alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Texas Pacific R’y Co. v. Sim Florence.

(No. 3318.)

Appeal from Yan Zandt County.

W. B. Wynne, counsel for appellant.

Nearby *&*Greer, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 38. *Common carriers; damages against for carrying passenger beyond Ms station held excessive and unconscionable; citation insufficient which directs a corporation’s agent, and not the corporation, to be summoned.*Appellee, Florence, sued the railroad company for $500 damages. He was at Wills Point, in Yan Zandt county, and purchased a first-class passenger ticket to Grand Sa*59line, another station in said county, about eighteen miles distant. He boarded the train at Wills Point about 12 o’clock at night. His ticket was shortly after taken up by the conductor. The whistle blew for Grand Saline, but appellant says the train did not stop, and he got up and went out on the platform, where he met the conductor. “He said to me: ‘We liked to have carried you by. It was very dark and I could not tell where we were at.’ He said to me: ‘You know where the switch is, don’t you?’ and I said: ‘No.’ He then said: ‘Are you going to get off?’ I said: ‘I guess so.’ He said: ‘Well, get off then.’ I stepped off. There was no light. It was very muddy. The mud came up about half way to my boot-tops. The train then pulled out and left me, and I waded out of the mud and got onto the railroad track and walked it back to the depot,— I suppose some two hundred or two hundred and fifty yards.” He says where he got off was a dark, desolate place, and, while he was not scared, he did not feel comfortable. He had “a grip-sack and about a peck of potatoes as baggage,” which he had to carry back with him. The jury gave him by their verdict $300 as his damages, or about $1 for every yard or step he had to walk back, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The walk and exercise and exposure in no way affected his health, and he appears to have suffered no further inconvenience or trouble than the extra walk, and having to clean a good deal of mud off his boots the next morning. Defendant company moved to quash the citation which was issued in the case. This citation commanded the sheriff to “summon Will Montague, acting agent of the Texas & Pacific Railroad Company; ” and the return of the sheriff is that he executed the writ by delivering a copy of the same to Will Montague, agent, etc. This motion to quash the citation was overruled. Article 1223 of the Revised Statutes provides how citations in suits against incorporated companies maybe served; and, while it may *60be served upon the local agent, the citation, or rather the command, must be to summon the corporation, and not its agent. [Insurance Co. v. Seeligson, 59 Tex. 3; 2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 242; 3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 386.] It was error to overrule the motion to quash said citation. We are of the opinion the verdict and judgment are both excessive and unconscionable. [Railway Co. v. Bracken, 59 Tex. 71.]

December 12, 1889.

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          25,612
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,612
<PP&E>                                         348,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 363,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,437,362
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,113,959)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   317,103
<SALES>                                         32,335
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,335
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,311)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,311)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,311)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         936,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,259,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,888,699
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,271,522
<PP&E>                                      58,151,026
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,800,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,853,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,413,870
<BONDS>                                     26,195,717
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,554,578
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,556,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,853,847
<SALES>                                     52,228,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,228,824
<CGS>                                       47,836,848
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               47,836,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,695,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (769,671)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (235,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (534,671)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (534,671)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
Ex-10.4.2 - McFee Environmental Supply Cancellation dated March 14, 2001

[LOGO HERE]             McPHEE ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPLY, LLC
                   PRODUCTS TO IMPROVE TOMORROW'S ENVIRONMENT
                                  1-888-60TIMES
                                (1-888-608-4637)



March 14, 2001

Mr. Don Hahnfeldt, President
Eurotech Ltd.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 220
Fairfax, VA 22030-2201

Dear Don:

This letter is Notice Of Cancellation of Purchase Order dated 5/19/2000 between
McPhee Environmental Supply and Eurotech Ltd. for products Sorbtech, NHIPU,
Firesil and Wood Pres.

Total amount canceled: $10,000,000.00

Sincerely,

/S/ George R. Strong
--------------------
George R. Strong
President

GRA:mjj


11460 N. Cave Creek Road, #1                                      (602) 943-9565
Phoenix, AZ 85020                                             FAX (602) 943-3194
                            http://www.mcphee-env.com
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Rule 13a-14 Certification**
I, Peter J. Younger, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Cronos Group (the“Registrant”);
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and
(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of Registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report information; and
(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: November 15, 2004
/s/ PETER J. YOUNGER
| 1.   | I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Unity Bancorp, Inc; |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5.   | The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date:  May 11, 2011 | /s/ Alan J. Bedner, Jr.                                                        |
|--------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Alan J. Bedner, Jr. |
|--------|---------------------|

----
Exhibit 32.1In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fentura Financial, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald L. Grill, Chief Executive Officer of Fentura FinancialInc. certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) the Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.     Dated: November 10, 2006 /s/ Donald L. Grill     Donald L. Grill    Chief Executive Officer
#### The People v. Joseph Hildebrand.

*■Criminal law*— Information *for larceny*— Preliminary *examination —Warrant—Amendment.*

.After the examination of a respondent on a charge of larceny, a variance between the complaint and warrant in stating the name of the owner of the property, he being described as Allen *Brieker*in the complaint, and as Allen *Brinker*in the warrant, is properly corrected by the justice by amending the warrant to correspond with the complaint and the testimony given on the examination; and, if such amendment is not made, the circuit court may make it under How. Stat. § 9537.

Error to Clinton. (Smith, J.)

Argued June 27, 1888.

Decided July 11, 1888.

Eespondent was convicted of larceny.

Judgment • affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Auten & Moss,*for respondent.

*Moses Taggart,*Attorney General, and *Charles M. Merrill,*Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Champlin, J.

Complaint was made against Hildebrand before a justice of the peace, charging him with .the larceny of an overcoat of the value of $30, the goods and chattels of Allen Brieker, and in his possession. The justice issued a warrant, in which he recited that Allen Brinker had made the complaint, and following the language of the complaint in other respects, except that the property was charged to be the property and in the possession of Allen Brinker.

The respondent was arrested and brought before the magistrate, where, by his counsel, he made a motion to ■quash the warrant, for the reason that the complaint was *314sworn to by Allen Bricker, whereas the warrant charged complainant as Allen Brinker, which was overruled, and an examination was had; and before holding the respondent for trial in the circuit court the justice amended the warrant by substituting the name *“*Bricker ” for *“*Brink-er,” and then returned and filed the papers in the circuit court. The prosecuting attorney thereupon filed an information charging the respondent with the larceny of the overcoat belonging to one Allen Bricker.

The respondent, by H. F. Auten, moved to quash the information, for the following reasons:

1. The defendant has never been examined, nor waived an examination, upon the warrant upon which he was-bound over to the circuit court.

2. The defendant was never arrested upon the warrant-upon which he was bound over for trial.

3. The justice had no authority to amend the warrant as set out in his return.

Other objections were stated, but are not important. The circuit judge overruled the motion, and such ruling is relied on here for a reversal of the judgment.

We think that the ruling of the circuit judge was right. The amendment made by the justice was one which the circuit court would have been authorized to make in the circuit had no amendment been made before the information was filed. How. Stat. § 9537.

The examination was had upon the same charge as that-for which he was held to bail, viz., for the larceny of a coat from the possession of Allen Bricker, and belonging to him; and the warrant was amended to correspond with the complaint and the testimony given upon the examination.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AMD
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,149
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,274)
<INVENTORY>                                     21,859
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,169
<PP&E>                                          23,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,031)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,230
<BONDS>                                         10,514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,849
<SALES>                                         71,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,806
<CGS>                                           50,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,296)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,223)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,073)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,073)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)
<FN>
<F1>PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS AND INVENTORY PROVISION INCLUDED IN TOTAL
COSTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jeffrey SEPULVADO.

No. 2012-KK-0463.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

In re Sepulvado, Jeffrey; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2010-CR-068256; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 11-01492.

Denied.
#### Hector CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D11-874.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 21, 2011.

Robert Wesley, Public Defender, and Kimberly A. LaSure, Assistant Public Defender, Kissimmee, for Petitioner.

No Appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence in case number 07-CF-004626, in the Circuit Court in and-for Osceola Coun*337ty, Florida. *See-*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
News United States Air Force
 F-22 Raptors fly into Lithuania as part of European tourPublished April 27, 2016
                        
                        By Maj. Sheryll Klinkel
                        
                        
                        U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa Public Affairs
                **ŠIAULIAI AIR BASE, Lithuania (AFNS) --**
                A pair of F-22 Raptors and one KC-135 Stratotanker arrived at Šiauliai Air Base on April 27, following a short stay in Romania.The F-22s, with about 20 supporting Airmen, are from the 95th Fighter Squadron at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. The KC-135 is from the 100th Air Refuel Wing at Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England.The aircraft and Airmen were welcomed by Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė and other distinguished visitors from the Lithuanian government and military."This is a demonstration that the United States is honoring its commitments and is ready to protect our region with all the most modern measures," she said in a press conference.Both F-22s are currently part of the largest deployment of the fifth-generation aircraft to Europe. The deployment is partially funded by the European Reassurance Initiative, which provides support to bolster the security of NATO allies and partners in Europe while demonstrating the U.S. commitment to regional and global security."Today's demonstration is part the collective defense and security of our NATO Allies, a commitment that is underscored in President (Barack) Obama's $3.4 billion request for the European Reassurance Initiative," said U.S. Ambassador to Lithuania Deborah A. McCarthy.The F-22s will briefly stay at Šiauliai AB before returning to RAF Lakenheath, England, to continue their training deployment that ends in May. Before Lithuania, the aircraft visited Mihail Kogalniceanu AB, Romania.F-22 



Europe 



Lithuania 



England 



KC-135 



deployment 



training