alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Armstrong et al., Appellants, *v.*Espy et al.

*Equity*— Equity *practice*— Interlocutory *decree*— Demurrer—Appeals.

A decreo in equity “ demurrer sustained,” is an interlocutory and not a final one, and no appeal lies from it.

Argued Nov. 1, 1907.

Appeal, No. 112, Oct. T., 1907, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 33, on bill in equity in case of J. N. Armstrong et al. v. J. S. Espy et al.

Before Full, Bkown, Mestkezat, Pottek, Elkin and Stewakt, JJ.

Appeal quashed.

Bill in equity for an account.

The court entered the following order :

“April 30, 1907, on Argument List, and demurrer sustained.”

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court, quoting it.

*Ilarney A.*Miller, with him *ü. G.*Vogan, for appellants.

*49
      *John liebman, Jr.,*with him *J. W. 'Kinnear*and *J. I). Brown,*for appellees.

January 6, 1908 :

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Brown,

There is no final decree in this case. Appellants’ bill was demurred to by the appellees and the demurrer was sustained. The order appealed from is simply, “Demurrer sustained.” The court below may have intended to dismiss the bill, but did not do so; or it may have withheld such decree to allow the plaintiffs to move to amend their bill under equity rule 35. Be this as it may, there is no final decree before us. The bill is still pending below, and, until there is a final decree upon it, denying the appellants the relief sought, we cannot hear them.

Appeal quashed.
#### Mary PEYTON and Albertha Moore, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MORGAN’S LOUISIANA & TEXAS R. R. & S. S. CO. et al., Defendants and Appellees.

No. 14504.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 12, 1933.

Charles J. Mundy, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Spencer, Gidiere, Phelps & Dunbar, of New Orleans, for appellee Insurance Co.

Denegre, Leovy & Chaffe and Lloyd A. Ray, all of New Orleans, for appellee Railroad Co.

JANVIER, Judge.

This matter comes before us on appeal from a judgment dismissing on exception of no cause of action the suit of plaintiffs against the Morgan’s Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Company. When the suit was filed below, there were two defendants, the other being Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. After the dismissal of the suit as to the railroad company, ithe matter proceeded to trial and evidence was taken in the claim of plaintiffs against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al.

Judgment was rendered in that matter in favor of defendant insurance company, and plaintiffs appealed.

They had previously appealed from the judgment dismissing on exception of no cause of action their suit against the railroad company and in this court the two cases were consolidated for the purpose of argument.

In the decision rendered by us today in the suit against the life insurance company we discussed the entire matter with reference to both defendants and, therefore, now only make reference to the other opinion.

For the reasons given, therefore, in Mary Peyton and Albertha Moore v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al., 148 So. 721, decided by us today, the judgment in favor of Morgan’s Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Company, is affirmed.

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - 21 CFR Part 803
          - [Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0310]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is confirming the effective date of October 27, 2008, for the final rule that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of June 13, 2008 (73 FR 33692). The direct final rule amends the Medical Device Reporting regulation by removing the requirement for baseline reports. This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule.                    

# DATES:

Effective date confirmed: October 27, 2008.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard A. Press, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-531), Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-3457.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of June 13, 2008 (73 FR 33692), FDA solicited comments concerning the direct final rule for a 75-day period ending August 27, 2008. FDA stated that the effective date of the direct final rule would be on October 27, 2008, 60 days after the end of the comment period, unless any significant adverse comment was submitted to FDA during the comment period. FDA did not receive any significant adverse comments.                

Authority:Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the amendments issued thereby become effective on October 27, 2008.

Dated: September 11, 2008.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.

[FR Doc. E8-21756 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1237 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1237

To designate certain lands in the Valley Forge National Historical Park 
                 as the Valley Forge National Cemetery.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

  Mr. Hoeffel (for himself, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, Mr. 
  Doyle, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Fattah, Mr. Toomey, Mr. English, Mr. Holden, Ms. Hart, Mr. Platts, Mr. 
   Mascara, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski, Mr. Murtha, Mr. 
Greenwood, Mr. Sherwood, and Mr. Coyne) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to 
  the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate certain lands in the Valley Forge National Historical Park 
                 as the Valley Forge National Cemetery.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF LANDS AS VALLEY FORGE NATIONAL CEMETERY.

    (a) In General.--Not more than 200 acres of land located within the 
Valley Forge National Historical Park on the day before the date of the 
enactment of this Act are hereby designated as the Valley Forge 
National Cemetery. Administrative jurisdiction over such lands is 
hereby transferred to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and such lands 
shall be administered as a national cemetery in accordance with chapter 
24 of title 38, United States Code (relating to national cemeteries and 
memorials).
    (b) Adjustment of Park Boundaries.--Subsection (b) of section 2 of 
the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
establish the Valley Forge National Historical Park in the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania, and for other purposes'' (16 U.S.C. 410aa-1) is 
amended by striking ``map entitled `Valley Forge National Historical 
Park', dated June 1979, and numbered VF-91,001'' and inserting ``map 
entitled `Valley Forge National Historical Park', dated ____, and 
numbered ____''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                               SWIFT FOODS COMPANY
                             1770 PROMONTORY CIRCLE
                             GREELEY, COLORADO 80634

March ____, 2005

S&C Holdco 3, Inc.
1770 Promontory Circle
Greeley, Colorado  80634

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      Reference is made to (i) the sale of $75,000,000 aggregate principal
amount of 10.25% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due 2010 (the
"Convertible Notes") of Swift Foods Company, a Delaware corporation ("SFC"),
issued under an indenture (the "Convertible Notes Indenture") dated as of the
date hereof among SFC, the Guarantor listed on the signature pages thereto, and
The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as trustee, and (ii) the sale of
$105,000,000.00 aggregate principal amount of 11.00% Senior Notes due 2010 (the
"Senior Notes") of S&C Holdco 3, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Holdco 3"),
issued under an indenture (the "Senior Notes Indenture") dated as of the date
hereof among Holdco 3, the Guarantor listed on the signature pages thereto, and
The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as trustee. In exchange for the
guarantee (the "Guarantee") of Holdco 3 of the Convertible Notes pursuant to the
Convertible Notes Indenture, SFC hereby agrees to contribute the Net IPO
Proceeds (as defined in the Senior Notes Indenture) received by SFC upon
consummation of an Initial Public Offering (as defined in the Senior Notes
Indenture) directly or indirectly to Holdco 3 to the extent necessary for Holdco
3 to satisfy its obligations under the Senior Notes Indenture with respect to
the repurchase offer for the notes issued under the Senior Notes Indenture upon
consummation of an Initial Public Offering. If you are in agreement with the
foregoing, please execute this letter agreement in the space provided below.

                                           Sincerely,

                                           SWIFT FOODS COMPANY

                                           By:    /s/ Donald F. Wiseman
                                                  -----------------------
                                           Name:  Donald F. Wiseman
                                           Title: Vice President
ACCEPTED AND AGREED
this _____ day of March, 2005

S&C HOLDCO 3, INC.

By:    /s/ Donald F. Wiseman
       -----------------------
Name:  Donald F. Wiseman
Title: Secretary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Leonard L . Kenney

V .

NH Department of Corrections,

Commissioner, et al

No . 06-fp-00 1

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERI S

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee .

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-001-PB .

SO ORDERED .

Date : January 17, 2006

me R. Muirhead

ed States Magistrate Judg e

cc : Leonard L . Kenney, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00001-PB Document 5 Filed 01/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Jacguie P . Vieira

Criminal No . 05-cr-214-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no .

29) filed by defendant is granted .

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days . The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U .S .C . § 3131 (h) (8) (B) (iv) , for the

reasons set forth in the motion .

SO ORDERED .

/s/ Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : September 5, 200 7

cc : Michael Sheehan, Esq .

Mark Zuckerman, Esq .

U .S . Marsha l

U .S . Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00214-JD Document 30 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**
 
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In
    connection with the Quarterly Report of Cash Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
    for the period ended August 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
    Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, being,
    Bruce Korman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edmund King, Chief
    Financial Officer of the Company, respectfully, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
    ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
    that:
 
 (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 operation of the Company.
 
 
 Dated: October 15, 2004
 
 /s/
          Bruce Korman
        /s/
          Edmund King_____Chief
          Executive Officer
        Chief
          Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Green Machine Management Corp.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-439-SM

Eileen A. Nevins

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 I recommend that Defendant’s Motion for Default Judgment

(document no. 10) be granted. Plaintiff has ignored discovery

requests for months, refuses to respond to counsel and has not

prosecuted the case. 

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Committee v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 1, 2006

cc: Steven M. Latici, Esq.

 Ralph Suozzo, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00439-SM Document 15 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 124

To provide for the full funding of Federal Pell Grants.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. KELLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To provide for the full funding of Federal Pell Grants.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pell Grant Full Fund5 ing Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR FULLY FUNDING FED7 ERAL PELL GRANTS.

8 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 401 of the Higher Edu9 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) is amended by add10 ing at the end the following new subsection:

11 ‘‘(k) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Each fiscal year

12 there shall be available to the Secretary, from funds not
2

•HR 124 IH

1 otherwise appropriated, such amounts as may be nec2 essary to pay to each student the amount for which such

3 student is eligible under this section.’’.

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

5 401(b)(3)(A) of such Act is amended by striking ‘‘for

6 which an appropriation Act provides a maximum basic

7 grant in an amount in excess of $2,700’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1315 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1315

  To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain 
     hydroelectric projects located in the State of West Virginia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2001

 Mr. Mollohan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain 
     hydroelectric projects located in the State of West Virginia.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified in 
section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 
otherwise apply to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission projects 
numbered 6901, 6902, and 7307, the Commission may, at the request of 
the project licensee, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with 
the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that 
section and the Commission's procedures under that section, extend the 
time period required for commencement of construction of the project 
concerned for 3 consecutive 2-year periods.
    (b) Effective Date.--Each extension under subsection (a) shall take 
on the date of the expiration of the extension issued by the Commission 
under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) of the period 
required for commencement of construction of the project concerned.
    (c) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period required for 
commencement of construction of a project described in subsection (a) 
has expired before the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Commission shall reinstate the license for that project effective as of 
the date of its expiration and the first extension authorized under 
subsection (a) for that project shall take effect on the date of such 
expiration.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

JEFFREY EDWARDS, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR124 

ORDER 

The undersigned magistrate judge held a telephone status conference with the attorneys 

regarding the progression of this case. Defendant made an Oral Motion to Continue the Telephone 

Status Conference because defense counsel needs additional time to review the extensive 

discovery in this case. The Oral Motion to Continue is unopposed. Based on the comments of 

counsel on the telephone conference, the court finds Defendant’s Unopposed Oral Motion to 

Continue the Telephone Status Conference should be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1) Defendant’s Unopposed Oral Motion to Continue the Telephone Status Conference 

is granted. 

2) The Telephone Status Conference with counsel to discuss the progression of this 

case is continued to January 11, 2024 at 2:00 p.m. before the undersigned 

magistrate judge. Counsel for all parties shall use the conferencing instructions 

provided by the court to participate in the call. 

3) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests of the 

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date and January 

11, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a continuance would deny 

counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account 

the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv). Failing to 

timely object to this order as provided under this court’s local rules will be deemed 

a waiver of any right to later claim the time should not have been excluded under 

the Speedy Trial Act. 

 Dated this 14th day of September, 2023. 

8:23-cr-00124-RFR-SMB Doc # 21 Filed: 09/14/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 43
BY THE COURT: 

s/ Susan M. Bazis 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00124-RFR-SMB Doc # 21 Filed: 09/14/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 44
EX-10.3





 Exhibit 10.3 

AMENDMENT No. 1 
 to
the 
 FACILITY USE AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 1 to the Facility Use Agreement (the “Agreement”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment”) is
made as of April 17, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY (“ISB”), a Washington non-profit corporation, and NEOLEUKIN (“User”),
a Delaware Corporation. ISB and the Company are collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party”. 

RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, The
User and ISB are parties to a certain Facility Use Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated November December 4, 2018; 
 WHEREAS,
The User and ISB desire to amend the Agreement to adjust the rentable square feet identified in the Agreement, as more particularly described in this Amendment No. 1. All other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect; and

 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 

 

	 	1.	 In paragraph 1.a., line one, delete two thousand thirty (2,030) in its entirety and insert three
thousand five hundred (3,500); 


  

	 	2.	 Delete Exhibit C “Description of Space” in its entirety and replace with Exhibit C included in
this Amendment. 


  

					
			
	 INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
  

By: /s/ Becky Johnson
  

Title: Director of Facilities & Operations
  

Date: April 17, 2019
	 		 	 NEOLEUKIN
  

By: /s/ Jonathan G. Drachman
  

Title: CEO, Neoleukin Therapeutics
  

Date: April 17, 2019














 EXHIBIT C 

DESCRIPTION OF SPACE 

Office space in the Southeast corner of the 4th floor (L4) and lab space in the South end
of the 3rd floor (L3) as depicted below. 
 L4 Office Space 

 
 



 
 L3 Office Space 

Note: Partial end cap, -80 strorage and space in room 389 are not depicted in this map.
##### 



EXHIBIT 15.1 The Board of Trustees and Unitholders
Archstone-Smith Operating Trust: Re: Registration Statements Nos. 333-89164 (Form S-3) and 333-1114394 (Form
S-3) With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated July 19, 2004, related to our
review of interim financial information. Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report
is not considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by
an accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. KPMG LLP Denver, Colorado
August 6, 2004