alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-20-00528-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE LILLIAN SMITH

On Petition for Writ of Injunction.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa1

The Gonzales County probate court granted an application for the sale of real 

estate filed by Craig Hopper, guardian of the estate of Margaret Landgrebe, an 

incapacitated person. Lillian Smith2 appealed that order in our appellate cause number 

13-20-00476-CV and filed a petition in the foregoing cause number seeking to enjoin 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so,” but “[w]hen granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case”); 

id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 See id. R. 52.1 (providing that an original appellate proceeding seeking extraordinary relief should 

be captioned in the name of the relator); id. R. 52.2 (designating the party seeking relief in an original 

proceeding as the relator).
2

Hopper, as guardian of the Estate of Margaret Virginia Landgrebe, from selling the real 

estate at issue “in order to preserve the subject matter of the underlying appeal and 

prevent it from becoming moot.” We dismiss the petition for writ of injunction as moot.

The purpose of a writ of injunction is to enforce or protect the appellate court’s 

jurisdiction. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex. 1989) (orig.

proceeding); In re Murphy, 484 S.W.3d 655, 656 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2016, orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam); In re Olson, 252 S.W.3d 747, 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Sheshtawy, 161 S.W.3d 1, 1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The writ of injunction is issued 

by a superior court to control, limit, or prevent action in a court of inferior jurisdiction. In 

re Olson, 252 S.W.3d at 747; In re State, 180 S.W.3d 423, 425 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, 

orig. proceeding). The use of a writ of injunction is limited to cases in which the appellate 

court has actual jurisdiction over a pending proceeding. In re Murphy, 484 S.W.3d at 656; 

In re Olson, 252 S.W.3d at 747. A writ of injunction is preventative in nature. Campbell v. 

Wilder, 487 S.W.3d 146, 153–54 (Tex. 2016). 

By separate opinion issued this same date in cause number 13-20-00476-CV, we 

have dismissed Smith’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Guardianship of Margaret 

Virginia Landgrebe, No. 13-20-00476-CV, 2020 WL _____, at *__ (Tex. App.—Corpus 

Christi–Edinburg Dec. __, 2020, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we dismiss this 

petition for writ of injunction as moot. 

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

Delivered and filed the

10th day of December, 2020.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001029391
<NAME>  Payco American International Corp
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                       538
<INVENTORY>                                     42,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,205
<PP&E>                                          44,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,699
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,690
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               271,683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  290,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1





Hyperion
Energy, Inc.


Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





(18
U.S.C. Section 1350)





In
connection with the quarterly report of Hyperion Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John P. Messina,
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results operations of the
  Company.





Date:
      May 6, 2010
                By:
                /s/ John P. MessinaName:
      John P. MessinaTitle:  President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR BILLING
INFORMATION CONCEPTS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          26,607
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,379
<PP&E>                                          20,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 166,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,077
<BONDS>                                          6,563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           161
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   166,670
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,094
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 374
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,911
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,465
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,554)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,554)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
This is a read-me file: ALLIANCE-READ-ME.DOC

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) in concert with AIAM, Honda and the California 

Oil Industry, performed a vehicle emissions test program on the effects of low sulfur fuel and on the 

effects of fuel oxygenate content. Results of that program were presented to the California Air Resources 

Board Clean Burning Fuel Workshop on July 12, 2001 in Sacramento. The presentation was given by

Bob Gorse, Ford Motor Company. The presentation was posted on the ARB website and the present 

package contains an improved version of that presentation. We also promised to share the data behind the 

test program. This package contains a WinZip file containing the PowerPoint presentation, Excel data 

files having the test data, Excel files having the results of the statistical analysis, and an Excel file with 

fuel analysis information.

The WinZip file is: AAM-AIAM Emissions Program.ZIP. Included files are:

Alliance-CARB-Gorse.PPT the updated presentation

Oil-Side Fuel Analysis.XLS fuel analysis data

AAM Full Emissions Data Set.XLS data from individual vehicle tests

AAM Veh Means.XLS calculated vehicle & fleet fuel-averages

AAM TestData Information.XLS description of vehicles tested and tested parameters

AAM Statistics-Sulfur.XLS statistical results for sulfur testing

AAM Statistics-Oxygen.XLS statistical results for oxygen testing

AAM Statistics-By Class.XLS statistical results for vehicle types or categories

AAM Statistics-Regressions.XLS Parameters of curve-fit response to fuel parameters

Any questions can be directed to:

Bob Gorse, Ford Motor Company

Staff Technical Specialist

Vehicle Environmental Engineering

313-594-6738

313-390-0382FAX

rgorse@ford.com

rgorse1234@aol.com
Exhibit 23.2


Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:


(1) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-178599) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust;


(2) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-178598) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust;


(3) Registration Statement (Form S-3/A No. 333-169488) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust;


(4) Automatic Shelf Registration Statement (Form S-3ASR No. 333-144607) of Pennsylvania Real Estate


Investment Trust;


(5) Automatic Shelf Registration Statement (Form S-3ASR No. 333-144606) of Pennsylvania Real Estate


Investment Trust;


(6) Registration Statement (Form S-3/A No. 333-121962) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust;


(7) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-110926) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust;


(8) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-109849) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(9) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-109848) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(10) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-97679) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(11) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-97337) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(12) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-36626) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(13) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-74693) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(14) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-74695) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(15) Registration Statement (Form S-3/A No. 333-70157) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(16) Registration Statement (Form S-3/A No. 333-48917) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(17) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-183480) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(18) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-169487) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(19) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-148237) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(20) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-103116) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(21) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-97677) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(22) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-69877) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(23) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-59767) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


(24) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-59771) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.; and


(25) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-59773) of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.;


of our report dated March 25, 2014 , with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Lehigh Valley


Associates and Subsidiary, included in this Form 10-K/A of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust for the year


ended December 31, 2013.





/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP





March 25, 2014
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Zones, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald P. McFadden, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)      The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and





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








Date:
August 11, 2008








/S/   RONALD
      P MCFADDENRonald
      P. McFaddenSenior
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.5


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


    
This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is entered into this 17th day of August, 2017, between CNO Services, LLC (the “Company”) and Christopher J. Nickele (“Executive”).


Recitals


A.The Company and Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of December 18, 2014 (the “Agreement”).


B.The Company and Executive desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein. 
    
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged:




		
	1.
	The first two sentences of Section 10(c) of the Agreement are hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows:




Executive’s employment may be terminated in a Control Termination.  A “Control Termination” shall mean any termination by the Company (or its successor), of Executive’s employment for any reason, or by Executive With Reason as so defined, within six months in anticipation of or within two years following a Change in Control.  


All other provisions of Section 10(c) of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.


		
	2.
	The first sentence of Section 11(d) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:  




In the event that Executive is terminated by the Company (or its successor) in a Control Termination as so defined, or if Executive terminates his employment With Reason in a Control Termination, then the Company shall pay Executive within 30 days of the Termination Date the Accrued Amounts.  


All other provisions of Section 11(d) of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.













All provisions of the Agreement not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date first above written.


CNO SERVICES, LLC 


	
		
	By:
	/s/ Edward J. Bonach

	 
	Edward J. Bonach

	 
	Chief Executive Officer






	
		
	 
	/s/ Christopher J. Nickele

	 
	Christopher J. Nickele

	 
	 








2
ARTHUR
                                    ANDERSEN

                               LUBOSHITZ KASIERER

                      AUDITORS' REPORT TO THE SHAREHOLDERS

                                       OF

                                 NETVISION LTD.

We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of NETVISION LTD. (the Company)
and its subsidiary as of December 31, 1998 and the balance sheets of the Company
as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related statements of operations,
changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards
in Israel, including those prescribed under the Auditors' Regulations (Auditor's
Mode of Performance), 1973. Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Company and
its subsidiary as of December 31, 1998 and the financial position of the Company
as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the results of operations, changes in
shareholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.

Pursuant to Section 211 of the Companies Ordinance (New Version), 1983, we state
that we received all of the information and explanations which we requested and
that our opinion on the financial statements is given based on the best
information and explanations which we received and as reflected in the books of
the Company.

                                       /s/ Luboshitz Kasierer
                                       Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
Haifa, March 4, 1999
61362981
#### J. R. WATKINS CO. v. WEBB et al.

No. 3403.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Sept. 24, 1936.

Crane & Crane, of Dallas, for appellant.

Thompson & Barber, of Colorado, Tex., and D. D. Mahon, of Dallas, for appel-lees.

HIGGINS, Justice (after stating the case as above).

Appellees assert the contract of Bad-gett and McKenney simply guaranteed Webb would pay at Winona or Dallas. The contract does not have such limited meaning. Under its terms they “promised” pay*285ment by them at Winona or Dallas. Such is the fair interpretation of the contract. It imposes upon the sureties an obligation performable by them in Dallas at the option of the plaintiff. The optionable nature of the obligation did not render inapplicable the fifth section of the venue statute. As against Badgett and McKenney, the venue was properly laid in Dallas county. Pavlidis v. Bishop & Babcock Sales Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 41 S.W.(2d) 294; Merchants’ Reciprocal Underwriters v. First Nat. Bank (Tex.Civ.App.) 192 S.W. 1098.

Webb was the party primarily liable and principal obligor upon the debt sued for and was a necessary party to the suit against his codefendants. Wood v. Canfield Paper Co., 117 Tex. 399, 5 S.W.(2d) 748.

The suit against him was therefore maintainable in Dallas county under subdivision 29a of the venue statute.

It is unnecessary to determine whether the pleas of privilege operated as a sworn denial of the verified account and cast upon plaintiff the burden of proving the account by evidence other than the statutory affidavit so as to show prima facie a cause of action against Webb upon the account. The contract itself established the indebtedness of $816.79 existing at the time the contract was executed and prima facie right of action thereon against Bad-gett and McKenney.

The pleas of privilege should have been overruled. Judgment to that effect will be here rendered.

Reversed and rendered.
Great Western Bank Center 111 South Dewey Street

- 2nd Floor

- P O Box 1347

- North Platte, Nebraska 69103

- 1347 Phone (308) 535

- 8080 www.tpnrd.org January 19, 2011

Shelley Schneider Air Quality Division Administrator Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 1200 N Street, Suite 400 Lincoln, NE 68509

- 8922

Dear Ms. Schneider:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the State of Nebrask a’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. My comments are related to the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) Gerald Gentleman Station (GGS) located south of Sutherland, Nebraska. The NPPD GGS is

located within the Twin Platte Natural Resources Distric t (TPNRD).

I agree with the May 11, 2011 Fact Sheet (BART & PSD Analysis For the NPPD GGS) prepared by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NE DEQ), which states that there is a significant non

- air quality environmental impact for NPPD regard ing water use, if either Wet or Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) control technology is required

.

The Platte River Basin in western Nebraska has been designated by the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NE DNR) as Over Appropriated, as required by Nebraska law enacted in 2004. The designation that the Platte River Basin is Over Appropriated required the NE DNR and the TPNRD to jointly develop an Integrated Management Plan (IMP). The IMP provides that there are no new depletions to ground water or s urface water, that the Platte River must be returned to 1997 flows within the first ten years following approval of the IMP which occurred in 2008, and the Platte River Basin in western Nebraska ultimately must be returned to Fully Appropriated. To accompl ish the requirements of the IMP, since 2004, there can be no new depletions of water within the TPNRD, and the TPNRD must provide offset water to the Platte River in the amount of 7,700 acre

- feet within the first ten years and a yet undetermined amount

of offset water to the Platte River to reach Fully Appropriated.

Finding offset water in an area that is Over Appropriated is very difficult and very expensive, as described in the May 11, 2010 NE DEQ Fact Sheet. If NPPD were to have to find water for

eithe r Wet or Dry FGD , they would be competing with the TPNRD and the other Natural

Resources Districts within the Platte River Basin.

Sincerely,

Kent O. Miller, P.E. General Manager 

# TWIN PLATTE

NATURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT