alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WILLIAM BAXTER WELLS v. JOAB F. JOHNSON, JR.

(Filed 8 March, 1967.)

Animals § 3—

In an action to recover for injuries received by a motorist when his car collided with cattle on the highway, evidence that defendant’s cattle had been out of pasture, unattended, on prior occasions, and permitting the inference that defendant knew or should have known that his pasture fences were insufficient to restrain his cattle, *held*sufficient to take the issue of negligence to the jury.

Appeal by defendant from *Fountain, J.,*October 3, 1966 Civil Session of PENDER.

The issues raised by the pleadings were answered by the jury as follows: “1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the Complaint? ÁNSwer: Yes; 2. If so, did the plaintiff, by his own negligence, contribute to his injury, as alleged in the Answer? ANSWER: No; 3. What amount of damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? ANSwer: $5,000.00.” Judgment for plaintiff, in accordance with the verdict, was entered. Defendant excepted and appealed.

*Marshall & Williams and Moore & Biberstein for plaintiff ap-pellee.*

*Joseph C. Olschner for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s action is to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained as a result of a collision between the Chevrolet Corvair he was driving and four black Angus cattle owned by defendant. The only evidence was that offered by plaintiff. ' ' '

There was evidence that Highway #53 runs through defendant’s farm; that plaintiff, on November 3, 1963, about 1:00 a.m., when proceeding east on #53, came upon a herd of defendant’s cattle, some of which were on the paved portion of #53, and collided with four of them; that, on other occasions during the month or so preceding November 3, 1963, cattle of defendant were out of pasture and on or near #53; and that defendant’s pasture fences were rusty and otherwise defective.

When considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find that defendant knew or should have known that his cattle had been out of pasture, unattended, on prior occasions, and that defendant knew or should have known that his pasture fences were defective and insufficient to restrain his cattle, and that defendant’s negligent failure to keep his *623cattle from running at large on #53 proximately caused the collision and plaintiff’s injuries. Under legal principles set forth in *Kelly v. Willis,*238 N.C. 637, 78 S.E. 2d 711, and in *Shaw v. Joyce,*249 N.C. 415, 106 S.E. 2d 459, the evidence, in our opinion, was sufficient to require submission of the issues raised by the pleadings. Hence, defendant’s assignment that the court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of nonsuit is without merit.

Defendant’s other assignments of error, relating principally to rulings on evidence and portions of the charge,.have received careful consideration. Error, if any, with ■ reference thereto, is not considered of such prejudicial nature as to justify a new trial or to merit particular discussion. Hence, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70913-70914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23150]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Environmental Impact Statement: Miami-Dade County, FL

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), USDOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed 
highway project in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory E. Williams, P.E., 
District Transportation Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 545 
John Knox Road, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32303. Telephone: (850) 
942-9650, extension 3031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Florida 
Department of Transportation (FDOT) will prepare an EIS for a proposal 
to improve Interstate Route I-395 in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The 
proposed improvement would involve the reconstruction of I-395 from I-
95/Midtown Interchange in Biscayne Bay, a distance of approximately 1.2 
miles. Improvements to the corridor are considered necessary to provide 
for the existing and projected traffic demand.
    Alternatives under consideration include (1) taking no action; (2) 
elevated reconstruction with ramps at Midtown Interchange; (3) elevated 
reconstruction with ramps at Miami Avenue; (4) a tunnel design; and (5) 
an open-cut design.
    Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will 
be sent to

[[Page 70914]]

appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to private 
organizations and citizens who have expressed interest in this project. 
A series of public meetings will be held in the City of Miami, Miami-
Dade County between July 2005 and January 2007. In addition, a public 
hearing will be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place 
of the meetings and hearing. The Draft EIS will be made available for 
public and agency review and comment.
    A formal scoping meeting is planned for the project, and the date 
and location will be established later.
    To ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed 
action is addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and 
suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or 
questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be 
directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulations 
implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding inter-governmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this 
program)

    Issued on: November 16, 2005.
George B. Hadley,
Environmental Programs Coordinator, Tallahassee, Florida.
[FR Doc. 05-23150 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M
# Pilot Accounted For From WW II (Winger, G)

/ Published Sept. 7, 2023
WASHINGTON, 
The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) announced today that U.S. Army Air Forces 1st Lt. George W. Winger, 25, of Columbus, Ohio, killed during World War II, was accounted for January 24, 2023.

In the summer of 1943, Winger was assigned to the 66th Bombardment Squadron (Heavy), 44th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 8th Air Force. On Aug. 1, 1943, the B-24 Liberator aircraft on which Winger was serving as the pilot was hit by enemy anti-aircraft fire and crashed during Operation TIDAL WAVE, the largest bombing mission against the oil fields and refineries at Ploiesti, north of Bucharest, Romania. His remains were not identified following the war. The remains that could not be identified were buried as Unknowns in the Hero Section of the Civilian and Military Cemetery of Bolovan, Ploiesti, Prahova, Romania. 

Following the war, the American Graves Registration Command (AGRC), the organization that searched for and recovered fallen American personnel, disinterred all American remains from the Bolovan Cemetery for identification. The AGRC was unable to identify more than 80 unknowns from Bolovan Cemetery, and those remains were permanently interred at Ardennes American Cemetery and Henri-Chapelle American Cemetery, both in Belgium.

In 2017, DPAA began exhuming unknowns believed to be associated with unaccounted-for airmen from Operation TIDAL WAVE losses. These remains were sent to the DPAA Laboratory for examination and identification.

To identify Winger’s remains, scientists from DPAA used anthropological analysis. Additionally, scientists from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis.

Winger’s name is recorded on the Tablets of the Missing at the Florence American Cemetery, an American Battle Monuments Commission site in Impruneta, Italy, along with others still missing from WWII. A rosette will be placed next to his name to indicate he has been accounted for.

Winger will be buried in Arlington National Cemetery on a date to be determined.

For family and funeral information, contact the Army Casualty Office at (800) 892-2490.

DPAA is grateful to the American Battle Monuments Commission and to the U.S. Army Regional Mortuary-Europe/Africa for their partnership in this mission.

For additional information on the Defense Department’s mission to account for Americans who went missing while serving our country, visit the DPAA website at www.dpaa.mil or find us on social media at www.facebook.com/dodpaa or https://www.linkedin.com/company/defense-pow-mia-accounting-agency.

Winger’s personnel profile can be viewed at https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaProfile?id=a0Jt000001MvtWgEAJ.
EXHIBIT 21









BAIRNCO CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES



Subsidiaries of Registrant

as of March 10, 2005





|                                             | Percentage | State/Country of
|-------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ----------------
|                                             | Ownership  | Incorporation   
|                                             |            |                 
|                                             |            |                 
|Arlon, Inc.                                  | 100%       | Delaware        
|Kasco Corporation                            | 100%       | Delaware        
|Arlon Adhesives & Films, Inc. (1)            | 100%       | Texas           
|Arlon Partners, Inc. (1)                     | 100%       | Delaware        
|Arlon Signtech, Ltd. (1)                     | 100%       | Texas           
|Arlon Viscor, Ltd. (1)                       | 100%       | Texas           
|Arlon MED International, LLC (1)             | 100%       | Delaware        
|Arlon Materials for Electronics Co. Ltd. (1) | 100%       | China           
|Arlon Material Technologies Co. Ltd. (1)     | 100%       | China           
|Bertram & Graf GmbH (1)                      | 100%       | Germany         
|Atlantic Service Co. Ltd. (1)                | 100%       | Canada          
|Atlantic Service Co. (UK) Ltd. (1)           | 100%       | United Kingdom  
|EuroKasco S.A. (1)                           | 100%       | France          
|Kasco Mexico LLC                             | 100%       | Delaware        
|Kasco Ensambly S.A. de C.V. (1)              | 100%       | Mexico          













(1) Indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Bairnco Corporation.
IIHIHX:I H

Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 21-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 2
FW; Orhan Deval / Repinter

Subject: FW: Orhan Deval / Repinter

From: "UNGER, MICHAEL E." <UNGER@freehill.com>

Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:40:09 -0400

To: "Mary Ann Marlowe" <mmarlowe@keaneandmarlowe.com>

Mary Ann,

Owners agree to accept the offered LOU upon charterers accepting following wording.

QTE

In consideration of the Owners accepting as security for their claims

under the captioned c/p the LOU signed by Michael Else & Co. a draft of

which is appended hereto, Repinter (full style) and Miachart (full

style) hereby agree not to seek counter security for any claims they may

have under the captioned c/p.

This agreement is governed by English Law and the High Court of Justice

shall have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to any dispute arising

hereunder

UNQTE

Please advise.

Regards,

Mike Unger ---------------------------------------------

PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this message is privileged and

confidential, and is intended only for the use of the individual named above and

others who have been specifically authorized to receive such. If you are not the

intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or

copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this

communication in error, or if any problems occur with transmission, please notify

us immediately by telephone - (212) 425-1900. Thank you.

1of1 6/20/20072:55 PM

Case 1:07-cv-03397-JGK Document 21-3 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### WILLIAMSON v. AVANT

No. 82 PC.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 211.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 June 1974.
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 36 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03328-CM-HBP Document 36 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15155-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-15155-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-15155-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-15155-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-15155-AKH Document 14 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03364-LAK Document 5-6 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03364-LAK Document 5-6 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03364-LAK Document 5-6 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 3 of 3
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 8014** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. NICHOLAS JAMES QUEEN, SR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. ( 1:93

- cr - 00366

- WMN

- 1 )

Submitted : April 8, 2016 Decided: April 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Nicholas James Queen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nicholas James Queen, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds , the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conc lude that Queen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            10,278
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            3,721
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              3,898
<EQUITIES>                                       1,013
<MORTGAGE>                                       1,756
<REAL-ESTATE>                                       74
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  18,309
<CASH>                                              66
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               1,465
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           1,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,552
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 17,073
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                 48
<POLICY-OTHER>                                     176
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                              208
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    708
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              353
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            97
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,756
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,552
<PREMIUMS>                                         289
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                301
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  43
<OTHER-INCOME>                                      64
<BENEFITS>                                         355
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                         25
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                              (46)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    176
<INCOME-TAX>                                        57
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1 Section 302 Certifications**I, Michael Sheriff, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the X-Change Corporation,2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis quarterly report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-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 andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2007   /s/ Michael Sheriff Michael Sheriff  President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman  (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM KELLWOOD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JANUARY 31,
1999, AND FROM THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF EARNINGS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          53,420
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  295,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,229
<INVENTORY>                                    357,976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               727,411
<PP&E>                                         225,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                 132,017
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,008,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          305,936
<BONDS>                                        227,679
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       136,345
<OTHER-SE>                                     291,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,008,023
<SALES>                                      1,326,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,326,176
<CGS>                                        1,066,022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,066,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               188,599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,244
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,459
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 49,096
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,296
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,296
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28
        

</TABLE>
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 8 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 8 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 8 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 8 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 4 of 4