alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1


                                 SCHEDULE 12(B)

                   TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF EBITDA TO INTEREST EXPENSE
                                  (IN MILLIONS)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                            NEW BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
                                                                ----------------------------------------------
                                                                                              PERIOD FROM 
                                               NINE-MONTH             FISCAL YEAR             FEBRUARY 11,
                                              PERIOD ENDED              ENDED                   THROUGH   
                                              DECEMBER 31,             MARCH 31,               MARCH 31, 
                                                  1998                   1998                    1997    
                                          --------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------
<S>                                             <C>                    <C>                     <C>  
EBITDA................................          $ 32.4                 $ 26.2                  $ 3.1
Interest expense......................            27.3                   37.9                    5.0
Ratio of EBITDA to interest           
expense...............................             1.2                    0.7                    0.6
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         PREDECESSOR BASIS OF ACCOUNTING
                                          ------------------------------------------------------------
                                               PERIOD FROM
                                              MARCH 1, 1996              FISCAL YEAR ENDED       
                                                 THROUGH                  THE LAST DAY OF        
                                               FEBRUARY 10,                   FEBRUARY           
                                                  1997                 1996               1995      
                                          --------------------- ------------------ -------------------
<S>                                            <C>                   <C>                <C>   
EBITDA................................         $ 19.6                $ 22.8             $ 24.3
Interest expense......................             --                   --                  --
Ratio of EBITDA to interest           
expense...............................             --                   --                  --
</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 5, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00413

- CV

Bill SEMMLER as Representative of Marynell Semmler

,

Appellants

v.

John R. LANDER and Kimberly Lander,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial Dis trict Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 09

- 0838

- CVA Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On July 3, 2018, appellant responded to this court’s June 28, 2018, by providing written proof that the fee for preparing the reporter’s record was paid. In her notification of late record, the court reporter stated she anticipated completing the record within five to seven days. It is therefore ORDERED that the reporter’s record be filed in this appeal no later than July 16, 2018.

____________________________ _____ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 5th day of July, 2018

.

___________________ ________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. LAMAR ALLEN, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 463 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 21st day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period ended May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:




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 results of operation of the Company.




Date:
      May 15, 2009
              By:/s/ Joseph
      M. Cummins
 Joseph M.
Cummins
 President, Chief
Executive Officer




Date:
      May 15, 2009
            By:/s/
      Gary W. Coy


Gary W.
Coy


Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5                                           
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Feb-22-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Feb-25-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Feb-22-1997
<CASH>                                            11,985
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    125,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                       35,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 203,229
<PP&E>                                         1,063,651
<DEPRECIATION>                                   561,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   956,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            166,315
<BONDS>                                          382,499
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             438
<OTHER-SE>                                       357,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     956,541
<SALES>                                          114,738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 904,272
<CGS>                                             67,441
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    619,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                20,812
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  131,869
<INCOME-TAX>                                      54,066
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               77,803
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      77,803
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       1.81
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Paul G. Vanderhoven, as Senior Vice President - Finance and Chief
Financial Officer of Sterling Chemicals, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report of the Company for the period ending
March 31, 2003, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: May 13, 2003

                                         /s/ Paul G. Vanderhoven
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Paul G. Vanderhoven,
                                         Senior Vice President - Finance and
                                         Chief Financial Officer of the Company



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

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


                                       2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 08, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 08, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0347. IN THE INTEREST S. J. R. R., A CHILD (MOTHER) .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Juvenile Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2000578
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ MARK C. JACKSON, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES, Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 5121

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:14

- cv

- 00277

- NBF, Judge Nancy B. Fir estone.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Mark C. Jackson files a motion requesting that the
court treat his motion for “Order of Re dress” as a reply brief.
Jackson separately moves to consolidate “the case b efore the Federal Claims case #: 14

- 277, currently pending before this court, with the case before the Court of A pCase: 14-5121 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2014JACKSON v. US 2

peals for Veterans Claims Case # 14

- 1366 on appeal to this court since they have similar or over lapping issues .”

We note that to the extent that Jackson seeks to co nsolidate this appeal with United State s Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims cas e No. 2014

- 1366, an appeal from that court has not yet been docketed at this court. Add itionally, that Veterans Court appeal concerns a petition for extraordinary relief filed with the Veterans Court and the instant appeal concerns a complaint filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims. Thus, consolid ation would not be warranted.
Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion to consolidate i s denied.
(2) The other motion is granted to the extent that a copy of this order and Jackson’s motion for “Order of Redress” shall be treated as a reply brief and transmitted to the merits panel assigned to this appeal.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s26 Case: 14-5121 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2014
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6404

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DERICK A. GEIGER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,

District Judge. (2:01-cr-00261-5; 2:05-cv-00166)

Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 17, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derick A. Geiger, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

To the extent Geiger claims for the first time on appeal that

counsel failed to file a petition for panel and en banc rehearing

in the appeal of the criminal judgment, we decline to address this

claim. See U.S. Dep’t of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining Co., 452 F.3d

275, 283 (4th Cir. 2006) (“Generally, an issue raised for the first

time on appeal will not be considered, unless the refusal to

consider it would result in a fundamental miscarriage of

justice.”). In addition, because Geiger did not challenge in his

informal brief the district court’s rejection of the claim that

counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a timely

petition for writ of certiorari as requested by Geiger, we find

that he has waived appellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R.

(continued...)

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Derick A. Geiger seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied in part and granted in part and advised

Geiger that the failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Geiger

failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Geiger has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.*
*(...continued)

34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the

informal brief.”). 

- 3 -

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 

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.

DISMISSED
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00304-CR

Cristobal Garcia

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas

Trial Cause No. S-17-3337CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 28, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         24,438,464
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,885,857
<ALLOWANCES>                                      56,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               33,275,366
<PP&E>                                          7,178,782
<DEPRECIATION>                                  5,247,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 37,440,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,429,582
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                          130,026
<OTHER-SE>                                     20,808,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,440,244
<SALES>                                         8,981,426
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                8,981,426
<CGS>                                           2,753,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,753,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,808,302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,673,053
<INCOME-TAX>                                     225,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,488,053
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,488,053
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.11



</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE: ERWIN SCHOLL MAYER, Appellant

______________________

2017

- 1574

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 10/429,283.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

D OUGLAS A LAN R OBINSON , Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, St. Louis, MO, argued for appellant. Also repr esented by M ATTHEW L. C UTLER

, L EANNE M. R AKERS

.

M AI -T RANG D UC D ANG , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by

N AT HAN K. K ELLEY

, S ARAH E. C RAVEN

, T HOMAS W.

K RAUSE

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :P ER C URIAM (D YK

, O’M ALLEY

, and H UGHES

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

February 12, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2327 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

gain from the conversion of property by reason of eminent domain. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2011 

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia (for himself, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. JONES, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. MACK, and 

Mr. BILBRAY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income gain from the conversion of property 

by reason of eminent domain. 

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 ‘‘Eminent Domain Tax 

5 Relief Act of 2011’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2327 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR GAIN FROM 

2 DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY BY REASON OF 

3 EMINENT DOMAIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap5 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 

6 items specifically excluded from gross income) is amended 

7 by inserting after section 139D the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 139E. GAIN FROM DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY BY 

9 REASON OF EMINENT DOMAIN. 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Gross income shall not include 

11 gain from the conversion (or threat or imminence thereof) 

12 of property in the United States by reason of the exercise 

13 of eminent domain by a governmental unit having the 

14 power to exercise eminent domain. 

15 ‘‘(b) COORDINATION WITH OTHER NONRECOGNI16 TION PROVISIONS.— 

17 ‘‘(1) GAIN.—Gain excluded under subsection 

18 (a) shall not be treated as gain recognized or an 

19 amount realized for purposes of sections 467, 

20 637(d), 1033, 1245, 1250, 1252, 1254, 1255, and 

21 1402. 

22 ‘‘(2) SECTION 1231.—Section 1231 shall be ap23 plied without regard to this section. 

24 ‘‘(3) HOLDING PERIOD.—Section 1223(1) shall 

25 not apply. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2327 IH

1 ‘‘(c) ELECTION NOT TO CLAIM CREDIT.—This sec2 tion shall not apply to a taxpayer for any taxable year 

3 if such taxpayer elects to have this section not apply for 

4 such taxable year.’’. 

5 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

6 for such part is amended by inserting after the item relat7 ing to section 139C the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 139E. Gain from disposition of property by reason of eminent domain.’’. 

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

10 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

Calendar No. 376 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2660 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2011 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 122 North Holderrieth Boulevard in Tomball, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Tomball Veterans Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TOMBALL VETERANS POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 122 North Holderrieth Boule6 vard in Tomball, Texas, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Tomball Veterans Post Office’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2660 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tomball Veterans 

5 Post Office’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 376 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2660 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Posterans Post Office’’. levard in Tomball, Texas, as the ‘‘Tomball Vet- al Service located at 122 North Holderrieth BouAPRIL 25, 2012 

Reported without amendment 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS