alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 870 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the 

Special Counsel assigned to investigate Russian interference with the 

2016 Presidential election and related matters, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2018 

Mr. ROKITA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with 

respect to the Special Counsel assigned to investigate 

Russian interference with the 2016 Presidential election 

and related matters, and for other purposes. 

Whereas Robert Mueller III has served as the Special Counsel assigned to investigate Russian interference with the 

2016 Presidential election and related matters since May 

17, 2017; 

Whereas the expenses associated with this investigation were 

$6.7 million in its first five months; 

Whereas at the established rate of spending, the investigation 

has likely cost the American taxpayers over $17 million; 

Whereas the matter of potential interference in elections by 

the Russian Federation has been investigated before and 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 870 IH 

during the same time by other authorized powers including the Department of Justice, American intelligence 

agencies, and committees of both the House of Representatives and the Senate; 

Whereas no sanctioned investigation has found evidence of 

collusion between the 2016 Presidential campaign of 

Donald J. Trump and the Russian Federation; 

Whereas no charges presently introduced by Robert Mueller 

III have been related to collusion between a political campaign and a foreign government; and 

Whereas a failure to resolve this investigation swiftly and accurately threatens to question the legitimacy of future 

elections held in the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses the need for a swift resolution 

3 into the investigation by the Special Counsel into 

4 Russian interference during the 2016 Presidential 

5 election and related matters to preserve the integrity 

6 of our democratic institutions; and 

7 (2) demands that within thirty days of the 

8 adoption of this resolution, the investigation be con9 cluded or the Special Counsel should report to the 

10 House on the status of the investigation with an an11 ticipated date of conclusion of the investigation to 

12 ensure that the legitimacy of future elections is not 

13 questioned. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
Report

Submitted to the

United States Congress

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Thirtieth Report to Congress on Progress Made in Licensing

and Constructing the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline

August 2020
- 2 -

Thirtieth Report to Congress on the Alaska Pipeline

I. Executive Summary

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)submits this report 

pursuant to section 1810 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).

1 Section 1810 

of EPAct 2005 requires that the Commission submit to Congress semi-annual reports 

describing the progress made in licensing and constructing an Alaska natural gas pipeline 

and any impediments thereto.

This report provides an update from the Commission’s Twenty-ninth Report, 

submitted in February 2020. 

II. Status Report

As stated in previous reports, at TransCanada Alaska Company, LLC’s request,

the Commission terminated the prefile review process for the Alaska Pipeline Project in 

Docket No. PF09-11-000. Commission staff has no further progress to report.

1 P.L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005), 42 U.S.C § 15801 et seq.
# C_2015320EN.01004402.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/44

---

Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Satkirit Holdings v OHIM — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvoworld)

(Case T-450/15)

(2015/C 320/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Satkirit Holdings Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Advanced Mailing Solutions Ltd (East Kilbride, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘luvoworld’ — Application for registration No 11 244 332

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 1480/2014-2

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss AMS’s Opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss AMS’s Opposition;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00026 -CV In re David Richard Lutz ORIG IN A L PR OC E E D IN GFR OM WI L L IA MS ON C OU N T Y

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. SeeTex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Filed: January

26, 2007
Case No. 9,694.

#### MOHR v. COTZHAUSEN.

[15 Alb. Law J. 392.]

Circuit Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

April 4, 1877.

Jurisdiction of Court of Special Authority— W here Established.

Where the jurisdiction of a court of special authority appears upon che record, its action and decision can no more be collaterally inquired into than can the action and decision of a court that has authority over all questions and controversies.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            W-H ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth T. White, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of
W-H Energy Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge,
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/ Kenneth T. White, Jr.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name: Kenneth T. White, Jr.

                                        Date: May 4, 2006

This certification is furnished solely to comply with the requirements of Rule
13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein and shall not be deemed
to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.
Before the First Division,

January 10, 1945

No. 49930.

#### Protests 98130-K, etc., of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial a sample of the mouth organs and a sample of the harmonicas were admitted in evidence and marked exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. The examiner, after examining the samples in evidence, testified that they were not toys and are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 47083. In accordance therewith the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 1541 (a) was sustained.
No. 49048.

#### Protests 883913-G, etc., of Kralen Hat Body Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

At the trial a witness for the plaintiff testified that certain of the items consist of hats similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 47291, the record in which was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as to certain of the items in question.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            W-H ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Ernesto Bautista III, the Chief Financial Officer of
W-H Energy Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge,
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/ Ernesto Bautista III
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:    Ernesto Bautista III

Date: November 7, 2006

This certification is furnished solely to comply with the requirements of Rule
13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein and shall not be deemed
to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.


                                       27
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Duke Capital Corporation Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0001051116
<NAME>                                      DUKE CAPITAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                          356000
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  3295000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                     281000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               5724000
<PP&E>                                                        15523000
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 2201000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                23815000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          7864000
<BONDS>                                                        5306000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     5638000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  23815000
<SALES>                                                        5479000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               6125000
<CGS>                                                          5177000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  5621000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                154000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              113000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                 298000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    113000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                             185000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                    185000
<EPS-BASIC>                                                        0 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0 <F1>

<FN>
<F1>Not meaningful since Duke Capital Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary.
</FN>

</TABLE>
No. 52829.

#### The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al. v. United States,

protests 470362-G, etc. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# C_2015171EN.01003201.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/32

---

Action brought on 23 March 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM

(SOCIAL.COM)

(Case T-134/15)

(2015/C 171/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, M. Maier, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SOCIAL.COM’ — Application for registration No 12 245 411

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2015 in Case R 1752/2014-4

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

Plea(s) in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjuction with Article 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjuction with Article 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjuction with Article 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjuction with Article 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
No. 53447.

protests 111630-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Quon Quon Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
##### 



Exhibit 13.1 FORM OF 906 CERTIFICATIONS April 16, 2004 Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20549 Ladies and Gentlemen: The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with
the Annual Report on Form 20-F (the ,,Report) for the purpose of complying
with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code. Heinz Sundt, the Chief Executive Officer and Stefano Colombo, the Chief
Financial Officer of Telekom Austria AG, each certifies that, to the best of
his knowledge:  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Telekom Austria AG. /s/ Heinz SundtName:
    
    Heinz SundtChief Executive Officer/s/ Stefano ColomboName:
    
    Stefano ColomboChief Financial Officer
# C_2015107EN.01003402.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/34

---

Action brought on 3 February 2015 — Certified Angus Beef v OHIM — Certified Australian Angus Beef (CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF)

(Case T-55/15)

(2015/C 107/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Certified Angus Beef, LLC (Wooster, Ohio, United States of America) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Certified Australian Angus Beef Pty Ltd (Surrey Hills, Australia)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CERTIFIED AUSTRALIAN ANGUS BEEF’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 095 394

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 in Case R 662/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the Opposition in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the Opposition in its entirety;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
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

In connection with the quarterly report of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),          I, John D. Hellmann, Vice
President and 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 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

|/s/ JOHN D. HELLMANN                                       | 
|---------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                           | 
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  August 8, 2003 | 

This certification accompanies the Report 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 the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### MORGAN et al. v. UNITED STATES.

Civ. No. 2958.

United States District Court N. D. Texas, Dallas Division..

Oct 28, 1948.

W. R. Herring, of Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs.

William P. Fonville, Asst. U. S. District Atty., of Dallas, Tex., for defendant.

ATWELL, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff and his wife sue for a few hundred dollars’ return to them because disallowed by the Collector of Internal Revenue as a reduction of their income tax.

They resided in Oak GHff, a part of metropolitan Dallas. The husband worked at the North American Aviation Company as a foreman. -The wife worked as an employee at the Guiberson plant which was another war activity.

She claims that she was required to wear slacks and that their original cost and the laundering of the same, was an expense that should have been allowed her as a tax-payer.

He claims that the plant at which he worked was eleven miles from their home and that it was necessary to go and come in an automobile. That such trips were made daily. That he was required to purchase a long, white coat, upon which there was the word, “Foreman,” and the name of the company of which he was an employee. That he had to buy a pair of safety shoes which had a metal protection to save his feet from anything that might fall upon them. That he sometimes worked overtime, and that it would, therefore, be necessary for him to go outside and get his meals and that that expense should be allowed him.

There was a rather lengthy list of the little expenses, such as the laundry of the long coat, washing of the car,- and the price of the. pil and gasoline which wept into it.

The tax that was paid on the gasoline should be allowed. The purchase price of the coat and the shoes should be allowed. The purchase price of the slacks should be allowed. These total $51.00 after recomputing the tax and deducting such amount as legally should be deducted, there remains a total recovery for the plaintiffs of $22.84. All other claims are disallowed. See Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465, 66 S.Ct. 250, 90 L.Ed. 203.

Even though it were not necessary to disallow them because of the law, they should be disallowed because the plaintiffs had kept no memorandum of the little expenditures and their testimony was made up of estimates and the use of the phrase, “I imagine,” would amount to so and so. There is no definite proof.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

 : 

v. : 

 : 

JOSE RAMON RIVAS : NO. 03-599-1 

ORDER

NOW, this 29th day of August, 2023, upon consideration of the defendant’s Motion 

for Early Termination of Supervised Release (Doc. No. 149) and the government’s 

response, it is ORDERED that this motion is DENIED. 

Case 2:03-cr-00599-TJS Document 155 Filed 08/29/23 Page 1 of 1