alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 2, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01071-CV 

WAYNE TEAGUE, Appellant 

V. 

MIKE CLIFTON, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-03939-C 

MEMORANDUM OPINION NUNC PRO TUNC 

Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice FitzGerald 

Both the filing fee and the clerk’s record in this case are overdue. By postcard dated 

August 5, 2013, we notified appellant the $175 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to 

remit the fee within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. By letter dated December 11, 2013, we informed 

appellant that we had been notified by the Dallas County District Clerk that the clerk’s record in 

this case had been prepared but had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with 

written verification that he had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or 

that he had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs within ten days. We 

cautioned appellant that if we did not receive the required verification, we might dismiss the 
 –2– 

appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the 

required verification, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the filing 

fee or the clerk’s record.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

131071F.P05 

 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC 

WAYNE TEAGUE, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01071-CV V. 

MIKE CLIFTON, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-03939-C. 

Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald. 

Justices Fillmore and Evans participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee MIKE CLIFTON recover his costs of this appeal from 

appellant WAYNE TEAGUE. 

Judgment entered April 2, 2014 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE
exv10w2w15






Exhibit 10.2.15




SCHEDULE OF SENIOR TERM B NOTES

SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS

TO THE FORM OF SENIOR TERM B NOTE FILED AS

EXHIBIT 10.2.14 TO THIS REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-1

PURSUANT TO INSTRUCTION 2 TO ITEM 601

OF REGULATION S-K




     In accordance with the Instructions to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the Registrant has omitted
filing as exhibits to this Registration Statement on Form S-1 the Senior Term B Notes issued by MGP
Instruments, Inc. pursuant to the Note and Equity Purchase Agreement dated June 23, 2004 by and
among MGP Instruments, Inc., Dosimetry Acquisitions (U.S.), Inc. and American Capital Financial
Services, Inc. and various purchasers because they are substantially identical in all material
respects to the Form of Senior Term B Note filed as Exhibit 10.2.14.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Note Number	 	Note Holder	 	Principal Amount	 
	1	 	American Capital Strategies, Ltd.
	 	$	7,500,000	 
	2	 	American Capital Strategies, Ltd.
	 	$	7,500,000	 
	3	 	American Capital Strategies, Ltd.
	 	$	7,500,000	 
	4	 	American Capital Strategies, Ltd.
	 	$	2,444,400
#### Arthur L. Bey *et al. v.*Kanawha Savings & Loan Association

(No. 7850)

Submitted May 15, 1934.

Decided May 29, 1934.

*Payne, Minor*& *Bouchelle,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. E. Springston,*for defendants in error.

Hatcher, Judge:

In an action of assumpsit, plaintiffs recovered a judgment for the money they had paid the defendant under a written contract for the purchase of three lots. Defendant obtained a writ of error.

The contract, dated April 26, 1930, provided (in part) that after the purchasers had made twenty-four monthly payments of a certain sum, defendant would execute and deliver to them a general warranty deed for the three lots; and that thereupon the purchasers would execute and deliver to defendant their note for the remainder of the purchase price, and secure the note by a deed of trust upon the property. Time was declared to be of the essence of the contract. Plaintiffs regularly completed the *131twenty-four payments and then made four more, without having received a deed. In the interim, according to their evidence, they often requested the deed of defendant. They were in possession of the lots at the time of the trial, but said they had made arrangements to move. The lots were sold to the state for non-payment of taxes before the time when the plaintiffs were entitled to a deed. Defendant redeemed the lots *pendente lite,*and made tender of a deed upon condition that plaintiffs execute the required note, trust deed, etc., but the tender was refused.

The plaintiffs take the position that they rescinded the contract for good cause and are entitled to recover the money paid thereon. The defendant says, even so, the plaintiffs cannot maintain this action because they have not returned or offered to return the possession of the lots. The law supporting defendant is too old and too general to be ignored. With few exceptions (not developed herein) restoration is a necessary incident of rescission. “The buyer must put the seller in statu quo” flatly 'declares Mr. Williston in his third volume on Contracts, section 1463. “It is a fundamental principle in this branch of the law (rights of the parties on rescission) that a rescission contemplates, as far as possible, a complete restoration of the parties to the positions they respectively occupied prior to entering into the engagement.” Warville on Vendors (2d Ed.), section 869. Accord: 27 R. C. L., subject Vendor and Purchaser, sec. 414; 66 C. J., *idem,*secs. 467-8 and 1606-7; 29 A. and E. Ency. Law, *idem,*page 647.

In view of this holding, comment on other points of error becomes unnecessary.

The judgment of the circuit court is accordingly reversed and the case remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FIOR RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1352

[May 13, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; William W. Haury, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE18-

001866.

Frantz C. Nelson of Font & Nelson, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant.

Elizabeth K. Russo and Paulo R. Lima of Russo Appellate Firm, P.A., 

Miami, and Steven J. Chackman of Bernstein, Chackman, Liss, 

Hollywood, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, GERBER, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<CIK>                                 0000839441
<NAME>                                CAPITAL GROWTH, INC.
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                   5,229
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         5,229
<PP&E>                                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           5,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   (4,846)
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                24,500
<OTHER-SE>                             (24,117)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           ( 5,229)
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             0
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         9,287
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (9,287)
<INCOME-TAX>                            (9,287)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                            (9,287)
<EPS-BASIC>                              .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .00


</TABLE>
**Exhibit31.1**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of**

**the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

        I, Evan H. Zucker, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Dividend Capital Trust Inc., certify that:

 

 

(1)                      I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dividend Capital Trust Inc.

 

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

 

(3)                      Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

 

(4)                      Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)                      designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b)                     evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”);and

 

(c)                      presented inthis quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

 

(5)                      The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)                      all significantdeficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

(b)                     any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls.

 

 

 
| Date: November 12, 2003 |   | */s/*Evan H.  Zucker       |
|-------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
|                    |   | Evan H. Zucker             |
|                    |   | *Chief  Executive Officer* |
|                    |   |                       |

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6302]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,350]


PIHT, LLC, St. Marys, PA; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 24, 2009, in response to a 
worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at 
PIHT, LLC, St. Marys, Pennsylvania.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of March 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-6302 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
**M E M O R A N D U M**

**To:** Docket EPA - R09 - OAR- 2012 - 0936 **From:** Ken Israels , EPA Region IX, Grants and Program Integration Office **Date:** April 17 , 2013 **Concerning:** EPA Proposed Rule, Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes:

California; Morongo Band of Mission Indians

– Notes of Meeting with Representative s from Pechanga Indian Reservation, Temecula Band of Luiseño Mission Indians , Concerning the Proposed Morongo SIP Action , April 17 , 201 3 .

_____________________________________ On Wednesday , April 17 , 201 3 , EPA Region 9 staff and managers Elizabeth Adams, Colleen McKaughan, Jefferson Wehling, Ken Israels, Sara Bartholomew, Meredith Kurpius, and Wienke Tax, along with EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards manager, Laura Mc Kelvey, participated in a meeting with Pechanga Indian Reservation, Temecula Band of 

### Luiseño Mission Indians Environmental Director Syndi Smallwood, Pechanga Tribal counsel J ames Cohen, and Pechanga consultant Gary Rubinstein (of Sierra Research). The purpo se of the meeting was to discuss EPA’s propos al regarding the designation of the M orongo Band of Mission Indians ’ tribal lands as a separate nonattainment area for both the 1 -hour ozone and 1997 8 -hour ozone national ambient air quality standards among other topics . We reviewed the proposed Morongo action and the similarities and differences between the circumstances that the Pechanga and Morongo face in terms of air quality planning. We also reviewed the federal rulemaking process during this meeting.
**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

To The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Global Club, Inc.

Carson City, Nevada

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Global Club, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) (the “Company”) as of July 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for the years then ended and from inception (June 27, 2008) to July 31, 2010. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements based on our audits.  

We conducted our audits in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  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 financial position of Global Club, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) as of July 31, 2010 and 2009, and the results of their operations and cash flows for the years then ended and from inception (June 27, 2008) to July 31, 2010 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. 

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 2. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC

/s/ De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC

Henderson, Nevada

November 13, 2010 

2580 Anthem Village Drive, Henderson, NV  89052

Telephone (702) 563-1600  ●  Facsimile (702) 920-8049
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Packaging Dynamics
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Phillip D. Harris, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Henry C. Newell, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledgE:

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

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

/s/ PHILLIP D. HARRIS
--------------------------------
Name: Phillip D. Harris
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:   May 13, 2004

/s/ HENRY C. NEWELL
--------------------------------
Name: Henry C. Newell
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Date:   May 13, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Packaging Dynamics Corporation and will be retained by Packaging
Dynamics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JASMINE RAMIREZ,

Petitioner

v.

LANCASTER EARLY EDUCATION 

CENTER AND MADELINE ECKERT,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 359 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 23.4





DeGolyer and MacNaughton


5001 Spring Valley Road


Suite 800 East


Dallas, Texas 75244





July 15, 2011




Board of Directors


Ecopetrol S.A.


Calle 35 No. 7-21 Piso 1


Bogota, D.C. Colombia




Ladies and Gentlemen:




We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton and to the inclusion of and information derived from our third party letter report dated February 8, 2011, containing our opinions regarding our estimates, as of December 31, 2010, of the proved oil, condensate, natural gas, and oil equivalent reserves of certain selected properties owned by Ecopetrol S.A. in Colombia and in the United States of America as set forth under the headings “Presentation of Information Concerning Reserves,” “Item 4. Information on the Company—Overview by Business Segment—Reserves,” “Item 19. Exhibits,” and as Exhibit 99.3 in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Ecopetrol S.A. for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Annual Report”); provided, however, that we are necessarily unable to verify the accuracy of the reserves estimates contained in the Annual Report because our estimates of reserves have been combined with estimates of reserves prepared by other petroleum consultants.





We further consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton, as set forth in the Ecopetrol S.A. Registration Statement on Form F-3, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2010 (the “Form F-3”), under the heading “Experts,” and to the incorporation by reference of this consent and our Third Party Letter Report in the Form F-3.





Very truly yours,/s/ DeGolyer and MacNaughtonDeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTONTexas Registered Engineering Firm F-716
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

**Quarter ended September 30, 2008**

 

I, James B. Druck, ChiefExecutive Officer of Southwest Casino Corporation (the “Company”) certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15. U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));and

 

(2)           The information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperation of the Company.

 

Dated:  November 14,2008

 
|   | /s/ James B. Druck      |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | James B. Druck          |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ElectricAquagenics Unlimited, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedMarch 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Gaylord M. Karren, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

DATE:  May 14, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/ Gaylord M.  Karren               |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Gaylord M. Karren                    |
|   | Chief Executive Officer              |
|   | Chief Financial Officr               |
|   | Electric Aquagenics  Unlimited, Inc. |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

June 9, 2005

Before

Hon. Richard D. Cudahy, Circuit Judge

Hon. Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge

Hon. Terence T. Evans, Circuit Judge

IFC CREDIT CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Appeal from the United States District

) Court for the Eastern District of

) Wisconsin

No. 04-2096 v. )

) No. 02 C 1015

) Aaron E. Goodstein, Magistrate Judge

BULK PETROLEUM CORPORATION )

and DARSHAN S. DHALIWAL )

)

Defendants-Appellants. )

ORDER

On consideration of the petition for rehearing of plaintiff-appellant filed on 

April 29, 2005, in the above-captioned case, all of the judges on the panel have voted to deny

rehearing. Therefore, the petition is DENIED. 

The opinion is hereby amended as follows: On page 8, lines 10-12, first full paragraph, should

read: “Here, by contrast, there was no misrepresentation or proactive deception; Bulk merely sent the

check to the wrong party.”