alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 3 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 4 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 5 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 6 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 7 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 8 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 9 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 10 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 11 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 12 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 13 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 14 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 15 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 16 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 17 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 18 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 19 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 20 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 21 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 22 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 23 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 24 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 25 of 25
#### B. F. Boram, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Kenchen Thweatt, defendant in error.

(By two judges.) — When, under the declaration, pleas and evidence in a case, the jury has done substantial justice between the parties, this Court will not reverse the judgment on mere technical grounds, but will give such direction to the cause as will correct the error and yet not open the dispute for further litigation. 5th March, 1872.

New Trial. Before Judge Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1871.

Thweatt brought trover for a bale of cotton against Boram, averring that he converted it in January, 1870. Boram defended upon the ground that, by an arbitration, he had settled with Thweatt about this cotton. The plaintiff proved that Boram got his bale of cotton, and sold it, and its value. It appeared, from the evidence, that Boram hired Thweatt, a negro, to work for him, in 1869; and they agreed that one Torry should decide all matters of dispute that might arise between them, and Thweatt promised to pay Torry $50 for his advice and care for his interests. Boram and Thweatt differed about their accounts, and, in November, 1869, submitted to Torry and Jones, as arbitrators, *“*all matters in dispute” between them. In March, 1870, they made an award, by which they brought out Boram in Thweatt’s debt only $40. In their accounting, the arbitrators charged Boram with the bale of cotton, and charged Thweatt with the $50 *95which he had promised Torry, and which, they decided, Boram should pay Torry. .Thweatt’s counsel contended that the award could not cover this cotton, because the conversion was after the submission was made. The reply was that the award was after the alleged conversion.

Various points arose in the case, but none of them áre necessary for an understanding of the opinion. The jury found for the plaintiff for $97 and costs. The refusal of a new trial is assigned as error.

Chappel & Russell, for plaintiff in error.

Thornton *&*Spencer, by Peabody, for defendant.

McCay, Judge.

Whilst there is some difficulty in sustaining the verdict in this case, under technical rules of law, yet- we are satisfied that substantial justice has been done between the parties The arbitrators had, under the submission, no jurisdiction over this bag of cotton, as it had nothing to do with the matter submitted to them, whilst their appropriation of $50 to the adviser of this colored man, for his advice, was, under the circumstances, rather a high-handed measure. Under our liberal system of pleading we have concluded to sustain the judgment of the Court, on condition that the plaintiff write off the difference between the verdict and the value of the cotton, as proven, and agree, in the record, not to set up any claim to the $40 allowed him by the arbitrators. This will be substantial justice, and will prevent any further cost and expense to the public over this dispute.

Judgment affirmed upon conditions.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1
 GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 3) PLC
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on
Form 6-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 3) PLC;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement.
 By: /s/ Paul Gerard TurnerName:
    
    Paul Gerard TurnerTitle:
    
    DirectorDate:
    
    June 23, 2006
 - 26 -
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                      Ending
Class            Interest        Principal          Losses            Balance
<S>               <C>                <C>              <C>              <C>
A1             3605476.75       3046517.82                0       662579959.48
A2              430104.99                0                0           79404000
A3              167041.55       -167041.55                0        31005481.52
A4              487107.13          72855.5                0        89854615.18
APO                     0         34017.18                0          5461991.8
AR                   0.79              100                0                  0
B1               92777.67         13876.55                0        17114309.04
B2               24420.31          3652.49                0         4504711.37
B3               14645.68          2190.52                0         2701628.76
B4               12210.15          1826.24                0          2252355.7
B5                4887.31           730.98                0          901541.31
B6                7332.97          1049.24            47.53         1352681.78


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Lincoln International
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



                                                       /s/ RICHARD FROCKT
                                                       _____________________
                                                       Name:  Richard Frockt
                                                       Title: President
                                                       Date:  July 21, 2004
#### FRANK H. CONNER COMPANY v. QUENBY CORP., Owner, and MONROE MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; ARROW, INC.; WINECOFF ELECTRIC CO., INC.; W. J. SULLIVAN; and INTERSTATE ROOFING CO., INC., Subcontractors.

(Filed 13 December, 1967)

Abatement and Revival, § 8—

A subsequent action arising out of the identical contract involved in a prior suit and involving the rights of the same parties under that contract, is properly dismissed upon the original defendant’s plea in abatement.

Appeal by plaintiff from *McConnell, J.,*in Chambers, 30 August 1967.

This case substantially involves the dispute between the defendant Quenby Corp., who contracted with the plaintiff Conner Co. to construct the buildings for a shopping center in Albemarle, North Carolina. It was instituted by the plaintiff on 27 February 1967 to recover of Quenby the sum of $157,080.46, which it alleged was due it and the subcontractors on the project who were also made defendants with Conner Co.

When this action was instituted, there was already pending an *215action in which Quenby, the owner, had sought to recover of Conner, the contractor, in connection with the same cause of action alleged in this litigation. There was but one entire contract between Quenby and Conner, and it is the basis of both suits.

Upon the defendant’s plea in abatement because of the already pending litigation between the same parties and involving the same subject matter, the Court sustained the plea and ordered that the cause in its entirety be dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed.

*Gardner, Connor & Lee by David M. Connor, Attorneys for 'plaintiff appellant, Frank H. Conner Company.*

*Coble, Tanner & Grigg by David L. Grigg, Attorneys for defendant appellee, Quenby Corp.*

*Brown, Brown & Brown by B. L. Brown, Jr., Attorneys for defendant appellees, Winecoff Electric Co., Inc., and W. J. Sullivan.*

*Grier, Parker, Poe & Thompson by William E. Poe and Gaston H. Gage, Attorneys for defendant appellee, Interstate Roofing Co., Inc.*

Pee Cueiam.

The Court was correct in its ruling. In *Sales Co. v. Seymour,*255 N.C. 714, 122 S.E. 2d 605, this Court said:

> “Decisions of this Court uniformly hold that the pendency of a prior action between the same parties for the same cause of action in a State court of competent jurisdiction works an abatement of a subsequent action either in the same court or in another court of the State having jurisdiction.”

We have this day decided the case of *Quenby v. Conner, ante,*p. 208. The facts alleged in that case are substantially similar to the ones involved herein. In dismissing this action there was

No error.
Case 1:06-cv-14978-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-1995
<CASH>                                           4,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                       232
<INVENTORY>                                      9,113
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,573
<PP&E>                                          19,060
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,690
<BONDS>                                          1,228
<COMMON>                                            40
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,299
<SALES>                                         32,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,113
<CGS>                                           23,826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    57
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,240
<INCOME-TAX>                                       860
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,380
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,380
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
#### IN RE WILLIAMS

No. 8 PC.

Case below: 42 N.C. App. 504.

Petition by Washington Duke Lyon, Jr. for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1979.
#### CULLEN v. CULLEN

No. 83P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. --- (8110DC583).

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 30 March 1982.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2 BARCLAYCARD FUNDING PLCS OFFICERS CERTIFICATE GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned officer of Barclaycard Funding PLC, a private limited liability
company incorporated under the laws of Jersey, Channel Islands (the MTN
Issuer), hereby certifies on behalf of the MTN Issuer and on his own behalf
for purposes of the Investor Certificate, as follows:  1.
    
    I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of the MTN Issuer;2.
    
    I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate on behalf of the MTN Issuer; and3.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the MTN Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants under the
Relevant Documents for the issue of the Investor Certificate for the period between December 15, 2002
and December 31, 2003. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
to such terms in the Registration Statement related to the above-referenced
issue of Investor Certificate. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name this 21st day of June, 2004. By:
    
    /s/ Richard Francis Sommers
Name: Richard Francis Sommers
Title: Director
#### STATE v. PALMER

No. 48 PC.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 166.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 April 1977.
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 1-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 1-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 1-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 1-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 1-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 1-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 1-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 1-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 1-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE Document 1-2 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 10 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 1 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 2 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 3 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 4 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 5 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 6 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 7 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 8 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 9 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 10 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 11 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 12 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 13 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 14 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 15 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 16 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 17 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 18 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 19 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 20 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 21 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 22 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 23 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 24 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 25 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 26 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 27 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 28 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 29 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 30 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 31 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 32 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 33 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 34 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 35 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 36 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 37 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 38 of 38
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6368

DAVID FITZGERALD LIGHTNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00009-GCM)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Fitzgerald Lightner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David Fitzgerald Lightner seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as

untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lightner 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 legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED