alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### H. J. COMBS v. C. M. COOPER.

(Filed 14 September, 1927.)

Bills and Notes — Instructions—Evidence—Questions for Jury.

Where there is evidence that the plaintiff was a holder in due course for value of a negotiable note, the subject of the action, acquired before maturity without notice of an infirmity, and also that the note was a part of an advertising contract from which it had been detached, thus altering its negotiable character so as to make it void in the hands of-the plaintiff, a peremptory instruction in plaintiff’s favor is reversible error, there being more than a scintilla of evidence for the defendant for the jury to determine.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Clayton Moore, Special Judge,*at June Term, 1927, of PasquotaNic.

Civil action to recover on what purports to be a negotiable promissory note for $156, alleged to have been executed by the defendant to Arthur Cohn, 6 April, 1925, duly endorsed to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration, before maturity and without notice of any defect or equity, constituting the plaintiff a holder thereof in due course. There is evidence on behalf of the plaintiff tending to support his allegations.

The defendant, on the other hand, offered evidence tending to show that the note in question was a part of an advertising contract from which it had been detached or torn, so materially altering its executory provisions as to render it void in the hands of the plaintiff.

On an issue of indebtedness, submitted to the jury, the court, at the request of the defendant, gave the following instruction: “If you believe the evidence and facts as testified to you will answer the issue, Nothing.”

From a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals, assigning the above instruction as error.

*Aydlett & Simpson for plaintiff.*

*McMuTlan & L&Roy for defendant.*

*204Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the case: In directing a verdict for the defendant, the learned trial judge evidently overlooked the testimony of the plaintiff. Where the evidence is equivocal or conflicting, as in the present case, and fairly susceptible to more than one inference, the matter should be left to the jury, under a proper charge, without peremptory instructions from the court. *Moore v. Ins. Co.,*193 N. C., 538; *Brooks v. Milling Co.,*182 N. C., 258. Such was the holding in *Dv'erett v. Receivers,*121 N. C., 519 (as stated in the first head-note) : “Where, in the trial of an action, the plaintiff has produced some evidence, or more than a *scintilla,*in support of his contention, or there is conflicting evidence, it is the province of the jury to determine its weight, and it would be improper to instruct the jury that if they believe the evidence the plaintiff cannot recover.”

We cannot say from the record that the error in the present instruction was harmless.

New trial.
#### BERTHA M. HARRELL v. LORA B. WHITE, Administratrix, et al.

(Filed 18 September, 1935.)

Appeal and Error E c — When Superior Court affirms the judgment of the county court, appellant must bring forward exceptions relied upon.

Where, on appeal from judgment of the general county court to the Superior Court on matters of law, the Superior Court overrules each of the exceptions relied upon by appellant, upon further appeal to the Supreme Court the appellant should bring forward each ruling of the Superior Court on the exceptions deemed erroneous, and properly group them and assign same as error, Rule 19 (3), and where appellant merely assigns as error “the judgment of the Superior Court,” the appeal will be dismissed or the judgment affirmed.

Appeal by defendants from *Small, J.,*at November Term, 1934, of Beetle.

Civil action in trover to recover personal property in possession of defendants, both parties claiming title thereto, instituted and tried in the general county court of Bertie County, where verdict and judgment were rendered for plaintiff. On appeal to the Superior Court, on matters of law, eighteen exceptions were assigned as error. All exceptions and assignments of error were overruled, and the judgment of the general county court was affirmed. Whereupon the defendants appeal, assigning as error “the judgment of the Superior Court.”

*J. B, Davenport for plaintiff.*

*J. A. Pritchett for defendants.*

Stacy, O. J.

The situation presented by the record in this case is identical with that appearing in the case of *Smith v. Texas Co.,*200 *410N. C., 39, 156 S. E., 160. There, the transcript contained no grouping o£ exceptions or assignments of error as required by Rule 19 (3) of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. 200 N. C., 824. It was said that upon motion of appellee the appeal would be dismissed or the judgment affirmed. The same may be repeated here.

The judgment will be affirmed on authority of the *Smith case.*See converse of proposition in *Jenkins v. Castelloe, ante,*406.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32268-32269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13637]



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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION



Federal Aviation Administration



14 CFR Part 71



[Docket No. FAA-2010-0069; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-15]




Establishment of Class E Airspace; Mount Pleasant, SC.



AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.



ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.



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



SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 

published in the Federal Register April 1, 2010 that establishes Class 

E airspace at Mt Pleasant Regional Airport-Faison Field, Mount 

Pleasant, SC.



DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, June 8, 2010.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support 

Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P. O. 

Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 



Confirmation of Effective Date



    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for 

comments in the Federal Register on April 1, 2010 (75 FR 16335), Docket 

No. FAA-2010-0069; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-15. The FAA uses the 

direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule



[[Page 32269]]



where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. 

This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were 

anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written 

notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received 

within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on 

June 3, 2010. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice 

confirms that effective date.



    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on May 27, 2010.

Barry A. Knight,

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air 

Traffic Organization.

[FR Doc. 2010-13637 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  The Board of Directors  U.S. Bank National Association We have examined management's  assertion, included in the accompanying  Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC's Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007,  except for  servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii), and 1122(d)(4)(iv)(xiv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing  platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform,  and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures  were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts  calculated or  reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. /s/ Ernst & Young LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota February 12, 2008
Exhibit 34.1.4

 

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Board of Directors of Fifth Third Mortgage Company

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Fifth Third Mortgage Company (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the residential mortgage loans sold to non-government-sponsored entities for which the Company served as servicer, that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 platform (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(iv), 1122(d)(3)(i)(c), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Exhibit A to management’s assertion identifies the individualasset-backed transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included inthe Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for residential mortgage loans sold to non-government-sponsored entities for which the Company served as servicer, that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio

February 29, 2008
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5462 

AN ACT 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for 

limitations on the fees charged to passengers of air carriers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5462 EH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FEES CHARGED TO PAS2 SENGERS OF AIR CARRIERS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 44940 

4 of title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as 

5 follows: 

6 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON FEE.— 

7 ‘‘(1) AMOUNT.—Fees imposed under subsection 

8 (a)(1) shall be $5.60 per one-way trip in air trans9 portation or intrastate air transportation that origi10 nates at an airport in the United States, except that 

11 the fee imposed per round trip shall not exceed 

12 $11.20. 

13 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION OF ROUND TRIP.—In this 

14 subsection, the term ‘round trip’ means a trip on an 

15 air travel itinerary that terminates or has a stopover 

16 at the origin point (or co-terminal).’’. 

17 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub18 section (a) shall apply with respect to a trip in air trans19 portation or intrastate air transportation that is pur20 chased on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5462 

AN ACT 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide 

of air carriers. for limitations on the fees charged to passengers
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.4


OVERTON BANK AND TRUST, N.A.

SOUTH ARLINGTON OFFICE
CURTIS F. VON DER AHE
President


December 5, 1997


Mr. Tom Hoefert, CFO
InnoServ Technologies, Inc.
4330 Beltway  #300
Arlington, TX.  76018

REFERENCE: LOAN AGREEMENT DATED APRIL 14, 1997 COVENANT VIOLATIONS.

Dear Mr. Hoefert,

You have indicated that InnoServ is in violation of the Minimum Tangible Net 
Worth covenant as outline in the loan agreement referenced above.  We hereby 
waive compliance with this covenant and re-set the covenant as follows:

          Minimum Tangible Net Worth        $2,750,000

If you require anything else, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,



/s/ Curtis F. Von Der Ahe
--------------------------
Curtis F. Von Der Ahe,
President


                                      26
Exhibit 8.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 1.
    
    JA Development Co., Ltd. (British Virgin Islands)2.
    
    JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. (Ningjin, China)3.
    
    Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China)4.
    
    JA Solar USA Inc. (California, USA)5.
    
    Shanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co,. Ltd. (Shanghai, China)6.
    
    JA Solar Technology YangZhou Co., Ltd. (Yangzhou, China)7.
    
    JA Solar Hong Kong Limited (Hong Kong)8.
    
    Jing Hai Yang Semiconductor Material (Donghai) Co., Ltd. (Donghai, China)9.
    
    Yangzhou JA Solar R&D Corporation Limited (Yangzhou, China)10.
    
    Yangzhou JA Solar PV Engineering Co., Ltd. (Yangzhou, China)10.
    
    JA Luxembourg S.arl. (Luxembourg)11.
    
    JA Solar GmbH (Germany)12.
    
    JA Solar International Co., Limited (Hong Kong)13.
    
    Shanghai Jinglong Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China)
 14.
    
    Donghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (Donghai, China)
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4283    Filed: 10/18/19    Entered: 10/18/19 12:18:42    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4283    Filed: 10/18/19    Entered: 10/18/19 12:18:42    Page 2 of2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 12170 and # 12171]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 3.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-1912-DR), dated 05/11/2010.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Tornadoes.                    

*Incident Period:*                         05/01/2010 and continuing.                    

*Effective Date:*                         05/28/2010.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/12/2010.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         02/11/2011.                    

# ADDRESSES:

                        Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and                               ( print page 32821)                            Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, dated 05/11/2010, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:*                     Bracken, Carroll, Crittenden, Gallatin, Harrison, Lee, Livingston, Lyon, Franklin, Marshall, Mclean, Montgomery, Morgan, Robertson, Trigg, Union, Wolfe.                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-13758 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pawnbroker.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William Galine, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ William Galine



William Galine

Acting Chief Executive Officer

November 14,2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6734

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PHILLIP JAMES SOFFOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR91-320-S, CA-96-1243-S)

Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: December 17, 1996

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip James Soffos, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip James Soffos seeks to appeal the district court's

order denying relief on his motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Soffos, Nos. CR-91-320-S; CA-96-1243-S (D. Md. Apr. 26,

1996). 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
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SteelCloud, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Murphy Vice
President of Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge:


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.

Dated June 11, 2003

                                                By: /s/ Kevin Murphy
                                                    ----------------
                                                Name: Kevin Murphy
                                                Title: Vice President Finance




                                                                              25