alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Guy v. Guy

*James N. Robertson,*for plaintiff.

*Louis A. Bloom,*for defendant.

April 25, 1952.

Sweney, J.,

This is an action in equity by a husband against a wife for an injunction *164to restrain the wife from preventing the return of the husband to their home, which is a residence held by the parties as tenants by the entireties. The matter is before the court en banc upon preliminary objections of defendant wife, raising the question of the right of the husband to maintain his action against her, because of the disability of the Act of June 8, 1893, P. L. 344, sec. 3, 48 PS §111 (prohibiting suit by one spouse against the other, “except in a proceeding for divorce or in a proceeding to protect and recover her separate property”).

Plaintiff admits that he is not seeking to protect or recover his separate property (Shank v. Shank, 54 Dauph. 255); he also admits that he may not maintain such an action at law; but he argues that he is not prohibited, under this statute, from bringing this action in equity.

Plaintiff cites many cases to sustain his position. However, a reading of these cases discloses that either separate property is being litigated or personal property is the subject of the suit, in which connection the courts have ruled that the taking of entireties property by one spouse and suit by the other constitutes an offer and acceptance to dissolve the tenancy by entireties. Geary v. Geary, 338 Pa. 385, was a suit for separate property. Berhalter v. Berhalter et al., 315 Pa. 225, involves a bank account. See also, Wake-field v. Wakefield, 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 9, wherein the court denied the wife an accounting of rents from real estate owned as tenants by entireties, while the marriage subsists.

A thorough search discloses no case in Pennsylvania which gives a husband the right to maintain such an action in equity as has been filed here and the bill must be dismissed.
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.1400 Carbon dioxide gas analyzer. ( a ) *Identification.* A carbon dioxide gas analyzer is a device intended to measure the concentration of carbon dioxide in a gas mixture to aid in determining the patient's ventilatory, circulatory, and metabolic status. The device may use techniques such as chemical titration, absorption of infrared radiation, gas chromatography, or mass spectrometry.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership");

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

The Partnership's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and we have:

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date (the "Evaluation Date") within 45 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report; and

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

The Partnership's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Partnership's auditors and the audit committee of the Partnership's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Partnership's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Partnership's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Partnership's internal controls; and

The Partnership's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the Evaluation Date, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
#### IDA EDITH RUBENSTEIN, Respondent, v. SOL. RUBENSTEIN, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Argued and Submitted April 6, 1911.

Opinion Filed May 2, 1911.

MAINTENANCE: Finding of Trial Court Approved. In an action for maintenance, *held,*that the judgment of =the trial court, awarding the payment of a monthly sum to the wife, was proper.

Appeal from St. Lonis City Circuit *Court.*— Eon. *Wm. M. Kinsey,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*Lyon £ Sioarts*and *Dwight D. Gurrie*for appellant.

The court should have granted Sol Rubenstein a decree of divorce, and should have denied Mrs. Rubenstein relief in the maintenance suit. In divorce and maintenance suits it is the duty of the appellate court'to weigh and consider all the evidence and direct such change in the judgment as to it seems proper. It is not bound by the findings of the trial court. Strahorn v. Strahorn, 82 Mo. App. 580; Jennings v. Jennings, 85 Mo. App. 290; McCann v. McCann, 91 Mo. App. 1; Schumann v. Schumann, 93 Mo. App. 99.

*George W. Lublce, Geo. W. Lublce, Jr.,*and *Stern £ Eaberman*for respondent.

Where the testimony is conflicting the court will defer to the judgment of the trial court which had the witnesses before it. Million v. Million, 106 Mo. App. 680; Coe v. Coe, 98 Mo. App. 472; Endsley v. Endsley, 89 Mo. App. 596; King v. King, 42 Mo. App. 454; Stevenson v. Stevenson, 29 Mo. 95.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

— This is an action instituted March 18,1909, by plaintiff, the wife, against defendant, her husband, for the recovery of |1500 alleged to have *196been loaned by her to him and for maintenance, the parties having separated. Before final submission the $1500 were paid to plaintiff by defendant and that is out of the case. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay her a monthly sum. This action was tried along with one by the husband against the wife, in which the husband sought a divorce from his wife. In that action the court found for defendant, dismissing it, and in this action, as above stated, found in favor of the wife. From this judgment plaintiff has duly appealed.

Reading all the testimony as presented by the abstract and giving it due consideration, we find no error in the action of the trial court. The court found there was no legal cause for the separation. The amount awarded is within the ability and means of this defendant. This judgment awarding maintenance to the wife, respondent here, is affirmed.

*Wortoni*and *Omifield, JJ.,*concur.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND VICE PRESIDENT FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

** **

In connection with the quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of EMRISE Corporation (the “Company”) for the periodended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify intheir capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Vice President Finance andAdministration of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Dated: November 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ CARMINE T. OLIVA                                                                  |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   |  Carmine T. Oliva                                                                |
|                          |   |  Chief Executive Officer (principal executive  officer)                          |
|                          |   |                                                                                  |
|                          |   |                                                                                  |
| Dated: November 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ D. JOHN DONOVAN                                                                   |
|                          |   |  D. John Donovan                                                                 |
|                          |   |  Vice President Finance and Administration  (principal   financial officer) |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
§ 884.1690 Hysteroscope and accessories. ( a ) *Identification.* A hysteroscope is a device used to permit direct viewing of the cervical canal and the uterine cavity by a telescopic system introduced into the uterus through the cervix. It is used to perform diagnostic and surgical procedures other than sterilization. This generic type of device may include obturators and sheaths, instruments used through an operating channel, scope preheaters, light sources and cables, and component parts.
( b ) *Classification.* ( 1 ) Class II (performance standards).
( 2 ) Class I for hysteroscope accessories that are not part of a specialized instrument or device delivery system; do not have adapters, connectors, channels, or do not have portals for electrosurgical, laser, or other power sources. Such hysteroscope accessory instruments include: lens cleaning brush, cannula (without trocar or valves), clamp/hemostat/grasper, curette, instrument guide, forceps, dissector, mechanical (noninflatable), and scissors. The devices subject to this paragraph (b)(2) are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 884.9.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 61 FR 1123, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38808, July 25, 2001]
§ 884.1730 Laparoscopic insufflator. ( a ) *Identification.* A laparoscopic insufflator is a device used to facilitate the use of the laparoscope by filling the peritoneal cavity with gas to distend it.
( b ) *Classification.* ( 1 ) Class II (performance standards).
( 2 ) Class I for tubing and tubing/filter kits which include accessory instruments that are not used to effect intra-abdominal insufflation (pneumoperitoneum). The devices subject to this paragraph (b)(2) are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 884.9.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 61 FR 1124, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38809, July 25, 2001]
# C_2014261EN.01004701.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/47

---

Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Joyería Tous v Commission

(Case T-472/14)

2014/C 261/74

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Joyería Tous, SA (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

---
Figure 2 - Travel Management Rule - Coconino National Forest
Existing Restrictions On Camping and Motorized Use

@ 012 3 4 5Miles
it stipes WpLe ey es We =

© Towns

Coconino National Forest boundary

== Interstate highways

-~—=—=—= U.S. or State highways

County roads
Roads considered for motorized designation

Non-system (unauthorized) roads
— System (authorized) roads

Trails considered for motorized designation
Non-system (unauthorized) trails
System (authorized) trails

Non-Forest Service Lands

Wilderness

IIIT.
V/,

~) Inventoried roadless areas

_ Existing restrictions on camping or motorized use
1 A year Jan 1 - Dec 31, No camping

O69 OS

All year Jan 1 - Dec 31, No motorized vehicles

Seasonal Apr 15 - Jun 27, No motorized vehicles

L
BAS

Ig

Seasonal Aug 15 - Dec 31, No motorized vehicles

Seasonal Dec 1 - Mar 31, No motorized vehicles

Seasonal Dec 1 - Jun 15, No motorized vehicles

Seasonal Dec 15 - Apr 1, No motorized vehicles

q All year Jan 1 - Dec 31, No motorized vehicles, no camping

Seasonal Jan 1 - Aug 31, No motorized vehicles, no camping

| Seasonal Dec 1 - Jun 15, No motorized vehicles, no camping

; ; Seasonal Dec 1 - Jun 30, No motorized vehicles, no camping

4 ‘\ &
Vas,
aS?
i Ae “Git adee YY MZ
<r (*) 09203D Sar YY y jy
* /, nae 2 j Yn
G29 LE
Ny _ “n, oy SS

3

“=
——,
i

‘Thus product 1s reproduce trom geospatial mformaton prepared by tne Cocarmno
Nationa’ Forest Geospatal intormation and GIS product accurscy may vary
(sng GIS products tor purposes other than those for wnicn they were created may
eld inaccurate of misleading results Coconma National Forest reserves the
fight to correct. update, modify or replace GIS products without notification,
(CartBayerhelm — 2B.iune-2009 - NAD 1S@3UTMZone 12
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.5850 Nonpowered orthopedic traction apparatus and accessories. ( a ) *Identification.* A nonpowered orthopedic traction apparatus is a device that consists of a rigid frame with nonpowered traction accessories, such as cords, pulleys, or weights, and that is intended to apply a therapeutic pulling force to the skeletal system.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 888.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, regarding general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, regarding complaint files.
[52 FR 33702, Sept. 4, 1987, as amended at 66 FR 38815, July 25, 2001]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11191-11192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5010]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Office of the Secretary


Privacy Act of 1974; Retirement of Department of Homeland 
Security Federal Emergency Management Agency System of Records

AGENCY: Privacy Office, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of retirement of a Privacy Act system of records notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 the Department of 
Homeland Security is giving notice that it proposes to retire 
Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency 
U.S. Fire Administration--001 9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 System of 
Records, July 26, 2005.

DATES: Effective Date: April 9, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions please contact: 
Delia Davis (202-646-3808), Privacy Officer, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 
20472. For privacy issues please contact: Mary Ellen Callahan (703-235-
0780), Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy 
Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) U.S. Fire Administration 
(USFA) is giving notice that it proposes to retire DHS/FEMA/USFA--001 
9/11 Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 System of Records (70 FR 43218, July 26, 
2005).

[[Page 11192]]

    This system was originally established to collect and maintain 
records for the purpose of determining an individual applicant's 
qualification for and/or compensation to benefits under the 9/11 Heroes 
Stamp Act of 2001. While this fund originated through legislation, all 
funds have now been exhausted so the program is closed pursuant to the 
originating legislation. The legislation stated that all funds 
collected through the sale of the 9/11 Heroes Stamp be distributed.
    The records in the system are considered permanent Federal 
Government records, as 9/11 records are permanent records. NARA will 
not destroy the records once the system is retired and records are 
transferred. In accordance with the records schedule for the 9/11 
Heroes Stamp Act of 2001 File System, records are transferred to NARA 
one year and six months after the closure of the file. All records 
within this system will be archived under records schedule number N1-
311-04-05.
    Retiring this system of records notice will have no adverse impacts 
on individuals, but will promote the overall streamlining and 
management of DHS Privacy Act systems of records.

    Dated: March 1, 2010.
Mary Ellen Callahan,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010-5010 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-17-P
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.4800 Self-retaining retractor for neurosurgery. ( a ) *Identification.* A self-retaining retractor for neurosurgery is a self-locking device used to hold the edges of a wound open during neurosurgery.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5900 Power traction equipment. ( a ) *Identification.* Powered traction equipment consists of powered devices intended for medical purposes for use in conjunction with traction accessories, such as belts and harnesses, to exert therapeutic pulling forces on the patient's body.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6500 Medical ultraviolet air purifier. ( a ) *Identification.* A medical ultraviolet air purifier is a device intended for medical purposes that is used to destroy bacteria in the air by exposure to ultraviolet radiation.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
# C_2015146EN.01004601.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/46

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single judge) of 24 March 2015 — Maggiulli v Commission

(Case F-61/14) (1)

1

((Civil service - Promotion - 2013 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Consideration of comparative merits))

(2015/C 146/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carola Maggiulli (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Mrs Maggiulli to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mrs Maggiulli to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 61.

1

---
# C_2016371EN.01003503.xml

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Cobo Benito v Commission

(Case F-70/14) (1)

1

(2016/C 371/44)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 388, 3/11/2014, p. 28.

1

---