI?3UEUL~OF TEXAS

~' m
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEIMEION JONTESE CLEMONSRUSK,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CR-00139-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is defendant Keimeion Jontese Clemons-Rusk’s motion to 

dismiss the indictment against him on the grounds that it fails to state an offense 

that may be constitutionally prosecuted. [Doc. No. 20]. As the defendant concedes, 

this argument is foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2022.

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00139-X Document 22 Filed 08/31/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 45
From: Childress, Jerry [mailto:jchildress@mcgillairclean.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 11:54 AM To: Holloway, Thomas C. (Tom) Subject: RE: From McGill AirClean Web Site

Tom,

Sorry for the delay in responding.

We do not have any data on mercury emissions from brick kilns. All of our mercury removal experience has been with municipal solid waste incinerators at waste

- to

- energy plants. I would have to look through some test data to see how the levels compared wi th those in your study. In the past, when I have had questions regarding removal efficiencies and parameters controlling those efficiencies, I have contacted Norit, a PAC supplier, for assistance. That might be a good source of information for you regard ing this.

It should not be very difficult or expensive to add a PAC injection system to an existing brick APC system that is already using a dry sorbent injection system for acid gas control. A simple bag dump system with a blower could probably be used and would require very little additional space at a site. Weather protection would be necessary, however. The slight increase in baghouse inlet particulate loading shouldn't adversely affect the baghouse performance either.

Hope this helps some.

Gerald J. Childress, National Sales Manager McGill AirClean LLC 1777 Refugee Road Columbus, Ohio 43207

- 2119 614/829

- 1350, Cell: 614/937

- 1816 Fax: 614/445

- 8759

----- Original Message

----- From: Tom Holloway [ mailto:tc holloway@rti.org ] Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:52 AM

To: sales@mcgillairclean.com Cc: UMC Marketing Services Subject: From McGill AirClean Web Site

SUBJECT: Control of mercury at brick plants SENT BY: Tom Holloway, E

- MAIL: tcholloway@rti.org

Tom Holloway sends the following message:Hi, I work for RTI International, and we are providing technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop new regulations for the brick manufacturing industry. I have a couple of questions I was hoping you could help me answer:

(1) Is it feasible to add activated carbon injection to an existing dry lime inj ection system for the purpose of controlling mercury emissions?

(2) Is it feasible to control mercury emissions from brick kilns, given the following parameters?

- Range of mercury concentrations from 0.5 to 29 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (ave rage of 8 ug/dscm)

- Range of air flows from 15,200 to 108,500 actual cubic feet per minute (average of 38,200 acfm) and 9,400 to 62,700 dry standard cubic feet per minute (average of 23,600 dscfm)

- Range of temperatures from 114 to 400 degrees Fahrenheit (average of 321 degrees F)

Any assistance you can provide would be helpful. Thanks.

Tom Holloway
RTI International Research Triangle Park, NC
Phone: 919

- 316

- 3733
Email: tcholloway@rti.org
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          38,783
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,145
<PP&E>                                          65,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (717)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,686)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,778
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,041
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,977
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NORTE wD 7

\

NAS

5 HiarRICT COURT

\

|
\
|
|
_

No. 4:22-cy.3 43-7
Vargas — 02-02-24


7 ~] Q
§ BS
38 Be
ge £9 6901 9080 Pary EDES S0Z6 a2
e3 EI
z 5a
m4
§
da # ONINDVHL SdSN . =
maar eal:
O18 11S Fah | LA etd 4
duno 30 Wuz19 & .
2
2
za, re
caot inde xi svra 2 $5 22
“s es <"3A¥ NOLSVO COSY ¢ a 3 2 ze
Rut quoanvs 21¢83719 H g i i i i
“TWA Xtigorad Pe: EL
é ° & ry
*e po BE
382 #H
, HBG a
> | ~~ i:
~~ =, cH
Z coal Cy =-s i
- — 3
==s i
o : ==s H
_ => a3
x == fi
a * [| _— Hs
was OL ATWIS Ssaud Was OL ATWaA SSIAd
_

SNMNO SaliddNs 3384 waquo

INOD'SdSN LY SN LISIA