alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James L. Armstrong & another *v*. John Harshaw.

From Burke.

im-JRy i int against a Defendant named in the writ, but not made a eithfr by service, pu die notice or attaching his estate, is y void, and should be disregarded when produced on *nul tiei*

Dj^bt — The Plaintiffs declared upon a jndgment recovered in the State of Tennessee, and the Defendant pleaded “ *nul tiel*recordOn the trial, before Strange Judge, the Plaintiff produced a duly certified transcript of proceedings had in Bedford county, in Tennessee, by which it appeared on an affidavit made by the Plaintiffs, thát the Defendant had absconded or concealed himself so tlmt process could not be served on him, a writ fef attachment issued, against bis estate, which was *188levied on a quantity of corn, supposed to be his property, and the lew indorsed on the writ, and an order was made to sell the corn, upon which the’officer returned that no money had been made in consequence of older attachments having been previously levied on the same corn. At the succeeding term of the Court, the writ being returned with these indorsements, the Plaintiffs tiled their declaration, signed judgment *by*default, and their damages being assessed by a jury at the next term, a final judgment was entered.

On the production of this record, the presiding Judge gave judgment for the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant appealed.

*Wilson,*for the Defendant, submitted the case without argument. ■».*

Ham, Judge

The constitution and laws of the country, guaranty the principle, that no freeman shall be divested of a right by the judgment of a Court, unless he shall have been made party to the proceeding in which it shall have been obtained. When personal notice cannot be given, it must be dispensed with from necessity, and that must be done which is next most likely to answer the same purpose, public notice must be giv* or the Defendant’s property must be laid hold of. The latter mode was directed and attempted to be adopted in the present case, and had it succeeded, the Plaintiff would have been authorised to proceed to judgment, because the property when letied upon, represented its owner, and of course, was liable to that judgment, but no properly of the Defendant was levied upon, his right to the corn was divested by older process, and judgment was obtained against him when he was not made party to the proceedings in any way known to the law.

I cannot therefore, consider it a sufficient and legal foundation for the judgment rendered in this case. I am *189consequently of opinion, that the rule for a new trial should be made absolute.

Per curiam. — Judgment awarded. reversed and new trial
SERVED:_ March 11, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

In The Matter Of: 

JENNIFER LAUREN 

Respondent 

W ASIDNGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. FAA-2015-3318 

Case No. 201480275046 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On March 2, 2016, a Notice of Assignment of Proceeding was filed, which assigned this 

proceeding to the undersigned Judge. 

On March 10, 2016, the FAA's Withdrawal of Complaint was filed, stating "in view of 

the Respondent's withdrawal of her appeal and her payment of penalty, the [FAA] hereby 

withdraws its Complaint." 

After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, 

statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this 

proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 
.. .• 

Docket No. FAA-2015-3318 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. Brandon C. Goldberg 

Complainant's Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Troy A. Rolf 

Respondent's Counsel 

GKGLaw 

ONE COPY 

700 Twelve Oaks Center Drive, Suite 700 

Wayzata, MN 55391 

TEL: 952-449~8817 

FAX: 952-449-0614 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER I, Ernst Luebke, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Mymetics 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 auditors 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 14, 2008                      By: /s/ Ernst Luebke
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            Principal financial and chief
                                            accounting officer
[Cite as State ex rel. Brock v. McCafferty, 2011-Ohio-6484.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 97316

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., 

CLAUDE BROCK 

 RELATOR 

vs. 

JUDGE BRIDGET MCCAFFERTY 

 RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED

Writ of Prohibition 

Motion Nos. 448286 

Order No. 450135 

RELEASED DATE: December 13, 2011 
FOR RELATOR 

Claude Brock, pr se 

Inmate #A-560-610 

North Coast Correctional 

 Treatment Facility 

1800 S. Avon Belden Road 

Grafton, OH 44044 

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT 

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Justice Center, 9th Fl. 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J.: 

{¶ 1} On September 15, 2011, the relator, Claude Brock, commenced this 

mandamus action against the respondent, Judge Bridget McCafferty, to compel her to rule 

on his motions for jail time credit, filed on December 7, 2010, and June 8, 2011, in the 

underlying case, State v. Brock, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. 

CR-513753. Brock sought seven days of credit according to his complaint. On October 

5, 2011, the respondent’s successor judge, moved for summary judgment on the grounds 
of mootness.1

 Attached to the dispositive motion was a certified copy of a September 14, 

2011 journal entry granting 14 days of jail time credit in the underlying case. Brock 

never opposed the respondent’s motion. This establishes that the relator has received his 

requested relief, a resolution of his subject motions, and that the action is, therefore, 

moot. State ex rel. Corder v. Wilson (1991), 68 Ohio App.3d 567, 589 N.E.2d 113. 

{¶ 2} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary 

judgment and denies the application for a writ of mandamus. Respondent to pay 

{¶ 3} costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties notice of this 

judgment and 

{¶ 4} its date of entry upon the journal. Civ. R.58(B). 

Writ denied. 

MELODY J. STEWART, PRESIDING JUDGE 

JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., and 

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., CONCUR. 

 1

The motion for summary judgment recognized that Judge Michael Astrab is the successor to 

Judge McCafferty.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10678 Conference Calendar

DONALD R. FRANK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY BROWN, Jones County District Attorney, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CV-138-C

- - - - - - - - - - April 14, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Donald R. Frank, Texas prisoner # 208829, is BARRED from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, Frank has brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief couldNo. 99-10678 - 2 - be granted. Frank v. Garner , No. 96-40375 (5th Cir. July 31, 1996) (affirming district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit as frivolous); Frank v. Reno , No. 1:97-CV-165-C (N.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 1997) (dismissing writ of mandamus as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which mandamus may issue); and Frank v. Calhoun , No. 6:98-CV-128 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 1998) (dismissing as frivolous 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action against state court judge). Accordingly, Frank’s IFP status is DECERTIFIED, and he may not bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under § 1915 while incarcerated or detained in any facility, unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). The appeal is DISMISSED. Frank has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.
IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
IA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 81 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding 

health care. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2017 

Ms. MCCOLLUM submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States regarding health care. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 81 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Health care, including care to prevent 

3 and treat illness, is the right of all citizens of the United 

4 States and necessary to ensure the strength of the Nation. 

5 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en6 force and implement this article by appropriate legisla7 tion.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 122 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 122

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
 Financial Protection relating to ``Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain 
                     High-Cost Installment Loans''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 1, 2017

    Mr. Ross (for himself, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. 
 Cuellar, Mr. Stivers, and Mr. Peterson) submitted the following joint 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer 
 Financial Protection relating to ``Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain 
                     High-Cost Installment Loans''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating 
to ``Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans'' 
(published at 82 Fed. Reg. 54472 (November 17, 2017)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                               EXHIBIT 12.1

                       AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORPORATION
          COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Years Ended December 31, (Millions)         2003     2002     2001     2000     1999
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                        <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Earnings:
   Net income                              $  260   $  228   $  277   $  286   $  223
   Income tax provision                       135      118      140      150      120
   Interest expense                           852      916    1,458    1,459    1,130
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total earnings (a)                         $1,247   $1,262   $1,875   $1,895   $1,473
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed charges - interest expense (b)       $  852   $  916   $1,458   $1,459   $1,130
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (a/b)     1.46     1.38     1.29     1.30     1.30
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 7, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H40]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                               A NEW YEAR

  (Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, this year we should work 
immediately to address the challenges facing our Nation. Recent job 
losses and a decline in the housing market have led many Americans to 
lose confidence in our economy. I am optimistic, however, that sound 
bipartisan solutions that support small businesses and provide tax 
relief to American families will mean a quicker recovery and less of a 
burden on future generations of taxpayers.
  As we expand opportunities for job creation, Congress should promote 
an all-of-the-above energy strategy. We cannot sustain our expensive 
and strategically dangerous dependence on foreign oil.
  While there remain enemies who threaten our freedoms, I am grateful 
that our fighting men and women remain committed to their duty. We must 
defeat terrorists overseas to protect American families at home. We 
must always honor our military and veterans.
  I am confident that we will lead our Nation toward greater prosperity 
and security if we trust and invest in the ingenuity and spirit of the 
American people with limited government.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget 
September the 11th.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E19]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            PROTECTING IMPACT AID FOR NORTH SUBURBAN SCHOOLS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MARK STEVEN KIRK

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, January 6, 2009

  Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to ensure the 
federal government fulfills an important obligation to the families of 
service men and women in my district. In 1950, President Harry Truman 
established the Impact Aid program to assist school districts and 
communities that lose their property tax base because of the presence 
of the federal government. Without this federal money, the burden would 
fall to the remaining residents whose property taxes would continue to 
rise while impacting the quality of education which can be provided. 
The Impact Aid program helps to alleviate this problem by directly 
reimbursing public school districts for the loss of traditional revenue 
sources.
  For years Impact Aid was fully funded and offered some of the 
strongest direct assistance to military families across the Nation. 
Unfortunately, over the last decade we have fallen behind on this 
commitment, and it is time to reverse this trend.
  While I support fully funding the Impact Aid program, I believe the 
situation in my district warrants special attention. In order to ensure 
that our students most in need continue to receive necessary resources, 
I have introduced this bill to help North Chicago to continue to 
qualify for heavily impacted payments, and Glenview and Highland Park 
receive fair compensation.
  Due to a unique housing situation for the Great Lakes Naval Training 
Facility, Impact Aid funding should be higher in five of my school 
districts. This Naval base is located in North Chicago, one of the 
poorest school districts in my state. However, some service members and 
their families live in Navy housing obtained when Ft. Sheridan and 
Naval Air Station Glenview, located in other suburbs, were closed in 
the 1990's. These former bases are located within the boundaries of 
other school districts that now must bear the economic cost of 
educating children from a base, but receive none of the economic 
benefits a base provides. Thus, it is vitally important that we both 
ensure North Chicago continues to receive heavily impacted payments for 
the benefit of students living there, and that the surrounding 
communities are more fairly compensated for their loss of property 
taxes.
  By passing this bill, the federal government will be fulfilling its 
responsibility to these communities, and giving our military families 
the support they deserve.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 19 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 19

   Expressing the sense of Congress regarding reconsideration of the 
merits of awarding the Medal of Honor posthumously to Doris Miller for 
 acts of valor during World War II for which he was originally awarded 
                            the Navy Cross.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2017

 Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas submitted the following concurrent 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of Congress regarding reconsideration of the 
merits of awarding the Medal of Honor posthumously to Doris Miller for 
 acts of valor during World War II for which he was originally awarded 
                            the Navy Cross.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should 
reconsider, pursuant to the process authorized by section 1130 of title 
10, United States Code, whether the award of the Navy Cross to Doris 
Miller (service number 356-12-35) for acts of valor during the attack 
on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, while a member of the United 
States Navy should be upgraded to the Medal of Honor on account of 
possible racial bias in the original decision to award the Navy Cross.
                                 <all>
```