alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PROMISSORY NOTE (“NOTE”) - 0% SIMPLE
INTEREST


 


 


$200


10/29/2020


 


 


For VALUE RECEIVED, SYBLEU INC. (“Borrower”)
promises to pay to David R. Koos (“Lender”) the principal sum of $200 with no interest to accrue on the balance. The
said principal shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America at the demand of the Lender. This Note may be prepaid
in whole or in part at any time without premium or penalty. The Borrower hereby waives any notice of the transfer of this Note
by the Lender or by any subsequent holder of this Note, agrees to remain bound by the terms of this Note subsequent to any transfer,
and agrees that the terms of this Note may be fully enforced by any subsequent holder of this Note. All terms and conditions of
this Note shall be interpreted under the laws of the state of California and venue shall be the state of California.


 


SYBLEU INC.( Borrower)


 


By:/s/David Koos 


CHAIRMAN AND CEO


 


Accepted By:


 


DAVID R KOOS (Lender)


 


By:/s/David Koos


 


DAVID R. KOOS
[No. 456-3.

Division Three.

February 8, 1972.]

#### The Washington Water Power Company, *Respondent,*v. Mrs. Roy T. Hotchkiss, *Appellant.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<S>                 <C>
<ARTICLE>          UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from FPL's
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2000 and condensed
consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the six months
ended June 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.

<CIK>                                  0000037634
<NAME>              Florida Power & Light Company
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000,000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                             PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  $7,958
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                $1,449
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                     $1,385
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       $0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               $455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            $11,247
<COMMON>                                       $0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      $0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            $0
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             $4,853
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          $0
<PREFERRED>                                  $226
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       $2,080
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             $0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      $0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 $0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  $0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      $0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    $0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               $0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             $4,088
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>             $11,247
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  $2,871
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         $161
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 $2,341
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 $2,502
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                      $369
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            ($2)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               $367
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      $82
<NET-INCOME>                                 $285
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    $7
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                $278
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       $0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      $0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       $722
<EPS-BASIC>                                  $0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $0


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

May 23, 2003

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

STEVEN MARTIN and TAMMY STOLKA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

No. 02-1135 v.

DONALD N. SNYDER, JR., et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United

States District Court

for the Central

District of Illinois.

No. 01-1118

Harold A. Baker,

Judge.

Order

The opinion of this court issued on May 23, 2003, is

amended as follows:

Page 2, eighth line from the bottom, change

“legitimation” to “welfare”.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Theodore PULLINGS, Appellee.

No. FF-386.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 9, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 1977.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

William N. DeCarlis of Bates & DeCarlis, Gainesville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Gentry*v. *Fitzpatrick,*327 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
#### Jackson v. Hill, *et al.*

Married women — separate property. Property belonging to the wile at the time of the marriage is not within the provisions of chapter III., of Gould’s Digest, entitled “Married Women.” Filing a *schedule*of such property in the recorder’s office can not affect the rights of the husband in respect to it.

All the wife’s *personal property,*in her i>ossession at the time of her marriage, vests absolutely in the husband.

A court of equity will interfere to decree the wife a reasonable provision, out of her separate property only when the husband asks the aid of the court to enable him to obtain possession of the wife’s property, or where the property, not having come into his possession, is within the reach of the court.

*Appeal from Ouachita Circuit Court.*

Hon. John T. Bearden, Circuit- Judge.

J. II. Carretón, for appellant.

*~W. W.*Leake, for appellee*.

Harrison, J.

The appellant alleges in lier bill that at the time of her marriage with the defendant, William L. Jackson, she owned and possessed certain personal property, among which was a stock of cattle, hogs and sheep; that in a few days after her marriage she filed a schedule thereof, in the recorder’s office of Ouachita county, where she resided; that afterwards her husband, to secure to the defendant, Tyra Hill, the payment of a note for four hundred dollars, executed to the defendant, Robert E. Sallie, a deed, by which he bargained and sold to him certain cattle, hogs and sheep, a part or the increase of those contained in the schedule, in trust, should default be made in the payment of the note at maturity, to take the said property *224into possession, and after giving ten days’ notice, to sell the same at auction, for cash, and with the proceeds pay off and discharge the note; that default being made in the payment of the note, Sallio had taken possession of the property, and was proceeding to advertise and sell it. She claims the same as her sole and separate property, and denies that her husband had any right to sell or incumber it, and prays that the deed be canceled; that the property mentioned in the schedule, with its increase, be settled upon her, for her support and maintenance, and for injunction against the sale, &c.

The defendant filed a demurrer for want of equity in the bill, which, upon argument, -was allowed, and the bill dismissed.

Property belonging to the wife at the time of the marriage is not within the provisions of chapter III., of the Digest, entitled “Married 'Women,” and filing a schedule of it can not affect the rights of the husband in respect to it. Upon her marriage, all the complainant’s personal property, in her possession, vested absolutely in her husband. See *Ferguson & Neil v. Moore and*wife, 19 *Ark.,*379.

The court correctly refused to settle the property in controversy upon the complainant. It is only where the husband asks the aid of a court of chancery to enable him to obtain possession of his wife’s property, or where, not having come into possession, it is within the reach of the court, that it will interpose to decree her a reasonable provision out of it.

The decree is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 30183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13844]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI Pathways To Independence (K99) and Conference (R13) Grant 
Applications.
    Date: July 23-24, 2018.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, 
Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Zhihong Shan, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer (Contractor), Division of Extramural Activities, National 
Eye Institute, National Institute of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, 
Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1779, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7cddfdedfd8d9d099c4dfd6d9f7d9dedf99d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="176d7f7e7f78797039647f767957797e7f39707861">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: June 22, 2018.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-13844 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 257

Providing for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect

to the number of terms of office of Members of the Senate and the

House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1993

Mr. MCCOLLUM submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.

Res. 38) proposing an amendment to the Constitution

of the United States with respect to the number of

terms of office of Members of the Senate and the House

of Representatives.

1 Resolved, That immediately after the adoption of this

2 resolution the House shall resolve itself into the Commit3 tee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the

4 consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 38) pro5 posing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

6 States with respect to the number of terms of office of

7 Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives,
2

HRES 257 IH

1 and the first reading of the joint resolution shall be dis2 pensed with. After general debate which shall be confined

3 to the joint resolution and which shall not exceed six hours

4 to be equally divided and controlled by Representative

5 McCollum of Florida, or a designee, and a Member op6 posed thereto, the joint resolution shall be considered for

7 amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion

8 of the consideration of the joint resolution for amendment

9 the Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution

10 to the House with such amendments as may have been

11 adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as

12 ordered on the joint resolution and amendments thereto

13 to final passage without intervening motion except one

14 motion to recommit.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 22.1

                     SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of subsidiary                                 Jurisdiction of incorporation
------------------                                 -----------------------------
<S>                                                <C>
SmartForce USA....................................        Delaware
Personal Training Systems, Inc....................        California
Fidalco Limited...................................        Ireland
SmartForce Ireland Limited........................        Ireland
SmartForce UK Limited.............................        England
SmartForce Africa (Proprietary) Limited...........        South Africa
CBT Finance Limited...............................        Grand Cayman
CBT (Technology) Limited..........................        Ireland
SmartForce Canada Limited.........................        Canada
SmartForce Deutschland GmbH.......................        Germany
SmartForce Australia Pty Limited..................        Australia
CBT Systems Benelux, B.V..........................        The Netherlands
SmartForce Mentoring Group Limited................        Canada
SmartForce Middle East Limited....................        Bahamas
ForeFront Direct, Inc.............................        Florida
SmartForce Business Skills Inc....................        Delaware
SmartForce Business Skills Limited................        Ireland
</TABLE>
**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the annual report of *Pacific
      Harbour Capital Ltd.,* (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, *Michael
      Reynolds* ,
      Acting
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.





*“Michael
      Reynolds”*





Name:
      Michael Reynolds


Title:
      Acting Chief Financial Officer


Date:
      September 28, 2006








*A
      signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided
      to
      the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*





*This
      certification accompanies the Form 20-F to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
      reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933
      or
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date
      of
      the Form 20-F), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
      in
      such filing.*
EXHIBIT 99.20




CONSENT OF ANDREW MACKENZIE


March 31, 2011





Brigus Gold Corp.


United States Securities and Exchange Commission





Re: Brigus Gold Corp.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection with the following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consent relates: (A) the technical report entitled “Black Fox Project National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report” dated January 6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2010 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2010, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Report in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889 and 333-162558), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.





Sincerely,




/s/ Andrew MacKenzieName: Andrew MacKenzie
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 29824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13674]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Automated Driving Behaviors Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 1, 2018, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Automated Driving Behaviors 
Consortium (``ADB Consortium'') 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: FCA USA LLC, Auburn Hills, MI; Ford Motor Company, 
Dearborn, MI; General Motors LLC, Warren, MI; Hyundai America Technical 
Center, Inc., Superior Township, MI; Mercedes-Benz Research & 
Development North America, Ann Arbor, MI; Nissan Technical Center N.A., 
Farmington Hills, MI; Toyota Motor North America, Plano, Texas; and 
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI.
    The general area of ADB Consortium's planned activity is to fund 
and conduct multiple research projects limited to specific areas with 
specifically-defined technical goals which the participants believe 
will speed the development and ultimate consumer access to safe 
vehicles equipped with Automated Driving Systems (ADS). ADB 
Consortium's objectives are to gain further knowledge and understanding 
of ADS-equipped vehicle interactions with public safety through 
research into common operational use cases.

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-13674 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
ELVIS TROTMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0228

Opinion filed February 6, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction.

Anabelle Dias of Anabelle Dias P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
257 La. 173

#### GULF SOUTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE v. Charles (Chuck) BRAMLET.

No. 51021.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1970.

In re: Charles Bramlet applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Iberia.

Not considered. There is no showing that Relator applied for and was denied a rehearing in the Court of Appeal, Rule XII, Section 5(7), Rules of Supreme Court. 240 So.2d 421.
263 La. 81

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bill SPECKS.

No. 51700.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 4, 1972.

Charles E. McConnell, Springhill, W. Carl Roberts, Minden, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry H. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles A. Marvin, Dist. Atty., James S. Harris, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Bill Specks has appealed from his conviction of murder (La.R.S. 14:30) and his sentence to life imprisonment. He relies upon three bills of exceptions.

The main thrust of the defendant’s three bills are all aimed at the trial court’s granting continuances on oral motions made by the District Attorney, alleging this was contrary to the statutory and constitutional requirements. The defendant urges that the judge’s rulings were reversible error, being an unreasonable abuse of his discretion and a denial of the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Defendant’s trial began February 8, 1971.

We take notice of the trial court’s *Per Curiam*which explains that under the circumstances, the trial court had no alternative but to continue the case. On October 26, 1970, the date on which the case was set for trial, the criminal docket of the trial court was already trying a case before a jury and it was not possible to try more than one jury case on that date. In regard to October 29, 1970, another case was still in progress necessitating upsetting the subject case without refixing.

While it was error on the part of the trial court to grant the State its oral motion for the continuance without a written motion pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. Article 707, and also to upset the trial date of October 29, 1970 without fixing another date, it was *203not reversible. The defendant does not show he reurged his exception nor demonstrated any prejudice flowing from the granting of the continuance. We only reverse for error prejudicial to the rights of the accused. La.C.Cr. Art. 921. See also State v. Shilow, 260 La. 23, 255 So.2d 60 (1971).

For these reasons, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
# Official Journal C 18/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 18 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6514 January 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 18

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6514 January 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 18/01 | Euro exchange rates — 13 January 2022 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 18/01

Euro exchange rates — 13 January 2022

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
263 La. 30

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Willie EDMONSON.

No. 52378.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 4, 1972.

William E. Woodward, Clinton, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Warren E. Mouledoux, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard H. Kilbourne, Dist. Atty., Fred C. Jackson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Willie Edmonson appeals from his conviction of attempted murder. La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:30. He was sentenced to 20 years.

The defendant reserved one bill of exception to the court’s denial of an application for a bill of particulars in which he requested pre-trial discovery of information relating to the State’s witnesses.

It is now well settled that the information sought by the defendant is not subject to pretrial discovery under our criminal procedure. State v. Davis, 259 La. 35, *184249 So.2d 193 (1971); State v. Coney, 258 La. 369, 246 So.2d 793 (1971).

There is no merit in the bill of exception and no error discoverable in our review of the pleadings and proceedings.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.