alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *J. Clawson and A. Clawson *against*D. Gustin.

'^g^^en’ though after ^ayltof0^y* only be filled *rem_ (a)

THE action was on a promissory note, against endorser. The state of demand alleged the assignment to be made after the day of payment; and that the defendant made a special promise to pay, if the money could not be got of the drawer. The case was argued by *Vroom,*for plaintiff, and *Halsey,*for defendant.

(a)

*Snyder vs. Hummel, Pen. *88. Riker vs. Corley, Pen. *911. Crozer vs. Chambers, Spen. 256. Crisman vs. Swisher, 4 Dutch. 149. Watkins*vs. *Kirkpatrick, 2 Dutch. 84. Chaddock vs. Vanness, 6 Vr. 517.*

Opinion of the court.

Kirkpatrick C. J.

The plaintiff below brings this action upon a note of hand, made by one *James Stewart*to *Jacob Clawson,*alleging that *Clawson*assigned it to one *Robert Thomson,*in these words, to wit, “ For value rec’d I assign this note to *Rob’t Thomson,*and stand security till paid” and that *Robert Thomson*afterwards assigned it to the said plaintiff, in these words, to wit, “ I assign the within note to *David Gustin,*and don’t stand security, if never paid.” It turned out, upon the trial, by the confession of *Gustin,*himself, that *Claivsonh&d*endorsed the note in blank, and that he, *Gustin,*after it came into his hands, had written, over his name, the above special assignment, with warranty.

It is true, that the mere endorsement of the name on negotiable paper is sufficient, and the assignee may fill up the assignment in the usual form, but he can do no more; he can insert no special covenant or undertaking, because, in the course of business, the endorsement imports none such ; and if he do so, not only is the assignment void, but he also is guilty, if not of a direct forgery, yet of a fraudulent attempt, upon which the law frowns, and which conveys to him no interest.

The judgment intended to be brought up by this *certiorari,*seems to be that which was entered against the defendant, *Jacob Clawson,*and his bail; but as the justice has sent up, also, the original judgment against *Clawson,**948himself, and that appears to be founded upon fraud, if forgery:

Let it be reversed, and the whole proceeding founded upon it, be set aside.

Southard J.

I agree to reverse. It appears, by the papers, that the special assignment, written by Gustin, over, *Clawson’s**name, was totally unauthorized by *Claw-son ;*that this special assignment was necessary to bind *Clawson*to pay, the law not having been complied with, so as to bind an endorser ; and that although there was a special promise to pay, laid both before and after the assignment, provided he could not get the money of the maker; yet there was no proof of any effort to get the money, of the maker, nor of the promise as laid.

Judgment reversed.
1

CAUSE NO. 77109-CV

ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

§ 

VS. § 

§ BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS

EJH ENTERPRISES, INC., § 

MICHAEL HINDS, EDEN HINDS, § 

AND DAVID EBENAL § 149TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT DAVID EBENAL’S

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Defendant David Ebenal desires to appeal and does hereby give Notice of 

Appeal to either the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals from the Nunc Pro Tunc 

Order signed by this Court on September 10, 2015. 

Respectfully submitted,

THE MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM P.C. 

/s/ Michael M. Phillips 

MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS

State Bar No. 15939000

P. O. Box 1030

Angleton, Texas 77516-1030

[Tel.] (979) 849-4382

[Fax] (979) 849-1409

michael@mphillipslaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR DAVID EBENAL

Filed for Record

10/8/2015 2:44:14 PM

Rhonda Barchak, District Clerk

Brazoria County, Texas

77109-CV

Kelley Hanson, Deputy

ACCEPTED

14-15-00866-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/16/2015 12:41:19 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/16/2015 12:41:19 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE

I certify a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served 

on opposing counsel and pro se parties of record by mail, fax, e-mail and/or 

electronic service, addressed as follows:

Kurt B. Arnold

Arnold & Itkin LLP

6009 Memorial Drive

Houston, Texas 77007

[Fax] (713) 222-3850

karnold@arnolditkin.com

e-service@arnolditkin.com

Eden Hinds (Pro Se)

3010 Longhorn Circle

Manvel, Texas 77578

[Tel.] (205) 901-3981

edenhinds@gmail.com

mfhinds@gmail.com

Michael Hinds (Pro Se)

3010 Longhorn Circle

Manvel, Texas 77578

[Tel.] (205) 936-3839

mfhinds@gmail.com

Dated: October 8, 2015

/s/ Michael M. Phillips

MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****AFCLC bulletin**
 
2013
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
 
2014
Spring
Summer
 
2015
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
 
2016
Spring
 
 
SuDoc Number:D 301.26/6-12:
Item Number:0422-K-08 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000993637
 
January 9, 2018
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7201
DARNELL COLEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-431) Submitted: June 11, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003 Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darnell Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Darnell Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). After considering our recent decision in Wade v. Robinson , 327 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2003), and independently reviewing the record, we conclude that Coleman has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Coleman’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3466-1 Filed:07/10/18 Entered:07/10/18 15:52:33 Desc:Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 3Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3466-1 Filed:07/10/18 Entered:07/10/18 15:52:33 Desc:Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 3Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3466-1 Filed:07/10/18 Entered:07/10/18 15:52:33 Desc:Exhibit 1 Page 3 of 3
§ 25.775 Windshields and windows. ( a ) Internal panes must be made of nonsplintering material.
( b ) Windshield panes directly in front of the pilots in the normal conduct of their duties, and the supporting structures for these panes, must withstand, without penetration, the impact of a four-pound bird when the velocity of the airplane (relative to the bird along the airplane's flight path) is equal to the value of *V* *C,* at sea level, selected under § 25.335(a).
( c ) Unless it can be shown by analysis or tests that the probability of occurrence of a critical windshield fragmentation condition is of a low order, the airplane must have a means to minimize the danger to the pilots from flying windshield fragments due to bird impact. This must be shown for each transparent pane in the cockpit that— ( 1 ) Appears in the front view of the airplane;
( 2 ) Is inclined 15 degrees or more to the longitudinal axis of the airplane; and
( 3 ) Has any part of the pane located where its fragmentation will constitute a hazard to the pilots.
( d ) The design of windshields and windows in pressurized airplanes must be based on factors peculiar to high altitude operation, including the effects of continuous and cyclic pressurization loadings, the inherent characteristics of the material used, and the effects of temperatures and temperature differentials. The windshield and window panels must be capable of withstanding the maximum cabin pressure differential loads combined with critical aerodynamic pressure and temperature effects after any single failure in the installation or associated systems. It may be assumed that, after a single failure that is obvious to the flight crew (established under § 25.1523), the cabin pressure differential is reduced from the maximum, in accordance with appropriate operating limitations, to allow continued safe flight of the airplane with a cabin pressure altitude of not more than 15,000 feet.
( e ) The windshield panels in front of the pilots must be arranged so that, assuming the loss of vision through any one panel, one or more panels remain available for use by a pilot seated at a pilot station to permit continued safe flight and landing.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5676, Apr. 8, 1970; Amdt. 25-38, 41 FR 55466, Dec. 20, 1976]
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2




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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Plumbing &
Mechanical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September
30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, David C. Baggett, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
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 represents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.



Date:  November 14, 2002                          /s/ David C. Baggett
                                                  -------------------
                                                      David C. Baggett
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Robert E. Chmiel, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended annual report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. for
the period ending December 31, 2004;

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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer 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 small business
issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: February 13, 2006

/s/Robert E. Chmiel
Robert E. Chmiel, Interim CFO (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Hohner *v.*Gratz.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

November 29, 1892.)

Trade Name—Iffringement.

Mathias Hohner is a well-known maker of harmonicas in Wurtemberg, most of which are sold under his name in this country. He makes no particular style, but his workmanship is good. Ernest Leiterd made harmonicas in Saxony, and put upon them his own name, partly in monogram, with the word *“nach”*and the words “Improved Hohner” in larger and plainer letters, and sold them in this country through an agent. *Held,*that Hohner’s right to the use of his own name was infringed, and he was entitled to an injunction and accounting.

In Equity. Bill by Mathias Hohner against William R. Gratz for infringement of a trade name. On final hearing. A motion for leave to file a supplemental answer setting up a foreign judgment was heretofore denied. See 50 Fed. Rep. 369. Decree for complainant.

*Louis C. Raegener,*for orator.

*Benno*Loewy, for defendant.

*872Wheeler, District Judge.

The orator is a well-known maker of harmonicas in Wurtemberg, most of which are sold under his name in this country. Ernest Leiterd is a maker of harmonicas in Saxony, for whom, in the sale of which, the defendant is agent in this country. Leiterd has made harmonicas, and put upon them "the word *“nach”*with the words “Improved Hohner” in larger letters, prominently, besides his own name, partly in monogram, and less plain, which have been and are being sold through the defendant in this country. This bill is brought to restrain such use of the orator’s name, and for other relief. The orator does not appear to have made or sold any particular style of these instruments to which his name has been applied, but his workmanship appears to have been good, and his name has generally been used upon those of his own manufacture. He has made no improvements but in quality, and the words “Improved Hohner” would signify his make of better quality.

The defendant Leiterd has no occasion to use the orator’s name to distinguish any form of instrument, or for any purpose but to express his workmanship. The use of the word *“nach”*would not show that the instruments were not his make; neither would the name of Leiterd show that they were of his make. This use of the orator’s name tends directly to show that Leiterd’s instruments are of the orator’s make. Many cases justify the use of others’ names to show kinds and styles, but none of them go so far as this. *Fairbanks*v. *Jacobus,*14 Blatchf. 337; *Wilcox Machine Co.*v. *Frame,*17 Fed. Rep. 623; *Leclanche Battery Co.*v. *Western Electric Co.,*23 Fed. Rep. 276; *Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Manuf’g Co.*v. *Goodyear Rubber Co.,*128 U. S. 598, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 166. The orator has the right to use his own name on his own wares. The defendant has shown no right to use the orator’s name on Leiterd’s wares. Let there be a decree for an injunction against this use of the orator’s name, and for an account, with costs.
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification of CEO Pursuant to
Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, David Guthrie, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 of Consolidated Energy, 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 annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuer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 small business issuer and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  March 30, 2006

/s/David Guthrie

David Guthrie

President and Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.2

 

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC. AND CONSOLIDATEDAFFILIATES

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of General ElectricCapital Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), I,******James A. Parke,Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 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 result of operations of the Company. |

  

/s/ James A. Parke                                        

James A. Parke******
Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer

October 29, 2002

 

 

26
§ 171.153 Requests for IFR procedure. ( a ) Each person who requests an IFR procedure based on a DME facility that he owns must submit the following information with that request: ( 1 ) A description of the facility and evidence that the equipment meets the performance requirements of § 171.157 and is installed in accordance with § 171.159.
( 2 ) A proposed procedure for operating the facility.
( 3 ) A proposed maintenance organization and maintenance manual that meets the requirement of § 171.161.
( 4 ) A statement of intention to meet the requirements of this subpart.
( 5 ) A showing that the facility has an acceptable level of operational reliability and an acceptable standard of performance. Previous equivalent operational experience with a facility with identical design and operational characteristics will be considered in showing compliance with this paragraph.
( b ) After the Federal Aviation Administration inspects and evaluates the facility, it advises the owner of the results and of any required changes in the facility or the maintenance manual or maintenance organization. The owner must then correct the deficiencies, if any, and operate the facility for an in-service evaluation by the Federal Aviation Administration.