alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles J. SCHINDLER, II, Petitioner, v. AUSTWELL FARMERS COOPERATIVE, Respondent.

No. D-2616.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 14, 1992.

Rehearing Overruled Dec. 31, 1992.

Edmond J. Ford, Jr., Corpus Christi, for petitioner.

*854James H. Robichaux, Corpus Christi, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Charles Schindler II, a cotton and grain farmer, had an agreement with Austwell Farmers Cooperative which allowed him to purchase agricultural products on account. Austwell charged purchases by Schindler, his father and his cousin to this account. When Schindler refused to pay the balance due on the account, Austwell sued him for breach of contract and fraud. The jury found that Schindler owed $65,722.11 on the account; that he obtained products from Austwell fraudulently, causing damages of $65,722.11; and that Austwell should be awarded punitive damages of $10,000 and attorney fees. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict for Aust-well for $65,722.11 actual damages, $10,000 punitive damages, attorney fees and interest. The court of appeals affirmed. 829 S.W.2d 283. Schindler argues that Aust-well cannot recover both attorney fees for breach of contract and punitive damages for fraud, based upon the same event and the same injury. Schindler also complains that there is no evidence to support a recovery for fraud in this case. Because we agree with this latter contention, we do not reach the former.

Austwell’s fraud claim is based upon its manager’s testimony that he confronted Schindler at least twice about paying his account balance, and that both times Schindler acknowledged he owed the debt and promised prompt payment. Austwell claims that this promise was fraudulent. For a promise of future performance to be the basis of actionable fraud, it must have been false at the time it was made. “Failure to perform, standing alone, is no evidence of the promisor’s intent not to perform when the promise was made. However, that fact is a circumstance to be considered with other facts to establish intent.” *Spoljaric v. Percival Tours, Inc.,*708 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Tex.1986); *accord, Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp.,*823 S.W.2d 591, 597 (Tex. 1992). There is evidence in this record that Schindler promised to pay the amounts charged to the account and then later refused, but there is no evidence that Schindler had no intention of paying for what he bought at the time he promised he would pay. Thus, there is no evidence to support recovery for fraud, and no basis for an award of punitive damages.

Without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court grants Schindler’s application for writ of error, modifies the judgment of the court of appeals to eliminate the award of punitive damages, and as modified, affirms that judgment. Tex. R.App.P. 170.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 represents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ J. Eric PikeJ. Eric PikeChairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentFebruary 8, 2011/s/ Anthony K. SlaterAnthony K. SlaterExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 8, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001041009
<NAME>                        Maxxon, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,529
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  61,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               64,871
<PP&E>                                         34,719
<DEPRECIATION>                                 20,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 88,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          34,554
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       13,180
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,776,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   47,328
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,328,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             18,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,347,859)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,347,859)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.11)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13348]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-755-000]


Missouri Gas Energy, a Division of Southern Union Company, et 
al.; Notice of Order To Show Cause

May 22, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 16, 1996, the Commission issued an order 
under section 5 of the Natural Gas Act for Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) to show cause why, in light of its earlier 
agreement to interconnect with Stahl Specialty Company (Stahl) to 
provide interruptible service, it should not be required to provide an 
interconnect for Missouri Gas Energy (Missouri Gas) as well. In doing 
so, the Commission required that Panhandle explain, in particular, why 
it does not view Missouri Gas as ``similarly situated'' to Stahl. 
Additionally, the Commission required that Panhandle explain why other 
previously constructed interconnects for interruptible customers 
qualified for construction under its expressed policy while Missouri 
Gas does not, or explain why it changed its policy since it 
constructed, or decided to construct, those interconnects. The 
Commission required that Panhandle's response contain information 
concerning: (1) Other requests to construct facilities for 
interruptible service that Panhandle denied, including any requests for 
an interconnect for interruptible service that the customer 
subsequently converted to a request for firm service when the initial 
request was denied; and (2) specific operational and system integrity 
information concerning each requested interconnect which Panhandle 
considered when it denied the requests.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make a protest with reference 
the order to show cause should file a motion to intervene or protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed within 20 days of 
the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to the 
proceeding must file a motion to intervene.\1\ Copies of the order to 
show cause are available on the Commission Issuance Posting System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note that persons who filed a motion to intervene in the 
complaint filed by Missouri Gas in this proceeding already are 
parties to the proceeding and do not have to file another motion to 
intervene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-13348 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 23.02



                       Consent Of Independent Accountants


     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Nos.  33-77060 and 33-93048) of ATMI,  Inc. of our report
dated May 17, 1997,  except for the last paragraph of Note 3 which is as of July
29,  1997 and the last  paragraph  of Note 6 which is as of December  18,  1997,
pertaining  to the  combined  financial  statements  of  Lawrence  Semiconductor
Laboratories,  Inc. and  Affiliate  appearing on page F-3 of this Form 10-K.  It
should be  noted,  however,  that such  financial  statements  are not  included
separately in the Form 10-K. We also consent to the  application  of such report
to the Financial  Statement  Schedule for the two years ended  December 31, 1996
appearing  on  page  F-25  of this  Form  10-K  when  such  schedule  is read in
conjunction with the financial  statements referred to in our report. The audits
referred to in such report also included this schedule.


Price Waterhouse LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
March 19, 1998
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Accountants**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-73008, 333-74336, 333-81704 and 333-81696) of LogicVison, Inc. of our report dated January 17, 2003 relating to the financial statements and the financial statement schedule, whichappears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

San Jose, California 

March 10, 2003
Case 4:17-mj-00339-BPV Document 83-8 Filed 09/19/18 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:17-mj-00339-BPV Document 83-8 Filed 09/19/18 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:17-mj-00339-BPV Document 83-8 Filed 09/19/18 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 4-G-3


                             CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                      OF

                          DUKE ENERGY CAPITAL TRUST V

           THIS Certificate of Trust of Duke Energy Capital Trust V (the
"Trust"), dated as of February 9, 2000, is being duly executed and filed by the
undersigned, as trustee, to form a business trust under the Delaware Business
Trust Act (12 Del. C. (S)3801, et seq.).
              -------          -- ---

           1.   Name.  The name of the business trust formed hereby is Duke
                ----
Energy Capital Trust V.

           2.   Delaware Trustee.  The name and business address of the trustee
                ----------------
of the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware is
Chase Manhattan Bank Delaware, 1201 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.

           3.  Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon
               --------------
filing.

           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the sole trustee of the
Trust, has executed this Certificate of Trust as of the date first-above
written.

                            CHASE MANHATTAN BANK DELAWARE,
                            not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee
                            of the Trust


                            By: /s/ Denis Kelly
                               _________________________________________
                               Name:  Denis Kelly
                               Title: Assistant Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>               1000
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                               13450
<SECURITIES>                         18238
<RECEIVABLES>                  15269<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                           7624
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     59819
<PP&E>                         35658<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      102145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                23738
<BONDS>                               3400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                               195
<OTHER-SE>                           59926
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        102145
<SALES>                              98772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     98772
<CGS>                                46759
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        46759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               10033<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1784
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      15336
<INCOME-TAX>                          3134
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                         12202
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .61
<FN>
     <F1>Net of allowance for doubtful  accounts,  consistent with balance sheet
presentation.
     <F2>Net of  accumulated   depreciation,   consistent  with  balance  sheet
presentation.
     <F3>Research and development expenses
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Seifi Ghasemi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Rockwood Holdings, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Rockwood Holdings, Inc.

|Date: November 14, 2005                                            |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/SEIFI GHASEMISeifi Ghasemi
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350
 (SECTION
906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of, Bluebird Exploration Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
Lawrence Wells, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Director of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated:
May 12, 2008
 
 By:  /s/ Peter Lawrence
Wells
 Peter
Lawrence Wells, President,
 Chief
Executive Officer,
 Chief
Financial Officer and Director
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13886]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ed, North Slope Helicopter, Saddle, and Spanish Timber Sales, 
Ochoco National Forest, Grant and Wheeler Counties, Oregon

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Cancellation of an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: On November 6, 1990, a notice of intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Ed, North Slope 
Helicopter, Saddle, and Spanish Timber Sales on the Paulina Ranger 
District of the Ochoco National Forest was published in the Federal 
Register (55 FR 46694). Forest Service has decided to cancel the 
preparation of an EIS for this proposed action. The Notice of Intent is 
hereby rescinded.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
cancellation to Kathleen Burleigh, NEPA Coordination, 171500 Beaver 
Creek Road, Paulina, Oregon, 97751 or telephone 541-477-3713.

    Dated: May 22, 1996.
Thomas A. Schmidt,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 96-13886 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Freddie Jessie Eldridge, II, 

Defendant.

No. CR-18-08021-001-PCT-DJH

ORDER

The defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148 a 

pretrial release revocation hearing was held. The Court finds by clear and convincing 

evidence that the defendant has violated the terms of defendant’s previously imposed 

pretrial release conditions as alleged in the Petition to Revoke. After considering the 

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes there are no conditions or 

combination of conditions which will assure the defendant will not flee or pose a danger 

to the safety of other persons or the community and that if there were such conditions the 

defendant is unlikely to abide by such conditions.

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained.

Dated this 24th day of April, 2018.

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 20-BG-499

IN RE HAROLD L. BOYD, III 2020 DDN 112

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 481736

BEFORE: Glickman and Deahl, Associate Judges, and Steadman, Senior Judge. 

O R D E R

(FILED— October 1, 2020)

On consideration of Disciplinary Counsel’s report regarding petitioner’s 

petition for reinstatement wherein Disciplinary Counsel informs the court that Mr. 

Boyd has demonstrated that he is fit to resume the practice of law, and it appearing 

that petitioner is eligible to file the petition for reinstatement, see, In re Boyd, 75

A.3d 913 (D.C. 2013), it is 

ORDERED that petitioner’s petition for reinstatement is granted and Harold 

L. Boyd, III, is hereby reinstated to the Bar of the District of Columbia. 

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

CERTIFICATION OFTHE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, ASAMENDED

 

I, Michael J. Sullivan, Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer, certify that:

 

1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IHS Inc.;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterial affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: September 28, 2007

 
| /s/ Michael J. Sullivan                              |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael J. Sullivan                                  |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Marvin SHEPHERD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 69525.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 21, 1996.

Rosalynn Koch, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KAROHL, P.J., and GRIMM and DOWD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted movant of possession of a controlled substance and receiving stolen property. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent fourteen year terms. In an opinion handed down on July 18, 1995, this court affirmed. *State v. Shepherd,*903 S.W.2d 230 (Mo.App.E.D.1995).

Movant did not file his pro se Rule 29.15 motion until August 28,1995, six weeks after the direct appeal opinion. When a direct appeal is taken, Rule 29.15(b) requires the motion to be filed “within thirty days after the filing of the transcript” in the direct appeal.

The motion court dismissed movant’s Rule 29.15 motion as untimely filed. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. banc 1989). No error of law appears.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The motion court’s judgment is affirmed.