alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JAMES GARNER v. BEULAH B. GARNER

No. 708DC517

(Filed 30 December 1970)

Divorce and Alimony § 16— counterclaim for alimony — sufficiency of evidence

The trial court erred in the allowance of plaintiff husband’s motion for a directed verdict dismissing defendant wife’s counterclaim for alimony where there was substantial evidence to permit the jury to find (1) that plaintiff is a “supporting spouse” and defendant is a “dependent spouse” as defined in G.S. 50-16.1, and (2) that plaintiff has abandoned defendant and has wilfully failed to provide her with necessary subsistence according to his means and condition so as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome. G.S. 50-16.2.

Appeal by defendant from *Hardy, District Judge,*April 1970 Session of Wayne District Court.

Plaintiff husband filed complaint seeking an absolute divorce on the grounds of one year’s separation. Defendant wife filed answer denying the separation, and in a further answer and counterclaim alleged that plaintiff had abandoned her and was living in adultery, that he earned a substantial income but failed and refused to furnish her with adequate support, and that she was unable to work because of illness. She prayed for alimony, alimony *pendente lite,*and counsel fees. An order was entered awarding defendant alimony *pendente lite*and counsel fees.

At the conclusion of all of the evidence, plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict dismissing defendant’s counterclaim was allowed. The jury answered issues finding that plaintiff and defendant had not lived continuously separate and apart from each other for one year next preceding filing of the complaint. Judgment was entered dismissing plaintiff’s action for divorce and defendant’s counterclaim for alimony and vacating the order for alimony *pendente lite.*Defendant appealed.

*No counsel for plaintiff appellee.*

*Dees, Dees, Smith & Powell by Tommy W. Jarrett for defendant appellant.*

*287PARKER, Judge.

Appellant’s sole assignment of error is directed to the allowance of plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict dismissing her counterclaim for alimony. The assignment is well taken. Review of the record reveals there was sufficient substantial evidence to permit a jury to find (1) that plaintiff is a “supporting spouse” and defendant is a “dependent spouse” as defined in G.S. 50-16.1, and (2) that plaintiff has abandoned defendant and has willfully failed to provide her with necessary subsistence according to his means and condition so as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome. These permissible findings would support an'award of alimony. G.S. 50-16.2. The result is that the judgment dismissing plaintiff’s action for divorce is affirmed; and the judgment dismissing defendant’s counterclaim is

Reversed.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Graham concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.33-91296) pertaining to the Bull Run Corporation 1994 Long Term Incentive
Plan and the Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No.  33-91298)  pertaining to the
Bull Run  Corporation  Non-Employee  Directors'  1994 Stock  Option  Plan of our
reports  dated  February  10,  1998,  except  as  to  Note  5 to  the  financial
statements,  for  which  the  date  is  March  20,  1998,  with  respect  to the
consolidated  financial statements and schedule of Bull Run Corporation included
herein or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Bull Run
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1997,  filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.



                                             /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 25, 1998
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31987R1708

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 1708/87 of 15 June 1987 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles***Official Journal L 160 , 20/06/1987 P. 0001 - 0010 Finnish special edition: Chapter 4 Volume 3 P. 0022  Swedish special edition: Chapter 4 Volume 3 P. 0022*

*****

COUNCIL  REGULATION (EEC) No 1708/87  

of 15 June 1987  

concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles  

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and in particular Article 43 thereof,  

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Article 167 (3) thereof,  

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),  

Having regard to the opnion of the European Parliament,  

Whereas the Agreement between the Republic of Seychelles and the European Economic Community on fishing off Seychelles, signed at Brussels on 23 May 1985 (2), has been denounced by the Republic of Seychelles at the end of its first three-year period of application;  

Whereas, pursuant to Article 12 of the Agreement, the Community and the Republic of Seychelles have conducted negotiations in order to determine the necessary amendments to the Agreement;  

Whereas, as a result of those negotiations, a new Agreement was initialled on 3 December 1986; whereas it is in the Community's interest to approve this Agreement;  

Whereas, as a result of those negotiations, a new Agreement was initialled on 3 December 1986; whereas it is in the Community's interest to approve this Agreement,  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:  

Article 1  

The Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Seychelles on fishing off Seychelles is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.  

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Regulation.  

Article 2  

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the persons empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Community (3).  

Article 3  

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.  

Done at Luxembourg, 15 June 1987.  

For the Council  

The President  

P. DE KEERSMAEKER  

(1) OJ No C 81, 28. 3. 1987, p. 7.  

(2) OJ No L 149, 8. 6. 1985, p. 1.  

(3) The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities by the General Secretariat of the Council.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION




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 East West Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Irene H. Oh, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:




(a)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(b)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: February 28, 2011




/s/ Irene H. OhIrene H. OhExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 22

- 00113

- CV

IN RE PAT GREEN AND THRELKELD

& COMPANY INSURANCE AGENCY

O riginal Proceeding

From the 249th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- C202100405

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators Pat Green a nd Threlkeld & Company Insurance Agency sought to

mandamus the trial court regarding rulings made on motions to transfer venue. By letter

dated July 6, 2022, Green notified the Court that the parties ha d reached a settlement and

would be dismissing the proceeding. No motion to dismiss has bee n filed.

By letter dated August 1, 2022, the Clerk of this Court requested a stat us report

from Relators regarding the proposed dismissal and notified the parties that if no status

report was received

, within 7 days from the date of th e letter , the proceeding would be

dismissed. More than 7 days have passed

, and no status report has been recei ved.In re Green Page 2 Accordingly, this proceeding is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(b),(c).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 1 7 , 2022

[OT06]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [ID-200-1120-PH] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the intent to hold a Resource Advisory Council (RAC) meeting in the Twin Falls District of Idaho on Tuesday, November 29, 2005. The meeting will be held in the Cedar Conference Room at the Red Lion Canyon Springs Hotel, 1357 Blue Lakes Boulevard North, in Twin Falls, Idaho.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council consists of the standard fifteen members residing throughout south central Idaho. Meeting agenda items will include multiple sub-group reports concerning energy, Blaine County Airport Relocation, and ongoing litigation. A significant portion of the session will also include familiarization for new incoming members. Other potential topics may also arise and a public comment period will be held following lunch.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sky Buffat, Twin Falls District, Idaho, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho, 83301, (208) 735-2068.

Dated: October 11, 2005.

Howard Hedrick,

Twin Falls District Manager.

[FR Doc. 05-20688 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANKIE RUSSELL and JAMES LEALON TATUM

No. 7418SC906

(Filed 5 February 1975)

Criminal Law § 161— appeal as exception to judgment

An appeal constitutes an exception to the judgment and presents the case for review for error appearing on the face of the record.

On *certiorari*to review judgments of *Crissman, Judge,*entered at the 3 September 1973 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Guilford County. (Certiorari allowed 16 August 1974.)

By separate indictments, proper in form, defendants were charged with armed robbery on 24 April 1973. They pled not guilty, a jury found them guilty as charged, and from judgments imposing prison sentences of not less than 15 nor more than 20 years, to run concurrently with certain sentences imposed in Rowan County, they gave notice of appeal.

*Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General H. A. Cole, Jr., for the State.*

*Z. H. Howerton, Jr., for defendant appellants.*

BRITT, Judge.

Although defendants have assigned no error, the appeal of each defendant constitutes an exception to the judgment imposed on him and presents the case for review for error appearing on the face of the record. *State v. Elliott,*269 N.C. 683, 153 S.E. 2d 330 (1967). We have reviewed the record proper and find *586it to be free from prejudicial error. The verdicts and judgments will not be disturbed.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Clark concur.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20381]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following Federal Committee meeting.

    Name: Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
    Times and Dates:

8:30 a.m.-5:15 p.m., October 26, 2005.
8 a.m.-3:30 p.m., October 27, 2005.

    Place: Atlanta Marriott Century Center, 2000 Century Boulevard, 
N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30345-3377.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
    Purpose: The Committee is charged with advising the Director, 
CDC, on the appropriate uses of immunizing agents. In addition, 
under 42 United States Code 1396s, the Committee is mandated to 
establish and periodically review and, as appropriate, revise the 
list of vaccines for administration to vaccine-eligible children 
through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, along with 
schedules regarding the appropriate periodicity, dosage, and 
contraindications applicable to the vaccines.
    Matters to Be Discussed: The agenda will include discussions on 
influenza; recommendations for use of Hepatitis A vaccine among 
children; VFC vote on Hepatitis A; adult Hepatitis B vaccine 
recommendation; varicella zoster immune globulin; recommended 
childhood and adolescent immunization schedules; use of Tdap 
vaccine; prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis; Measles, Mumps, 
Rubella Vaccine (MMRV) recommendation; VFC vote on MMRV; Human 
Papailloma Virus vaccine; general recommendations on immunization; 
herpes zoster; and Departmental updates.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Demetria Gardner, 
Epidemiology and Surveillance Division, National Immunization 
Program, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., (E-61), Atlanta, Georgia 
30333, telephone 404/639-8096, fax 404/639-8616.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities for both the CDC and ATSDR.

    Dated: October 5, 2005.
Alvin Hall,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05-20381 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
<Page>

                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement File No. 333-91933 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account One on Form N-4.


Hartford, Connecticut                                    /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 8, 2002
#### Brooks W. ROUNTREE, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.

No. 71-1741.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 7, 1972.

Brooks W. Rountree, in pro. per.

Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Bennett N. Hollander, John M. Scott, Jr., Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, PECK, Circuit Judge, and KEITH, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Damon J. Keith, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Taxpayer Brooks W. Rountree appeals from a memorandum decision of the *1111United States Tax Court, T.C. Memo. No. 1971-82, 30 T.C.M. 137. Reference is made to the opinion of the Tax Court for a complete statement of the facts.

The issue before this court is the al-lowability to a divorced father of dependency exemptions and medical expense deductions for his three children in the custody of his ex-wife. Rountree proved that he had contributed approximately $2,550 towards the support of his children in 1965. However, he offered no proof of the total amount of the children’s support from all sources.

Under § 152(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, a dependency exemption1 is available only to a taxpayer parent who contributes over one-half of the child’s support. “The taxpayer is obligated to prove both the total amount expended for each child and that the amount provided by the taxpayer is more than one-half of this amount.” Hogg v. United States, 428 F.2d 274, 283 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 910, 91 S.Ct. 871, 27 L.Ed.2d 808 (1971). Rountree did not meet this burden of proof.2

Rountree further contends that the Internal Revenue Service, in negotiating his payment check and issuing a form notice of account adjustment showing “BALANCE DUE ..... NONE”, settled and compromised his tax liability. This contention is without merit. The payment was accepted subject to audit and adjustment within the statute of limitations. See Clark v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 158 F.2d 851 (6th Cir. 1946).

Affirmed.

1

. Medical expense deductions are only allowable where the expenses were incurred for the care of the taxpayer or a dependent. The medical expense deductions thus stand or fall with the dependency exemption.

2

. This burden lias been relaxed for taxable years commencing with 1967. A divorced parent not having custody need only show a child support contribution in excess of $1,200 where the parent having custody does not establish clearly a contribution in excess of that of the non-custodial parent. Act of August 31, 1967, PubX.No. 90-78, 81 Stat. 191, codified in 26 U.S.C.A. § 152(e).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

# agency holding the meeting:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

# date and time:

Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 9:30 a.m., eastern time.

# place:

Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr., Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of the EEOC, Office Building, 1801 “L” Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507.

# status:

The meeting will be open to the public.

# matters to be considered:

 

### Open Session

1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and

2. Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities: Is the Workplace Ready?

# Note:

                        In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be open to the public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission                               ( print page 60837)                            meetings in                         **Federal Register**                        , the Commission also provides a recorded announcement a full week in advance on future Commission sessions.)                    

                    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at any time for information on these meetings.                     **contact person for more information:**                     Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-4070.                

This notice issued October 13, 2005.

Stephen Llewellyn,

Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 05-20954 Filed 10-14-05; 4:06 pm]

BILLING CODE 6750-06-M
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50743 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALBERTO GUZMAN-OLIVER, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-247-5

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Alberto Guzman-Oliver (Guzman) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Guzman has not filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no unwaived and nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
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 Annual  Report of Implant Sciences Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. McGann, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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 and result of operations of the Company.

|                         |                        
|------------------------ | -----------------------
|                         | /s/William J. McGann   
|                         | William J. McGann      
|                         | Chief Executive Officer
|Date: September 28, 2015 |                        



This certification accompanies each report of the Company on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or our staff upon request.