alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Tom MILLER et ux *v.*James E. WILLEY d/b/a/ WILLEY REAL ESTATE

74-349

521 S.W. 2d 68

Opinion delivered April 7, 1975

*962
      *Mooney &*Boone, for appellants.

*Warren E. Dapwe,*for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellants gave appellee a written option to purchase their property for $10,000. The option was properly exercised and appellants refused to convey the property. The chancellor ordered specific performance by the appellants. On appeal they first contend that the chancellor erred in overruling appellants’ demurrer to the evidence and not voiding the contract because of the failure of a tender of consideration. We cannot agree.

The appellants accepted a $100 payment when they signed the contract which provided that the balance would be paid “at closing.” When appellee exercised the option to purchase, he notified appellants that the balance of the purchase price would be paid to them upon receipt of their deed and abstract. Appellants refused to deliver the deed and abstract. In appellee’s complaint for specific performance, he reiterated his willingness to pay the agreed balance. At trial the appellee tendered the balance of the purchase money. Since appellants repudiated their contract, the tender of payment was unnecessary until the date, as here, the issue was litigated. The law does not require a tender of payment where it would be a vain and useless effort. *Gentry*v. *Holland,*243 Ark. 172, 419 S.W.2d 130 (1967); *Hollowoa*v. *Buck,*174 Ark. 497, 296 S.W. 74 (1927); and *Read's Drug Store*v. *Hessig-Ellis Drug Co.,*93 Ark. 497, 125 S.W. 434 (1910). In the case at bar there was sufficient tender in view of the repudiation of the contract.

Neither can we agree that the trial court erred by not voiding the contract on the ground of the “Undisclosed Principal” doctrine. Appellant refused to deed the property to the *963City of Jonesboro as instructed by the appellee who was purchasing this and other property for the city. The appellants, it appears, had some animosity toward the city and were unwilling for it to acquire their property. However, the appellants cannot repudiate their contract on this basis since they agreed to “execute and deliver to [appellee], or to any person or persons as we [appellee] **** shall direct in writing, a good and sufficient Warranty Deed and an up to date Abstract of . . . .” their property. Also, appellee testified that he was unaware of any ill feeling of appellants toward the city and that he acquainted appellants with the fact that he was purchasing the property for a client. An agent, without disclosing his principal, can make a valid and enforceable contract in his own name. *Shelby*v. Burrow, 76 Ark. 558, 89 S.W. 464 (1905); and Restatement of Agency 2d, § 304 (1957), Comment c. In the circumstances we cannot say the chancellor’s findings are against the preponderance of the evidence.

Affirmed.
Abatement Order filed August 26 , 2021.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00850

- CV

IN RE JLG INDUSTRIES, INC. AND OSHKOSH CORPORATION , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 412th District Court Bra zoria County, Texas Trial Cou r t Cau se No. 94538

- CV



### A BATEMENT O RDER

On March 5, 2021 , the parties to this original proceeding notified th e C ourt that the parties had reached a settlement. On August 11 , 20 21, the Court requested

that th e p arties advise the Court of the status. Both parties respon ded on A ugust 23, 2021, and indicated that settlement efforts are on

- going. Accordingly, we issue

t he following order.2

Th is original proceeding is abated, treated as a closed proceeding , and

removed from this C ourt’s active docket until Nov ember 1, 2021

. The or iginal proceeding wi ll be reinstated on this C ourt’s active docket at that time, or when th e parties file a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus

. The C ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the original pro ceeding filed by any party, or the C ourt may reinstate the original proceeding on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmer er, and Poissant.
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Southern District of Ohio

MICHAEL DISABATO AND JOHN DOES 1-36,

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY,

2:19-cv-02237

MICHAEL DISABATO AND JOHN DOES 1-36,

06/27/2019 /s/ Richard W. Schulte

Richard W. Schulte - OH Bar # 0066031

Wright & Schulte, LLC

865 S. Dixie Dr.

Vandalia, OH 45377

rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com

(937) 435-7500

(937) 435-7511

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 97 Filed: 06/27/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 588
#### SKF USA INC. and SKF Industrie S.p.A., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant, and The Torrington Company (now known as Timken U.S. Corporation), Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-1209.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 26, 2004.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the United States’ unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal, 01-1209,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

> *312(1) The stay of proceedings is lifted and the motion to dismiss is granted.

> (2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             181
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   181
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              181
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       181
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               216,800
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                216,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 216,800
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### RE: Will there be time in Thur O 3 RIA mtg to talk about mortality benefits from O3 and PM? King, Heidi R. to: Kathy Kaufman 11/03/2009 12:32 PM Cc: Charlotte Bertrand, Lydia Wegman, Mary Ross, Neal Fann, Ron Evans, Amy Lamson, Tricia Crabtree

Yes! Please call me this afternoon and we can think it through.

Best,

h -----Original Message----- From: Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 12:27 PM To: King, Heidi R. Cc: Bertrand.Charlotte@epamail.epa.gov ; Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Ross.Mary@epamail.epa.gov; Fann.Neal@epamail.epa.gov; Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov; Lamson.Amy@epamail.epa.gov; Crabtree.Tricia@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re: Will there be time in Thur O3 RIA mtg to talk about mortality benefits from O3 and PM? Heidi, we can discuss mortality benefits on Thursday and then if we need additional meetings, we can schedule as needed. This raises two questions we have for you, though: 1. Are there specific concerns about the mortality benefits that you'd like us to focus on or come prepared to discuss, and 2. More fundamentally -- we're thinking that although you have a good understanding of the 2008 ozone RIA underyling this supplement, we don't know about the interagency folks. So we're wondering how to structure the briefing based on that discrepancy. Can we chat about this briefly some time today or tomorrow?

Thanks... -- Kathy Kathy Kaufman EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C439-02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone 919 541 0102 Fax 919 541 5489

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To: Margaret Morrison/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, KathyKaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Ross / R TP / U SEPA / U S @ E PA , L ydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 11/03/2009 11:51 AM

Subject: Will there be time in Thur O3 RIA mtg to talk about mortality benefits from O3 and PM?

Ron and Kathy, If not, can we schedule a separate mtg?
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ascential Software
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Robert C. McBride, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of his knowledge and
belief, 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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Date: March 15, 2004                    /s/ Robert C. McBride
                                        -----------------------
                                        Robert C. McBride
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### Maria Guadalupe ARROYO-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-72294, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 14, 2004.

Michael Franquinha, Law Office of Michael Franquinha, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Phoenix, AZ, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Russell J.E. Verby, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Maria Guadalupe Arroyo-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for *156review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order vacating an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting her application for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). *See id.*§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003) .

We similarly lack jurisdiction over petitioner’s contention that the BIA denied her due process by failing to remand her case to the IJ to review the evidence under the new standard for “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” announced in *Matter of Andazola,*23 I. & N. Dec. 319, 2002 WL 1001048 (BIA 2002) (en banc), because she did not raise this request before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir. 2004) .

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, C. Christian Winkle, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mariner HealthCare, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’sfirst fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 5, 2004      /S/ C. Christian Winkle    C. Christian Winkle  Chief Executive Officer
#### People v Hawkins,

No. 91122;

Court of Appeals No. 118538.
#### Austin Smith v. Dell Smith.

*Marriage annulled for duress.*

A bill to annul a marriage for gross duress was sustained where the ms#riage had never been recognized and complainant was an unworldly youth of eighteen whom defendant had brought before a justice on a charge of bastardy and who, though protesting his innocence, had been frightened by the justice into a marriage on the spot.

Appeal from Branch. (Pealer, J.)

Oct. 17.

Oct. 24.

Bill to dissolve marriage. Complainant appeals.

Prayer •of bill granted.

*Loveridge dh Ba/rlow*for complainant, as to marriage under duress,

cited *Seiber v. Frice^*26 Mich. 518; *Feller ■v. Green*26 Mich. 70; *Frost v. Yought*37 Mich. 65.

Cooley, J.

Bill to annul a marriage as having been brought about by fraud and duress. The marriage took place in May, 1882. Complainant was a boy eighteen years ■of age. He was arrested on a charge of bastardy made by the defendant, and brought before- the justice who issued the warrant. The justice told him he had better marry the girl; that she had every advantage of him, and if convicted he would be sent to prison. Complainant protested that the charge against him was wholly groundless, but this seems to have made no difference with the advice of the justice, who continued to press'- it upon complainant until he was induced to stand up with the girl and go through *608the marriage ceremony. The evidence shows that complainant had seen little of the world, and was a very likely subject for such a trap as was set for him. It was a gross case of duress, carried out when complainant was without opportunity to consult with his friends, and while he was held under an arrest the dangers of which were purposely magnified to alarm him. The marriage has never been recognized since the ceremony was performed, and complainant is entitled to have it annulled.

It is proper to remark that this suit is not brought under the statute prescribing the causes for divorce, but is brought independently of that statute for the nullity of the marriage.

The complainant should have the relief prayed.

The other Justices concurred.
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 4 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States limiting 

the pardon power of the President. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. BEYER, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Ms. NORTON, Mr. 

COOPER, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. 

CICILLINE, and Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania) submitted the 

following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States limiting the pardon power of the President. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


sspencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 4 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘(1) himself or herself; 

3 ‘‘(2) any family member, up to a third degree 

4 relation, of the President, or a spouse thereof; 

5 ‘‘(3) any current or former member of the 

6 President’s administration; 

7 ‘‘(4) any person who worked on the President’s 

8 presidential campaign as a paid employee; 

9 ‘‘(5) any person or entity for an offense that 

10 was motivated by a direct and significant personal or 

11 pecuniary interest of any of the foregoing persons; 

12 or 

13 ‘‘(6) any person or entity for an offense that 

14 was at the direction of, or in coordination with, the 

15 President. 

16 Any pardon issued for a corrupt purpose shall be invalid.’’. 

Æ 


sspencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
From: Hofmeister, Art

Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 9:57 AM

To: Nowakowski, Matt

Subject: TECO Polk Station GHG Application

Attachments: TECO_2 thur 5 CC Conversion_GHG PSD Application_October 2012.pdf

Here you go, Matt.

Thanks.

Art Hofmeister

Environment Engineer

Air Permits Section

EPA Region 4

(404) 562

- 9115
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.§1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of HF Financial Corp. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, CurtisL. Hage, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
|   | /s/ Curtis L. Hage                   |         |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------------|
|   | Curtis L. Hage, Chairman,  President |
|   | and Chief Executive Officer          |
|   |                                 |
|   | Date:                                | May 11, 2007 |   |
|        |                                      |              |  |  |

 

----

*                                         A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to HF Financial Corp. andwill be retained by HF Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV, L.P. 10Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000882288
<NAME>                        Textainer Equipment Income Fund IV, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         880
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,914
<ALLOWANCES>                                   804
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               200
<PP&E>                                         125,455
<DEPRECIATION>                                 37,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 93,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,863
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     92,093
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   93,956
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,743
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (238)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,811
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,811
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>