alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. R. WHITE v. THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE and CHARLOTTE PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION.

(Filed 24 November, 1937.)

1. Municipal Corporations § 17—

Judgment of nonsuit in action against municipality to recovery for negligence resulting in death of plaintiff’s daughter sustained on authority of *White v. Charlotte,*211 N. C., 186.

2. Abatement and Revival § 11 — Parent’s right of action to recover for loss of services of child abates upon death of child.

A parent’s right of action to recover for loss of services of his child, upon allegation that the child’s death was caused by the negligence of defendant, abates upon the death of the child, the sole remedy being an action for wrongful death, C. S., 160, and the question of the father’s right to share in the recovery being a matter between him and the child’s administrator.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Hill, Special J udge,*at 20 September Extra Term, 1937, of MeckxeNbukg.

Affirmed.

Tbis is an action instituted by tbe plaintiff, father of Sarab Elizabeth "White, for damages for loss of services of said infant, whose death is alleged to have been caused by the negligent conduct of the defendants.

The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Sarah Elizabeth White, an infant, instituted an action to recover damages for the wrongful death of said infant, against these defendants, upon substantially the same allegations of negligence. The facts are fully set out in the former decision, *White v. Charlotte,*211 N. C., 186. From judgment of nonsuit the plaintiff appealed.

*John Newitt for plaintiff, appellant.*

*J. M. Scarborough and B. M. Boyd for defendants, appellees.*•

Per Oueiam.

The evidence in this case was substantially the same as in *White v. Charlotte,*211 N. C., 186, except that one additional witness was offered, whose testimony tends to show contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. *White v. Charlotte, supra,*is controlling.

There is a further reason why the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this action. Actions for wrongful death are purely statutory and the right of action rests exclusively in the administrator. Speaking to the subject in *Gurley v. Power Co.,*172 N. C., 690, *Brown, J.,*says: “An action for the recovery of wages of a minor . . . lies in favor of the parent; but if the child dies from the injury the action abates. The only action that lies in such case, in this State, is for wrongful death, as authorized by Revisal 59, and that embraces everything. In such *540action tbe value of the life before 21, as well as after 21 years of age, is recoverable. No other action lies than this.” *Killian v. R. R.,*128 N. C., 262.

It is true that the father was entitled to the services of his daughter, if she had lived, till her majority, but when the death of the daughter ensued the cause of action abated. The question of the father’s right to share in the recovery for the prospective wages up to 21 years would be a matter between him and the administrator. *Gurley v. Power Co., supra; Killian v. R. R., supra; Insurance Co. v. Brame,*95 U. S., page 756.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.
#### R. LESTER CRANE v. GUY T. CARSWELL.

(Filed 23 November, 1932.)

Trial G b: Negligence D e — Verdict awarding damages upon finding that both parties were negligent is not inconsistent and bars recovery.

Where in an action to recover for a negligent personal injury the jury finds that both the plaintiff: and defendant were negligent and awards damages to the plaintiff: *Helé,*the finding that the plaintiff was negligent bars his recovery, and the verdict is not inconsistent, and no appeal will lie from the trial court’s refusal to set aside the verdict in his discretion.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Harding, J.,*at March Term, 1932, of UNION.

No error.

The plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for injury alleged to have been caused by the collision of the plaintiff’s truck and the defend-

*556ant’s car. The defendant denied that he had been negligent, pleaded negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and set up a counterclaim for damages. The verdict was as follows:

1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged? Answer: Yes.

2. Did the plaintiff by his own negligence contribute to his own injury? Answer: Yes.

3. What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $200.

4. Was the defendant’s car injured by the negligence of the plaintiff, as alleged in the answer? Answer: No.

'5. What damage, if any, is the defendant entitled to recover of the plaintiff? Answer: None.

Judgment for defendant. Exception and appeal by plaintiff.

*W. B. Love and H. B. Adams for plaintiff.*

*J. Laurence Jones and Vann & Millilcen for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The contributory negligence of the plaintiff bars his recovery although damages were assessed upon the third issue. *Baker v. R. R.,*118 N. C., 1015; *Sasser v. Lumber Co.,*165 N. C., 242; *McKoy v. Craven,*198 N. C., 780; *Allen v. Yarborough,*201 N. C., 568. We find' nothing inconsistent in the verdict and his Honor’s refusal to set it aside as a matter of discretion is not reviewable.

There is no reversible error in the instruction complained of. The ordinance referred to is practically the same as the State law. Code, 1931, sec. 2621(58).

No error.
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 6, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute: Cooperative Research Group on CHEDE-VII (“CHEDE-VII”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Borgwarner, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI; Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL; Cummins, Columbus, IN; Federal-Mogul Corporation, Plymouth, MI; Honeywell International, Inc., Torrance, CA; Hyundai Motor Group, Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Isuzu, Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Bloomfield, CT; Lubrizol Corporation, Wickliffe, OH Vandyne Superburbo, Inc., Loveland, CO; and Weichai Power Co. Ltd., Weifang, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. The general areas of CHEDE-VII's planned activities are: research activity for diesel combustion system improvements; research activity for dual fuel combustion system improvements; improved fuel efficiency for future diesel and alternative fueled heavy-duty engines; and improved emissions for future diesel and alternative fueled engines.

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2016-01870 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02105]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Intent To Grant a Partially Exclusive License; Optio 
Labs, Inc.

AGENCY: National Security Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Security Agency hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant Optio Labs, Inc. a revocable, non-assignable, partially 
exclusive, license to practice the following Government-Owned invention 
as described and claimed in United States Patent Number 
(USPN),7,904,278 B2, Method and Systems for Program Execution Integrity 
Measurement; and USPN, 8,326,579, Method and Systems for Program 
Execution Integrity Measurement.

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has until 
February 19, 2016 to file written objections including evidence and 
argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be 
consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the National 
Security Agency Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 
6843, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6843.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda L. Burger, Director, Technology 
Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6843, Fort George G. Meade, 
MD 20755-6843, telephone (443) 634-3518.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The prospective partially exclusive license 
will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 
404.7. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the 
United States Government as represented by the National Security 
Agency.

    Dated: February 1, 2016.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2016-02105 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      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 registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  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 registrant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 a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Victor ViegasVictor ViegasChief Executive Officer
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4876 Filed: 11/26/19 Entered: 11/26/19 19:56:54 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4876 Filed: 11/26/19 Entered: 11/26/19 19:56:54 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4876 Filed: 11/26/19 Entered: 11/26/19 19:56:54 Page 3 of

3
Exhibit
31.1





CERTIFICATIONS





I,
James B. Wiegand, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:





1.   I have reviewed the
report being filed on Form 10-K byRosewind Corporation.





2.   Based
on my knowledge, the 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 the report;





3.   Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in the report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of Rosewind Corporation as
of, and for, the periods presented in the report;





4.   I
and the other certifying officer are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in
Regulation 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for Rosewind
Corporation and have:





i.   Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to Rosewind Corporation, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made  known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which the periodic reports are being prepared;





ii.  Evaluated
the effectiveness of Rosewind Corporation's disclosure controls and procedures
as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the report ("Evaluation
Date"); and





iii.
Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;





5.   I
and the other certifying officer have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the Rosewind Corporation auditors and the audit committee of the
board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):





i.   All
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect Rosewind Corporation's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified Rosewind
Corporation's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;
and





ii.  Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the issuer's internal controls; and





6.   I
and the other certifying officer have indicated in the 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.




Date: November
10, 2008





By:
            /s/ James
      B. WiegandJames
      B. Wiegand
              President
              Chief
      Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30964]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Invention Available for License

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy announces that U.S. Patent No. 
4,942,339, entitled ``Intense Steady State Electron Beam Generator'' is 
available for license, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207-209.
    A copy of the patent may be obtained, for a modest fee, from the 
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C. 20231.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Robert J. Marchick, Office of the Assistant 
General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property, U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20585; Telephone (202) 586-2802.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 35 U.S.C. 207 authorizes licensing of 
Government-owned inventions. Implementing regulations are contained in 
37 CFR part 404. 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1) authorizes exclusive licensing of 
Government-owned inventions under certain circumstances, provided that 
notice of the invention's availability for license has been announced 
in the Federal Register.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 13, 1995.
Agnes P. Dover,
Deputy General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Procurement.
[FR Doc. 95-30964 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### STATE v. DAVID BECKWITH.

(Filed 8 November, 1944.)

Appeal by defendant from *Grady, Emergency Judge,*at March Criminal Term, 1944, of Wake.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Patton and Rhodes for the State.*

*R. N. Simms for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Upon proper proceedings instituted in the Eecorder’s Court for certain townships of Wake County, the defendant was apprehended, had his preliminary trial, and, probable cause having been found, was sent to the Superior Court for trial. There, upon proper indictment, he was tried upon the charge of felonious assault on Castleberry with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and murder and inflicting serious injuries not resulting in death. There was a verdict of guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, inflicting serious ,and permanent injuries. Whereupon, defendant was sentenced to a term of eighteen months in *860the common jail of Wake County, to be assigned to work upon the public roads. From this judgment, defendant appealed.

The appeal was fully heard in this Court, and we have carefully examined the record for error. We have been unable to find any reason which would justify interference with the result of the trial. We do not regard a formal opinion as necessary.

No error.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1925

JUDITH E. CALDWELL, M.D.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL

EXAMINERS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-95-3260-3-19BC)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Judith E. Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying her motion for reconsideration of the denial of relief on her 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Caldwell v. South

Carolina State Board of Medical Examiners, No. CA-95-3260-3-19BC

(D.S.C. June 14, 1996). Further, we deny her motion to transfer to

an appropriate venue. 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.

AFFIRMED
H. R. 5562 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 801 West 

Ocean Avenue in Lompoc, California, as the ‘‘Federal Correctional Officer Scott 

J. Williams Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SCOTT J. WILLIAMS 

MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 801 West Ocean Avenue in Lompoc, California, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Federal Correctional Officer 

Scott J. Williams Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Federal Correctional Officer Scott J. Williams Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.4

                            ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.

                         COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS

                      Nine Months Ended September 30, 1998

                      (In thousands, except share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        NUMBER OF SHARES    PERCENT OUTSTANDING    EQUIVALENT SHARES
                                                        ----------------    -------------------    -----------------
<S>                                                     <C>                 <C>                    <C>
Prior to Initial Public Offering                                     426             66.67%                      284
      1997 Common Stock Offering

After Initial Public Offering
      1997 Common Stock Offering                                     426             33.33%                      142
      1998 Common Stock Offering                              10,000,000             33.33%                3,333,333
      Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock               40,341,128             33.33%               13,447,043
                                                                                                     ---------------
                                                                                                          16,780,802


WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                                       16,780,802

NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK                                                                    $(218,442,275)

NET LOSS PER SHARE, BASIC AND DILUTED                                                                  $      (13.02)
                                                                                                       ==============
</TABLE>