alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THOMAS KEMP *vs.*JOSEPH DOWNHAM.

A husband is liable for necessaries furnished his wife, living separate from him by his own fault.

If the separation he voluntary, though caused by the husband’s misconduct, he is not liable, if he pay her a suitable allowance of which the party trusting her has notice, or the means of knowledge.

A wife, though separated by partial divorce, cannot be a witness against her husband.

This was an action of assumpsit against a husband, for necessaries furnished his wife, who was living separate from him.

The defendant’s wife, (now divorced a mensa et thora,) was offered as a witness, and objected to. (2 *Stark Ev.,*402; *Bishop Mar*& *Div.,*673 ; 1 *Hill’s Rep.,*63.)

The plaintiff proved conduct of the husband which made it necessary for the wife to leave him; and a separation by mutual agreement ; and that the articles of food and clothing were furnished her while thus living separate.

The defence admitted the liability of a husband for necessaries furnished his wife in a state of separation, unless he had made a provision for her support and paid it; but insisted that knowledge of this separate allowance need not be traced to the party who trusted her. (3 *Mees. & Welsh.,*481.)

Proof was offered of the separation of Downham and his wife by mutual agreement. The agreement was by paroi. The wife removed with her goods; and the question was asked what the parties said at the time, in Reference to the terms of separation. This was objected to, on the ground that the wife could- not be a witness against the husband, and the declarations of the husband could not be given in evidence *for*himself. The conversation at the time of separation was admitted to prove its terms.

The witness proved a division of the furniture, and the possession by the wife, of a considerable sum of money, shortly after the separation. The separation took place by mutual agreement, but was occasioned by the cruelty of the husband.

The case was argued to the jury by *Fisher,*for plaintiff, and *Smithers,*for the defendant.

Booth, *Chief*Justice:

If a. husband, from cruelty, whether by personal violence, or by bringing a mistress into his house, oblige the wife to leave him and to live separately; be sends her abroad with credit for her maintenance, and any one who trusts her for necessaries, may recover the price of them.

*418*Fisher,*for plaintiff.

*Smithers,*for the defendant.

2. In case of voluntary separation, if the husband settle a separate maintenance on the wife, and pay it, he is not liable for necessaries furnished his wife by any one who had notice, or means of knowledge of the separate provision.

The questions then were—1. Whether the husband turned his wife away; if so, he was liable in this action; 2. whether the separation was voluntary and by mutual agreement; if so, was there an adequate separate allowance made and paid, and had the plaintiff notice "of this; if so, the plaintiff could not recover. And this notice might be inferred from circumstances. *(Ros. Civ. Ev.,*214; 3 *Esp. Rep.,*350 ; 1 *Lord Raym.,*444.)

The plaintiff had a verdict.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.333-146769) and on Form S-8 (No. 333-00848, No. 333-76851, No. 333-79337, No. 333-82257, No.333-38860, No. 333-66068, No. 333-105620, No. 333-120708, No. 333-133003 and No. 333-141237) of PCMall, Inc. (formerly IdeaMall, Inc. and Creative Computers, Inc.) of our report dated March 14,2008 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Los Angeles, California  March 17, 2008
EXHIBIT 99.7



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations
of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 27, 2013



| | /s/ Wade K. Dawe                   
| | -----------------------------------
| | Wade K. DaweChief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Brigus Gold Corp. and will be retained by Brigus Gold Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                             VEECO INSTRUMENTS INC.
                2000 STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR NON-OFFICER EMPLOYEES

                             Effective July 26, 2001

      Section 5(a) of the Veeco Instruments Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan for
Non-Officer Employees (the "2000 Non-Officer Plan") is hereby amended to read,
in its entirety, as follows:

            5.    GRANT OF AWARDS; SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN

                  The Committee may, from time to time, grant Options to one or
            more Eligible Persons; provided, however, that:

                  (a) Subject to Section 9, the aggregate number of shares of
            Stock in respect of which Options may be granted under the Plan
            shall not exceed 670,000;

      A new paragraph (c) is hereby added to Section 12 of the 2000 Non-Officer
Plan to read as follows:

                  (c) REPRICING. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
            Plan, no amendment or modification of the Plan or of any Stock
            Option Agreement may lower the exercise price of a previously
            granted award, nor may the Board, the Committee or the Company
            cancel and regrant an Option with the effect of repricing an Option,
            without in either case shareholder approval.

                                    * * * * *
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION of CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT to SECTION 1350 of CHAPTER 63 of TITLE 18 of the UNITED
STATES CODE,

as ADOPTED PURSUANT to

SECTION 906 of THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report
of Frischs Restaurants, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 19, 2006 (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Registrant certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |     |  |                        
|---------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|October 18, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Craig F. Maier     
|                 |  |     |  | Craig F. Maier         
|                 |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a  14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that
Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as other otherwise stated in such filing.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00182-CV

In re J. D.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator’s filing, which we treat as a petition for writ of mandamus based on the 

substance of his filing, is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a); see also Surgitek, Bristol-Myers 

Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (considering the substance of pleading rather 

than form or caption to determine its nature).

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Filed: April 14, 2022
**Exhibit 32.a**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of General Motors Corporation(the “Corporation”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick A. Henderson, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 andresults of operations of the Corporation. 

 

May 8, 2009
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4229

_____________________________

RONALD BROCK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

___________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Steven B. Whittington, Judge.

January 2, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

ROBERTS, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Ronald Brock, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### THOMAS M. KING *vs.*ANDREW P. READING, ESQ.

*It seems*that the Superior Court has power to attach a justice of the peace for flagrant official misconduct affecting private rights.

But if he deny the facts under oath, the Court will not try them in this summary way; but remit the party to his action, or indictment.

A rule was laid on the defendant, a justice of the peace, to show cause why an attachment should not issue against him for official neglect and default, grounded on an affidavit of the complainant, stating that the justice had refused him an appeal in a case where he was entitled to it, and applied for it in due time, and offered sufficient security; and that he refused to give a transcript of his record to the complainant; when duly applied for, and the fee therefor tendered.

On the return of the rule, the justice appeared; and, by affidavit, fully denied the facts set forth in the complainant’s affidavit.

*Mr. Bayard*

denied the power of the court to issue an attachment against the justice for misconduct, neglect or omission in his office, or except for a contempt of the court itself. He thought the remedy in the case as presented was by mandamus on the justice to take the security *nunc pro tune ;*or a rule on the plaintiff below to show cause why such a writ should not be issued.

*Mr. Booth*

then cited *Bac. Ab., Attach.,*283-4-5; 3 *Blac. Com.,*346; *Revised Code,*317.)

Judge Harrington

said he thought the rule should be in a different

form; as to show cause why the justice should not be ordered to take the security, and on his refusing to do so, an attachment for contempt might issue; but whatever the form of the rule, he thought, *400if the magistrate by affidavit, positively denied the matters charged by complainant’s affidavit, the summary proceeding ought to be dismissed, and the parties remitted to their action against him, or indictment.

Booth, for the rule.

Bayard, contra.

He had doubted the power to attach for official misconduct, but the authority of *Bacon*seemed to be in favor of such power, as existing in the King’s Bench; founded it may be in the idea that the mal practice of such inferior tribunals, acting under the supervision of that court, was a contempt of its authority, as the court having general supervision of the administration of justice.

Rule discharged.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

Directorate Identifier: **2012 -**  **NM -**  **124 -**  **AD Costs:**  Labor per airplane (1 work hour(s) x $8 5 /hour) $ 85 Parts per airplane $ + 0 Cost per airplane $ 85 Number of U.S.

- registered airplanes x 745 Total fleet cost $ 63,325 This AD restates the requirements of the previous AD. No new costs have been added. **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD si gnificant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00252

- CR

Victor Canales a / k / a Herberto Rivera

- Salazar v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 148th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 15

- CR

- 1179

- E(S1)

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APP EALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. May 17, 2018
# L_2004349EN.01S00301.xml

| 25.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 349/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 349/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

EEA Joint Committee Decisions 78/2004 and 79/2004 were published in OJ L 219 of 19 June 2004, on pages 13 and 24 respectively.

---
AFS

- 12

- 502

- E October 11, 2012

Exemption No. 10643 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0854

Mr. D. Turley Northrop Grumman One Hornet Way El Segundo, CA 90245

Dear Mr. Turley :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated August 13, 2 012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA)

on behalf of Titan Aerospace for an exemption from §§ 91.9(b) (2) and 91.203(a) and (b) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . This exemption will allow Northrop

Grumman to operate a n unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that does not carry and display the aircraft’s airworthiness certification, registration documents , and flight manual required under
part 91.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of th e petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Northrop Grumman

.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all materi al respects to those presented in your petiti on. In Grant of Exemption No. 8607 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that it is unnecessary to carry and display the airworthiness, certification, and registration documents in UASs for the operation described by the petitioner. The original2

intent of the subject regulations was to display the airworthiness and registration documents so they would be easily available to the FAA inspectors and passengers.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No 8607 ;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No

. 8607 also apply to the situation you present; an d

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Northrop Grumman an exemption from

14 CFR §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203( a) and (b) to the extent necessary to allow Northrop

Grumman to operate a UAS that does not carry and displ ay the aircraft’s airworthiness certification, registration documents , and flight manual required under part 91 , subj ect to the

conditions and limita tions described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. The documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the pilot in command of the UAS anytime the aircraft is operating.

2. Those documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be made avail able within 10 days to any FAA, U.S. Department of Defense, or law enforcement

official.

3. This exemption is not valid for operations outside the United States.

This exemption terminates on September 30, 201 4

, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincere ly,

/s/

John S. Duncan Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<CIK>                                        0000937598
<NAME>                                 Periphonics Corportion
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      May-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                         Jun-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           May-31-1997
<CASH>                                       25,092
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                36,735
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (1,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  12,858
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,211
<PP&E>                                       33,241
<DEPRECIATION>                              (16,289)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               93,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        21,053
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        137
<OTHER-SE>                                   72,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 93,583
<SALES>                                     111,244
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            111,244
<CGS>                                        53,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                53,782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             38,435
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              20,220
<INCOME-TAX>                                  7,583
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          12,637
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 12,637
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                $0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                $0.90
        



</TABLE>
#### ROYAL CROWN BOTTLING COMPANY OF WEST PALM BEACH, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Larry L. ATKINS, Appellee.

No. 71-570.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 12, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Culver Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1995
<CASH>                                          51,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  603,400<F2>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    521,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,745,600<F3>
<PP&E>                                       2,972,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,418,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,080,300<F3>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,779,200
<BONDS>                                      1,280,900
<COMMON>                                        96,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,400
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,566,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,080,300
<SALES>                                      1,785,700<F4>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,794,500
<CGS>                                        1,051,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,051,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 96,200<F5>
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             67,900<F5>
<DISCONTINUED>                                  58,300<F6>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   126,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30
<FN>
<F1>Restated to (a) classify corporate overhead and research expenses that
were previously allocated to the health care segment to continuing operations
and (b) reflect tax expenses as if the discontinued health care segment were
a stand-alone taxpayer.
<F2>Amount shown is net of allowances.
<F3>Included within current assets and total assets are net assets of
discontinued operations of $340.0 million and $1,740.5 million,
respectively.
<F4>Excludes sales reported by the discontinued health care segment of
$1,015.3 million for the first half of 1995.
<F5>Includes a pretax provision of $20 million ($12.5 million after-tax)
relating to corporate governance activities.
<F6>In June 1995, the Company announced that its Board of Directors had
approved a plan to spin off NMC. As a result, Grace has classified its health
care segment as a discontinued operation.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>