alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

### Water Analysis Form REP-703 Rev. 0, 4/2012



### Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 10/17/2013 Sample Number: 134053-001 Date Collected:10/02/2013 Date Received:10/4/2013 

### Trip Blank Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg < 0.20 0.50 JAB EPA 1631E 0.20 10/14/2013 U 

### Sample Number: 134053-002 Date Collected:10/02/2013 Date Received:10/4/2013 

### Field Blank Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg < 0.20 0.50 JAB EPA 1631E 0.20 10/14/2013 U 

### Sample Number: 134053-003 Date Collected:10/02/2013 Date Received:10/4/2013 

## Plant Outfall #001 Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 4.6 2.0 JAB EPA 1631E 0.80 10/14/2013 

### Sample Number: 134053-004 Date Collected:10/02/2013 Date Received:10/4/2013 

## Bioreactor Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 2.0 1.0 JAB EPA 1631E 0.40 10/14/2013 

### Sample Number: 134053-005 Date Collected: 10/02/2013 Date Received:10/4/2013 

### CPS Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 347 20 JAB EPA 1631E 8.0 10/14/2013

Mountaineer Plant, 134053 Page 1 of 2

### Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 10/17/2013

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit. Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 134053 Page 2 of 2
US ONCOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. AND US ONCOLOGY, INC.

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R. Dale Ross, Chief Executive 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
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ R. Dale Ross                                                           
|R. Dale Ross                                                               
|Chief Executive Officer of US Oncology
Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc.

August 10, 2006
#### WEST et ux. v. CULPEPPER et al.

No. 11106.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Feb. 18, 1942.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1942.

See, also, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 231, 135 Tex. 156, 140 S.W.2d 166.

*962J. B. Lewright, of San Antonio, for appellants.

Perkins & Floyd, of Alice, for appellees.

NORVELL, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of dismissal entered by the trial court after the sustaining of a general demurrer and refusal to amend.

This case was before this Court upon the question of the issuance of a temporary injunction. Culpepper v. West, Tex.Civ.App.,110 S.W.2d 231. The cause insofar as it involved a temporary injunction, was dismissed by the Supreme Court, West v. Culpepper, 135 Tex. 156, 140 S.W.2d 166.

Appellants state that their amended petition, which was attacked by the demurrer, alleges “substantially the same facts as those alleged in their original petition and those alleged in their trial amendment thereof,” the pleadings upon which the hearing relating to the temporary injunction was had. We therefore refer to our former opinion for a statement of the pleadings involved.

Appellants sought a perpetual injunction containing substantially the same restraining and mandatory provisions as those contained in the temporary injunction heretofore issued by the trial court and ordered dissolved by this Court.

We quote from appellants’ brief: “The especial attention of this court is invited to the fact that neither the original petition nor said first amended original petition tendered, directly or indirectly, any issue of title to any of the lands therein described. The entire object of the suit has all along been, and still is, to protect appellants in their long continued, peaceable, exclusive and actual possession of the tracts of land described in the pleadings herein, and to prevent appellees from again trespassing thereon and especially from constructing any of the numerous lines of fencing which they were threatening to construct and were about to construct when this suit was instituted.”

We are here concerned with a perpetual and not a temporary injunction, one which if granted would as effectually protect appellants in their possession of the premises involved, as would a judgment for title and possession in an action of trespass to try title. In trespass to try title, evidence of possession creates a re-buttable presumption or inference of title. Paul v. City of El Paso, Tex.Civ.App., 131 S.W. 438, 439 ; 41 Tex.Jur. 546, § 69. Appellants’ theory, if accepted, would have the practical effect of making conclusive the inference or presumption of title derived from proof of possession.

The object sought to be accomplished by appellants, according to the statement thereof taken from their brief, can only be obtained in a suit in which title can be adjudicated. Since no issue of title is tendered by the pleading, the trial court properly sustained the demurrer to the petition and dismissed the cause. Rogers v. Day, Tex.Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 104.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official capacity as Attorney 

General of the United States, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No. 4:22-cv-00691-O 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI 

CURIAE BRIEF OF GUN OWNERS FOR SAFETY AND 

INDIVIDUAL CO-AMICI 

Upon consideration of the Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief of Gun Owners for 

Safety and Individual Co-Amici, see ECF No. __, and there appearing good cause to grant such 

leave, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

The Motion is GRANTED. The amici brief, attached to the Motion, is deemed FILED. 

SIGNED this ____ day of _________, 2022. 

_____________________________ 

REED O’CONNOR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 42-2 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 518
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, David W. Qualls, Chief Financial Officer of Garden Fresh
Restaurant Corp. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: May 13, 2003 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    DAVID W.
QUALLSDavid
W. Qualls Chief Financial Officer
|------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
#### WELCH v. HARDY.

No. 11091.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

Jan. 9, 1941.

D. R. Bullard and Fountain & Sandlin, all of Houston, for appellant.

Miller & Sapp, of Houston, for appellee.

CODY, Justice.

This is a companion case to D. T. McIver v. Rufus Hardy, Jr., 146 S.W.2d 1054, numbered 11090 on the docket of this court, opinion in which was this day handed down reforming and affirming the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant has appealed because the court below allowed him judgment on the basis of the ownership of 24/81 of 1/20 of the mineral fee for a primary term of 20 years. He was, as appears from our opinion in the Mclver case above referred to, entitled to recover on the basis of 24/81 of 1/15 as was decreed by the Justice Court in its judgment of November 21, 1939 — this cause, like 11090, supra, was originally filed in the Justice Court, being appealed to the County Court at Law of Harris County by the appellee, and there tried de novo. The Justice Court rendered judgment for appellant against appellee for the sum of $101.08. As no objection seems to be made as to the correctness of said judgment as calculated there on the basis of 24/81 of 1/15, we reform the judgment of the court below so that it shall be for appellant in the sum of $101.08, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from November 21st, 1939.

Reformed and affirmed.
(logo**) CWCapital**

ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

**Annual Statement as to Compliance**

**For the Period of January 1, 2017 toDecember 31, 2017**

 

**GSMS2015-GC32**

 

 

Inaccordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB and****with the requirementsdetailed in §10.07 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) forthe above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital Asset ManagementLLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’sCertificate with respect to the following:

 

(A)a review of CWCAM’sactivities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the“Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has beenmade under such officer’s supervision and;

 

(B)to the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

Shouldyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.  

 

Sincerely,

CWCapitalAsset Management LLC

 

 

/s/David B. Iannarone 

DavidB. Iannarone

President

 

 

7501Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814

www.cwcapital.com
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/15

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

WILBUR W. WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTER STREET FINANCE, LP, d/b/a 

CSF SERVICING,

Defendants, 

_________________________________/

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00922-O

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

NOW COMES Wilbur W. Washington, (“Plaintiff”), by and through his 

undersigned counsel, moving this Honorable Court for an extension of time for Plaintiff to file his 

response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (“Defendant’s Motion”), and in support thereof, stating 

as follows:

1. On October 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendant seeking 

redress for violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681 

et seq. [Dkt. 1]

2. On November 23, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Extend Time to Respond to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. [Dkt 11]

3. On December 1, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting Defendant’s Motion to 

Extend its Response to Plaintiff’s Complaint through December 9, 2022. [Dkt 12]

4. On December 9, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims. [Dkt 

13]

Case 4:22-cv-00922-O Document 16 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 48
2

5. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e), Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Motion was due 

on or before December 29, 2022. 

6. Due to holidays, a planned vacation and other professional deadlines, Plaintiff filed 

a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss requesting a 21-day 

extension through January 12, 2023, to submit his response to Defendant’s Motion. [Dkt 15]

7. Due to unforeseen circumstances, Plaintiff is requesting a 14-day extension through 

January 26, 2023, to submit his response to Defendant’s Motion.

8. The extension is sought in good faith and will not prejudice Defendant. 

9. Based on the foregoing, there is good cause to grant the extension sought herein. 

WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an order (1) extending 

the deadline for Plaintiff to submit his response to Defendant’s Motion through January 26, 2023.

DATED: January 12, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alexander James Taylor

Alexander James Taylor, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1013947

Counsel for Plaintiff

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.

2500 S. Highland Ave., Ste. 200

Lombard, IL 60148

Telephone: (630) 575-8181

ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com 

 Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 4:22-cv-00922-O Document 16 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 49
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 10, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court for the Northern District of Texas by using the CM/ECF system.

/s/ Alexander James Taylor

Case 4:22-cv-00922-O Document 16 Filed 01/12/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 50
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 359

To designate the week beginning June 13, 1994, as ‘‘National Parkinson’s

Disease Awareness Week’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 20, 1994

Mr. HOBSON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate the week beginning June 13, 1994, as

‘‘National Parkinson’s Disease Awareness Week’’.

Whereas Parkinson’s Disease is a chronic neurologic, crippling disorder of the nervous system;

Whereas Parkinson’s Disease affects more than 1,500,000

people of all ages in the United States and millions more

around the world;

Whereas no cure is available at this time, but extensive research in laboratories throughout the world has led to improved treatment in alleviating symptoms while searching

for a cure; and
2

HJ 359 IH

Whereas Parkinson support groups, chapters, and information and referral centers across America are dedicated to

developing understanding of this disease and community

awareness of Parkinson’s Disease by promoting discussions, mutual sharing, and support among patients and

family members and by sponsoring educational and medical symposiums that help stimulate research: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the week beginning June 13, is hereby designated

4 as ‘‘National Parkinson’s Disease Awareness Week’’. The

5 President is authorized and requested to issue a proclama6 tion calling upon the people of the United States to ob7 serve that week with appropriate ceremonies and

8 activities.

Æ
#### Verna Bennett et al., Respondents, v Angel Cruz et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce McM. Wright, J.), entered November 16, 1989, which, following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff Verna Bennett, awarded her damages in the amount of $215,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was struck by the rear of defendants’ truck while crossing the street at, or immediately adjacent to, a crosswalk. Since it was undisputed that plaintiff looked in the direction of oncoming traffic before stepping off the curb, and the truck struck her while backing up (i.e., moving in a direction from which no traffic would be expected), she was not guilty of contributory negligence. *(Kupperberg v American Druggists Syndicate,*212 App Div 311; *Enstrom v Neumoegen,*126 NYS 660; *cf., Vescio v Silverman,*20 Misc 2d 876.)

The testimony of plaintiff and her experts supported the jury’s determination that she suffered a "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). We do not find the verdict, based on a torn rotator cuff of the shoulder, excessive *(see, May v European Health Spas,*103 AD2d 1032; *compare, Gonzalez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,*160 AD2d 420). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LUCAS HORTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANTAGE ONE BROKERS

CORP.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 3:22-cv-02474-B-BT

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of

United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford dated June 5, 2023. The Court has made a de

novo review of those portions of the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendationstowhich

objections were made. The objections are overruled. 

SO ORDERED, this 26

th

 day of June, 2023.

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Case 3:22-cv-02474-B-BT Document 17 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 87
11th October 

FILED

KAREN MITCHELL

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT 

COURT October 11, 2022

Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 77 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 378
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1147 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1147

  To extend until January 1, 1999, the existing suspension of duty on 
                       certain unimproved wools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 1993

 Mr. Moakley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend until January 1, 1999, the existing suspension of duty on 
                       certain unimproved wools.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXISTING DUTY SUSPENSION ON CERTAIN UNIMPROVED 
              WOOLS.

    Heading 9902.51.01 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended by striking 
``12/31/92'' and inserting ``12/31/98''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon 
a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or 
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of goods to which the 
amendment made by section 1 applies and that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been a lower duty if the 
amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or withdrawal, 
shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or withdrawal 
had occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL GREEN,

Plaintift,

SIMEON ANDRIS and All Other Occupants,

Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:22-CV- 1444-C

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that this civil action should be remanded back

to state cour!.1

The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error

and finds none. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated

therein, the court ORDERS that this civil action be REMANDED back to the Dallas county

Justice Court from which it was removed.

oarceug,lst 6 ,2022.

aa'Z'Z'z'zzt

SA INGS

OR TED STATES D CT JUDGE

I The Parties have failed to file objections to the Magistrat€ Judge's F

C

Recommendation and the time to do so has now expired.

ings, Conclusions, and

SO ORDERED.

)

I

Case 3:22-cv-01444-C-BN Document 6 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 39
Case 3:22-cr-00368-S Document 29 Filed 10/11/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 65
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                      21,658,051
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,073,788
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,649,000
<INVENTORY>                                 15,829,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            61,792,759
<PP&E>                                      21,182,909
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,221,484)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,147,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       36,363,148
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    78,922,914
<OTHER-SE>                                (35,883,399)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,147,742
<SALES>                                     83,997,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            83,997,447
<CGS>                                       49,333,071
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,333,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             3,307,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             229,579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (42,706,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,434,835
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (44,141,181)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (44,141,181)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.64)
        

</TABLE>