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

No. 32937.

Sept. 30, 1947.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1947.

*187 P. 2d*222.

*467W. L. Coffey, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

B. C. Franklin, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

RILEY, J.

O. C. Foster, defendant in an action for divorce and to quiet title to real property successfully maintained against him by defendant in error, has appealed and presents as the only question involved the failure of the trial court to make an equitable division of the property.

The marital relation of the parties commenced in 1924. Thereafter they were ceremonially married. The property in controversy consists of a 10-acre tract of land in Tulsa county and two improved properties within additions to the city of Tulsa. These properties were conveyed by the husband to the wife in the year 1933 and she has ever since exercised over them complete dominion and control.

Plaintiff did not seek, in the action for divorce, a property settlement, but assumed that by the conveyances such a settlement had been made. Defendant answered and by cross-petition sought, for an alleged want of consideration, a cancellation of deeds by which he conveyed to plaintiff the properties. In the alternative, defendant prayed a just and equitable division of property belonging to the parties.

Defendant did not appear at trial, but testified by deposition. No evidence of record reveals the extent or value of property acquired by the parties during coverture nor the amount retained by either party at the time divorce was granted.

Plaintiff’s testimony, not controverted, shows that when defendant left Tulsa for Chicago, he carried with him $5,000; that thereafter, in the year 1935, plaintiff went to Chicago and carried with her $25,000 which she delivered to defendant. Plaintiff thereafter returned to Tulsa, managed the properties in controversy, and received a $112 monthly income therefrom.

Defendant is shown to have been engaged in a policy or number racket while plaintiff operated a drugstore in Tulsa. In 1933, defendant moved to Chicago where, according to the view of the trial court, defendant gradually shunted plaintiff out of the relationship as wife, and sent her home. The trial court found that defendant not only wilfully abandoned plaintiff because of his interest in another, but that he also abandoned every right or claim to the involved property. In the absence of fraud, the presumption of law sustains defendant’s conveyances to plaintiff. Kent v. Tallent, 75 Okla. 185, 183 P. 422; In re Widener’s Estate, 130 Okla. 154, 265 P. 763.

The extent and value of property remaining at the time of' divorce and acquired by joint industry of.husband and wife during coverture is not shown; neither the trial court nor this court can make an equitable division.of such property because of failure to show its value and extent.

Affirmed.

HURST, C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and WELCH and LUTTRELL, JJ., concur.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mntteb**~tates** 

# qcourtof§ppeaIs fortbejfeberaIqctrcutt
IN RE FUSION-IO, INC., Petitioner. Miscellaneous Docket No. 139 On Petition for Writ ofMandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofTexas in case no. 11-CV-0391, Judge Rodney Gilstrap. 

### ON MOTION



### ORDER Solid State Storage Systems, Inc. moves without opposition for a 10-day extension oftime, until October 15, 2012, to respond to Fusion-io, Inc.'s petition for a writ of mandamus. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT:

, The motion is granted. Solid State's response is due no later than October 15, 2012. Case: 12-139 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 10/02/2012IN RE FUSION-IO, INC. 

## OCT 02 2012 Date
cc: Scott F. Partridge, Esq. Theodore Stevenson, III, Esq. s21 FOR THE COURT /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 2 Case: 12-139 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 10/02/2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6609

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DAVID HARRIS, a/k/a Inch,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-94-

384-L, CA-96-2973-L)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 7, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States

Attorney, Katharine Jacobs Armentrout, Assistant United States

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Appellant

failed to provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing at which

the court stated the reasons for denying relief. See Fed. R. App.

P. 10(b)(2). Appellants proceeding in forma pauperis in § 2255

actions may be provided a transcript at government expense if the

transcript is needed to decide issues presented on appeal and the

appeal is "not frivolous." 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). Because we

find that a transcript is not necessary, we deny Appellant's motion

for preparation of a transcript at government expense, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="sjh">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-04-16T16:15:29Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-04-16T16:15:33Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-04-16T16:15:33Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="103906">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="sjh">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="2">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-04-16T16:15:29Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>THE ATXOEWEY GENERAL. 
.ow T-s </p>
<p></p>
</div>
<div class="page"><p></p>
<p>He& P. C. Aadrmm, arh wo1 1939, - 2 
. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
Exhibit 32.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)


     In connection with the Report of HST Global, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ron Howell, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:

     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.

                                        Date: August 18, 2010

                                        \s\ Ron Howell
                                        --------------
                                        Ron Howell
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
#### Phillips *v.*Smith.

No. 8758.

July 13, 1932.

Bell, J.

1. This was a suit by a married woman to cancel a deed, upon the grounds (1) that she was a minor at the time of its execution, and (2) that it was made for the purpose of raising funds with which to pay a debt of her husband. The defendant in his answer denied the material allegations of the petition, and the evidence was in conflict upon the issues thus made. The verdict as returned in favor of the defendant was therefore authorized by the evidence, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the general grounds of the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

2. While a wife can not bind her separate estate by any contract of surety-ship, nor by any assumption of the debts of her husband, she may nevertheless, upon her own responsibility and voluntarily, enter into a contract for the sale of her property, and may sell the same, for the purpose of raising money with which to pay her husband’s debts, and such contract will be binding on her although the party who purchases the property from her may know that she intends to use the proceeds for the payment of her husband’s debts, the purchaser not being the husband’s creditor, and the sale being made in good faith and not being a mere colorable transaction. *Jackson*v. *Reeves,*156 *Ga.*802 (4) (120 S. E. 541); *McRitchie*v. *Atlanta Trust Co.,*170 *Ga.*296 (6), 310 (152 S. E. 834). Under this principle, the alleged newly discovered evidence to the effect that the grantee had knowledge of the purpose for which the plaintiff was selling the land could not have changed the result, and for this reason the court did not err in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial relating to such evidence.

3. The only other ground of the motion was expressly disapproved by the trial judge, and for this reason can not be considered by this court.

4. The record fails to show error, and the judgment refusing a new trial can not be disturbed. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*109
      *William B. Kent,*for plaintiff in error.

*N. L. Gillis Jr.,*and *Will Stallings,*contra.
Las Vegas From Home.com Entertainment Inc.
(Las Vegas or LVFH or the Company or the Registrant)
(a British Columbia corporation)100%100%100%100%100%Action Poker
Gaming Inc.
(Action Poker)
(an Antiguan Corporation)Guardian Commerce Ltd. (Guardian)
(a St. Kitts Corporation)4010493 Canada Inc.
(a federally chartered Canadian Corporation)Action Commerce Limited
(Action Commerce)
(a United Kingdom Corporation)APG Enterprises Limited.
(APG)
(a Cypriot Corporation)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11389]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GT00-27-000]


Trunkline LNG Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

May 2, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 28, 2000, Trunkline LNG Company (TLNG) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 
1-A, the following revised tariff sheet to be effective June 1, 2000.

First Revised Sheet No. 4

    TLNG states that the purpose of this filing, made in accordance 
with the provisions of Section 154.106 of the Commission's Regulations, 
is to revise the system map to shoe the interconnect with Trunkline Gas 
Company and to delete other images of facilities owned by Trunkline Gas 
Company.
    TLNG states that copies of this filing are being served on all 
affected customers and applicable state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11389 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
August 8, 2016

Mr. Richard Wygant
Richard Wygant 13499 Biscayne Boulevard
Suite 1708
Miami

, FL 33181

Re: FAA

– 2016

– 0120

Dear Mr. Wygant :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request

. We have determined that

y our request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption

.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,
/s/
Brenda Robeson Program A nalyst
EXHIBIT 32





SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certify that this Form 10-QSB of Next, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Next, Inc.







Date:  April 14, 2006

By:/s/  Robert M. Budd

Robert M. Budd

Chief Executive Officer





Date:  April 14, 2006

By:/s/  Charles L. Thompson

Charles L. Thompson

Chief Financial Officer

Chief Accounting Officer
# Official Journal C 36A/13 F

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 36A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5213 February 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 36A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5213 February 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2009/C 036A/01 | Reserve list — Open Competition EPSO/AD/115/07 — Irish-language (GA) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2009/C 036A/01

Reserve list — Open Competition EPSO/AD/115/07 — Irish-language (GA) Lawyer-linguists (AD 7)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Jewish Heritage Week, 2000

For centuries, Jews from every corner of the globe have come to America seeking the right to worship in freedom and to pursue their individual hopes and dreams in peace. For many, the journey was a desperate flight from oppression and persecution to a new life in a new country. Bolstered by powerful family and community ties and drawing strength and hope from their ancient religious traditions, Jews in America not only survived the difficult transition, but also thrived.

From science and the arts to business and the law; as teachers, physicians, journalists, judges, musicians, and policymakers; from neighborhood stores to the corridors of Congress; from the Armed Forces to the Supreme Court, generations of American Jews have succeeded in every sector of our society. And the rewards of that success are shared by us all. Our Nation has benefited immeasurably from the character, values, and achievements of our Jewish citizens.

Building on the Jewish tradition of hospitality toward strangers and acutely aware of the long and tragic history of prejudice and persecution against their people, Jews in America have committed themselves to tolerance, justice, human rights, and the rule of law. American Jews have shared their resources generously with health and human services programs, civil rights groups, educational institutions, arts organizations, and so many more. In communities across our Nation, in small towns and big cities, synagogues and yeshivas have become centers of community service and civic responsibility.

During Jewish Heritage Week, let us acknowledge and give thanks for the many contributions that Jews have brought to our national life and character, and let us celebrate the rich religious and ethnic threads that Jewish men and women have woven into the tapestry that is America.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 7 through May 14, 2000, as Jewish Heritage Week. I urge all Americans to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-fourth.

[FR Doc. 00-11440

Billing code 3195-01-P
#### Harkey *v.*The State.

*Violating Prohibition Law.*

(Decided May 13, 1915.

68 South. 699.)

1. *Appeal and Error; Filing Statements.-*— The recital in the certificate of appeal as to the statement that defendant desired to appeal, being substantially in the words of rule 43, Supreme Court Practice, is a sufficient compliance with the rule, and the appeal will not be dismissed.

2. *Criminal Law; Sentence.*— Where the jury found defendant guilty of violating the prohibition law, but assessed no fine, the court could not assess the fine as a predicate for a sentence to hard labor for the county.

Appeal from Tuscalooosa County Court.

Heard before Hon. H. B. Foster.

John Harkey was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Affirmed as to the conviction but reversed and remanded as to the sentence.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

BROWN, J.

(1) The certificate of appeal signed by the clerk of the county court, and dated November 21, 1914, and filed with the clerk of this court November *20423, 1914, shows that the judgment from which this appeal was prosecuted was rendered on the 2d day of November, 1914, and further recites: “And on the 21st day of November, 1914, the said defendant has filed with the undersigned, as such clerk, a truly dated written statement signed by his counsel for him, to the effect that he appeals to the Court of Appeals of Alabama, from the judgment against him in said case of the state of Alabama against him, giving the style of the case on the trial docket and its number thereon.”

This shows a compliance with rule 43 (61 South, vifi) Supreme Court Practice, and the motion of the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

(2) There is no bill of exceptions in the record, and the only matter presented for review is the regularity of the proceedings appearing upon the record proper of the trial court. It appears the verdict of the jury was one finding the defendant guilty without assessing a fine, and notwithstanding this verdict, the court assessed a fine of $75 against the defendant, followed by a judgment, in default of the payment of the fine and- costs, sentencing the defendant to hard labor for the payment of the fine and costs. In this there was error. The court has no authority to assess such fine as a predicate to the sentence to hard labor. This was the province of the jury, and, the jury having failed to asses a fine, the only sentence that could be imposed was one of hard labor for the county to- be fixed by the court.

On the authority of *John Harkey v. State, infra,*68 South. 698, the judgment of conviction is affirmed,, but the judgment sentencing the defendant is reversed and the cause remanded for the purpose of allowing the trial court to enter appropriate judgment of sentence.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
§ 142.65 Limitations. ( a ) A certificate holder shall— ( 1 ) Ensure that a flight simulator or flight training device freeze, slow motion, or repositioning feature is not used during testing or checking; and
( 2 ) Ensure that a repositioning feature is used during line operational simulation for evaluation and line-oriented flight training only to advance along a flight route to the point where the descent and approach phase of the flight begins.
( b ) When flight testing, flight checking, or line operational simulation is being conducted, the certificate holder must ensure that one of the following occupies each crewmember position: ( 1 ) A crewmember qualified in the aircraft category, class, and type, if a type rating is required, provided that no flight instructor who is giving instruction may occupy a crewmember position.
( 2 ) A student, provided that no student may be used in a crewmember position with any other student not in the same specific course.
( c ) The holder of a training center certificate may not recommend a trainee for a certificate or rating, unless the trainee— ( 1 ) Has satisfactorily completed the training specified in the course approved under § 142.37; and
( 2 ) Has passed the final tests required by § 142.37.
( d ) The holder of a training center certificate may not graduate a student from a course unless the student has satisfactorily completed the curriculum requirements of that course.