Bank One Columbus, N.A. v. McDaniel (In re McDaniel), 202 B.R. 74, 76 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1996); AT&T Universal Card Serv. Corp. v. Chinchilla (In re Chinchilla), 202 B.R. 1010, 1015 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1996); AT&T Universal Card Serv. Corp v. Totina (In re Totina), 198 B.R. 673, 675 (Bankr.E.D.La.1996). 70 . See e.g. AT&T Universal Card Serv. Corp v. Wong (In re Wong), 207 B.R. 822, 830 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1997) (where UCS allowed a debtor to exceed his $10,500 credit limit by $2,743). 71 . 210 B.R. 212, 213 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1997). 72 . PLEx. D. 73 . Pl.Ex. B., at V 2. 74 . PI.Ex. B, at ¶ 16. 75 . PLEx. D. 76 . 208 B.R. 872, 879 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1997). 77 . PI.Ex. D; Deb. Ex. I; Doc. # 1, Case NO. 96-61676. See AT&T Universal Card Serv. Corp. v. Berry (In re Berry), 197 B.R. 382, 383 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1996) (<HOLDING>). 78 . PI.Ex. A; PI.Ex. B, ¶ 11. I note that
holding that the government must prove the defendant knew of the features of the firearm that brought it within the scope of the act holding that one who lacks concern for its borrowers insolvency when enabling the borrowing cannot prove it was defrauded merely by proving the borrower was insolvent and knew it holding that the government did not have to prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated the clean water act but merely that he was aware of the conduct that resulted in the permits violation holding that it was not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant knew the precise nature of the controlled substance he was convicted of delivering when evidence established that he knew it was a controlled substance holding that government must merely show that defendant knew that it was a bank that he intended to influence