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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000075644
<NAME> ZEMEX CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       4,342,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,299,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (355,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 20,238,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,401,000
<PP&E>                                     147,102,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              50,429,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             159,031,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       66,500,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,899,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  79,489,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               159,031,000
<SALES>                                     19,669,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,669,000
<CGS>                                       13,825,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,530,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,125,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,110,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,052,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,350,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,773,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 911,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (862,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)


</TABLE>
#### Margaret E. Ungrich and Henrietta L. Ungrich, Respondents, v. David Shaff and Abraham Silverson, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on *Ungrich*v. *Shaff*(119 App. Div. 843).
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

 

|   | 1. | HAPL Leasing Co., Inc., a New York corporation |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | Hometown Threads, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 3. | Hirsch Business Concepts, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 4. | Sedeco, Inc., a Texas corporation |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------|

 

|   | 5. | SSE Acquisition Corp., a Delaware Corporation |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------|
#### S. Walter Scott, Respondent, v. Village of Saratoga Springs, Appellant.

Decision amended so as to read as follows: “ Judgment and order reversed upon the law and exceptions only, this court having examined the facts and having found them sufficient and having affirmed the aforesaid order and judgment upon the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Opinion by Kellogg, J. All concurred, except Chester and Cochrane, JJ., dissenting.” (Bee *ante,*p. 347.)
#### Benesch et al. v. Mitchelson et al.

*Appeal from Superior Court of Denver.*

Hayt, J.

In the case of *Joseph L. Benesch et al., appellants, v. Joseph C. Mitchelson et al., appellees,*the same questions are presented as are decided in the foregoing opinion *(ante,*p. 534); and upon the authority of the above case the judgment of the superior court of Denver in the latter case will also be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000062210-APR-201312:58 PM
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-13-00730-CV

Style: Thomas Florence

v Zack Shelly, Zack’s Auto Sales, and Wanette Florence

Date motion filed*: January 6, 2014

Type of motion: Motion For Leave of Court to File Exhibits/Evidence

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date: 

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge's signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: January 14, 2014
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 10, 2014

h1203 

# Order

Clerk December 10, 2014

149919

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 149919

COA: 314665

Livingston CC: 11

- 020253

- FH

SCOTT A. DONNER,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 01-14-00902-CR

In the

Court of Appeals

for the

First District of Texas

at Houston



No. 1399343

In the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas



KENNETH ALLEN ROSS

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee



APPELLANT’S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

WITHIN WHICH TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

APPELLANT, pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1, 10.5(b) and 38.6(d), moves 

for an extension of time within which to file its appellate brief. In support of its 

motion, appellant submits the following: 

1. Appellant was charged with aggravated robbery.

2. A jury convicted appellant of the charged offense and the jury sentenced 

him to 40 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice on October 30, 2014. 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00902-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

2/10/2015 6:34:07 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/10/2015 6:34:07 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
3. Notice of appeal was filed on October 30, 2014. 

4. Appellant’s brief was due on January 28, 2015.

5. Appellant seeks an extension to file his brief until April 6, 2015.

6. The following facts are relied upon to show good cause for the

requested extension:

a. Counsel has been acting as co-counsel on a case involving Garcia

Glen White. Mr. White was set to be executed on January 28, 2015.

b. Counsel had been preparing for a hearing on a capital case, Ex parte

Williams, Cause No. 1088181-A, set for January 14, 2015. 

c. Counsel has filed subsequent writs in Ex parte Williams, Cause Nos.

1088181-B and 1088181-C. 

d. Counsel has been working on Dorsey v. State, No. 01-14-00685-CR

7. Appellant’s motion is not for purposes of delay, but so that justice may

be done.

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant the requested

extension.

 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/MANDY MILLER

 Attorney for appellant

 2910 Commercial Center Blvd., Ste. 103-201

 Katy, TX 77494

 SBN 24055561

 PHONE (832) 900-9884

 FAX (877) 904-6846

 mandy@mandymillerlegal.com

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been delivered via

email to the following address:

Harris County District Attorney’s Office

ATTN: Alan Curry

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

Curry_Alan@dao.hctx.net

 /s/MANDY MILLER

 Attorney for appellant

 2910 Commercial Center Blvd., Ste. 103-201

 Katy, TX 77494

 SBN 24055561

 PHONE (832) 900-9884

 FAX (877) 904-6846

 mandy@mandymillerlegal.com

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MOTORVAC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,559,989
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,234,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,952
<INVENTORY>                                  1,165,411
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,404,894
<PP&E>                                         549,401
<DEPRECIATION>                                 289,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,989,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,394,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,149
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,989,232
<SALES>                                      8,242,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,242,735
<CGS>                                        5,026,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,026,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,338,332
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             157,751
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,279,834)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,256
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,281,090)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,281,090)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-35]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-35 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: August 5, 2008.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 47927)          ( print page 47928)          ( print page 47929)          ( print page 47930)          ( print page 47931)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. E8-18653 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10


                          2000 GAIN SHARING BONUS PLAN



All employees of the company are eligible to receive quarterly cash bonuses
based on quarterly results. The components used to determine the quarterly bonus
payment are as follows:

CORPORATE EARNINGS PER SHARE                Reported quarterly EPS as compared
                                            to target quarterly EPS

REGIONAL PROFIT CONTRIBUTION                Regional contribution to quarterly
                                            profits as compared to target
                                            regional contribution to quarterly
                                            profits.


Quarterly targets were established for each of the identified components above
based on the 2000 business plan goals. The amount of the bonus payment is
determined based on actual performance compared to the established Gain Sharing
Bonus Plan targets.
#### Andrew HEISEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 02-72675.

U.S. Tax Ct No. 1220-01.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Andrew Heisey appeals pro se the Tax Court decision holding him liable for in*234come tax deficiencies and penalties, and imposing sanctions against him under Internal Revenue Code § 6673 for bringing frivolous proceedings.

The Tax Court properly rejected Heisey’s claim that he was not required to pay federal income taxes because the federal income tax is an indirect excise tax. *United States v. Burns,*633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir.1980).

We grant the Commissioner’s request for sanctions pursuant to Fed. RApp. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912 in the amount of $1,500 because the result is obvious and Hart’s appeal is wholly without merit. *Olson v. United States,*760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.1985).

AFFIRMED WITH SANCTIONS.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit










 Exhibit 10.11 


Base Salaries of Named Executive Officers
	
				
	Name
	Base Salary

	Thomas E. Gottwald
Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer
	$
	1,083,000
	


	Regina A. Harm
President of Afton Chemical Company
	$
	539,700
	


	Bruce R. Hazelgrove, III
Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
	$
	490,900
	


	M. Rudolph West
Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary
	$
	423,500
	


	Brian D. Paliotti
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
	$
	422,700
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

NO. 01-11-00258-CR

JEREMY THOMAS

APPELLANT On Appeal from Cause Number 1284896

 From the 177th District Court of Harris County 

 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

APPELLEE

Appellant’s Motion To Extend Time 

To File Petition For Discretionary Review

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: 

COMES NOW, JEREMY THOMAS, and files this his Motion to Extend Time to File Petition for 

Discretionary Review, and in support thereof, would respectfully show the Court the 

following: 

I.

The First Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Thomas v. State, 01-11-00258-

CR, 2015 WL 4101164 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 7, 2015). No motion for 

rehearing was filed. No other motions for extension have been filed.

II.

In compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.2(c), this motion for extension is 

timely filed within 15 days of the deadline for the PDR, which was August 6, 2015. Appellant 

requests this extension due to the fact that counsel for Appellant has been engaged in work in 

the Harris County Public Defender’s Office on many cases, including the following: 

 Ajah Foster, PD-0963-15

 Domingo Medina, 01-15-00574-CR

 Kori Henegar, 14-15-00529-CR

 Trey Foster, 14-15-00496-CR

 Hugo Pachas-Luna, 01-14-00516-CR - 01-14-00520-CR

 Rodney Robins, 01-14-00582-CR

 Stephen Hopper, 14-15-00371-CR

PD-1086-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 8/19/2015 5:46:18 PM

Accepted 8/20/2015 2:05:59 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
 Pete Rodriguez, 14-15-00339-CR

 Vincent Williams, 14-15-00220-CR

 Darryle Robertson, 14-15-00132-CR

 Counsel has been researching and writing for several trial cases assigned to the Public 

Defender’s Office Trial Division.

III.

Appellant’s attorney requests this brief extension which is necessary so that the petition can 

be thoroughly written and timely filed. This motion is not made for the purpose of delay.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Honorable Court grants this 

requested extension of time to file the appellant’s petition for discretionary review in the above 

cause and extend the time for filing for 30 days, to September 6, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER BUNIN

Chief Public Defender

Harris County, Texas

/s/Sarah V. Wood 

 SARAH V. WOOD

Assistant Public Defender 

Harris County, Texas

Texas Bar Number 24048898

1201 Franklin, 13th Floor

Houston Texas 77002

713.368.0016 (phone)

713.368.9278 (fax)

Sarah.Wood@pdo.hctx.net

Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

By my signature below, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Petition for Discretionary Review has been served 

on the District Attorney of Harris County, Texas, by electronic delivery through the efile 

system.

/s/Sarah V. Wood 

Sarah V. Wood
#### BECKER STEEL CO. OF AMERICA v. CUMMINGS, Attorney General of the United States in His Official Capacity as Alien Property Custodian, et al.

No. 234.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 7, 1938.

*320Townsend, Kindleberger & Campbell, of New York City (E. Crosby Kindleberger, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., and Irvin C. Rutter, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New York City (Harry LeRoy Jones, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellees.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The bill of complaint before us in this vexed litigation is substantially the same as that before the Supreme Court in Becker Steel Company v. Cummings, 296 U.S. 74, 56 S.Ct. 15, 80 L.Ed. 54; whatever was there decided therefore controls. However, it is abundantly plain from the opinion of Mr. Justice Stone, 296 U.S. 74, at page 82, 56 S.Ct. 15, 19, 80 L.Ed. 54, that the majority of the court meant to confine its decision to the-single point on which Judge Mack and we had dismissed the bill, and that its infirmities were to be open to challenge quite as though the court had not spoken. That being true, we cannot see any escape from the reasoning of Mr. Justice Roberts in the opinion of himself and Mr. Justice Sutherland. Plainly the suit cannot be a new one upon the same cause of action; aside from all else, that was merged in the first decree; Fix v. Philadelphia Barge Co., 290 U.S. 530, 54 S.Ct. 270, 78 L.Ed. 481, did not trench upon that well-settled doctrine. On the other hand, if it be regarded as strictly a step in the original suit, designed to rid the plaintiff of the satisfaction as an impediment to process — e. g., by "mandamus against the Treasurer— our decision in Becker Steel Co. v. Hicks, 2 Cir., 66 F.2d 497, foreclosed it; no further steps were possible after the time for revival -had passed. It must therefore be treated as ancillary in the same sense that a suit to vacate a judgment for fraud is ancillary; independent, in that it is not so far procedurally a part of the original as to be subject to the limitation upon its revival. This, as we understand it, is what the plaintiff wishes us to understand. But, if it is not procedurally a step in the first suit, it can only be a suit to which the United States has never given its consent; for it is not then the suit, or any part of the suit, brought under section 9 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 9, and section 7, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 7, is explicit that that shall be the only remedy. We cannot see how it can be procedurally a part of the original, qua consent, and independent of it, qua revivor; such a chameleon would serve the plaintiff’s purposes, but it does not exist. There is no great injustice in the result; so far as the plaintiff was unfairly practised upon, the remedy lay open-to it; its delays may indeed have arisen from a natural misunderstanding of the law, but that is a hazard to which all are subject.

Decree affirmed.
#### In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of Martha Gibson, Deceased.

Motion denied, without costs.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT MARKUS J. GRANT, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-2188 April 10, 2024 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Gregory G. Groger, Judge. Markus J. Grant, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SILBERMAN, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Roderick SERRANO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA, Defendant, and Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers Compensation; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-56971. D.C. No. CV-02-01954-DT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Serrano's request for oral argument.

MEMORANDUM**

Roderick Serrano appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his ac*652tion alleging that various members of the California Department of Industrial Relations and his former employer, Graphics Research, Inc., violated his equal protection and due process rights in the course of denying his application for workers’ compensation benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Kennedy v. Southern California Edison Co.,*268 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court lacked jurisdiction over Serrano’s action because it sought review of a final state court judgment dismissing Serrano’s petition for review of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s denial of his workers’ compensation claim. *See Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbos a,*134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that a claim filed with a state agency that receives a final state court judgment is barred from federal district court review).

Serrano’s contention that the magistrate and district judges exhibited bias by dismissing his action lacks merit. Adverse rulings alone do not support a finding that the judges were biased. *See Leslie v. Grupo ICA,*198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.