alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Civ. No. 15575.

Second Dist., Div. Two.

Jan. 29, 1947.]

#### CAROLYN L. MARIE FARRAND, Respondent, v. RODERICK CLOYER FARRAND, Appellant.

Harold D. Kraft for Appellant.

Ben M. Kochman for Respondent.

McCOMB, J.

From an interlocutory decree of divorce in favor of plaintiff predicated upon the ground of extreme cruelty, defendant appeals.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce in which she alleged that since the marriage of the parties defendant had treated her in a cruel manner and had inflicted upon her grievous mental suffering and anguish. No specific acts of cruelty were alleged.

The only question necessary for us to determine is:

> *Was there suhstmtial evidence to support plaintiff’s allegation that defendant had treated her in a cruel manner and inflicted on her grevious mental suffering and anguish?*

This question must be answered in the negative. The only evidence material to this issue was offered by plaintiff and her brother, Vinson A. Soderberg. The pertinent portion of plaintiff’s testimony is as follows:

> “Q. You charge that your husband was cruel to you. Of *841what particular matters are you complaining? A. That he drank too much, for one thing.

> “Q. During the last year you lived together, how often was he actually drunk, an average of once a week or what ? A. Oh, more than that, twice.

> “Q. What effect did that line of conduct have on you, keep you nervous and upset? A. Yes.”

Mr. Soderberg’s testimony bearing on the same subject was as follows:

> “Q. Do you know her husband, Roderick Farrand? A. I do.

> “Q. During the year from July of 1942 to July of 1943, about how often did you see him ? A. Oh, one to three times a week.

> “Q. Did you ever see him drunk? A. Yes.

> “Q. About how often, an average of at least once a week? A. At least.”

It is the rule that mere drunkenness on the part of one spouse is not such cruelty as to entitle the other to a divorce on the ground of cruelty. To constitute extreme cruelty sufficient to support a decree of divorce when no bodily injury is involved, there must be a showing that the offending spouse’s conduct has caused the plaintiff *grievous mental suffering.*(See *Truax*v. *Truax,*62 Cal.App.2d 441, 443 et seq. [145 P.2d 88]; *Stanton*v. *Stanton,*113 Cal.App. 462, 464 [298 P. 524] ; *Bennett*v. *Bennett,*55 Cal.App. 268, 269 [203 P. 162]; 17 Am.Jur. [1938] 180, § 58.)

It is apparent that the only evidence in the instant case bearing upon cruelty falls far short of meeting the requirements of the foregoing rules. The evidence fails to show that defendant’s intoxication caused plaintiff *grievous mental suffering.*It would merely support a finding that plaintiff was “nervous and upset,” which as held in *Truax*v. *Traux, supra*444, does not constitute grievous mental suffering sufficient te sustain an interlocutory decree of divorce predicated upon the ground of extreme cruelty.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment is reversed.

Moore, P. J., and Wilson, J., concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4581 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4581

To provide for the imposition of temporary fees in connection with the 
  handling of complaints of violations of the Perishable Agricultural 
                         Commodities Act, 1930.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 1994

 Mr. de la Garza introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                      the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the imposition of temporary fees in connection with the 
  handling of complaints of violations of the Perishable Agricultural 
                         Commodities Act, 1930.

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

SECTION 1. FILING AND HANDLING FEES FOR COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATIONS OF 
              PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1930.

    (a) Temporary Filing Fee Required.--During fiscal years 1995 and 
1996, the Secretary of Agriculture shall require persons who submit 
petitions to the Secretary under section 6(a) of the Perishable 
Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499f(a)), alleging a 
violation of section 2 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 499b), to include a filing 
fee of $60 per petition.
    (b) Temporary Handling Fee Required.--During fiscal years 1995 and 
1996, if the Secretary determines under section 6(a) of the Perishable 
Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499f(a)), that the facts 
contained in a petition described in such section warrant further 
action, the person or persons submitting the petition shall submit to 
the Secretary a handling fee of $300. The Secretary may not forward a 
copy of the complaint to the commission merchant, dealer, or broker 
involved until after the Secretary receives the required handling fee. 
In determining the amount of damages incurred by an injured person or 
persons preparatory to issuing a reparation order under section 7 of 
such Act (7 U.S.C. 499g), the Secretary shall include the amount of any 
handling fee paid by the injured person or persons under this 
subsection.
    (c) Deposit of Fees.--The Secretary shall deposit fees submitted 
under this section into the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act 
Fund.

                                 <all>
```
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-1119.4 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TRADE 

Pork and Poultry 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Effected by Exchange of Letters at 

Hanoi and Washington 

November 19, 2006 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Trade: Pork and Poultry 

 Agreement effected by exchange of letters 

 at Hanoi and Washington November 19, 2006; 

 Entered into force November 19, 2006. 
NOTE: At present, we do not have an official translation of this letter. Once the official translation is obtained, it will be added to this publication.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with this Quarterly Report of HIV-VAC Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the year period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Murray, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the
         period ending June 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HIV-VAC
         Inc.

Date: September 2, 2010

/s/ Kevin Murray
Kevin Murray
Chief Financial Officer
#### § 22.1005 Priority of service.

Facilities in the Offshore Radiotelephone Service are intended primarily for rendition of public message service between offshore subscriber and central stations. However, they may also be used to render private leased line communication service, provided that such usage does not reduce or impair the extent or quality of communication service which would be available, in the absence of private leased line service, to the general public receiving or subsequently requesting public message service from an offshore central station.
#### § 22.863 Frequency stability.

The frequency stability of equipment used under this subpart shall be sufficient to ensure that, after accounting for Doppler frequency shifts, the occupied bandwidth of the fundamental emissions remains within the authorized frequency bands of operation.

[70 FR 19310, Apr. 13, 2005]
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

§ 36.411 Operating taxes—Account 7200. This account includes the taxes arising from the operations of the company, *i.e.:* ( a ) Operating Investment Tax Credits.
( b ) Operating Federal Income Taxes.
( c ) Operating State and Local Income Taxes.
( d ) Operating Other Taxes.
( e ) Provision for Deferred Operating Income Taxes.
[83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018]
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 2.811 Transmitters operated under part 73 of this chapter.

Section 2.803(a) through (c) shall not be applicable to a transmitter operated in any of the Radio Broadcast Services regulated under part 73 of this chapter, provided the conditions set out in part 73 of this chapter for the acceptability of such transmitter for use under licensing are met.

[78 FR 25162, Apr. 29, 2013]
#### § 0.489 [Reserved]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-1990: Worlds Inc. v. Activision Blizzard Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Sl3OTYsns8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-08-2022-2021-1990-worlds-inc-v-activision-blizzard-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-1990: Worlds Inc. v. Activision Blizzard Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-08-2022-2021-1990-worlds-inc-v-activision-blizzard-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=Sl3OTYsns8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-1990: Worlds Inc. v. Activision Blizzard Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"Sl3OTYsns8\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Worlds Inc. v. Activision Blizzard Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-1990 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Abraham Pierce, President and Chief Executive Officer of Fonecash, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on 10QSB of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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: January 10, 2005



/s/ Abraham Pierce

_______________________



Abraham Pierce

President and Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1703 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply: ( a ) *Application.* A request on Form 327 for a station license as defined in Section 3(b) of the Communications Act, completed in accordance with § 78.15 and signed in accordance with § 78.16 of this chapter, or a similar request to amend a pending application or to modify or renew an authorization. The term also encompasses requests to assign rights granted by the authorization or to transfer control of entities holding authorizations.
( b ) *Authorization.* A written instrument issued by the FCC conveying authority to operate, for a specified period, a station in the Cable Television Relay Service. In addition, this term includes authority conveyed by operation of rule upon filing notification of aeronautical frequency usage by MVPDs or registration statements by cable operators.
( c ) *Cable Operations And Licensing System (COALS).* The consolidated database, application filing system, and processing system for Multichannel Video and Cable Television Services (MVCTS) and the Cable Television Relay Service (CARS). COALS supports electronic filing of all applications, notifications, registrations, reports, and related documents by applicants and licensees in the MVCTS and CARS, and provides public access to licensing information.
( d ) *Cable Television Relay Service (CARS).* All services authorized under part 78 of this title.
( e ) *Filings.* Any application, notification, registration statement, or report in plain text, or, when as prescribed, on FCC Forms, 320, 321, 322, 324, or 327, whether filed in paper form or electronically.
( f ) *Multichannel Video and Cable Television Services (MVCTS).* All services authorized or operated in accordance with part 76 of this title.
( g ) *Receipt date.* The date an electronic or paper application is received at the appropriate location at the Commission or the lock box bank. Major amendments to pending applications as defined in § 78.109 of this chapter, will result in the assignment of a new receipt date.
( h ) *Signed.* For manually filed applications only, an original hand-written signature. For electronically filed applications only, an electronic signature. An electronic signature shall consist of the name of the applicant transmitted electronically via COALS and entered on the filing as a signature.
[68 FR 27001, May 19, 2003, as amended at 83 FR 61335, Nov. 29, 2018]
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Devorn Parker, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Edward M. Davidowitz, J.H.O.), rendered July 14, 2010, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Edward M. Davidowitz, J.H.O.), rendered July 14, 2010, affirmed.</p><p>The verdict convicting defendant of attempted criminal contempt in the second degree (<i>see </i>Penal Law §§110.00/215.50[3]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations. There was ample evidence of defendant's guilt, including the testimony of the complaining witness and her fiancé that defendant knocked on the door to complainant's apartment and asked if he could come inside, in violation of a valid order of protection directing defendant to stay away from complainant and/or her home (<i>see People v Kaplan</i>, 125 AD3d 465 [2015], <i>lv denied </i>25 NY3d 1203 [2015]; <i>People v Delvecchio</i>, 106 AD3d 624 [2013], <i>lv denied </i>22 NY3d 955 [2013]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: September 27, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
§ 11.16 National Control Point Procedures. The National Control Point Procedures are written instructions issued by the FCC to national level EAS control points. The procedures are divided into sections as follows: ( a ) *National Level EAS Activation.* This section contains the activation and termination instructions for the National Emergency Message.
( b ) *EAS Test Transmissions.* This section contains the instructions for testing the EAS at the National level.
[59 FR 67092, Dec. 28, 1994, as amended at 67 FR 18508, Apr. 16, 2002; 87 FR 67823, Nov. 10, 2022]
No. 11-5388.

#### Love *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

# Certification of Chief
Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Amendment No.
1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 (this
report), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the registrant), the undersigned
hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.       
          The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2.       
          The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

| | /s/ Robert G. Brown
Robert G. Brown
Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer
April 17, 2007
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be
retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
§ 27.1106 Designated Entities in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands. Eligibility for small business provisions: ( a ) *Small business.* ( 1 ) A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three (3) years.
( 2 ) A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three
( 3 ) years.
( b ) *Bidding credits.* A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business as defined in this section or a consortium of small businesses may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business as defined in this section or a consortium of very small businesses may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter.
[79 FR 32413, June 4, 2014, as amended at 80 FR 56816, Sept. 18, 2015]
Theodore D. Schade

Aìr Pollution Conlrol Offlcer

GnBnr BnsrN LIxrnrpn Arn Por,r,urloN CoNrnoL f[srRrcr

157 Short Street, Bishop, California 9351,4-3537

7 60-872-8211 F ax: 7 60-872-6109

}l4ay 22,2014

Mr. Richard Corey

Executive Officer

Califomia Air Resources Board

1001 "I" Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Air Quality Maintenance Plan and PMro Redesignation Request for the Town of Mammoth

Lakes and Revisions to District Rule 431- Particulate Emissions

Dear Mr. Corey,

On behalf of the Governing Board of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (District),

I am transmitting to the California Air Resources Board the Air Quality Maintenance Plan and PMro

Redesignation Request for the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Revisions to District Rule 431 -

Particulate Emissions, adopted by the District's Governing Board on May 5,2014 (Board Order

#140s0s-03)

The Air Quality Maintenance Plan and PMro Redesignation Request for the Town of Mammoth Lakes

and Revisions to District Rule 431 - Particulate Emissions was adopted after a duly-noticed public

hearing and opportunity for written and oral public comment. The Declaration of the District's Board

Clerk certifying the facts showing the District's compliance with the notice and public hearing

requirements for the adoption of the Air Quality Maintenance Plan and PMto Redesignation Request for

the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Revisions to District Rule 431 - Particulate Emissions and copies of

the Board Order certifying the adopted description revision, are attached. The minutes of the May 5,

2014 Governing Board meeting will be transmitted to you to supplement the record of proceedings

following their approval at the July 7 ,2014 Governing Board meeting.

In order to incorporate the requirements of the Air Quality Maintenance Plan and PMro Redesignation

Request for the Town of Mammoth Lakes and Revisions to District Rule 43I - Particulate Emissions

into the applicable SIP, the District respectfully requests an expeditious review and approval of this rule

and transmittal to the U.S. EPA for its consideration and approval.

Sincerely,

2r""6^

Duane Ono

Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer

Re:
Mr. Richard Corey

CARB: Rule 431

Il/.ay 22,2014

Enclosures (8 hardcopies, 4 electronic copies)

1. Affidavit of Service by the Clerk of the Board

2. GBUAPCD May 5, 2014 Staff Report (with attachments)

3. GBUAPCD Board Order No. 140505-03

4. Adopted Air Quality Maintenance Plan and PMro Redesignation Request for the Town of

Mammoth Lakes and Revisions to District Rule 431 - Particulate Emissions

5. Public Comments and GBUAPCD Responses (addressed in redline version of AQMP)

6. ARB Rule Evaluation Form - Rule 431

Cc: Deborah Jordan, USEPA

Earl Withycombe, CARB

2
No. 11-5300.

#### Dobric *v.*Baron.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.