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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          22,852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     72,514
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,437
<PP&E>                                         636,115
<DEPRECIATION>                                 343,046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 463,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,157,175
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,624
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   463,731
<SALES>                                         95,388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,906
<CGS>                                          281,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  281,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               381,732
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              75,418
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (636,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (636,717)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
LIFE INSURANCE.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1898.]

Cox, Smith and Swing, JJ.

#### Frank and Nellie Brokamp v. The Metropolitan Liff Ins. Co.

Life Insurance Company not Liable for Premiums Paid Upon aVoid Policy.

A life insurance company is not liable for premiums paid upon a void policy issued by one of its agents without the knowledge of the insured and under false representations by the agent.

The plaintiff sued for recovery of $65 paid to the defendant company by one of them as premiums on a policy ot insurance on the life of the other, her husband. The petition alleged that the policy, which was for more than $200, was null and void for the reason that it was issued without the knowledge or consent of the insured, and without his having been examined by a physician, and that the application was filled out by an agent of the defendant company, who represented to the wife that the matter was regular in every way, and that relying upon these representations she paid in as premiums on the said void policy the sum here sued for. A demurrer to the petition was sustained below. *

*O'Hara &*Hojjmeister, for plaintiff in error.

*C. D. Robertson*and *Robert C. Pugh,*for the insurance company.

By the Court.

This judgment is affirmed upon the reasoning and authority of the case reported in 25 Insurance Law Journal, page 103, and upon the provisions of sec. 3626, Rev. Stat.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         472,569                       0
<SECURITIES>                                   892,012                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,891,338                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   521,643                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    111,185                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,037,277                       0
<PP&E>                                         997,861                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,230,738                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,317,629                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       764,519                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,803,373                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,230,738                       0
<SALES>                                      1,052,107                 487,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,172,153               4,727,636
<CGS>                                          852,475                 400,427
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,909,690               3,973,311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             160,879                  70,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,262,463                 754,325
<INCOME-TAX>                                   432,008                 265,418
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            830,455                 497,907
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   830,455                 497,907
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .12                     .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12                     .07


</TABLE>
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24847-3 Filed:08/04/23 Entered:08/04/23 14:34:55 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 1 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24847-3 Filed:08/04/23 Entered:08/04/23 14:34:55 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 2 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24847-3 Filed:08/04/23 Entered:08/04/23 14:34:55 Desc:

Exhibit C Page 3 of 3
#### W. G. Allen, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. United Zinc Company, *Defendant in Error.*

1. To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation must be of a specific material fact that is untrue .and known to be so, and stated for the purpose of inducing another to act, upon which statement the other relies in acting to his injury.

2. Averments in pleas of mere opinions and promises and of indefinite matters are not sufficient to show fraud.

Appealed from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*J. W. Frazier*and *C. B. Parhhill,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*172
      *F. M. Simonton,*for Defendant in Error.

Whitfield, C. J.

The defendant in error brought an action against Allen on two promissory notes. Allen filed five pleas, four of which were excluded by demurrer. There was judgment for the plaintiff and on writ of error the defendant below, contends, that there was material error in sustaining the demurrer to the four pleas. The notes were given for subscription to corporate stock.

In effect the excluded pleas aver that the plaintiff represented to defendant that the plaintiff corporation was prosperous; that the plaintiff corporation had sold a large amount of stock to various persons and that it all had been sold at a uniform price; that the plaintiff had developed its various mines and that valuable paying ores had been found and discovered in them and that the said mines had bid fair to be good paying mines; and that plaintiff guaranteed to this defendant that the proceeds of his notes for subscription for said stock in the said plaintiff corporation would be used for working and mining the Zinc Basin Mine, it being one of the said several mines referred .to, which the said plaintiff corporation represented that it owned.

To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation must be of a specific material fact that is untrue and known to be so, and stated for the purpose of inducing another to act, upon which statement the other relies in acting to his injury. See Heathcote v. Fairbanks 60 Fla. 97; 2 Pom. Eq. Sec. 876.

The averments that the corporation represented that it was prosperous, and that plaintiff represented that it had developed its mines, and found paying ores, and that the mines had bid fair to be good paying mines, are essentially opinions and not statements of actual practical *173facts. The averment that the plaintiff represented that it guaranteed that the proceeds of the notes would be used in a certain way, is a statement of a mere promise. The averment that the plaintiff represented that it had sold “a large amount” of its stock to various persons, is too indefinite to show that the representation was material.

The judgment is affirmed.

Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.

Taylor, J., absent on account of illness.
#### LAWRENCE v. THE STATE.

(Decided April 22, 1915.)

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Sections 302 Certifications                    Exhibit 31 (a)

I, James G. Rakes, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of National Bankshares, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Date: August 14, 2003

/s/ JAMES G. RAKES
-----------------------------
James G. Rakes
Chief Executive Officer
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header
|  | Name                | Last modified    | Size | Description |
|--|---------------------|------------------|------|-------------|
||
|  | Parent Directory    |             | -    |        |
|  | 1990 EEO ASCII/     | 2017-01-11 09:04 | -    |        |
|  | 1990 EEO CD1_AL-MO/ | 2022-08-04 16:46 | -    |        |
|  | 1990 EEO CD2_MT-WY/ | 2022-08-04 16:49 | -    |        |
||

CONNECT WITH US**********

                          - Information Quality
                          - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                          - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                          - Accessibility
                          - FOIA
                          - Inspector General
                          - No FEAR Act
                          - U.S. Department of Commerce
                          - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
PARTNERSHIPS — SERVICES.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

December, 1892.]

#### George Shumard v. A. L. Gano.

Failure to Form a Partnership.

Where A and B agree to form a partnership, and on account of B’s failure tocomply with his part of the contract, such partnership agreement was never consummated : *Held,*that B could not recover from A for any services rendered during the *tnchoate*agreement to form a partnership, there being no agreement to pay B for such services and the law will not imply a pro.mise to pay for them.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

/. *T. Demar*and *C. & M. Mallon,*for plaintiff in error.

*M. F. Galvin*and *Edward Edwards*for defendant in error.

Smith, J.

The judgment in this case must be reversed for the reason that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence.

In the first place there is not a particle of proof in the bill of exceptions that fixed any value to the services of the defendant, rendered as to claims for the plaintiff, but the jury ordered him therefor over $140. If the evidence of value was given on the trial, it was not brought into the bill of exceptions, and of course can not be considered by us. ,

“It is conceded by the counsel for the defendant in error, that if a partnership did exist between the parties at the time the services were rendered, that Gano has no right to recover therefor. His claim is that there was in fact no partnership, as the putting in of $500 was a condition precedent to the begining of the partnership. To say the least, it is very doubtful on the evidence whether this proposition is correct. It is clear from the statements of the parties that it was agreed that they were to become partners in the business. Gano was shortly thereafter to raise the $500, and put it into the business, and they were to be equal owners of the stock on hand and assets of the partnership and share equally in the profits, and Gano was to conduct the business and allow Shumard to carry on his trade as a painter. It was further agreed that the arrangement was to begin at once, and this was carried out, Gano taking charge of the business and advertising himself as a partner with Shumard. He did not get the $500, as he expected and Shumard gave him further time to do so, and the business went on. But at the expiration of three months Gano wholly failed to get his money and the arrangement was dropped, Gano leaving, and having given his note for goods taken by him from the store, and having received nothing for his services. There is no claim that there was any agreement to pay him for such services, at any time, and the agreement of partnership not having been fully consummated, and by his fault and failure to comply with his contract, we can not see that the law would imply a promise on the part of Shumard to do so. The judgment will be reversed and the case re.manded for a new trial.”
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 STATE/JURISDICTION OFINCORPORATION/
    
    NAME UNDER WHICHNAME OF SUBSIDIARY
    
    ORGANIZATION
    
    BUSINESS IS CONDUCTEDQuicksilver Resources Canada Inc.
    
    Canada
    
    Quicksilver Resources Canada Inc.Cowtown Pipeline Funding, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    Cowtown Pipeline Funding, Inc.Cowtown Pipeline Management, Inc.
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Pipeline Management, Inc.Cowtown Pipeline L.P.
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Pipeline L.P.Cowtown Gas Processing L.P.
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Gas Processing L.P.Quicksilver Gas Services Holdings LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Quicksilver Gas Services Holdings LLCQuicksilver Gas Services GP LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Quicksilver Gas Services GP LLCQuicksilver Gas Services LP
    
    Delaware
    
    Quicksilver Gas Services LPQuicksilver Gas Services Operating LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Quicksilver Gas Services Operating LLCQuicksilver Gas Services Operating GP
LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Quicksilver Gas Services Operating GP
LLCCowtown Pipeline Partners L.P.
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Pipeline Partners L.P.Cowtown Gas Processing Partners L.P.
    
    Texas
    
    Cowtown Gas Processing Partners L.P.
#### § 1264.144 Deposit in Treasury of United States.

All amounts collected pursuant to this part shall be deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury of the United States, except as provided in 31 U.S.C. 3806(g).
Order filed August 10, 2021

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 21

- 00271

- CV

___________ KENNETH L. SUGG, JR. AND MARINA F. CASTILLO SUGG , Appellant s

V.

LAKEISHA RANDLE , Appellee

On Appeal from the 269th District Cou r t

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 321010269

O R D E R

No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter

for the 269th District Court informed this court that appellant s had not requested

the reporter ’ s record be prepared

. On June 14, 2021 , the clerk of this court notified

appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do not require a

reporter s record unless app ellant, within 15 days of notice, provided this court

with proof the re cord has been re quested and payment arrangements for the recor d

have been made

. See T ex. R. App

. P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no reply.Unless appellant provides this court with proof the record has been requested

and payment arrangements have been made, appellants’ bri ef will be set due when
the clerk’s record is filed, and we will consider and decide those issues that do not
require a reporter ’ s record.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justice Hassan and Poissant.
#### § 1262.108 Awards against other agencies.

If an applicant is entitled to an award because it prevails over another agency of the United States that participates in a proceeding before NASA, the award or an appropriate portion of the award shall be made against that agency, subject to § 1262.105(b), if it had taken a position that is not substantially justified.
#### BOWEN V. THE STATE.

(Decided June 10, 1913.)

Appeal from Eandolph Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. S. L. Brewer.

No counsel marked for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Ti-iomas, J. —

Appeal dismissed on the authority of *Grantham v.*State, 3 Ala. App. 168, 57 South. 1025, for failure to show organization of court.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3895 

To amend section 242 of title 18, United States Code, to include the use 

of chokeholds and carotid holds as a deprivation of rights and as a 

punishment, pain, or penalty, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2020 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Ms. WARREN, Ms. SMITH, and Ms. KLOBUCHAR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 242 of title 18, United States Code, to 

include the use of chokeholds and carotid holds as a 

deprivation of rights and as a punishment, pain, or penalty, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Eric Garner Excessive 

5 Force Prevention Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CHOKEHOLDS AS CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. 

7 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 242 of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the folVerDate Sep 11 2014 17:47 Jun 20, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3895.IS S3895

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3895 IS

1 lowing: ‘‘For the purposes of this section, the application 

2 of any pressure to the throat or windpipe, the use of ma3 neuvers that restrict blood or oxygen flow to the brain, 

4 or the use of carotid artery restraints which may prevent 

5 or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air is a deprivation 

6 of a right, privilege, or immunity and is a punishment, 

7 pain, or penalty.’’. 

8 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in the 

9 amendment made by subsection (a) shall be construed to 

10 limit or exclude other claimed deprivations of rights, privi11 leges, or immunities or punishments, pains, or penalties 

12 under section 242 of title 18, United States Code. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS