alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11,872.

#### Walker *v.*Boyd.

*Slander.*— JM.den.ee.—Variance.—Where slanderous words are laid in a. complaint as having been spoken affirmatively, proof that the substance of the same words was spoken interrogatively is a variance, and not admissible.

From the Knox Circuit Court.

*J. C. Denny*and *J. S. Pritchett,*for appellant.

Mitchell, J.

Mary Walker complained of Boyd in the-court below, charging that he maliciously spoke of and concerning her the following false and slanderous words, omitting the innuendoes and some immaterial statements: *“*She-*397has been in bed with Joe Walker; she has been sleeping with Joe Walker; she is in the family way with Joe Walker; she is with child by Joe Walker; she has been trying to get rid of her bastard child; Joe Walker has left the county because he has been sleeping with Mary Walker; she is coming up; she has been doctoring and trying to get rid of her bastard child; she is in the family way by Joe Walker, and he has left the State on account of it; she has been sleeping with him, and is now in the family way ; she has been trying to get the doctor to get her rid of her bastard child.”

Upon a trial by a jury there was a verdict for the defendant.

During the progress of the cause one Commodore Phillipi was called as a witness, and testified as follows : “I am acquainted with the parties to this suit. Shortly before this suit was brought I was at work for the defendant John G. Boyd. He asked me when I saw Mary Walker last. . I said I did not know. Boyd then asked me if the story was true that she was in the family way. I said I did not know, and I also said I do not pity her if she is. He then said he heard she had been compelled to wean her child, and was doctoring.”

On motion of the defendant this testimony was stricken out and withdrawn from the jury by the court.

Whether this ruling of the court was correct is the only question presented.

The words spoken to the witness by the defendant Boyd, and testified to by him as above set out, do not tend to prove even the substance of any of the words laid in the complaint.

Where slanderous words are laid in a complaint as having been spoken affirmatively, proof that the substance of the same words were spoken interrogatively is a variance, and consequently not admissible. *Yeates*v. *Reed,*4 Blackf. 463; Folkard’s Starkie on Slander and Libel, section 426; Odgers Libel and Slander, 471.

The difference between the sense and meaning .of the same words, spoken affirmatively, and where they are uttered to another by way of inquiry, may be radical, and while they *398may be slanderous in either case, they must be stated in the-complaint in the form in which they were uttered.

Filed April 10, 1885.

All that was said by the defendant to the witness Phillipi, except the last sentence, was by way of inquiry, and this last sentence contained nothing slanderous.

The ruling of the court was correct. Judgment affirmed,, with costs.
Exhibit 23.1  Gaffney,Cline &AssociatesGaffney,   Cline & Associates LimitedBentley   Hall, BlacknestAlton,   Hampshire GU34 4PU, UKTelephone:   +44 (0)1420 525366www.gaffney-cline.comCJF/EE0212611/sf
20thMarch, 2012   ZaZa Energy Corporation, 1301 McKinney Street, Suite 2850, Houston, Texas 77010.  Dear Sirs,  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS  Gaffney, Cline & Associates (GCA) hereby consents to the references to it included in ZaZa Energy Corporations Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended 31stDecember, 2011 (the Annual Report) and to the inclusion of its report dated 20thMarch, 2012, containing its opinion on the proved, probable and possible reserves attributable to certain assets owned by Toreador Resources Corporation as of 31stDecember, 2011 (the Report), as an exhibit in the Annual Report.  Yours Sincerely,GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES LTD./s/ Brian C. RhodesBrian C. RhodesRegistered in England, number 1122740, at the above address
578 A.2d 1227

#### IN THE MATTER OF JILL L. TERRY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 13, 1990.

ORDER

JILL L. TERRY of EAST BRUNSWICK, who was admitted to the bar of this state in 1983, having been Ordered to show cause why she should not be temporarily suspended from the practice of law,

And said JILL L. TERRY having failed to cooperate with the Office of Attorney Ethics in the establishment of a proctorship,

And the Court having entered an emergent Order of suspension from the practice of law on September 4, 1990,

And said JILL L. TERRY having failed to appear before the Court on the return date of her Order to Show Cause,

And good cause appearing:

IT IS ORDERED that the temporary suspension of JILL L. TERRY is hereby continued pending final disposition of ethics proceedings against her and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

*190ORDERED that the Office of Attorney Ethics take such protective action, pursuant to *Rule*1:20-11(c), as may be appropriate pending the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of her suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the Regulations Governing Suspended Attorneys.
# **Exhibit 32.1**

# ** **

# **CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert N. Wildrick, ChiefExecutive 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, that tothe best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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 ofthe issuer.

 

 
| Date:  September 9, 2004 | /s/ Robert N. Wildrick  |   |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                          | Robert N. Wildrick      |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
News United States Air Force
 Guardsmen use logistics skills to relieve toy donation stockpilePublished Dec. 28, 2015
                        
                        By Tech Sgt. Andria Allmond
                        
                        
                        111th Attack Wing Public Affairs
                **HORSHAM AIR GUARD STATION, Pa. (AFNS) --**
                Eight Airmen from the Pennsylvania Air National Guard’s 111th Logistics Readiness Squadron used brain, brawn and a little military training to overhaul a congested Toys for Tots warehouse in Glenside, Pennsylvania, a few days before Christmas.The decision to help came from Capt. Dan Taylor, who serves as a logistics readiness officer for the 111th Attack Wing at Horsham Air Guard Station.“We were making a drop off and noticed that they were inundated with donations,” Taylor said. “After seeing the bottleneck, there was no way that we could leave them in that state."Taylor rallied some of the wing’s top logistics and supply technicians and led the Airmen to the warehouse. According to Toys for Tots volunteer John Soghomonian, the guardsmen’s few hours of labor accomplished the equivalent of days of work by overwhelmed volunteers.Within a two-hour timeframe, the guardsmen retrieved, sorted, packaged, and hauled more than 1,000 donated items.“(Soghomonian) said that they are about 25 percent over what they normally receive and are having a hard time keeping up,” said Master Sgt. Joe Sommers, the 111th LRS material management flight chief. “So, while it’s good that they’ve had so many donations, being an organization that runs solely on volunteer support, they’re overwhelmed with the sheer amount of donations here."Sommers said the influx of donations normally runs in spurts of 10,000 to 20,000 items at a time. This year, the organization saw toys coming in at a range of 13,000 to 25,000 at a time, which pushed the already-overextended volunteer team well past its current capability.“These are good people volunteering their time to a great cause. Helping them out wasn’t even a question," Taylor said. "This is what being a guardsman is about -- it’s about being an upright steward to the community.”guardsmen 



Pennsylvania Air National Guard 



logistics 



toys for tots
<PAGE>
 
                                METATOOLS, INC.                    Exhibit 11.1

                      STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF
                      NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 


                                                  Three Months Ended                    Nine Months Ended
                                                     September 30,                         September 30,
                                              ------------------------------       -----------------------------
                                                  1996             1995                 1996           1995
                                              ------------------------------       -----------------------------
<S>                                           <C>             <C>                  <C>              <C> 
Primary and Fully Diluted (1)

Weighted average shares outstanding for
  the period.............................       11,845,000        3,178,000           11,706,000      3,155,000
Common equivalent shares, including
  items pursuant to Staff Accounting
  Bulletin No. 83........................        1,194,000        3,521,000            1,326,000      2,477,000
                                              ------------------------------       -----------------------------
Shares used in per share calculation.....       13,039,000        6,699,000           13,032,000      5,632,000
                                              ==============================       =============================

Net income (loss) before dividends and
  amortization...........................     $    992,000    $      80,000        $   2,718,000   $   (786,000) 
Preferred stock dividend requirements
  and amortization of issuance costs.....                -          (71,000)                   -       (215,000)
                                              ------------------------------       -----------------------------
Net income (loss) available for common
  stockholders...........................     $    992,000    $       9,000        $   2,718,000   $ (1,001,000)
                                              ==============================       =============================

Net income (loss) per common share.......     $        .08    $         .00        $         .21   $       (.18)
                                              ==============================       =============================
</TABLE> 

(1) Primary and fully diluted calculations are substantially the same.



                                      20
News United States Air Force
 Raymond takes command of AFSPCPublished Oct. 27, 2016
                        
                        By AFSPC Public Affairs
                        
                        
                        Air Force Space Command Public Affairs
                **PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. (AFNS)  --**
                Gen. John W. Raymond replaced Gen. John E. Hyten as commander of the U.S. Air Force Space Command during a ceremony at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, Oct. 25.
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein presided over the change of command ceremony.
“General Hyten is nothing short of a pioneer, much like Hap Arnold, Chuck Horner, and Bernie Schriever – leaders with extraterrestrial vision,” Goldfein said. “When it was time to pick the next Air Force Space Command commander, General Raymond was the obvious choice. Remember while command can often be lonely, you don’t take this task on alone. We all have a stake in your success and we’ll be with you every step of the journey. Few of us are afforded the opportunity to lead and inspire...there’s never been a more important time to lead well than now.”
Goldfein spoke of Hyten’s progressive vision for the domains of space and cyberspace, calling his experience vital as he takes the helm of the nation’s strategic capabilities at the U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska.
Raymond stressed his appreciation for Hyten’s vision and promised his unwavering commitment to continue to push the boundaries in space and cyberspace and advance the operational skill sets of AFSPC Airmen.
“To the members of the Colorado Springs community, it is absolutely wonderful to be back,” Raymond said. “This is the fourth time we’ve had the privilege to work at Peterson Air Force Base, and I couldn’t be happier. To the men and women of Air Force Space Command, I could not be prouder to be back on your team. There’s no other organization that does what you do, and you do it so well.”
The vast majority of Raymond’s career has focused on integrating space into the joint environment, and bringing space and cyberspace to the forefront of joint operations.
Raymond graduated in 1984 with a bachelor’s degree in administrative management from Clemson University where he was commissioned through the ROTC program. He also earned a master’s degree in the same subject from Central Michigan University.
Since 2007, the general has commanded the 30th Operations Group at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, the 21st Space Wing at Peterson AFB, the 14th Air Force and led the Joint Functional Component Command for space for USSTRATCOM.
Raymond revisits his space background after serving as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations at Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. His responsibilities included crafting operational policy, including air, space and cyberspace, for the secretary of the Air Force and the chief of staff.CSAF 



change of command 



Peterson AFB 



AFSPC
583 A.2d 299

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD SANTORO.

January 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Sarah A. Holland v. John H. Seward.

(No. 1178, Op. Book No. 2, p. 132.)

Appeal from Washington County.

June 23, 1880.

Opinion by

Walker, A. S., J.

§ 944. *Community property; suit for, by surviving wife.*A ‘married woman owned in her separate right a •tract of land. Her husband sold timber off this land to the owner of a' saw mill, taking the obligation of the purchaser for so many dollars to be paid in lumbor. The husband was the payee in the obligation. After the death of the husband, the wife brought suit in her own right upon the obligation, claiming that the debt was her separate property. *Held,*1. Under the law, as announced by our supreme court, the obligation was community property. [De Blane v. Lynch, 23 Tex. 25; White v. Lynch, 26 Tex. 195; Carr v. Tucker, 42 Tex. 337.] 2. Upon the death of the husband, the legal title to his half interest in the community vested in his heirs. [Yancy v. Batte, 48 Tex. 46; Johnson v. Harrison, 48 Tex. 257; Veramendi v. Hutchins, 48 Tex. 531.] 3. The .right to sue for community .property, after the death of the husband, is 1, in the administrator, if any; 2, in the widow-on showing compliance with community property law by filing bond and inventory; or 3, by showing no administration and no need for-one in‘absence of debts, or from lapse of time, in which cases the heirs would be allowed to sue.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1486

LARRY DAVIS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WEISER SECURITY SERVICES, INC; NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL 

GUARD; RANDY POWELL; JAMES ROSES; JERRY BOWMAN; GUY 

MADERES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:13-cv-00522-MOC-DSC)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Ruth Dangel, OGLETREE 

DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina; 

Vanessa N. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Davis appeals from the district court’s judgment in 

Defendants’ favor on Davis’ racial harassment and discrimination 

claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). Davis 

also challenges the district court’s order granting Davis’ 

motion for reconsideration, but reaffirming the dismissal order. 

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Davis’ 

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district 

court’s dispositive rulings, Davis has forfeited appellate 

review of the district court’s orders. See Williams v. Giant 

Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004); see also

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 

1999) (failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes

abandonment of that issue). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s orders. See Davis v. Weiser Sec. Servs., Inc., No. 

3:13-cv-00522-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 1, 2016, entered Mar. 

2, 2016; Mar. 31, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          EXTENSION OF REMARKS

  By unanimous consent, permission to revise and extend remarks was 
granted to:
  (The following Members (at the request of Ms. Lofgren) and to include 
extraneous matter:)
  Mr. Foglietta.
  Mr. Stark.
  Mr. Stokes.
  Mr. Visclosky.
  Mr. Schumer.
  Mr. Menendez.
  Mr. Moran.
  Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin.
  Mr. Mineta.
  Mr. Hoyer in two instances.
  Mr. Richardson in four instances.
  Mr. Ford.
  Mr. Engel.
  Mrs. Kennelly.
  Mr. Clay.
  Mr. Rush.
  Mr. Tucker.
  Mr. Bonior in two instances.
  (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Ehrlich) and to include 
extraneous matter:)
  Mr. Davis.
  Mr. Riggs.
  Mr. Packard.
  Mr. Forbes in two instances.
  Mr. Smith of Washington.
  Mrs. Roukema.
  Mr. Lewis of California.
  Mr. Lightfoot.
  Mr. Taylor of North Carolina.
  Mr. Solomon.
  Mr. Chambliss.
  Mr. Talent.
  Mr. Shadegg.
  Mr. McCollum.
  (The following Members (at the request of Mr. de la Garza) and to 
include extraneous matter:)
  Mr. Gilman.
  Mr. Shaw.
  Mr. Weller.
  Mr. Barcia.

                          ____________________
```
No. 87-1026.

#### Stokes *v.*University of Tennessee at Martin.

Ct. App. Tenn. Certiorari denied.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Female aviators key element to the CAA mission

              - Published  March 24, 2021
              -                             By Senior Airman Dylan M. Gentile                                                    
              - 919th Special Operations Wing

**DUKE FIELD, Fla. (AFNS) --  **
Female aviators play an important role in the 711th Special Operations Squadron’s combat aviation advisor mission at home and around the globe. Combat aviation advisors advise, assist and instruct service members from partner nations on how to best perform this specialized mission.One of the female aviators working hard to get the mission done in the 919th Special Operations Wing is Maj. Brianna Thompson. She was a traditional navigator before joining the 919th Special Operations Wing and is one of several female CAAs in the unit.“We always need more people with diverse perspectives in aviation,” Thompson said. “You don’t have to be exactly like everyone on the aircrew to get along, be effective as a team, and enjoy the (heck) out of it.”Another female aviator and CAA in the 711th SOS is Lt. Col. Stacie Carroll, who was a navigator on the AC-130U Spooky before becoming a CAA.“I take a lot of pride in being a special operations aviator,” Carroll said. “I love that I was able to continue as an Air Force Special Operations Command aviator as a Reservist.”CAAs receive special training to operate in diverse environments in austere locations around the world, creating space for a diversity of perspectives.“The women I’ve ran into in this job seem to have it all,” Thompson said. “The role we play is probably a lot more prominent than our numbers would suggest.”While just under 7% of pilots are female, the Air Force has taken moves to grow the number of female aviators and removed the height requirements to fly in 2020.Thompson noted that sometimes it can be difficult when she’s the only female aviator on an aircrew. The challenges are far greater when performing the CAA mission as a lone female in a partner nation.With the physical demands, mental strength and skill required to fly, Airmen have to meet certain standards whether male or female.“I love when you start to feel comfortable and confident with the mission set,” Thompson said. “Typically ground-users will hear men on the radio, so when I know I’m doing my job really well and they’re hearing me, there’s nothing more powerful than that.”

AFWNUSAFAFAir ForceAFRCAir Force Reserve Commandwomanfemalewomen in the militaryCAACombat Aviation Advisor