alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### F. M. Dodd's Admr. *v.*S. S. Story.

Resulting Trust — Parol Agreement for Purchase of Land — Entry and Occupancy.

A tract of land was entered by three patentees, but the patent was issued in the name of only one. Dudd entered on and used one-third of the land, for some forty years without interruption. Held that a trust resulted to him in one-third of the land and his entry regarded as an appropriation, with the assent and approbation of appellee.

APPEAL EROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT.

December 14, 1870.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters:

In the answer of appellee filed in the suit of Kelsoe & Clark against him and others, it is stated that decedent, William Story, and himself entered a quarter section of land in partnership, each furnishing an equal portion of the money, and the patent was issued to defendant, S. S. Story, and by agreement, J. O. Dodds was to take his portion off the southeast corner of said quarter. This answer was subscribed and sworn to by appellee. -

The evidence shows that one-third of said.quarter section was laid off 'to decedent, that he entered, upon it some forty years before appellee’s cross petition was filed, and lived on it up to his death, which occurred in 1860.

The language of the answer herein quoted, seems to admit of no other construction, than that each one of the partners paid at the time, one-third of the cost of entering the land, and although the patent issued in the name of S. S. Story, a trust resulted to decedent for the one-third of the tract, and the entry on and *88occupancy of it by him so long without interruption, must be regarded as an appropriation of that part of the tract by him, with the assent and approbation of appellee.

Stubblefield, *for appellant.*

*A. B.*Boone, *for appellee.*

It is clear from the evidence that decedent at his death was indebted to appellee, but as the amount is not ascertained, he should be permitted to verify his claim and present it for allowance.

But the judgment in appellee’s favor for the land cannot be sustained. A lien, or incumbrance on it could not be created by parol, it must for the reasons herein be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss appellee’s cross petition, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
#### F. McCorkhill *v.*W. H. Dix, &c.

Partnership.

Equal division of payment. Liability for proportion of debts, out of amount not paid in.

APPEAL EROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY.

February 17, 1872.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

It is made to appear by the petition of the appellee, that the *584property owned by Kennedy at the time McOorkhill became his partner was valued at $6,000, and that in order to become an equal partner in the same, the latter agreed to pay either to Kennedy or to certain of his creditors holding' liens on such property the sum of $3,000.

*J. G.*Wilson, *for appellant.*

*Barnett & Edwards, for appellees.*

Of this amount he paid $1,000 in cash.

It further appears that out of the profits of the firm the debts of Hall and others ag’ainst Kennedy to the amount of $2,603.16 were paid. To one-half of this amount McOorkhill is entitled as a credit on his indebtedness to Kennedy, which leaves the accounts between them thus:

Original indebtness ................... $3,000.00

Amount paid in cash..................$1,000.00

One-half amount paid to Hall and others. . 1,301.59— 2,301.59

Balance still due .............................$ 698.^1

The proceeds of the agreed sale of the partnership effects were $2,657.45. To one-half of this amount, $1,328.72, McOorkhill was entitled, but from this amount there should be deducted thé $698.41 due to Kennedy on the original contract of partnership. This sum when deducted leaves $640.31, which ought to have been paid over to McOorkhill out of the proceeds of said agreed sale.

The error of the chancellor grows out of the assumption that McOorkhill owed the firm, when, in point of fact, his indebtedness was to Kennedy. The order made June 17th, 1870, requiring McOorkhill to pay into court $277.78 is erroneous, and the chancellor is directed to set the same aside, and hold it for nought. Further proceedings will be had consistent with this opinion.
#### Elizabethtown & Paducah Ry. Co. *v.*Daniel Klinglesmiths.

Eminent Domain — Damages—Instructions'. ’

In estimating damages for land taken, the defendants are entitled to be paid the value to them of the land taken, notwithstanding any enhancement in the value of those not taken, but the jury should be instructed, that in estimating the value of the land taken, the enhanced value, if any, to the entire tract, should not be allowed to enter into their estimate at all.

APPEAL PROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

April 19, 1872.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

There was uo error upon the part of the county court in admitting or refusing to admit testimony. Nor can wé determine that it did not exercise a sound discretion in regulating the introduction of evidence and the argument of the cause.

The instructions given the jury, however, do not conform to the views of this court or to the law of the case, as expressed in the 'opinion delivered at this term in the case of this Appellant vs. Helm’s Heirs. As appellees are entitled to be paid the value *446to them of the land taken, notwithstanding any enhancement in the value of those not taken, by reason of the construction of appellant’s road. The jury should have been instructed, that in estimating the value of those taken, the enhanced value if any to the entire tract should not be allowed to enter into their estimate at all.

*Brown & Murray, for appellants.*

*Wintersmith, for appellees.*

The instructions as given, allowed the jury to charge the railroad company with the value. The proposed construction of its road may have added to the land taken, and in this respect they were prejudicial to the party complaining in this court.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial upon the principles herein indicated.

The questions in controversy between the Wintersmith and the Klinglesmiths can not be settled upon this appeal. One appellee can not prosecute a cross appeal against another, Wintersmith must prosecute an original appeal, which may be done upon this record, but'there must be service of process.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 PHYSICAL SPA & FITNESS INC.(the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). The
undersigned, Ngai Keung Luk, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company
and Robert Chui, 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, that to the best of their 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.



Date: August 14, 2002               /s/ Ngai Keung Luk
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    Ngai Keung Luk,
                                    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Date: August 14, 2002               /s/ Robert Chui
                                    ------------------------------------
                                    Robert Chui,
                                    Chief Financial Officer
9816.

#### Tillman *v.*Barnard.

Broyles, P. J.

1. Under the facts disclosed by the record the court did not err in overruling the motion to dismiss the ease on the ground that it had been prematurely brought.

*746Decided October 22, 1918.

Eviction; from Tattnall superior court—Judge Sheppard. May 22, 1918.

*H. C. Beasley, James K. Mines,*for plaintiff in error.

Collins, *<& Stanfield, H. E. Elders,*contra.

2. In the' light of the facts of the case no material error appears in any of the excerpts from the charge of the court excepted to.

3. The verdict, finding for the plaintiff the-premises in dispute, and $120 for rent for the year 1916, was authorized by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Report of Physical Spa & Fitness Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Darrie Lam, 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, 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.

/s/ Darrie Lam
-------------------------
Darrie Lam
Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2006
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robert J. Butler, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-98-563-PHX-PGR

ORDER OF DETENTION

A detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing on the Petition on

Supervised Release were held on February 27, 2014.

THE COURT FINDS that the Defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily waived his right to a detention hearing and a preliminary revocation hearing and

has consented to the issue of detention being made based upon the allegations in the Petition.

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the Defendant has failed to sustain his burden

of proof by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), FED.R.CRIM.P., that

he is a danger to the community. United States v. Loya, 23 F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994).

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be detained pending further order of the

court.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2014.

Case 2:98-cr-00563-PGR Document 52 Filed 02/27/14 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,142
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,975
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      4,958
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          74,448
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            71,247
<LOANS>                                        159,656
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 252,571
<DEPOSITS>                                     173,804
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             41,539
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 252,571
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,141
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,489
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    43
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,673
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,922
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,074
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,599
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,003
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,820
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,820
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,345
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.49
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,337
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,349
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                        18
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,349
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,349
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Statement on International Space Station Leak Investigation","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pYSlpZVrPS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/statement-on-international-space-station-leak-investigation\/\">Statement on International Space Station Leak Investigation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/statement-on-international-space-station-leak-investigation\/embed\/#?secret=pYSlpZVrPS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statement on International Space Station Leak Investigation” — NASA\" data-secret=\"pYSlpZVrPS\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/nasa-logo-web-rgb.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":300}
---

Exhibit 99.7

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, as the Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Operating Officer of Veris Gold Corp., certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge and belief, the annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the periodic
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Veris Gold Corp. at the dates and for the periods
indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for
any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update
the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: March 28, 2013

/s/ Randall
ReichertRandall Reichert Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Operating Officer

---
Case 2:16-cr-00035-SRB Document 4 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-cr-00035-SRB Document 4 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-cr-00035-SRB Document 4 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Paul Haggerty, Acting Chief Financial Officer of Gemstar-TV Guide
International, Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (i) the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
     December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
     (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:  March 31, 2003

                                      /s/ Paul Haggerty
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Paul Haggerty
                                      Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                      (Principal Financial Officer)

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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 927

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 19, 1997

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for appointment of United States marshals by the Attorney

General.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 927 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Mar3 shals Service Improvement Act of 1997’’.

4 SEC. 2. APPOINTMENTS OF MARSHALS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 37 of title 28, United

6 States Code, is amended—

7 (1) in section 561(c)—

8 (A) by striking ‘‘The President shall ap9 point, by and with the advice and consent of the

10 Senate,’’ and inserting ‘‘The Attorney General

11 shall appoint’’; and

12 (B) by inserting ‘‘United States marshals

13 shall be appointed subject to the provisions of

14 title 5 governing appointments in the competi15 tive civil service, and shall be paid in accord16 ance with the provisions of chapter 51 and sub17 chapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating

18 to classification and pay rates.’’ after the first

19 sentence;

20 (2) by striking subsection (d) of section 561;

21 (3) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g),

22 (h), and (i) of section 561 as subsections (d), (e),

23 (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and

24 (4) by striking section 562.

25 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

26 at the beginning of chapter 37 of title 28, United States
3

•HR 927 RFS

1 Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section

2 562.

3 SEC. 3. TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS; PRESIDENTIAL AP4 POINTMENT OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES

5 MARSHALS.

6 (a) INCUMBENT MARSHALS.—Notwithstanding the

7 amendments made by this Act, each marshal appointed

8 under chapter 37 of title 28, United States Code, before

9 the date of the enactment of this Act shall, unless that

10 marshal resigns or is removed by the President, continue

11 to perform the duties of that office until the expiration

12 of that marshal’s term and the appointment of a succes13 sor.

14 (b) VACANCIES AFTER ENACTMENT.—Notwithstand15 ing the amendments made by this Act, with respect to the

16 first vacancy which occurs in the office of United States

17 marshal in any district, during the period beginning on

18 the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on De19 cember 31, 1999, the President shall appoint, by and with

20 the advice and consent of the Senate, a marshal to fill

21 that vacancy for a term of 4 years. Any marshal appointed

22 by the President under this subsection shall, unless that

23 marshal resigns or is removed from office by the Presi24 dent, continue to perform the duties of that office after
4

•HR 927 RFS

1 the end of the four-year term to which such marshal was

2 appointed or until a successor is appointed.

Passed the House of Representatives March 18,

1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk