alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors
and/or officers of TEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY (Company), a Delaware
corporation, acting in its capacity as general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P.,
does hereby constitute and appoint CHARLES H. LEONARD, JAMES C. RUTH, AND
WILLIAM L. THACKER, and each of them, his or her true and lawful attorney and
agent to do any and all acts and things, and execute any and all instruments
which, with the advise and consent of Counsel, said attorney and agent may deem
necessary or advisable to enable the Company to comply with the Securities Act
of 1934, as Amended, and any rules, regulation, and requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, including specifically, but without
limitation thereof, to sign his or her name as a director and/or officer of the
Company to the Form 10-K Report for TEPPCO Partners, L.P. for the year ended
December 31, 1999, and to any instrument or document filed as a part of, or in
accordance with, said Form 10-K or Amendment thereto; and the undersigned do
hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorney and agent shall do or cause to
be done by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed these presents this
14th day of January, 2000.




/s/ William L. Thacker                   /s/ Fred J. Fowler
---------------------------              ---------------------------
William L. Thacker                       Fred J. Fowler



/s/ Ruth G. Shaw                         /s/ Jim W. Mogg
---------------------------              ---------------------------
Ruth G. Shaw                             Jim W. Mogg



/s/ Richard J. Osborne                   /s/ Derrill Cody
---------------------------              ---------------------------
Richard J. Osborne                       Derrill Cody



/s/ Milton Carroll                       /s/ Carl D. Clay
---------------------------              ---------------------------
Milton Carroll                           Carl D. Clay



/s/ John P. DesBarres                    /s/ Charles H. Leonard
---------------------------              ---------------------------
John P. DesBarres                        Charles H. Leonard
                                         Senior Vice President,
                                         Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
EXHIBIT 32.2

# Certificate of Chief
Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 dated August 1, 2003

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer CNET
Networks, Inc. (CNET) hereby certifies that:

| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CNET for the quarterly period ended March 31,
               2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2004
               (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
               15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CNET.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated:   May 3, 2004 /S/ Douglas N. Woodrum
Douglas N. WoodrumExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CNET and will be
retained by CNET and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
LAW AND CHANCERY COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### Carole Lee Smith v. Atlantic Rambler, Inc.

March 22, 1972

Case No. (Law) 1273

By JUDGE JOHN P. HARPER

In the instant case, plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, alleging in her Motion for Judgment that defendant "fraudulently, intentionally and maliciously" represented a certain vehicle to be new and covered by the written new-car warranty of the manufacturer, upon which plaintiff relied to her detriment; whereas, in fact, the car was not new, but had been substantially altered and had been raced, and was thereby excluded from the protection of the said warranty.

By responsive pleadings defendant has (1) craved oyer of the New-Car Warranty and Owner Identification Card; (2) demurred; (3) moved to strike out and delete certain language of the Motion for Judgment.

In common law pleading, whenever plaintiff sued on a deed or other sealed instrument, it was necessary for him to "make profert" of the instrument, that is to produce, actually or constructively, the instrument before the court. It thereupon became a part of the pleadings and of the record, and might be considered by the court in ruling upon a demurrer, as in this case.

This practice has been changed by Section 8-105, Code of Virginia, declaring profert unnecessary, but expressly reserving to defendant the right to oyer, that is, the reading or production of the instrument upon demand. Defendant has exercised its right by "craving" oyer of the warranty documents. For a fuller discussion *485of proferí and oyer see 41 Am. Jur., Pleading, § 60 et seq., and Burks, *Pleading and*Practice, § 332.

Conversely, plaintiff contends that its action is not based upon the documents, and that the manufacturer’s warranty (and plaintiff’s alleged exclusion from benefits thereunder) are mentioned only as an element of damage, and that, therefore, defendant is not entitled to profert.

With this contention the court must agree, for clearly the thrust or gravamen of the action is for fraud and deceit and is not predicated upon the instruments in question, or the breach of any warranty which may be contained therein.

Accordingly, the demand for oyer, as such, will be denied, but with leave to defendant to pursue any of the discovery proceedings which may be available to it.

As counsel indicated that argument on the demurrer would be dependent upon the foregoing ruling as to oyer, no ruling on the demurrer is made herein. Counsel for defendant is requested to arrange further argument on the demurrer, if that be his desire.

The motion to delete certain language in the Motion for Judgment will be granted as to that contained in numbered paragraph 1 of the Motion, which in turn refers to certain verbiage contained in paragraph 3 of the Motion for Judgment. The allegation complained of is unnecessary, does nothing to aid plaintiff’s case and serves only as a gratuitous provocation not required by this case or encouraged by good pleading.

On the other hand, the other portions of the Motion for Judgment of which defendant complains are deemed proper and material and ought to be retained.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11

                          CALIFORNIA CULINARY ACADEMY, INC.
                           STATEMENT RE: EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                     Year Ended June 30, 
                                                                     -------------------
                                                             1997                          1996
                                                             ----                          ----
                                                   Primary      Fully Diluted    Primary      Fully Diluted
                                                  ---------     -------------   ---------     -------------
<S>                                               <C>           <C>             <C>           <C>          
Net earnings (loss)                                $160,000          $160,000   $(999,000)        $(999,000)
                                                  ---------     -------------   ---------     -------------
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
Common shares                                     3,308,394         3,308,394   3,114,732         3,114,732

Common equivalent shares:
Stock options and warrants*                          93,666            93,666
Convertible Preferred shares                        254,541           254,541
                                                  ---------     -------------   ---------     -------------

Weighted average common and common 
equivalent shares outstanding                     3,656,601         3,656,601   3,114,732         3,114,732
                                                  ---------     -------------   ---------     -------------
                                                  ---------     -------------   ---------     -------------
Earnings (loss) per share                             $0.04             $0.04      $(0.32)           $(0.32)
                                                  ---------     -------------   ---------     -------------
                                                  ---------     -------------   ---------     -------------

</TABLE>


*   For the year ended June 30, 1996 all common stock equivalents were 
    anti-dilutive.


                                        5
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3021 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify cost-sharing requirements 

under certain public transportation grant programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 

Mr. CARSON of Indiana (for himself, Ms. BORDALLO, and Ms. LEE of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify costsharing requirements under certain public transportation 

grant programs, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Transit 

5 Promotion Act of 2011’’. 


PWALKER on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3021 IH

1 SEC. 2. COST-SHARING REQUIREMENTS UNDER CERTAIN 

2 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION GRANT PRO3 GRAMS. 

4 (a) JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE FORMULA

5 GRANTS.—Section 5316(h) of title 49, United States 

6 Code, is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘50 percent’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘80 percent’’; and 

9 (2) in paragraph (3) by striking subparagraph 

10 (A) and inserting the following: 

11 ‘‘(A) may be provided from an undistrib12 uted cash surplus, a replacement or deprecia13 tion cash fund or reserve, fare box revenues, a 

14 service agreement with a transit provider, a 

15 service agreement with a State or local social 

16 service agency or a private social service organi17 zation, or new capital; and’’. 

18 (b) NEW FREEDOM PROGRAM.—Section 5317(g) of 

19 such title is amended— 

20 (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘50 percent’’ 

21 and inserting ‘‘80 percent’’; and 

22 (2) in paragraph (3) by striking subparagraph 

23 (A) and inserting the following: 

24 ‘‘(A) may be provided from an undistrib25 uted cash surplus, a replacement or deprecia26 tion cash fund or reserve, fare box revenues, a 


PWALKER on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3021 IH

1 service agreement with a transit provider, a 

2 service agreement with a State or local social 

3 service agency or a private social service organi4 zation, or new capital; and’’. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of January 31, 1997 and July 31, 1997, the
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Three Months and Six Months ended
July 31, 1997 and 1996, and the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the
Three Months ended July 31, 1997 and 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        JAN-31-1998             
<PERIOD-START>                           MAY-01-1997              
<PERIOD-END>                             JUL-31-1997             
<CASH>                                        29,525             
<SECURITIES>                                       0             
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,255             
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (107)            
<INVENTORY>                                        0             
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              37,244        
<PP&E>                                         9,299             
<DEPRECIATION>                               (1,980)            
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                66,619             
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         31,945             
<BONDS>                                            0             
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0          
<PREFERRED>                                        0             
<COMMON>                                         136             
<OTHER-SE>                                    33,580             
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  66,619             
<SALES>                                            0             
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,573             
<CGS>                                              0             
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,818             
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,307             
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0             
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                27             
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2,579)            
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (1,023)            
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,556)            
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0             
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0             
<CHANGES>                                          0             
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,556)            
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.11)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11.1

 

**CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE**

 

 
| BEGINNING BALANCE |          | 30,432,433       |
|-------------------|---------------|------------------|
|              |          |             |   |
|              | NO. OF SHARES | CONTRIBUTION TO  | ENDING |
| DATE              | ISSUED        | WEIGHTED AVERAGE | BALANCE |
|              |          |             |   |
| January 16, 2007  | 1,925,000     |             | 1,754,834 |   | 32,187,267 |   |
| February 5, 2007  | 600,000       |             | 480,662 |   | 32,667,929 |   |
| February 21, 2007 | 275,000       |             | 195,994 |   | 32,963,923 |   |
| March 22, 2007    | 365,000       |             | 201,658 |   | 33,065,581 |   |
| June 18, 2007     | 1,304,286     |             | 86,473 |   | 33,152,054 |   |
|              |          |             |   |   |   |   |
|              |          |             |   |   |   |   |

 

 
| Loss for the period     | $1,793,570 |
|-------------------------|------------|
| Weighted average shares | 33,152,054 |
| Net Loss per share      | $(0.05)    |

 

 

 

CW1369422.1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adolfo GARCIA-BADILLO, also known as Guillermo Quintero-Valli, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40938

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 2008.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Adolfo Garcia-Badillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 *347L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Garcia-Badillo has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 21.1

|Subsidiaries of Carrollton Bancorp     |  | State of Incorporation |  | Owned by           |  | Percentage Ownership
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------------------ |  | --------------------
|                                      
|Carrollton Bank                        |  | Maryland               |  | Carrollton Bancorp |  | 100%                
|Carrollton Financial Services Inc.     |  | Maryland               |  | Carrollton Bank    |  | 100%                
|Carrollton Community Development Corp. |  | Maryland               |  | Carrollton Bank    |  | 96.4%               
|Carrollton Mortgage Services, Inc.     |  | Maryland               |  | Carrollton Bank    |  | 100%                

66

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE PARTNERSHIP

                        TEPPCO PARTNERS, L.P. (DELAWARE)


TEPPCO GP, Inc. (Delaware)
TE Products Pipeline Company, Limited Partnership (Delaware)
TEPPCO Colorado, LLC (Delaware)
TEPPCO Midstream Companies, L.P. (Delaware)
Chaparral Pipeline Company, L.P. (Delaware)
Quanah Pipeline Company, L.P. (Delaware)
Jonah Gas Gathering Company (Wyoming general partnership)
TCTM, L.P. (Delaware)
TEPPCO Crude GP, LLC (Delaware)
TEPPCO Crude Pipeline, L.P. (Delaware)
TEPPCO Seaway, L.P. (Delaware)
TEPPCO Crude Oil, L.P. (Delaware)
Lubrication Services, L.P. (Delaware)
#### Robert D. HOLT, Plaintiffs, v. GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. No. 3618.

United States District Court E. D. Illinois.

Oct. 22, 1957.

*66Moran & Beatty, Granite City, 111., and Maurice E. Bone, East St. Louis, 111., for plaintiff.

Listeman & Bandy, East St. Louis, III., ■‘’or defendant.

JUERGENS, District Judge.

The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that on August 26, 1940, he was a minor nine years of age; that he was injured on the premises of the defendant; that at the time his guardian, with approval of the Probate Court of Madison County, Illinois, entered into a compromise settlement with the defendant for the injuries he sustained. Count 1 of the complaint asks that the release which was given in settlement of the injuries sustained on August 26, 1940, be set aside because of fraudulent representations made at the time of the settlement. In Count 2 the plaintiff seeks damages for the alleged injuries.

The defendant filed its motion for a separate trial of Counts 1 and 2.

Under the provisions of Rule 18, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title 28 United States Code, it is provided that claims of this nature may be joined.

However, Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title 28 United States Code, provides:

> *“(b)*the court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims or issues.”

It is under the provisions of this Rule that the defendant seeks a separate trial as to Count 1 and Count 2. Whether or not separate issues shall be granted in cases of this nature is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Bowie v. Sorrell, 4 Cir., 209 F.2d 49, 43 A.L.R.2d 781.

In the instant case the proof required to substantiate Count 1 is separate and distinct from the proof which will be required in proving Count 2. In the pretrial stipulations between the parties it was estimated that one and a half days would be necessary if Count 1 was tried separately, whereas if both Count 1 and Count 2 were to be tried, three days trial time would be consumed.

Before Count 2 may be decided it is necessary that a decision be rendered as to Count 1 and in view of the fact that the release mentioned in Count 1 was obtained by an insurance company, it is most probable that the presence of the insurance company in the action will be disclosed in attempting to prove Count 1. Such disclosure may be prejudicial to the rights of the defendant in this suit.

The court is of the opinion that in accordance with Rule 42(b), separate trials as to Count 1 and Count 2 should be had, both for convenience and to avoid possible prejudice to the defendant.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-00535

Summary Calendar

In re: Danny Cline,

Movant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:96-CV-175)

December 5, 1997

Before DUHE’, DeMOSS AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Danny Ray Cline, Texas prisoner #491760, requests that this

court authorize his successive 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas corpus

application in the district court. However, in light of Lindh v.

Murphy, --- U.S. ---, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d. 481 (1997 and

this court’s opinion in Moran v. Stalder, 121 F.3d 210 (5th Cir.

1997) coupled with the fact that Cline filed his petition for
2

habeas relief prior to April 24, 1996, the effective date of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the

district court’s order of dismissal and final judgement of March

18, 1997 are VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the district

court for further proceedings under pre-AEDPA standards.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
Number 33-66826 (dated August 2, 1993 on Form S-8), Number 33-78546 (dated May
2, 1994 on Form S-8), Number 33-71416 (Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to Form
S-1 on Form S-3 dated May 16, 1995), Number 33-95432 (dated August 4, 1995 on
Form S-8), Number 333-1748 (dated March 28, 1996 on Form S-3), Number 333-19471
(dated January 9, 1997 on Form S-3), and File No. 333-33321 (dated August 8,
1997 on Form S-3), of DynaGen, Inc., of our report dated April 14, 1998, which
included an explanatory paragraph about the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of DynaGen, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 1997.
 
                                          /s/ Wolf & Company, P.C.
 
Boston, Massachusetts
April 15, 1998
 
                                        2