alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SAM KASSLER v. J. H. TINSLEY and JERRY JEROME.

(Filed 6 June, 1930.)

1. Pleadings E a — Where copy of answer containing counterclaim is not served on plaintiff its allegations are to be dealt with as denied.

Under tbe provisions of chapter 18, Public Laws of 1924, the allegations in an answer constituting a counterclaim are to be considered and dealt with as denied where a copy of the answer containing the counterclaim is not served on the plaintiff.

2. Judgments K c — Where answer containing counterclaim has not been served on plaintiff, judgment by default thereon should be set aside.

Where a copy of an answer containing a counterclaim is not served on the plaintiff, the allegations going to make up the counterclaim are to be considered as denied, chapter 18, Public Laws of 1924, and where judgment by default and inquiry has been entered on the counterclaim for plaintiff’s failure to plead thereto, the plaintiff’s motion to set aside such judgment should be allowed.

*782Appeal by plaintiff from *MacRae, Special Judge,*at December Term, 1929, of TRANSYLVANIA.

Civil action to recover on two promissory notes. Summons issued and complaint filed 22 July, 1927. Defendants answered 27 July, 1927, denied liability and set up a counterclaim for $6,800.

The answer of defendants, containing said counterclaim, was not served on plaintiff or his attorneys (so stated in the agreed statement of case on appeal), and no answer, demurrer, or reply to the counterclaim was filed by the plaintiff; whereupon on 12 September, 1927, judgment by default and inquiry was entered against the plaintiff, and in favor of defendants, on said counterclaim.

Thereafter,' at the December Term, 1929, Transylvania Superior Court, plaintiff moved to set aside the judgment by default and inquiry previously entered on the counterclaim, on the ground that no copy of the answer containing said counterclaim, was ever served on the plaintiff or his attorneys, and therefore, under chapter 18, Public Laws, Extra Session, 1924, such counterclaim is deemed denied. Motion disallowed, and plaintiff appeals.

*Galloway & Martin and Ralph H. Ramsey, Jr., for plaintiff.*

*No counsel appearing for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the case: It was held in *Lumber Co. v. Welch,*197 N. C., 249, 148 S. E., 250, construing chapter 18, Public Laws, Extra Session, 1924, that, unless a copy of the answer containing a counterclaim is served on the plaintiff or his attorney, the allegations going to make up such counterclaim are to be considered and dealt with as denied. Hence, under authority of the *Welch case,*it would seem that the plaintiff’s motion is well founded.

Reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 249 (Thursday, December 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 67155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31377]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Applications of Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc. for 
Issuance of New Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 95-12-29) Dockets OST-95-
589 and OST-95-590.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue orders (1) finding 
Capital Cargo International Airlines, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and 
(2) awarding it certificates to engage in foreign charter air 
transportation of property and mail and interstate all-cargo air 
transportation.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
January 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Dockets OST-95-589 and OST-95-590 and addressed to the Documentary 
Services Division (C-55, Room PL-401), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590 and 
should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janet A. Davis, Air Carrier 
Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 366-9721.

    Dated: December 20, 1995
Mark L. Gerchick,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 95-31377 Filed 12-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (1.21 MB)

Tags:SPACECOM, Washington D.C., Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Strategic Command, STRATCOM, U.S. Space Command

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1203** 

MICHELLE D. MAUPIN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

HOWARD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM; HOWARD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; SYDNEY COUSIN, Individually and in his official capacity , Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. Benson Everett Legg , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv
- 02659

- BEL )

Submitted : June 19, 2012 Decided: July 18, 2012

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michelle D. Maupin, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund J. O’Meally, Lisa Y. Settles, HODES, PESSIN & KATZ, PA, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michelle D. Maupin appeals the district court ’ s order denying the motion for permissive joinder and dismissing her
complaint . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Maupin v. Howard Cnty. Pub. Schs. , No. 1:10

- cv
02659

- BEL (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2012) . We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials befo re the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EX-35.2
(logo) AURORA LOAN SERVICES
A Lehman Brothers Company

Depositor: Structured Asset Securities Corporation
           745 Seventh Avenue 8th Floor
           New York, NY 10019

Trustee:   Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
           9062 Old Annapolis Road
           Columbia, MD 21045

Securities Administrator:

Subject:        Annual Officer's Certification
Fiscal Year:    2007
Securitization: SAS 2007-BC1

I, E. Todd Whittemore, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Aurora
Loan Services LLC (the "Master Servicer"), do certify the following for the
Calendar Year 2007:

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period
beginning on the cut-off date and ending on December 31, 2007 (the "reporting
period") and of its performance under the Agreement for such period has been
made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material aspects
throughout such reporting period.

Certified by: AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC



By: /s/ E. Todd Whittemore

Name: E. Todd Whittemore
Title: Executive Vice President



(logo) EQUAL HOUSING
LENDER
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (1.99 MB)

Tags:Space Command, Air Force Academy, USAFA, USSPACECOM

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6682** 

JOHN DANIEL SPRINGER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. DENNIS BUSH, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. Bruce H. Hendricks , District Judge. ( 0:13

- cv - 03549

- BHH )

Submitted : October 30, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
John Daniel Springer, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIA M: John Daniel Springer seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the court’s order denying Springer’s motion for reconsideration
. The ord er s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. 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 petition 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 conclude that Springer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate o f appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
S. 3451 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two 

An Act 

To include certain computer-related projects in the Federal permitting program 

under title XLI of the FAST Act, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FEDERAL PERMITTING IMPROVEMENT. 

Section 41001(6)(A) of the FAST Act (42 U.S.C. 4370m(6)(A)) 

is amended, in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ‘‘semiconductors, artificial intelligence and machine learning, highperformance computing and advanced computer hardware and software, quantum information science and technology, data storage 

and data management, cybersecurity,’’ after ‘‘manufacturing,’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT 31.1 -- CERTIFICATION

         I, Alan Rubin, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Alec Bradley Cigar
Corporation;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

                  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
         caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         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) 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; and

                  (c) 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

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditor and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

                  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
         the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
         which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's
         ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
         and

                  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
         management or other employees who have a significant role in the
         registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 13, 2005

/s/ Alan Rubin
--------------
Alan Rubin
Chief Executive Officer
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 5/13/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
ALEXANDER D. CARDOSI, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-9013 (D.C. No. T.C. No. 26111-93) (U.S.T.C.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before PORFILIO, McKAY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ** Mr. Cardosi appeals from a Tax Court decision upholding the denial of various Schedule C deductions claimed with respect to his roofing and consulting businesses. Cardosi v. Commissioner , 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 2311 (1995). Our jurisdiction arises under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review the tax court’s judgment “in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury,” id. ;- 2 -

thus, we review legal issues de novo and factual issues for clear error. We cannot say that the tax court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous though we might have found otherwise; given those findings the correct law was applied. We affirm the denial of a deduction for CCH tax products on the ground that the taxpayer has failed to prove that such expenditures were ordinary and necessary to his business ventures. See Love Box Co., Inc. v. Commissioner , 842 F.2d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 488 U.S. 820 (1988). AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
Exhibit 31.1
       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;
and
 b)
    
    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 Viegas

Victor ViegasInterim Chief Executive Officer
#### Frank E. Blackman et al. v. Linda Bloom.

*Trespass—Removal of Household. Furniture—Chattel Mortgage—Evidence—Instructions.*

In an action to recover damages suffered through the removal of household furniture claimed under a chattel mortgage, this court holds that the instructions were improper.

[Opinion filed April 3, 1889.]

In error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John S. Altgeld, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. T. Morrison and A. B. Jenks, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. John C. King, for defendant in error.

Gary, J.

This is an action of trespass *d.e lonis asportatis,*Dy the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error.

Whether one of the plaintiffs in error participated in the acts of which the defendant in error complained, and whether the other was acting in accord with her wishes, were questions upon which, perhaps, if the instructions had been accurate, the verdict of the jury might have been conclusive, though it seems extravagant.

*615But the singular and plural are mixed in the instructions in such a manner, that if the jury were guided by them, th y may have found a verdict against both, on evidence of the acts of but one. The first instruction, in reciting what devolved upon her to show, says, “and further, that the defendant unlawfully,” etc. The last says, “and that the defendant wrongfully,” etc., “ and converted the same to *Ms*own use, then the jury should find the *issues*for plaintiff.” The plea was joint, not guilty. Under that issue one might be acquitted, and the other found guilty. 2 Tidd Pr. 896, 985. And so while in form the *issue*was single, whether both were guilty, in substance it was several as to each, and the instruction is to find the *issues*for plaintiff, on the acts of one defendant.

It is not necessary to consider other questions in the case, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*