alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REVISED, November 18, 1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30205

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: GREGORY JAMES CATON,

Debtor.

GREGORY JAMES CATON,

Appellant,

versus

KEVIN TRUDEAU,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

November 3, 1998

Opinion on Rehearing

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Chief Judge:

The following is substituted for the penultimate paragraph in the original

opinion (Headnote 8). Otherwise the original opinion is reaffirmed.

Having determined that collateral estoppel applies under Illinois law, we turn

to the dischargeability inquiry. Section 523(a)(6) provides that a debt for “willful
 

17 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

 

18 In re Garner, 56 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 1995).

 

19

118 S.Ct. 974, 977 (1998) (stating that “[t]he word ‘willful’ in (a)(6) modifiesthe word

‘injury,’ indicating that nondischargeability takes a deliberate or intentional injury, not

merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury”) (emphasis in original).

 

20 156 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 1998).

 

21 Id. at 603.

2

and malicious injury” by the debtor is nondischargeable.17 Previously, we defined

“willful and malicious” to mean “without just cause or excuse.”18 Recently,

however, this definition was displaced by the Supreme Court’s opinion in

Kawaauhau v. Geiger.

19 In an intervening decision, In re Miller,20 a panel of our

court recently held that “an injury is ‘willful and malicious’ where there is either

an objective substantial certainty of harm or a subjective motive to cause harm.”21

Applying our precedential Miller standard to the instant case, we find that

there was a deliberate or intentional injury, precluding discharge under section

523(a)(6), as Caton’s libelous statements were objectively substantially certain to

result in the injury to Trudeau. Accordingly, we find no error in the determination

by the courts à quo that the Illinois default judgment had collateral estoppel effect

as to section 523(a)(6) dischargeability.

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
#### Roger W. HARLOFF, Appellant, v. Winifred J. HARLOFF, Appellee.

No. 72-142.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 6, 1973.

R. J. Marshall, Palmetto, for appellant.

Sheldon E. Finman, of Ginsburg, Ross, Dent & Byrd, Sarasota, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge,

(Retired).

Appellant Roger W. Harloff appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, ordering, among other things, that Roger pay to his ex-wife, Winifred, the sum of $20 per week for the support of the twelve year old minor child; alimony in the amount of $10 per week; as lump sum alimony, Roger’s interest in the marital home. It ordered that Roger maintain a health and accident insurance policy on each of the three minor children during their minority. The judgment further provided :

> 4. In addition, the Husband shall pay to the wife as alimony, one-half of any net income he receives over $5,000, less any amounts paid by the Husband for the higher education of any of the minor children of the parties and less any amounts the husband pays on the second mortgage on the marital home of the parties. The Mortgagee on the said marital home is the law firm of Garland and Garland.

> 5. Net income is defined as total gross income received by the husband, less any ordinary business expenses expended to earn the said income. Said ordinary expenses shall not include depreciation or taxes.

> % *%** # *9,i*‡

> 9. The insurance policies [life] naming the husband as insured shall be turned over to the Husband and is hereby ordered to change the beneficiary on said policies to his three minor sons in equal proportions and is ordered not to change beneficiaries on said policies hereafter and not to further encumber said policies.

The parties have three children. The oldest boy, nineteen years of age, is a sophomore in college, owns his own automobile and is somewhat dependent upon his parents for his tuition, room and board. The second boy is eighteen, lives with his mother, has a take-home pay of $86 a week, pays nothing for his room, board or laundry, and owns his own car. The youngest child lives with his mother and is dependent upon his parents for support.

Roger urges that the lower court abused its discretion in requiring him to change the beneficiaries on his life insurance policies *92to the three minor children, prohibiting him from encumbering same, with no time limit imposed as to the duration.

Under proper circumstances a trial court may require a divorced father to maintain insurance on his life as security for the payment of maintenance and support awarded his minor children. We, therefore, affirm the judgment as to this provision, without prejudice, however, to any later application for modification based upon any child of the parties reaching its majority, or becoming self-supporting. Riley v. Riley, Fla.App.1961, 131 So.2d 491.

The other points raised on this appeal are without merit.

The judgment appealed is, therefore

Affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS OF GARAN, INCORPORATED 
AND SUBSIDIARIES ANNEXED HERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE 
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000039917
<NAME> GARAN, INCORPORATED
       
<S>                             <C>               <C>     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS             9-MOS     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1998       SEP-30-1998  
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1998       OCT-01-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998       JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                              572,000           572,000 
<SECURITIES>                     15,582,000        15,582,000
<RECEIVABLES>                    25,245,000        25,245,000
<ALLOWANCES>                        518,000           518,000
<INVENTORY>                      49,067,000        49,067,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 93,865,000        93,865,000
<PP&E>                           34,597,000        34,597,000
<DEPRECIATION>                   21,186,000        21,186,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  133,797,000       133,797,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            23,381,000        23,381,000
<BONDS>                           2,177,000         2,177,000
<COMMON>                          2,564,000         2,564,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                 0
<PREFERRED>                               0                 0
<OTHER-SE>                      102,699,000       102,699,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    133,797,000       133,797,000
<SALES>                          43,706,000       122,515,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 43,706,000       122,515,000
<CGS>                            33,267,000        93,358,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    33,267,000        93,358,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   27,000            83,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   5,161,000        14,343,000
<INCOME-TAX>                      2,090,000         5,776,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                 0
<CHANGES>                                 0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      3,071,000         8,567,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.60              1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.60              1.67

        

</TABLE>
[4910-13-P] 'ONOliRRENCES OLmNG SYMBOL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INITIAI.S~lC (.C~ Federal Aviation Administration ROUT'NG "·MHOI.

INrnALs,'SIG INITIALS",C ACTION: Final rule. I Rol~GSYM"Ol SUM:MARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products lis ed 

# I above. This AD results from mandatory continulng airworthiness information (MeAl)

.. db" h' f h 

# I 'd'fy d c m ongmate y an avmtlOll aut onty a anot er country to I entJ an correct an unsalC I Ol/TlNo SYMBOL condition on an aviation product. The MeAlde~cribes the unsafe condition as: INITlAL\.'SlO In accordance with design regulation, thJ THSA [trimmable horizontal .,re stabilizer actuator] has afailsafe design. Its upper attachment to the ROUTlN(]5YMBOl , aeroplane has two load paths, aPrimary Load Path (PLP) and a Secondary Load Path (SLP), which is only engaged

# lin case ofPLP failure. Following the design intent, engagement ofthe SLRleads tojam the THSA, indicating the failure ofthe PLP. (DOT). AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation 14CFR Part 39

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300:Series Airplanes R1N 2120-AA64 [Docket No. FAA-2010-0850; Directorate Ideritilier201O-NM-076-AD; Amendme t 

## t05:)0j.5-0

## 3 " 39-*****; AD 2010-**-**]

Tests carried out under the loads-measured during representative flights have demonstrated that, when the SLP islengaged, itdoes not systematically jam the THSA. In addition, laboratory tests have confirmed that the SLP will only withstand the load~ for alimited period oftime. ~;::c~~~~~o~o~;:C~~,f~~:;d ~~~~~oa~b;:: ;:~~d;~~:~~:e~ot attachment and consequent THSA loss ofcommand, resulting inreduced control ofthe aeroplane.
#### Pete DONCH v. CITY OF MIAMI.

No. 38033.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 214 So.2d 503.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,385
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      266
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,737
<PP&E>                                          26,543
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,383
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              581
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           121
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,156
<SALES>                                          1,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,629
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,141
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 660
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,629)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,629)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,629)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
#### George E. KEEL, Appellant, v. Jack TUCKER et al., Appellees.

No. 72-629.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### George Wayne MORRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-601.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 24, 1970.

Jack R. Nageley and Harvey S. Swickle, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Benefield v. State, Fla.1964, 160 So.2d 706; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 78; Newbold v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 876.
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Sutura, Inc. ;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 officer 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;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this 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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth
quarter of 2005 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and




---



##### 



5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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; andb)
    
    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:    April ____, 2006
    By:
    /s/ Egbert RateringEgbert RateringChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21


                             U.S. Trust Corporation

                              List of Subsidiaries





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                State or Other Jurisdiction Office           Percent
                                                                         of Incorporation                    Owned
                                                                ----------------------------------        ------------
<S>                                                                        <C>                                <C>   
United States Trust Company of New York                                    New York                           100.0%
   United States Trust Company International Corporation                   United States                      100.0
      United States Trust Company of New York (Grand Cayman) Ltd.          Cayman Islands                     100.0
      UST Overseas Corporation                                             Delaware                           100.0
        Foreign & Colonial Asset Management                                London, England                     50.0
   UST Property Company, Inc.                                              New York                           100.0
   UST Financial Services Corp.                                            New York                           100.0
   US Trust Mortgage Service Company                                       Florida                            100.0
U.S. Trust Company of California, N.A.                                     California                         100.0
   UST Fiduciary Services Ltd.                                             Delaware                           100.0
   UST - Los Angeles, Inc.                                                 California                         100.0
U.S. Trust Company of Connecticut                                          Connecticut                        100.0
U.S. Trust Company of Florida Savings Bank                                 Florida                            100.0
U.S. Trust Company of New Jersey                                           New Jersey                         100.0
   UST Securities Corporation                                              New Jersey                         100.0
U.S.T. L.P.O. Corp.                                                        Delaware                           100.0
   U.S. Trust Company of Texas, N.A.                                       Texas                              100.0
CTMC Holding Company                                                       Oregon                             100.0
   CTC Consulting, Inc.                                                    Oregon                             100.0
   U.S. Trust Company of the Pacific Northwest                             Oregon                             100.0
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1



                                  CERTIFICATION


I, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of General Motors
Corporation;

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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

      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:  November 10, 2004
       -----------------

                              /s/ G. RICHARD WAGONER, JR.
                              ---------------------------
                              G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.
                              Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





                                       46
September 2 0 , 2016

Exemption No. 12984 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 20 15

– 2816

Mr. Robert Adams

Carolina Aerial Imaging

124 Moontide Court

Lexington, SC 29072

Dear Mr. Adams :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated March 31, 2016 , you petitioned th e Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Carolina Aerial Imaging (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to

your current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5),

61.113(a), 61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

allows the petitioner to conduct UAS operations

. You requested an amendment to change the

company name f rom Robert E. Adams to Carolina Aerial Imaging

. 1

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determ ined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

.

1 The petitioner also requested to add aircraft. At this time, the FAA is unable to act on this request. When the

FAA is ready to act, we will proceed accordingly and no further action will be required by the pet itioner.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 12984

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to change the operator name

.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Carolina Aerial Imaging is hereafter referred to as the operator.

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 12984 remain in effect

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspens ion or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on September 30, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Di rector, Flight Standards Service