alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Romerus Paul v. Mary J. Roberts.

*Widow’s liability for family groceries bought in her husband’s lifetime.*

A grocer sued a widow for an unpaid balance of an account for family-groceries the items of which were charged in a pass-book marked with the name of her husbaud. The plaintiff introduced testimony tending to show that defendant owned a separate estate; that the goods were procured and sold on her individual.credit, and that she had repeatedly promised payment. Defendant disputed this and the court instructed the jury that if it was so, plaintiff was entitled to recover ; otherwise not. *Held*that the question involved was a question of fact; that the evidence was relevant, and that defendant could not complain of the instruction.

Error to the Superior Court of Detroit. (Chipman, J.)

April 25.

June 13.

Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*Alex. D. Fowler*for appellant.

*Otto Kirchner*for appellee.

Graves, C. J.

Prior to July 2d, 1878, the defendant was a married woman keeping house with her husband and children. At that time he died. Retween January 1876 and April 26, 1877, a considerable account was made for family groceries. The items were charged on an ordinary pass book which had endorsed upon it “Mr. Roberts.” This suit was brought against Mrs. Roberts to recover the unpaid balance of the account, and the jury found against her. The only dispute was whether the debt was against her or against her husband.

*612The evidence for the plaintiff consisted in this pass book and his testimony tending to show that she owned a separate estate including the place of residence and that the goods were procured and sold on her individual credit, and moreover, that she had repeatedly promised to make payment. She denied that the articles were obtained on her ■ credit and denied having promised to pay for them. She adduced other evidence tending to show that the goods were furnished in the usual way where the liability rests on the husband as the responsible head of the household.

The learned judge instructed the jury in substance that if she owned a separate estate, and the goods were procured and sold on her credit, and she had promised payment, the plaintiff was entitled to recover; otherwise not. He added instructions and explanations specially applicable to the inquiry, and very favorable to the defendant.

The rulings in regard to evidence were all proper. The whole question was one of fact and the admitted evidence was germane, and in submitting it to the jury the judge gave no instruction of which the defendant has any right to complain. The jury accepted the plaintiff’s version and not that of the defendant.

There is no error and the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Cooley and Campbell, JJ. concurred.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Barney A. Richmond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge, the Annual Report of American Environmental, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2009, (i) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) that the information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
American Environmental, Inc.



|                      |  |                              
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: August
31, 2012 |  | /S/    BARNEY
A.
RICHMOND    
|                      |  | Barney A. Richmond           
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)

I, Richard C. Turner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge, the Annual Report of American Environmental, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended
May 31, 2009, (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that the information
contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of American Environmental, Inc.



|                      |  |                              
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: August
31, 2012 |  | /S/    RICHARD
C.
TURNER     
|                      |  | Richard C. Turner            
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                      |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




Payment of Deferred Compensation




     This Agreement is entered into as of April 2, 2004, by and between ARI
Network Services, Inc. (“ARI”) and the undersigned participant (the
“Participant”) in ARI’s 1999 Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”).



     WHEREAS, effective January 1, 1999, Participant was granted a Salary
Increase (as defined in the Plan), which Salary Increase was required to be
deferred under the Plan until the Payment Date (as defined in the Plan).



     WHEREAS, through March 20, 2004, the aggregate Deferred Amount (as defined
in the Plan) payable by ARI to Participant under the Plan with respect to such
Salary Increase is set forth below the Participant’s signature;



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of ARI has authorized the payout of the
Deferred Amount, half in cash and half in stock;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:


     1. Payouts by ARI. Promptly following the effective date hereof, ARI
shall pay to Participant, in cash, one-half of the Deferred Amount.
Participant agrees to accept, in lieu of cash, and ARI agrees to deliver to
Participant, shares of ARI common stock for the remaining half of the Deferred
Amount. The number of whole shares of stock that ARI shall issue to
Participant shall be one-half of the Deferred Amount divided by the average of
the closing bid and asked prices of ARI common stock on April 2, 2004. ARI
shall pay cash in lieu of fractional shares. Upon such payouts, ARI shall be
released from any further liability or obligation owed to Participant under the
Plan.



     2. Termination of Further Deferrals. Effective with the beginning of the
current pay period, March 21, 2004, the Salary Increase granted to Participant
in 1999 shall no longer be deferred under the Plan and Participant’s cash
compensation will increase as a result.



     3. Investment Representations. Participant represents that he is
acquiring the ARI common stock issued pursuant to paragraph 1 for his own
account for investment purposes only and not with a present intent toward the
public sale or distribution thereof. Participant agrees that the shares may
not be transferred unless such transaction is exempt in ARI’s sole judgement
from registration under applicable federal and state securities laws, and the
certificates representing the shares will bear a customary restrictive legend.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have exercised this Agreement as of
the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	ARI Network Services, Inc.	 	/s/ Brian Dearing

	

	 	 	 	Participant Signature
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Timothy Sherlock

Timothy Sherlock,

Chief Financial Officer
	 	Brian Dearing

Print Name
	 
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	 	 	$104,385

Deferred Amount
BIOMETRICS LAB 

Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and Innovation 

BIOMETRIC TESTING STEPHEN ELLIOTT PURDUE UNIVERSITY 
BIOMETRICS LAB 

Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and Innovation 

WHAT IS MISSING IN BIOMETRIC TESTING 
BIOMETRIC TESTING 

• Traditional biometric testing 

– Algorithm testing 

• Well established metrics • Well understood testing methodologies 

• Operational testing 

– Harder to do 

• Access to environments • Test methodologies dependent in some cases 

the test 
TESTING AND EVALUATION 

• Essentially trying to understand how a 

system performs 

– Maybe more fundamentally – who or wha

causing the errors 
BIOMETRICS LAB 

Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and Innovation 

PROBABLY NOT MISSIBUT HARD TO DO 
GAPS IN BIOMETRIC TESTING 

• There have been several papers on th

contribution of individual error on performance 

– What causes these errors? 

• There are some papers that examine 

meta-data and the contribution of variables (age) and examines the training of algorithms 
GAPS IN BIOMETRIC TESTING 

• Training 

– How do users get accustomed to devices – Can they remember how to use them – How do we provide good training to the 

users that has a consistent message 
GAPS IN BIOMETRIC TESTING 

• Accessibility 

– How many people know people (!) who ha

problems with interacting with a biometric systems 

– How do we deal with accessibility and 

usability issues 

• Hearing and sight issues 
GAPS IN BIOMETRIC TESTING 

• Human Factors 

– Testing and evaluating biometric systems 

looking at how the users interact with the system 

• Are performance results different in an operati

environment than collect in a lab? 

• Are these performance results due to the 

environment? 
GAPS IN BIOMETRIC TESTING

• It the error always subject centric? 

– The role of the device? – The role of the operator? 
BIOMETRICS LAB 

Biometric Standards, Performance and Assurance Laboratory Department of Technology, Leadership and Innovation 

FILLING IN THOSE GAP
WORK IN PROGRESS 

• Interaction methodologies such as HB

have been addressing issues such as interaction errors from the subject perspective 

• Developed a framework for the 

establishment of metrics 

• Continual work on defining those metr• Evaluation methodology 
INTERACTION 
AND MY TIME IS UP... 

• An additional presentation on the 

Evolution of the HBSI model is tomorro
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 59 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 59

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Intelligence in 
                    the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 1997

Mr. Goss submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Intelligence in 
                    the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $4,939,526.00 for the One Hundred 
Fifth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $2,420,040.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1997, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 1998; and
            (2) not more than $2,519,486.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1998, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 1999.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Oversight.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Oversight.
                                 <all>
```
#### HOCKADAY v. LEE

No. 530P96

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 425

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3485

___________

T. N. Wilson, individually and as *

next friend of Thomas Wilson, *

deceased; Sue Harness, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Kent Williams, Individually and in *

his official capacity as Lieutenant * [UNPUBLISHED]

Sheridan Arkansas Police Department; *

Sheridan Arkansas Police Department, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 7, 1998

 Filed: May 8, 1998

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

T.N. Wilson and Sue Harness, parents of Thomas Wilson, deceased, appeal from

the District Court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C § 1983 1
-2-

(1994) action. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ submissions, we

conclude the District Court did not commit error in granting summary judgment for the

reasons it stated. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. §1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of NB Capital Corporation (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
      31,
      2008 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Jean Dagenais, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the
                Company.




/s/
              Jean DagenaisJean
                Dagenais
              Chief
                Financial Officer





Date: May
      14, 2008
Exhibit 32  SECTION 1350



APD ANTIQUITIES, INC.



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the periodic report of APD ANTIQUITIES, INC., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, CINDY K. SWANK, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date:  March 13, 2007



By:_/s/Cindy K. Swank____

Cindy K. Swank



In connection with the periodic report of APD ANTUQUITIES, INC., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, EDWARD WONG WAH ON, Secretary of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date:  March 13, 2007



By:_/s/ Edward Wong Wah On

Edward Wong Wah On
##### 



Citizens Effingham Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005
 Exhibit 32.1
  (1)
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
the Company.
   
 
 -15-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          49,335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,293
<PP&E>                                         864,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 918,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,926
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           248
<OTHER-SE>                                     309,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   918,499
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,443
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,407
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,536
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,536
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,536
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72


</TABLE>
10357.

#### McCall *v.*The State.

Decided May 16, 1919.

Rehearing denied June 9, 1919.

(Certiorari granted by tbe Supreme Court.)

Indictment for seduction; from Crisp superior court—Judge Crum. December 31, 1918.

*E. F. Slrozier, D. E. Griffin, F. A. Hooper,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. B. Wall, solicitor-general, Max F. Land, Hal Lawson,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. Under repeated decisions of this court and of the

Supreme Court, each special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself; and when so incomplete as to require a reference to the brief of the evidence, or to some other portion of the record, in order to determine what was the alleged error and whether such error was material, the ground will not be considered by the reviewing court. Under this ruling the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, and 7th special grounds of the motion for a new trial will not be considered. Some of these grounds are also defective in other particulars.

2. “Prejudicial remarks made by the court in the hearing of the jury furnish no ground for a new trial, but in such a ease a motion to declare a mistrial should be made, and upon the judge’s refusal to grant this motion his ruling would be subject to review. Counsel having failed to make such a motion and having proceeded with the trial without objection, he can not in a motion for a new trial raise a question as to the prejudicial nature of the remarks complained of.” • *Stapleton*v. *State,*19 *Ga. App.*36 (13), 38 (90 S. E. 1029), and authorities there cited. Under this ruling there is no merit in the 6th special ground of the motion for a new trial.

3. Under all the facts of the case it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to make a second statement to the jury.

4. A correct statement of law embraced in a charge to the jury is not erroneous because the court failed in the same connection to give to the jury other appropriate instructions. *Hill*v. *State,*18 *Ga. App.*259 (89 S. E. 351), and cases there cited. Under this ruling the instruction set out in the 9th special ground of the motion for a new trial is not erroneous for any reason assigned.

5. The 10th special ground of the motion for a new trial complains that the sentence, “under the facts of the case, was unusual and excessive.” This question can not be raised in a ground of a motion for a new trial. *Sable*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*768 (97 S. E. 271).

6. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and, having been approved by the trial judge, this court has no authority to interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., concurs specially.*

Stephens, J.

I concur in all except the rulings stated in paragraphs I, 2, and 4. None of the assignments of error, however, contains any merit, and the judgment denying a new trial should be affirmed. If there was any error as set out in the 9th special ground of the motion for a new trial, it was cured elsewhere in the charge.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 Pliant Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James
Ide, 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 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 results of operations of the Company for
and as of the end of the periods covered by this Report. /s/ James IdeJames IdeChief Financial OfficerNovember 10, 2004