alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William Johnson, Assignee, &c. *v.*Moses Knight and Richard Knight.

vFrom Ausou. J

A. gave his bond to B., and C. became the subscribing witness. B. assigned the bond to O., who sued A. The general issue being-pleaded, C. was nonsuited, because he had become interested in the c-isc by his own voluntary act, and could not give evidence to prove the execution of the bond. And the court would not re. ceive inferior evidence of its execution, such as the acknowledgment of A., that he had given the bond, and that he would pay it. The evidence of the subscribing" witness is dispensed with in case of marriage, or in favor of executors or administrators, from necessity, and in furtherance of justice.

The special case was this: Johnston, the Plaintiff, w as the subscribing witness to the bond on which this action of debt was brought; and on the trial, lie proved that the Defendants- had acknowledged the execution of the bond *;*that one of them had promised to pay it, and the other had said he expected to have it to pay, and it would ruin him. The question submitted to this court was, whether this was a sufficient proof of the execution of the bond.

Locke, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

' It has already been decided by this Court, and between this plaintiff and the defendants, that it is improper to receive evidence of the hand writing of the subscribing witness, who was the Plaintiff, and had taken a voluntary assignment of the bond in question. The case is again submitted upon another question, to wit:— *238Whether the acknowledgment of the defendants, that, had given the bond and would pay it, be legal and pr0per evidence to be left to a jury to prove its execution. This point is expressly decided in the case of *Abbott*v. *Plumb, (Doug.*216, 217 ;) and in the case of *Cunliffe and Wife, and others,*v. *the Administrators of J.*Houghton, (2 *East,*187.) Lawrence, Justice, in delivering his opinion in this last case, decided in 1802, repeats this as a general principle of law : And although the evidence of the subscribing witness may be dispensed with, in cases of marriage, or in favour of executors or administrators, from necessity and in furtherance of justice, yet no case has been found where it has been dispensed with by reason of ihe subscribing witness becoming assignee. Let a nonsuit be entered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         501,119
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 17,723,833
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,366,471
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,131,509
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,673,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      8,230,043
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,516
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,378,846
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,673,950
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,875,934
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,643,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            18,055,590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             795,232
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,381,813
<INCOME-TAX>                                   588,076
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            793,737
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   793,737
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27524]

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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m. EDT, December 10, 2024.

PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 
20594.

STATUS: The one item is open to the public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: 
73721 Pipeline Investigation Report--UGI Utilities Inc. Natural Gas 
Pipeline Explosion and Fire, West Reading, Pennsylvania, March 24, 2023

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Candi Bing at (202) 590-8384 or by 
email at [email protected].
    Media Information Contact: Keith Holloway by email at 
[email protected] or at (202) 314-6100.
    The public may view it through a live or archived webcast by 
accessing a link under ``Upcoming Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
www.ntsb.gov.
    Schedule updates, including weather-related cancellations, are also 
available at www.ntsb.gov.
    The National Transportation Safety Board is holding this meeting 
under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b).

    Dated: Friday, November 15, 2024.
Candi R. Bing,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-27524 Filed 11-20-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
```
**Exhibit 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.’s333-120579 and 333-110085) and Form S-3 (No. 333-120302), of our reports dated March 9, 2006, withrespect to (i) the consolidated financial statements of CancerVax Corporation, and (ii)management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CancerVax Corporation included in theAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP  San Diego, California
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,419
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             694
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,467
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          36,485
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            36,612
<LOANS>                                        644,145
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,566
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 727,310
<DEPOSITS>                                     546,122
<SHORT-TERM>                                    15,287
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,616
<LONG-TERM>                                     80,850
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,435
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 727,310
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,734
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  748
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,482
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,730
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,140
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,342
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,488
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,714
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,791
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,791
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.08
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,159
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,531
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       32
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,566
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,566
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE *vs.*THOMAS COWELL AND AMANDA WILLIAMS.

Where, on an indictment for fornication and adultery, the jury found that the defendants were guilty of fornication but not guilty of adultery, the State was entitled to judgment.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Wilkes County at Spring Term, 1844, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.

The defendants were tried upon the following indictment, to wit :

“ North Carolina, *) {*Superior Court of Law, Wilkes county, > S ‘ { Spring Term, 1844.

The jurors for the State upon their oaths present, That Thomas Cowell, late of said Comity, laborer, and Amanda Williams, late of the said County, spinster, on the 10th day of March, in the year aforesaid, and on divers other days and times both before and after that day, with force and arms in the said comity, unlawfully did bed and co-habit together, without being lawfully married, and then and there did commit fornication and adultery, against the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.”

The jury found the defendants guilty of fornication but not of adultery. On motion to the Court on behalf of the State, for judgment against the defendants, the Court, being of opinion that the verdict of the Jury amounted to a verdict of acquittal, refused to render the judgment prayed for, and ordered that the defendants go without day.

From this judgment the Solicitor for the State prayed for an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was granted.

*Attorney General*for the State.

No comisel in this Court for the defendants.

Ruffin, C. J.

The Court is of opinioh that the State is *232entitled to judgment against the defendants. In ordinary parlance, adultery is an aggravated species of fornication : both involving an illicit co-habitation between the sexes ; but the }attea, jg constituted, where the parties are single, or, at least, one of them; while the former imports a violation of the marriage bed. It is true, that the signification of the words, as generally received, would not be material if it were perceived that they were used by the Legislature in a peculiar and different sense; for example, as meaning precisely the same thing, instead of different modifications of an offence of the same general nature. But the language of the Legislature renders it clear, that those terms are used in the statute according to their common acceptation. The Act begins with the words, “ *the crimes ”*(in the plural number) “ of fornication *and*adultery &c.” and concludes by enacting, “ that any person convicted of *either*of the *aforesaid offen-ces,*shall be fined &c.” An acquittal of one is therefore not necessarily an acquittal of the other; but the parties may be pmrished for that particular grade of the offence, of which the jury finds them guilty.

This will accordingly be so certified to the Superior Court, that judgment may be rendered on the conviction.

Per Curiam, Ordered accordingly.
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).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Chancellorsville Celebrates 120 Years of Care

By Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Sarah MyersUSS Chancellorsville (CG 62)

                PHILIPPINE SEA  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More  News
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2007 to 12/31/2007Page 1 of 110/09/2008 15:11:17

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Limerick 1 Docket (050- 00352)

Human-System Interface & Environmnt / IR170 - HSI or information availability / quality LTA O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 

125

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Procedures & Reference Document / IR111 - Procedure / reference document technical content O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 

125

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR187 - Action implementation LTA E - Electrical G - Design 187 - Action implementation LTA G - Engineering F - Modification 

250

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 4
No. 86-860.

#### Walker *v.*Action Industries, Inc., et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 82-1108.

#### Siegel *v.*New York et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Diane Kayser, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Excelligence Learning 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 makethe 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 materialrespects 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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined 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 theregistrant, 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 andpresented 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 theregistrant’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 isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe 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 reportingwhich 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 16,2005
No. 86-5931.

#### Blakey *v.*Vassar et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2010 to 12/31/2010Page 1 of 103/16/2015 18:46:50

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Turkey Point 4 Docket (050- 00251)

Human-System Interface & Environmnt / IR173 - Physical conditions LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 

114

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Procedures & Reference Document / IR111 - Procedure / reference document technical content E - Electrical M - Maintenance / Repair 

114

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Problem Identification & Resolution / IR141 - Problem not properly classified or prioritized Y - Shipping / transportation Y - Shipping / transportatio 

114

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR185 - Procedural adherence LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 

186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 188 - Work practice or craft skill LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 189 - Recognition of adverse condition / questioning attitude LTA H H - Health Physics - Health Physics 

457

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 7
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsInspection ManualChange Notices

# Change Notices for 1996

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 9, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 9, 2020
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #20711 and #20712; GEORGIA Disaster Number GA-20013]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 10.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Georgia  (FEMA-4830-DR), dated September 30, 2024.

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Helene.                    

# DATES:

Issued on November 13, 2024.

*Incident Period:*                         September 24, 2024 through October 30, 2024.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         January 7, 2025.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         June 30, 2025.                    

# ADDRESSES:

*Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov*                         to apply for a disaster assistance loan.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia, dated September 30, 2024, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to January 7, 2025.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Alejandro Contreras,

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.

[FR Doc. 2024-27343 Filed 11-21-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
No. 82-862.

#### Consolidated Rail Corporation *v.*LeStrange.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.