alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GS FINANCIAL PRODUCTS U.S., L.P.

EXHIBIT 12.1

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         FISCAL YEARS ENDED

(U.S. dollars in thousands)             Nov. 27, 1998     Nov. 28, 1997    Nov. 29, 1996   Nov. 24, 1995    Nov. 25, 1994
                                        -------------     -------------    -------------   -------------    -------------
<S>                                         <C>                <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>   
Earnings:
Income from continuing operations
  before income taxes                        9,552             14,836          14,514          12,583          10,199
Add:  Fixed charges                         16,189              9,265           3,643             500              27
Earnings as adjusted                        25,741             24,101          18,157          13,083          10,226

Fixed charges:
Interest expense                            15,728              9,265           3,627             471              27
Debt amortization expense                      461(2)               0              16              29               0
Interest portion of rent expense                 0                  0               0               0               0
                                            ------              -----           -----          ------          ------
Total fixed charges                         16,189              9,265           3,643             500              27

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges             1.6x               2.6x              5x             26x            378x(1)

<FN>
For purposes of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges,  earnings as adjusted  consist of net income plus income
taxes and fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense and amortization of debt issuance costs.

Note (1): The Company does not consider this ratio to be meaningful since it is based on $5,000,000 in principal amount of
          the Company's Series A Medium- Term Notes outstanding only 42 days during fiscal 1994.

Note (2): Includes $262 thousand of costs that were written off in 1998 as part of the  repurchase  and  retirement of the
          Oxford Notes and Citicorp Notes.
</FN>
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Auditor

The Board of Directors
Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference, in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 of Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc. filed on May 6, 1998, of our
report, dated February 9, 1998, on the balance sheets of Commonwealth
Biotechnologies, Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years
then ended, which report is incorporated by reference from the 1997 Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of Commonwealth Biotechnologies, Inc. We also consent to
the reference of this firm under the caption of "Experts" in such Registration
Statement.

/s/ Goodman & Company, L.L.P.

Richmond, Virginia
March 26, 1999
#### Gloria SPEARS, Appellant, v. REID VANN, INC., Respondent.

No. 65486.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 7, 1995.

Frank A. Anzalone, Clayton, for appellant.

David C. Godfrey, Clayton, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Gloria Spears, appeals from an order entered in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying her negligent bailment action against respondent, Reid Vann, Inc. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the circuit court is based on findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. As we further find an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for the decision.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMAL ATKINS,

Petitioner,

Case No. 09-10711

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives

MARY BERGHUIS,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING THE

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

Presently before the Court is the report issued on May 21, 2010 by Magistrate Judge Paul

J. Komives pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge Komives recommends that this Court grant the

respondent’s motion for summary judgment, deny the petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas

corpus and deny the petitioner a certificate of appealability because the petition is barred by the one

year statute of limitations for filing habeas petitions in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Although the magistrate judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no

objections have been filed. The parties’ failure to file objections to the report and recommendation

waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d

1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases

the Court from its duty to independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [dkt

# 11] is ADOPTED.
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the respondent’s motion for summary judgment [dkt. # 6] is

GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [dkt. # 1]

is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: June 15, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on June 15, 2010.

s/Teresa Scott-Feijoo 

TERESA SCOTT-FEIJOO
exhibit_10-10.htm








EXHIBIT 10.10


 



 


Contract for Legal Services


 


Services


Seafarer Exploration Corp. hereby contracts David F. Chalela to act as its legal representative, counselor, and authoritative agent on its behalf, and to act in full capacity as he deems prudent, regarding any television, movie, or film related projects in which Seafarer Exploration Corp. henceforth engages as of this 17th day of April, 2013. David F. Chalela and Seafarer Exploration Corp. understand that he is operating as a contractor and not as an employee of Seafarer Exploration Corp.


 


Consideration


 


In consideration of this service, Seafarer Exploration Corp. shall immediately issue David F. Chalela 200,000 shares of common restricted shares.


 


Termination


This agreement is fully binding upon the parties for one calendar year or until terminated in writing by either party via one day written notice by mail, email, or facsimile.


 


Disputes


Any disputes arising from this contract for services shall be litigated in Hillsborough County Florida, and the parties agree that jurisdiction shall be in the same.


 


Signed this 17th Day of April, 2013.


 


 


/s/ David F. Chalela  










David F. Chalela 


 


 


 


/s/ Kyle Kennedy











Kyle Kennedy
#### JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Appellant, v. Gary WESTCOTT, Respondent.

No. WD 51899.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 25, 1996.

Bill Richerson, Kansas City, for appellant.

Franklin Nichols, St. Joseph, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER curiam:.

Johnson Controls, Inc., appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s decision that it must pay its employee, Gary Westcott, temporary total disability compensation. Johnson Controls asserts that West-cott’s injuries resulting from a fall in the parking lot of a physical therapist did not arise out of, and in the course of, his employment and that, even if the injuries were compensable, Westcott was not entitled to compensation because he was able to do light duty work but refused. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00325

- CV

J. G. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. C2021

- 0046C , THE HONORABLE DEBORAH WIGINGTON , J UDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

J.G. (Fat her) appeal s from the trial court ’ s final order in suit affecting the par ent

child relationship and order of termination following a bench trial. 1 See Tex. Fam. Code

§ 161.001. The trial co u rt found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for

terminating his parental rights existed and that termination was in his child R.G. ’ s best interest.

See id. § 161.001(b)(1) (D), (E), (O), (P), (2).

On appeal, Father ’ s court

- appointed attorney ha s filed a brief concluding that his

appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);

Taylor v. Texas Dep ’ t of Protective & R egulatory Servs. , 160 S.W.3d 641, 646

– 47 (Tex. App.

—

Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental

1 We refer to appellant by his initials or as Father and his child by the child ’ s initials

. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8. T he par ental rights of the child ’ s mother al so wer e terminated in the final ord er, b ut she has not appealed.2 rights). The brief meet s the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of

the record demons trating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See

386 U.S. at 744; Taylor , 160 S.W.3d at 646

– 47. Father ’ s attorney ha s certified to this Court that

he provided a cop y of the Anders briefs to Father and informed his of his right to examine the

appellate record and to file a pro se brief. To date, Father has not filed a pro se brief.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of the

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including t he Anders brief submitted on Father ’ s

behalf , and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. Ou r review included the

trial court ’ s endangerment findings, see Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1) (D), (E), and we have

found no issues that could b e raised on appeal with respect to those findings, see In re N.G.

,

577 S.W.3d 230, 237 (Tex. 2019). We agree that th e appeal is frivolous and without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court ’ s final order

. 2

________________________________________ _

_ Melissa Goodwin , Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly

Affirmed

Fi led: August 31, 2022

2 We deny Father ’ s counsel ’ s motion to withdraw as attorney of recor d. See In re P.M.

, 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). If Father, after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, his counsel sh o u ld timely fil e with the Texas Supreme Court “ a petition for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. ” See id. at 27

– 28.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

CIVIL NO. 09-11691

THERESA CLEVELAND,

Plaintiff,

-vQUEST DIAGNOSTICS,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER RESCINDING ORDER OF

REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order of Reference to Magistrate

Judge Morgan dated October 14, 2009, referring Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuation(#26) 

only is RESCINDED.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: December 4, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on December 4, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11691-PJD-VMM Doc # 36 Filed 12/04/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 224
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          54,634
<SECURITIES>                                    60,666
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,216
<ALLOWANCES>                                       516
<INVENTORY>                                     10,774
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,774
<PP&E>                                          16,074
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 192,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,056
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                     175,380
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   192,332
<SALES>                                         87,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,004
<CGS>                                           39,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,453
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   226
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  96
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,958
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,744
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,214
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22


</TABLE>
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00105-CV

BARROW SHAVER RESOURCES COMPANY, LLC, KATHRYN M. DAWSON, 

AND MICHAEL RAY HILL, Appellants

V.

NETX ACQUISITIONS, LLC, AND THOMAS C. MERRITT, TRUSTEE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Cass County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19C090

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Barrow Shaver Resources Company, LLC, Kathryn M. Dawson, and Michael Ray Hill 

(Appellants) have appealed the trial court’s November 8, 2019, summary judgment order. The 

clerk’s record in the referenced matter was filed by this Court on January 7, 2020. On our review 

of the record, we noted a potential defect in the Court’s jurisdiction over this appeal.

“[T]he general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken 

only from a final judgment.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). “A 

judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record 

. . . .” Id. Generally, an interlocutory judgment becomes final when it merges into the final 

judgment disposing of the entire case. See Roccaforte v. Jefferson Cty., 341 S.W.3d 919, 924 (Tex. 

2011).

The trial court’s November 8, 2019, summary judgment order does not resolve all claims 

and issues between the parties. More specifically, the plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney 

fees was neither addressed by the parties in their respective summary judgment motions nor 

resolved by the trial court in the summary judgment order. Under those circumstances, it does not 

appear that the November 8, 2019, summary judgment order is a final, appealable order. See 

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Debose, No. 01-08-00717-CV, 2009 WL 793851 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] Mar. 2, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Consequently, we are currently without jurisdiction 

over this appeal.

By letter dated January 7, 2020, we notified Appellants of this potential defect in our 

jurisdiction and afforded them the opportunity to show this Court how it had jurisdiction over the 
3

appeal, notwithstanding the noted defect. We further informed Appellants that the failure to 

respond by January 17, 2020, would result in dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellants did not file a response. 

We find that the trial court’s November 8, 2019, order was not final and appealable. 

Consequently, we are without jurisdiction over this appeal. 

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: January 28, 2020

Date Decided: January 29, 2020
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3888

To amend the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to allow

small communities to use limited space in public facilities acquired,

constructed, or rehabilitated using community development block grant

funds for local government offices.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 24, 1996

Mr. RICHARDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Housing and Community Development Act

of 1974 to allow small communities to use limited space

in public facilities acquired, constructed, or rehabilitated

using community development block grant funds for local

government offices.

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 ‘‘Small Communities

5 CDBG Multipurpose Facilities Act’’.
2

•HR 3888 IH

1 SEC. 2. CDBG ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.

2 Section 105(a) of the Housing and Community De3 velopment Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5304(a)) is amended—

4 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘(except for

5 buildings for the general conduct of government)

6 and inserting the following: ‘‘(not including buildings

7 for the general conduct of government, except that

8 a portion of a public facility assisted under this

9 paragraph may be used for the types of activities

10 conducted in buildings for the general conduct of

11 government, but only if not more than 25 percent of

12 the square footage of the facility is so used and such

13 activities are conducted for a unit of general local

14 government having a population not exceeding

15 5,000)’’; and

16 (2) in paragraph (14), by striking ‘‘(except for

17 buildings for the general conduct of government)

18 and inserting the following: ‘‘(not including buildings

19 for the general conduct of government, except that

20 a portion of a public facility assisted under this

21 clause may be used for the types of activities con22 ducted in buildings for the general conduct of gov23 ernment, but only if not more than 25 percent of the

24 square footage of the facility is so used and such ac25 tivities are conducted for a unit of general local gov26 ernment having a population not exceeding 5,000)’’.
3

•HR 3888 IH

1 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendments made by section 2 shall apply with

3 respect to use of a portion of a public facility for the types

4 of activities conducted in buildings for the general conduct

5 of government occurring after June 30, 1995.

Æ
Exhibit 99.2

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, James N. Ryan, the Chief Executive Officer of PDC 1997-D Limited Partnership, hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

_____/s/ James N. Ryan______________

Name: James N. Ryan

Title: Chief Executive Officer

Date: __March 18., 2003________
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15950]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Petroleum Environmental Research Forum Project 
No. 95-07

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 29, 1996, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Petroleum Environmental Research 
Form (``PERF'') Project No. 95-07, titled ``Mechanical Properties of 
Aging Refining Hydroprocessing Reactors'', has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) 
the nature and objectives of he venture. The notifications were filed 
for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery 
of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identifies of 
the parties are: Arco Products Co., Anaheim, CA; Chevron Research and 
Technology Company, Richmond, CA; Amoco Corp., Texas City, TX; Creusol-
Loire Industrie, 71202 Le Creusot Cedex, FRANCE; Japan Steel Works 
Ltd., Yurakucho 1-Chome Chiyodaku, Tokyo, JAPAN; Mobil Technology Co., 
Paulsboro, NJ; UOP, Inc., Des Plaines, IL; Exxon Research and 
Engineering Co., Florham Park, NJ; Kobe Steel, Ltd., Takassago-shi, 
Hyogo-ken, JAPAN; and Shell Oil Products Co., Houston, TX. Research and 
development work required in furtherance of the project is to be 
carried out by one or more of the Participants. The nature and 
objective of this project is to review existing data on feature 
toughness and crack growth rate of reactor materials and obtain new 
data by collecting and testing samples of retired reactors to advance 
the understanding of cracking and fracture mechanisms of reactor 
materials and the fitness for service of aging 2\1/4\ Cr-1Mo and 3 Cr-
1Mo heavy wall refining hydroprocessing reactors.
    Participation in this project will remain open to interested 
persons and organizations until the project completion date, which is 
presently anticipated to occur approximately December 15, 1998, but no 
later than December 31, 1998. The participants intend to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in its 
membership. Information regarding participation in the project maybe 
obtained from Jack L. Pease, Chevron Research and Technology Co., 100 
Chevron Way, Richmond, CA 94802-1627, telephone (510) 242-2771, Fax 
(510) 242-7222.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-15950 Filed 6-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M