alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lisko, Respondent, vs. Retzlaff, Appellant.

*February 5*

February *24, 1914.*

*Slander: Complaint: Innuendo: Demurrer.*

Upon demurrer to a complaint for slander it is sufficient that the words alleged to have been spoken are in popular usage fairly capable of expressing and conveying to others the slanderous meaning attributed to them by the innuendo, the sense in which they were intended and in which they were understood by the hearers being a question of fact for the jury.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Dodge county: Maetik L. Lueok, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The appeal is from an. order overruling a demurrer to the complaint.

*August*Hading, for the appellant.

Eor the respondent there ivas a brief by *Husting &*Brother, and oral argument by *Paul 0. Husting.*

Timlibt, J.

The complaint avers that in the year 1881 a brother of the plaintiff, in the presence of the plaintiff and another, was shot and seriously wounded, causing death, all of which occurred without fault or agency of the plaintiff. That on October 11, 1911, the defendant, becoming involved in a dispute with the plaintiff and being then angry and abusive, spoke of and concerning the plaintiff in the German language false and defamatory words set forth in German and translated as meaning, “You are such a fellow you shoot your OAvn brother.” This is followed by innuendo averring that the speaker thereby intended to charge the plaintiff with the crime of assaulting and shooting his said brother with a dangerous weapon. A further averment charges in the same way that the defendant on November 14, 1911, spoke of and concerning the plaintiff false and defamatory words in German, which being translated were: “He is a hothead. I *248charged him with having formerly shot his brother with a revolver and that was enough; for *Martin*[the plaintiff] then ran away.” This was followed by similar innuendo, and it was also averred that' the persons in whose presence and hearing the German words were spoken understood the language. The utterances on November 14th were also set forth as a second cause of action.

Under the liberal rules of pleading prevailing in this state the demurrer was properly overruled. In what sense the defendant intended the spoken words and in what sense they were understood by the hearers is a question of fact for the jury, for the words, while insufficient as an indictment, are nevertheless in popular usage fairly capable of expressing and conveying to others the meaning attributed to them by the innuendo.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**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 Wyeth (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on February 26, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Kenneth J. Martin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: February 26, 2007
Exhibit
32.2








SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION  OF


CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER





In
connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Mission Community Bancorp
(“the Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2009, I, Ronald B. Pigeon,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.           This
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 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 this Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




Date:  April
14, 2010








By:         /s/ Ronald B.
Pigeon


Ronald B. Pigeon


Executive Vice President


and
      Chief Financial Officer
DATE: September 6, 2022

 The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

disposed of by the Supreme Court:

1. Stephen James Kilpatrick

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 2043-19-3

Opinion rendered by Judge Huff

 on May 4, 2021

 Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and judgment of trial court affirmed

 by published order entered on August 4, 2022

 (210530)

2. Richard Roosevelt Hill

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

 Record No. 0562-20-2

Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys

 on May 18, 2021

 Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed by opinion rendered on August 11, 2022

(210569)
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                      ADVANCED LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
         STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (In thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED            SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                              DECEMBER 31,                 DECEMBER 31,
                                        -----------------------       -----------------------
                                          2003           2002           2003           2002
                                        --------       --------       --------       --------
<S>                                     <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Income (loss) before income taxes
     and minority interest              $ (7,080)      $(12,375)      $(13,235)      $(13,502)
Interest expense                           4,039          3,221          7,459          6,010
Interest portion of rent expense             160            209            329            417
                                        --------       --------       --------       --------
  EARNINGS                              $ (2,881)      $ (8,945)      $ (5,447)      $ (7,075)
                                        ========       ========       ========       ========

Interest expense                        $  4,039       $  3,221       $  7,459       $  6,010
Interest capitalized                          19            203             37            310
Interest portion of rent expense             160            209            329            417
Preferred share accretion                      -            744              -          1,443
                                        --------       --------       --------       --------
  FIXED CHARGES                         $  4,218       $  4,377       $  7,825       $  8,180
                                        ========       ========       ========       ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES             -              -              -              -
                                        ========       ========       ========       ========
</TABLE>

For purposes of calculating the unaudited ratio of earnings to fixed charges,
earnings consist of income (loss) before provision for income taxes plus fixed
charges. Fixed charges consist of interest charges and amortization of debt
issuance costs, whether expensed or capitalized, the portion of rental expense
that is representative of interest, and preferred share accretion. For the three
months ended December 31, 2003, earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charge
requirements by $7,099. For the three months ended December 31, 2002, earnings
were inadequate to cover fixed charge requirements by $13,322. For the six
months ended December 31, 2003, earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charge
requirements by $13,272. For the six months ended December 31, 2002, earnings
were inadequate to cover fixed charge requirements by $15,255.
No. 91-5728.

#### Rodriguez *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 103 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR HOLOCAUST 

4 DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE CEREMONY. 

5 Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is 

6 authorized to be used on April 9, 2018, for a ceremony 

7 as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance 
2 

•HCON 103 EH 

1 of victims of the Holocaust. Physical preparations for the 

2 ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such con3 ditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 14, 

2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 103 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall for a 

days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. ceremony as part of the commemoration of the
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2610

___________ Keith Argolis Oliver, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Steve Goodwin, Jailer, Clay County * Detention Center; Clay County Jail; * [UNPUBLISHED] Don Poole, Sheriff of Clay County, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 6, 2000 Filed: July 14, 2000

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. KeithArgolis Oliver brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Clay County, Arkansas Jail; jailer Steve Goodwin; and Clay County Sheriff Don Poole (collectively the defendants). The defendants moved to close administratively or to stay the case, because Oliver is presently incarcerated in Tennessee and is thus unable to attend trial in Arkansas. The magistrate judge recognized he could issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to bring Oliver to Arkansas for the trial, see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5) (1994), but stated:-2-

Inconsidering whether [Oliver] should be transported from Tennessee prison to the state of Arkansas this Court must consider transportation costs; safety concerns; the feasibility of trying the case without the prisoner's presence in the courtroom and any other factor relevant to the question of whether a writ should issue. After careful review of [Oliver's] response to the motion to dismiss and the entire record, and with due considerations of the above-referenced factors, this Court cannot recommend the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum

. The Court finds that this matter should be closed administratively and placed on the inactive docket. [Oliver] may move to reopen this case within thirty (30) days of his release from federal custody. (Report and Recommendation at 2). The district court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation, and Oliver now appeals. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in refusing to issue the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum , see Cranfordv. Nix , 43 F.3d 1210, 1211 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); Latiolais v. Whitley , 93 F.3d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 1996) (same), and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Readout of Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III's Meeting With Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense Tea Banh 
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/55/INDOPACOM2018_100x100.png?ver=J6xEsvouw9aaqHcHjhoIIQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">Readout of Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III's Meeting With Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense Tea Banh </h1>
    </div>
    

    <div> <span class="date">/ Published Nov. 22, 2022</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>WASHINGTON -- Pentagon Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder provided the following readout:<br />
<br />
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III met today with Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defense Tea Banh in Cambodia to discuss Cambodia's work as ASEAN Chair and the state of the bilateral defense relationship. Secretary Austin welcomed Cambodia's leadership as ASEAN Chair during a challenging year, as well as Cambodia's support for United Nations General Assembly resolutions condemning Russia's aggression in Ukraine. He expressed appreciation for Cambodia's willingness to send de-mining teams to train Ukrainian de-mining experts.<br />
<br />
Secretary Austin also expressed his concerns about military activities that could undermine regional stability and urged Cambodia to take steps to protect its sovereignty. He noted the importance of building a productive bilateral relationship that benefits our countries and peoples, and welcomed efforts to build bilateral trust.</p>
<br />
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 24, 

2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00514-CV

JOSE SANCHEZ AND CARDENAS AUTO SALES, A TEXAS GENERAL 

PARTNERSHIP, Appellant

V.

DANIEL JACKSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Appellee

On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-19246A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an order signed August 13, 2021. On November 18, 

2021, this court abated the appeal because Ana Maria Lara, a partner in appellant

Cardenas Auto Sales, A Texas General Partnership, was in bankruptcy. See Tex. R.

App. P. 8.1. 
2

On April 29, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal with 

prejudice. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion was joined by Allison D. Byman, 

the Chapter 7 Trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding. According to the motion and 

exhibits attached thereto, the bankruptcy court confirmed the settlement agreement 

between the parties.

Accordingly, we REINSTATE the appeal and GRANT the joint motion to 

dismiss the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Wilson
#### A. B. CHUNN vs. W. D. JONES.

A defendant was arrested on a *ca. sa.*and gave bond as required by iaw ; tbe plaintiff was permitted to amend his execution and tho defendant allowed to appeal; m the Superior Court the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the appeal was improvidently granted, and the motion was sustained by the Court and the appeal ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff is not then entitled in that Court to a judgment for his debt and costs against the defendant and his sureties-on the appeal bond.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Buncombe County, at a Special Term, July, 1851, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding.

The defendant was arrested on a *capias ad satisfacien-dum.*on a Justice’s judgment, and entered into bond under the act for the relief of honest insolvent debtors. On the return of the, proceedings, the plaintiff moved the County Court to amend the. execution, and it was allowed. The defendant prayed an appeal, and, having surrendered himself in discharge of his sureties and been ordered into custody, he was allowed to appeal. In the Superior Court the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently granted, and the Court allowed the motion, and gave judgment against the defendant and his sureties for the costs on the appeal. Then the plaintiff further moved for judgment for tKe debt and all the costs against the defendant and his sureties for the appeal. But the Court refused it, and" ordered a *procedendo*to the County Court; and the plaintiff appealed.

*J. W. Woodfin,*for the plaintiff.

*Avery,*for the defendant.

*252Ruffin, C. J.

The two motions of the plaintiff were entirely inconsistent. The appeal was dismissed at his instance for the want of jurisdiction, and the defendant acquiesced therein. It necessarily followed, that there could not be judgment for the debt, since that would imply jurisdiction and a decision on the merits.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      465437
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               131401
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                 132938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1724823
<PP&E>                                      171269
<DEPRECIATION>                               75772
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1820320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       303587
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                  11454871
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                               (10258574)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1820320
<SALES>                                     188135
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            188135
<CGS>                                        98435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                65140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (147370)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (119335)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (119335)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (119335)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.01)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**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 filingof the Annual Report of Sento Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony J. Sansone, SeniorVice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

          (1) theReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended; and

          (2) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Anthony J. Sansone |   |
|------------------------|--------|

Anthony J. SansoneSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate SecretaryJune 28, 2006

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

Thiscertification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                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 Alderwoods Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the twelve weeks ended March 27, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
such officer's 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

Dated: May 10, 2004.


                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Paul A. Houston
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Director
                                             (Principal Executive Officer)



                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Kenneth A. Sloan
                                             Executive Vice President,
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             (Principal Financial Officer)

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. s. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
**Exhibit 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Section 302 Certification**

 

I, Diane J. Basile, certify that:

 

1.                          I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Science and Engineering, Inc.; and

 

2.                          Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.

 

 

Date: July 29, 2016
|   | /s/ DIANE J.   BASILE                                            |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Diane J. Basile                                                  |
|   | *Senior   Vice President. Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer* |

 

1

----
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-8 Registration Statement
(No. 333-152120) of Mission Community Bancorp of our report of independent
registered public accounting firm dated April 14, 2010, on our audit of the
consolidated balance sheets of Mission Community Bancorp and Subsidiary as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in shareholder’s equity and cash flows for the years then ended,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.





/s/ VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY
& CO., LLP


Laguna
Hills, California


April 14,
2010