alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
38421.

#### CHASTAIN *et al.*v. PUBLIC FINANCE CORPORATION.

Townsend, Judge.

1. In an action to recover the amount due on ’ a promissory note naming the payee as Public Finance Corporation of Atlanta, No. 1, the plaintiff in the action being Public Finance Corporation of Atlanta, No. 3, an allegation “that on or about October 1, 1958, the said Public Finance Corporation of Atlanta, No. 1, for valuable consideration, sold, transferred, assigned and set over said promissory note to your petitioner” is, as against a general demurrer on the ground that the petition states no cause of action, a sufficient averment that the plaintiff owns legal title to the instrument so that it may sue on the same in its own name.

2. Even where a written instrument (including an assignment of a negotiable instrument) constitutes the foundation of the cause of action under *Code*§ 81-105 so that it is necessary to attach a copy thereof to the petition, the omission is not reached by general demurrer, but must be taken advantage of by special demurrer pointing out the defect with particularity. *Hill v. Harris,*11 Ga. App. 358 (1) (75 S. E. 518); *Babb v. McKinnon,*185 Ga. 663 (Id) (196 S. E. 488).

The contention that the plaintiff’s petition, an action on a promissory note which was itself attached to the petition as an exhibit, was subject to general demurrer merely because the petition fails either to attach a copy of the assignment or to allege that the assignment was in writing, is without merit, as the question may only be reached by special demurrer. *307Accordingly, the trial court did not err in overruling the demurrer which alleged merely that no cause of action was set out.

Decided July 15, 1960

Rehearing denied July 28, 1960.

*Lanier Randall,*for plaintiffs in error.

*M. K. Pentecost, Jr., Zack Cravey, Jr.,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Gardner, P. J., Carlisle and Frankum, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                              [KPMG LETTERHEAD]


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
VaxGen, Inc. :


We consent to the use of our report included herein and to the reference to
our firm under the  heading "Experts" in the prospectus.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Seattle, Washington

June 25, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7224 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7224

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 17 (legislative day, December 16), 2024

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Stop, 
   Observe, Ask, and Respond to Health and Wellness Training Program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SOAR TO HEALTH AND WELLNESS TRAINING 
              PROGRAM.

    Section 1254(h) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-
54(h)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 2020 through 2024'' and 
inserting ``fiscal years 2025 through 2029''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### WILLIAM G. SCHROEDER (Revived in name of Anna Kendall), Respondent, v. AURELIUS C. TURPIN, Appellant.

Springfield Court of Appeals,

November 2, 1909.

JURISDICTION: Supreme Court: In Action to Set Aside Deeds on Grounds of Fraud in Their Procurement. In an action to set aside deeds on the alleged ground of fraud in their procurement, the title to real estate is directly involved, and the jurisdiction of the subject-matter is by the Constitution of the State, vested solely in the Supreme Court.

Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — Non. *W. N. Evans,*Judge.

Transferred to Supreme Court.

*J. N. 'Burroughs*for appellant.

*O. L. Hay don*and *W. P. Campbell*for respondent.

GRAY, J.

— This is an action in equity to set aside certain deeds to lands situated in Howell county, on the alleged ground of fraud in their procurement. Under the decisions of the courts of this State, the title to real estate is directly involved within the meaning of the Constitution defining the jurisdiction .of the Supreme Court. [Overton v. Overton, 131 Mo. 559; Lappin v. Crawford, 92 Mo. App. 453; Reed v. Colp, 213 Mo. 577.] This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause for the reason that the jurisdiction of the subject; matter is, by the Constitution of the State, vested solely in the Supreme Court, and accordingly the cause is transferred to that court.

All concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7505** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. WILLIAM TURNER SMITH , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. ( 5:07

- cr - 00011

- D

- 1; 5:14

- cv - 00373

- D )

Submitted : March 24, 2015 Decided: April 15, 2015

Before KING, SHEDD, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. William Turner Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Turner Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion as successive . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certi ficate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that re asonable 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 relie f on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

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

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          10,127
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          13,153
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    37
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     22,085
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          16,441
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        119,195
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 195,910
<DEPOSITS>                                     173,985
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,478
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,977
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,164
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,174
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 195,910
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   8585
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1665
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   519
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,769
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,737
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,806
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,963
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      125
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                     69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,914
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,914
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,399
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.58
<LOANS-NON>                                        775
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,377
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    39
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,752
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      333
<RECOVERIES>                                       202
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000812927
<NAME> BOWEN
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                          13,502
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,444
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,250
<PP&E>                                          86,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,379
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,326
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,511
<SALES>                                         11,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,006
<CGS>                                            7,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,850
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (997)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (997)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (997)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 2219** 

LENA HARDAWAY , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. CHECKERS DRIVE

- IN RESTAURANTS, INC. , Defendant

– Appellee , and CHECKERS/RALLY RESTAURANT; ADVENTURES THREE INC.; DOUGLAS S. GORDON INSURANCE SERVICES; JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY; IMOGENE F. HOLMES; DOES 1

- 25 , Defendants

.

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

. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv - 01575

- RWT )

Submitted : March 24, 2016 Decided: April 5, 2016

Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Lena Hardaway, Appellant Pro Se. Richard E. Schimel, BREGMAN, BERBERT, SCHWARTZ & GILDAY, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Lena Hardaway appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution. On appeal, Hardaway asserts that the district court did not properly update her address and that she did not timely receive the district court’s order to show cause. We affirm. Hardaway claims that she filed a complaint against a district court judge with the Justice Department on August 17, 2015, and filed an additional complaint with the Chief Judge of the District of Maryland on August 28, 2015. Hardaway asserts that she placed a change of address form in the envelope to the Chief Judge. Hardaway does not provide any documentar y proof of the se claims. It appears that Hardaway’s “complaints” were in a separate case or were an attempt to open an investigation or another case. These documents are not filed in the instant case. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland Rule 102(b)(iii) requires self

- represented litigants to file change of address forms with the Clerk in every case in which they currently have an address where case

- related papers may be served. Even assuming that the document Hardaway reference s was a change of address form for the instant case, Hardaway states4 that she sent it to the Chief Judge rather than the Clerk of the
Court. Moreover, on appeal, Hardaway presents no showing of good cause for her failure to pursue her case, so any error by the district court was merely harmless. The district court granted in part Hardaway’s motion to compel on September 16, 2013 , and Hardaway did not file another document in her case until her notice of appeal on October 9, 2015 . W hile she claims there was much misconduct in her case, she does not allege that she specifically attempted to file documents after September 2013, nor does she explain her failure to prosecute her case during that time period. Finally, while Hardaway raises numerous other clai ms on appeal, we find that they are irrelevant to the basis for dismissal. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not ai d the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3646]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S.

[Public Notice 139]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

FORM TITLE: Report of Premiums Payable for Financial Institutions Only 
(EIB 92-30).
SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    We have made the following changes to this application:
    a. Under ``Obligo Types'' we have added ``Financial Institution'' 
as an option;
    b. Under ``Obligo Types'' we have deleted ``Eximbank Sole Risk'' as 
an option;
    c. Under ``Terms'' we have added ``CAD or SDDP'';
    d. Under ``Terms'' we have deleted ``Sight Payments (non-letter of 
credit)'';
    e. Under ``Terms'' we have changed ``1-60 Days'' to ``1-30 Days'' 
as an option;
    f. Under ``Terms'' we have added ``31-60 Days'' as an option;
    g. Under ``Terms'' we have changed ``61-120 Days'' to ``61-90 
Days'' as an option; and
    h. Under ``Terms'' we have added ``91-120 Days'' as an option.
    Our customers will be able to submit this form on paper or 
electronically. The information collected enables the applicant to 
provide Ex-Im Bank with the information necessary to record custom 
utilization and management prospective insurance liability relative to 
risk premiums received.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before (60 days after 
publication) to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov or by mail to Arnold Chow, Export-Import Bank of 
the United States, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Titles and Form Number: EIB 92-30. Report of Premiums Payable for 
Financial Institutions Only.
    OMB Number: 3048-0021.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: The information collected enables the applicant to 
provide Ex-Im Bank with the information necessary to record custom 
utilization and management prospective insurance liability relative to 
risk premiums received.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S. goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 150.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Government Annual Burden Hours: 450.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: Monthly.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-3646 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
§ 417.630 May a Federal agency impute the conduct of one person to another? For purposes of actions taken under this part, a Federal agency may impute conduct as follows: ( a ) *Conduct imputed from an individual to an organization.* A Federal agency may impute the fraudulent, criminal, or other improper conduct of any officer, director, shareholder, partner, employee, or other individual associated with an organization, to that organization when the improper conduct occurred in connection with the individual's performance of duties for or on behalf of that organization, or with the organization's knowledge, approval or acquiescence. The organization's acceptance of the benefits derived from the conduct is evidence of knowledge, approval or acquiescence.
( b ) *Conduct imputed from an organization to an individual, or between individuals.* A Federal agency may impute the fraudulent, criminal, or other improper conduct of any organization to an individual, or from one individual to another individual, if the individual to whom the improper conduct is imputed either participated in, had knowledge of, or reason to know of the improper conduct.
( c ) *Conduct imputed from one organization to another organization.* A Federal agency may impute the fraudulent, criminal, or other improper conduct of one organization to another organization when the improper conduct occurred in connection with a partnership, joint venture, joint application, association or similar arrangement, or when the organization to whom the improper conduct is imputed has the power to direct, manage, control, or influence the activities of the organization responsible for the improper conduct. Acceptance of the benefits derived from the conduct is evidence of knowledge, approval, or acquiescence.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8111-8112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3528]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-776-779 (Second Review)]


Preserved Mushrooms From Chile, China, India, and Indonesia

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject reviews.

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

DATES: Effective Date: February 17, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Haines (202-205-3200), 
Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need 
special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact 
the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these 
reviews may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at 
http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 4, 2010, the Commission 
established a schedule for the conduct of the expedited five-year 
reviews and

[[Page 8112]]

determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up 
to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B) (75 FR 3756, January 22, 
2010). Due to the closure of the Government during the recent 
snowstorms, the Commission is revising its schedule. The Commission's 
new schedule for the reviews is as follows: the staff report will be 
placed in the nonpublic record on March 9, 2010; and the deadline for 
filing comments is March 15, 2010.

    Authority:  These reviews are being conducted under authority of 
title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 
pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

     Issued: February 17, 2010.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-3528 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 149 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the House 

to meet 5 days a week for 39 weeks each year. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2017 

Mr. PETERS (for himself, Mr. KILMER, Mr. O’HALLERAN, and Mr. COFFMAN) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require the House to meet 5 days a week for 39 weeks 

each year. 

1 Resolved, That (a) rule XIV of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new clause: 

4 ‘‘7. There shall be votes held in the House or in the 

5 Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 

6 for 5 consecutive days each week except— 

7 ‘‘(a) during any recess there shall be no votes, 

8 except there shall be not more than 13 recess weeks 

9 during each calendar year; or 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 149 IH 

1 ‘‘(b) during any week in which there is a holi2 day, then votes shall be held on 4 days.’’. 

3 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take 

4 effect with the first session of Congress beginning on the 

5 date of adoption of this resolution. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS