alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10361.

#### Miller *v.*Oglethorpe University.

Decided November 6, 1919.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge Ellis. January *22,*1919.

*A. M. Brand,*for plaintiff in error.

*Horace Bussell,*contra.

Jenkins, J.

1. While as a general rule a promise tq donate money to a charitable purpose is gratuitous and unenforceable unless some consideration therefore exists, a consideration for such a promise is supplied where the promisee, during the life of the promisor and before a withdrawal of the promise and in reliance thereon, expends money and incurs enforceable liabilities in furtherance of the contemplated enterprise, or if such a promise be a mutual subscription for a common object, the promise of the others is a good consideration for the promise of each. Civil Code (1910), § 4246; *Wilson*v. *First Presbyterian Church,*56 *Ga.*554; *Owenby*v. *Georgia Baptist Assembly,*137 *Ga.*698 (74 S. E. 56, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 238); Y. *M. C. A.*v. *Estill,*140 *Ga.*291 (3), 294 (78 S. E. 1075, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 783, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 136). That the promisor should receive a personal benefit or consideration is not a necessary prerequisite to the validity of such a contract.

2. The defendant having admitted a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff and set up as a defense a want of consideration, he thereby assumed the burden of proof, and the duty rested upon him of establishing his affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence; for, as was said in *Red Cypress Lumber Co.*v. *Perry,*118 *Ga.*876, 879 (45 S. E. 674) : “When a contract is valid in the absence or existence of certain facts, but otherwise void, it is, in the absence of evidence, presumed to be valid; and the burden of proving the absence or existence of such facts lies upon him who asserts its invalidity. Greenhood on Pub. Pol. 118, Rule CXXX.'” See also *Hyer*v. *Holmes,*12 *Ga. App.*837 (79 S. E. 58). The entire purport of the defendant’s evidence going merely to show that he received no personal benefit or consideration from his undertaking, the municipal court did not err in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the superior court properly overruled the petition for certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
No. 87-6006.

#### Perez *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>





                                               


<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                             1,537
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                     66,385
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                       39,798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 111,133
<PP&E>                           112,788
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   244,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             53,866
<BONDS>                          200,303
<COMMON>                              96 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                       (14,060)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     244,568
<SALES>                           81,554
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  81,554
<CGS>                             65,038 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     65,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   6,773 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 5,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    3,782 
<INCOME-TAX>                         (15)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                3,767 
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                       3,767
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      11.26  
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0



</TABLE>
FILEX:OPY

RE: Case No. 15-0105 DATE: 2/6/2015

COA #: 12-14-00217-CV TC#: 2013-0254-P-l

STYLE: BARBARA GAIL HARRIS

v. HAYDEN R. MAYFIELD, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF

HAYDEN R. MAYFIELD, DECEASED, AND TRUSTEE UNDER THE WILL OF

HAYDEN R. MAYFIELD

A petition for review was filed today in the above-styled

case. Respondent may file either a response, or a waiver of

response. If you file a waiver, the Court will not grant the

petition without first requesting a response. (Tex. R. App . P.

53.3) There is no fee for a response or a waiver.

MS. CATHY S. LUSK

CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 354

TYLER, TX 75702
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

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the NIH Clinical Center.

The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the CLINICAL CENTER, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Board of Scientific Counselors of the NIH Clinical Center.                    

*Date:*                         January 5-6, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.; 8:00 a.m. to 11:45 a.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate the Bioethics Department.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 4-2551, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mary Sparks, Nurse Consultant for the Deputy Director for Clinical Care, Office of the Deputy Director, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Room 6-3521, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-3515.                    

In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

Dated: December 1, 2014.

Michelle Trout,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-28527 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000329 19-MAR-2019 08:33 AM
#### Daniel E. SOLTERO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bert RICE, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 99-56666.

D.C. No. CV-99-01576-CBM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided May 29, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Daniel Soltero appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a § 2254 petition, see *Jiminez v. Rice,*222 F.3d 1210, 1212 (9th Cir.2000), and consider the issue of whether the district court erred by dismissing without prejudice Soltero’s § 2254 petition as unexhausted without informing him that he may amend his petition to delete unexhausted claims. We reverse and remand.

At the time the district court dismissed Soltero’s § 2254 petition, it did not have the benefit of our decisions in *Anthony v.*
      *549
      *Cambra,*236 F.3d 568 (9th Cir.2000), and *James v. Giles,*221 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.2000). Both *Anthony*and *James*require that in light of the statute of limitations imposed upon the filing of federal habeas corpus petitions by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, prisoners who file mixed petitions must be given an opportunity to strike their unexhausted claims and amend or resubmit their petitions so as to relate back to the date of their *original*filing. *Anthony,*236 F.3d at 573; *James,*221 F.3d at 1075-78. Because the district court did not provide Soltero with such an opportunity, we reverse and remand to the district court for further consideration in light of *Anthony*and *James.*

REMANDED.1

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

. Soltero raises a variety of other claims for which no certificate of appealability was granted. Because the district court did not have the initial opportunity to consider these claims on their merits, we will not consider them now.
Ref. 07-17
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur
S. Rosten, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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 operations of the Company.

| |     |  |                                       
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------
| | /s/ |  | Arthur S. Rosten                      
| |    
| |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
March 20, 2003
#### Jewett et al. *v.*The Honey Creek Draining Company.

Practice.—Demurrer.—A demurrer assigning no cause of demurrer should be overruled.

*Same.—Joint*Demurrer.—A demurrer to several paragraphs jointly, one of which is good, should be overruled.

APPEAL from the White Common Pleas.

Downey, J.

This was an action brought by the appellee against Jewett and the other appellants, as his securities, on -his bond as treasurer of the said draining company. The breaches charge that he failed to render accounts of the money which came to his handsor to pay the same over to the company or to his successor in office, on demand, and has converted and applied the same to his own use. There was an answer of several- paragraphs filed, some of the paragraphs by all the defendants, and some by the sureties alone. A demurrer was sustained to the fourth and sixth paragraphs; and there was a reply, by denial, to the second, third, and fifth. A trial by jury was had, and there was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The errors assigned are, the sustaining of the demurrer to the fourth and sixth paragraphs of the answer.

The record is in a confused condition. But there is one point, arising under the assignments of error, which is presented by counsel for the appellants, and which we think is well taken. The demurrer to the fifth, sixth, and amended second paragraph of the answer, was as follows:

“The plaintiff demurs to the fifth and sixth paragraphs of defendants’ answer, and to the second amended paragraph of answer. Gridley & Gregory, Att'ys."

The fifth paragraph of the answer is the general denial, and there is no objection to it. But the court sustained the demurrer to the sixth paragraph of the answer. Now, it is a rule of pleading, that where, the demurrer is to several paragraphs of a pleading jointly, and any one of such paragraphs is good, the demurrer must be overruled as to all. *Urton*v. *Luckey,*17 Ind. 213.

*246*C. H. Test, Matlock & Davis, S. A. Huff, B. W.*Langdon, and *y. S. Pettit,*for appellants.

But this demurrer assigned no cause whatever, and for this reason- should have been overruled as to all the paragraphs to which it was filed. 2 G. & H. 77, sec. 50, clause 6.

The judgment is reversed, ■ with costs, and the cause remanded, with instructions to overrule the demurrer.
#### Dolly Stansell v. Alvah E. Leavitt and George Macomber.

*Trover*— Source *of title*— Case *for jv/ry.*

Where a married woman brings trover for chattels taken upon a mortgage. against a grantee thereof, and there is conflicting testimony as-to whether the grantee held them under an agreement with the husband or one with the wife, and if with the wife, whether it was absolute or conditional, the case is for the jury

*226Error to Wayne.

Submitted April 5.

Decided April 25.

Trover'by Mrs. Stansell for chattels taken by Leavitt on a mortgage against the Warrens who had obtained the chattels from the Stansells under an arrangement, the nature of which is one of the questions in the case. The court below directed a verdict for defendant and. plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

*Fraser <& Gates*for appellant.

*JD. G. HoTbroolc*and *Henry JMC. Gheev&r*for appellees.

Graves, C. J.

We had this cause before us several terms since and then sent it back for a new trial. The character of the controversy is sufficiently explained in the published report. 44 Mich. 424 At the trial subsequently had pursuant to said order, the circuit judge directed a verdict for defendants, and the plaintiff alleges error. The leading matter of dispute was whether' the written contract of sale made by the plaintiff’s husband was adopted as applicable to the property in question or whether the agreement which had efEect was the oral one made in person by the plaintiff, and in case the latter was the operative arrangement then whether it was an absolute transfer of the chattels to Leavitt’s mortgagor, or was conditional on the payment in sixty days of the Warren mortgage of $2500, as claimed by the plaintiff.

On these subjects there was conflicting testimony and it should have been left to the decision of, the jury under suitable advice. We may not assume that another trial will so proceed as to give rise to such questions as the rest of thé case before us presents.

The judgment is reversed with costs and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4556

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postliam Carey Lee Post Office Building’’. in Dunn, North Carolina, as the ‘‘General Wil- al Service located at 1115 South Clinton Avenue

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4556

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 1115 South Clinton Avenue in Dunn, North

Carolina, as the ‘‘General William Carey Lee Post Office

Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4556 EH

1 SECTION 1. GENERAL WILLIAM CAREY LEE POST OFFICE

2 BUILDING.

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

4 Postal Service located at 1115 South Clinton Avenue in

5 Dunn, North Carolina, shall be known and designated as

6 the ‘‘General William Carey Lee Post Office Building’’.

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

10 be deemed to be a reference to the General William Carey

11 Lee Post Office Building.

Passed the House of Representatives September 7,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 31-13
**FORM 10-K CERTIFICATION**
I, Anthony F. Earley, Jr., certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b.  (Intentionally omitted)  c.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  d.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.   /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR. Date: March 15, 2005   Anthony F. Earley, Jr.  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARNOLD KNIGHT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 15-0528-CG-M

) CRIMINAL NO. 07-00242-CG-M

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and 

DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor of Respondent, the United States of America, 

and against Petitioner, Arnold Knight.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of March, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cr-00242-CG-M Document 70 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.A
CERTIFICATION
I, Edward J. Kelly, III, certify, that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mercantile BanksharesCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
      (a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;       (b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and       (c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of any annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
      (a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and       (b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   Date: March 9, 2004      /s/ Edward J. Kelly, III Edward J. Kelly, III President and Chief Executive Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

GABRIELLE AYALA, as legal guardian for ) GERNON NEWSOME, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-3693 ) FLORIDA HOLDINGS III, LLC, 3865 ) TAMPA ROAD LLC, d/b/a WEST BAY OF ) TAMPA; and MAYA PEREZ, ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed September 9, 2020. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Amy M. Williams, Judge. Nicole M. Ziegler, Matthew D. Emerson and Wesley T. Straw of Emerson Straw, PL, St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Thomas A. Valdez of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
move FLIP C
IFTalk He3nmr "He3PolFlipOff()"
IFTalk He3nmr "He3AnaFlipON()"