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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 21 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 21

Providing for savings in the operations of the House of Representatives 
to be achieved by transferring functions to private sector entities and 
                      eliminating staff positions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Roberts submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for savings in the operations of the House of Representatives 
to be achieved by transferring functions to private sector entities and 
                      eliminating staff positions.

    Resolved, That, not later than the end of the One Hundred Second 
Congress, the Speaker shall take such action as may be necessary to 
transfer the activities and entities listed in section 2 to the private 
sector in order to achieve the annual cost savings and staff reductions 
specified in such section, which amount to annual cost savings of 
$25,858,000 (estimated) and staff reductions of 1,015 positions.
    Sec. 2. The activities, entities, annual cost savings, and staff 
reductions referred to in the first section are as follows:
            (1) House Restaurant System, annual cost saving: 
        $1,800,000, staff reduction: 220 positions (estimated).
            (2) House Post Office, annual cost saving: $3,900,000, 
        staff reduction: 160 positions.
            (3) House Recording Studio, annual cost saving: $1,950,000, 
        staff reduction: 42 positions.
            (4) Office Supply, annual cost saving: $1,070,000, staff 
        reduction: 37 positions.
            (5) Furnishings Office, annual cost saving: $4,180,000, 
        staff reduction: 147 positions.
            (6) House Information Systems, annual cost saving: 
        $5,050,000, staff reduction: 127 positions.
            (7) Photography Office, annual cost saving: $540,523, staff 
        reduction: 14 positions.
            (8) Barbershop, annual cost saving: $160,737, staff 
        reduction: 7 positions.
            (9) Beauty Shop, annual cost saving: $252,000, staff 
        reduction: 11 positions.
            (10) Folding Room, annual cost saving: $4,100,000, staff 
        reduction: 168 positions.
            (11) Child Care Center, annual cost saving: $394,737, staff 
        reduction: 18 positions.
            (12) Capitol Police, annual cost saving: $2,400,000, staff 
        reduction: 64 positions.
            (13) Democratic Personnel Committee: annual cost saving, 
        $105,000, staff reduction: 2 positions.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2020287EN.01004501.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/45

---

Action brought on 17 July 2020 — SBG v EUIPO — VF International (Geographical Norway)

(Case T-460/20)

(2020/C 287/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Super Brand Licencing (SBG) (Villeurbanne, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and A. Sion, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Geographical Norway — EU trade mark No 10 015 352

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 in Case R 662/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, by reason of the incorrect assessment of the existence of bad faith at the time when the application for the mark was filed. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, by reason of the incorrect assessment of the existence of bad faith at the time when the application for the mark was filed.

---
No. 00-950.

#### Everett Industries, Inc. *v.*Patel et al.

App. Ct. Mass. Certiorari denied.
| Name of Subsidiary                               | State of Jurisdiction of Incorporation | % Owned |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------|
|                                             |                                   |    |
| ANADIGICS (U.K.) Limited                         | United Kingdom                         | 100%    |
| ANADIGICS Denmark ApS                            | Denmark                                | 100%    |
| ANADIGICS Acquisition Corp                       | Delaware                               | 100%    |
| ANADIGICS Holding Corp.                          | Delaware                               | 100%    |
| Broadband & Wireless Investors, Incorporated | Delaware                               | 100%    |
| ANADIGICS China Corporation                      | China                                  | 100%    |
| ANADIGICS China Holdings Corp.                   | Cayman Islands                         | 100%    |
Verizon California Inc.



EXHIBIT 32



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 on Form 10-Q of Verizon California Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the
Company certifies 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) 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 as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the Report.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |    
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ---
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 12, 2003 |  |  |  | By:
|                       |  |  |  |    





|                       |  |  |  |    
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ---
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 12, 2003 |  |  |  | By:
|                       |  |  |  |    





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in
typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Verizon California Inc. and will be retained by Verizon California Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# SIN 561599

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
#### CITY OF LAKE CHARLES v. Kenneth R. THOMAS.

No. 53198.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1973.

In re: Kenneth R. Thomas applying for writ of certiorari or review.

Writ refused. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

TATE, J.,

concurring in denial — under the present practice of this court, these applications are not considered when no bills of exceptions nor record are included with the application. This technicality should either be incorporated in a rule or else overruled as necessary. Until then, I concur.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Boy Elijah O’STEEN, Appellee.

No. M-100.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 13, 1970.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; William T. Harvey, Judge.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

A. C. Soud, Jr., Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This court having consolidated for appeal this case and 14 others wherein the same defendant was charged with IS separate offenses arising out of one search and seizure and one arrest, and the same principles of law being applicable, the order appealed from in this case is reversed pursuant to our decision in State of Florida v. O’Steen, 238 So.2d 434, opinion filed this date.

Reversed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
No. 00-966.

#### Syed *v.*Hercules Inc. et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNION TRUST CO. *v.*MARSH.

Appeal 'and Error — Receivers—Attorneys’ Eees.

Appeal from allowance of claim for compensation to attorneys employed by receiver is without merit, where appellant did not contest claim at hearing, and its reasonableness is well supported by testimony'.' '

Appeal from Wayne,- Lamb (Fred S.), J., presiding.

Submitted January 15, 1932.

(Docket No. 153, Calendar No. 36,221.)

Decided April 4, 1932.

Proceedings by Union Trust Company, a Michigan corporation, administrator of the estate of Enoch W. Marsh, deceased, against Ella B. Marsh. On petition of Black & Black, attorneys for plaintiff as receiver of Michigan Brief *&*Record Company and United States Law Printery, for compensation. From order granting petition, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*699*J. H. M. Alexander*and *Walter M. Trevor (Ralph E. Boutier,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Black ,& Black, in pro. per.*

Clark, C. J.

Following the filing of the opinion of this court in *Union Trust Co.*v. *Marsh,*255 Mich. 362, the attorneys for the receiver filed petition for substitution of attorneys, that receiver be authorized to employ other counsel, and for order allowing compensation for services rendered as attorneys for receiver from and after November 3, 1930.

Due notice of hearing the petition was given. On the day there was no appearance except for the petitioner. The matter was set for hearing October 21, 1931, and it was heard and an order entered allowing and fixing the compensation, from which- Ella B. Marsh has appealed. The appeal is destitute of merit. It is urged the services were not rendered, and that the amounts charged are excessive, exorbitant, and unreasonable. Appellant had opportunity to contest at the hearing and did not. Excuse for her failure to do so is not even attempted. At the hearing a vice-president of the receiver testified that charges were fair. A reputable attorney of the Detroit bar gave like testimony, and one of the attorneys for.receiver proved the account and claim. No counter showing was made. Clearly, the order is well supported. *Union Trust Co.*v. *Marsh, supra.*

Other matter suggested by appellant is not pertinent.

Affirmed.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ.s concurred.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a) OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual
report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal
controls over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ DAVID W. COLEDavid W. ColeChief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

February 9, 2024

SC-2023-0962

Ex parte Roderick Lee Williams PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: 

Roderick Lee Williams v. State of Alabama) (Mobile Circuit Court: CC18-1411.60; Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-0533).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on February 9, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Stewart, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Wise, 

Sellers, and Cook, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29838-29839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13784]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 28, 2018.

PLACE: Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries

[[Page 29839]]

will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an 
interest in the matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Peirce, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; 
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at 
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: June 21, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13784 Filed 6-22-18; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
QC Sample and QPL Sample Submission Form 

SAMPLE SUBMISSION FORM

(January 2020) 

Pleasemailsamples to: U.S. Government Publishing Office 

Attn: Chief Testing and Technical Services Branch

Mail Stop QC, 

Loading Dock

44 H St.

Washington, D. C. 20401

Use the top portion of this form to send QC Samples or submit information using your company letterhead

and/or stationery with the information requested. Label samples as "QC Samples" or "QPL Samples."

Information required for the submission of QC Samples

QC Samples are items manufactured specifically for GPO: paper, envelopes or cartons

Description ofitem:

GPO Property Number: 

GPO Purchase Order #

and GPOLotNumber 

Quantity Manufactured

Manufacturing Number:

Date(s) of Manufacture: 

or Quantity Shipped

or Stock Number

Email address of the technical contact:

• Provide a written statement asto the recycled (PC, recovered, etc.) fiber content.

• Email test data for the manufacturing (converting) run to gcimd@gpo.gov with an

electronic copy of the QC Sample Submission form.

• Include a hard copy and electronic statement certifying thatthe sampleswere taken in accordancewith

TAPPI T-400or equivalentsampling plan.

• Email and attach a Certificate ofAnalysis

Information required for the submission of QPL Samples

QPL samples are items to be tested, evaluated and considered for inclusion on a GPO qualified products 

list.

Description of item:

Brand Name or Product Identification:

Manufacturer:

Email address ofthe contact person: 

GPOPurchaseOrderNumber: (If applicable)

JCP Code for Consideration: 

Recycled (PC, recovered, etc.) fiber content and copy of Certificate of Analysis 

(as required and described in QC Sample)
No. 00-980.

#### Thompson *v.*Mengel, Clerk, Supreme Court of Ohio.

Sup. Ct. Ohio. Certiorari denied.
#### The People ex rel. East River Terminal Railway, Relator, *v.*The State Board of Tax Commissioners, Defendant, and The City of New York, Intervenor.

(Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,

January, 1913.)

Taxes—■ special franchise — railway may not allege wrongful trespass —• railroads.

So long as a railway company occupies the public streets with its tracks under color of right, it may not escape the payment of a special franchise tax therefor by alleging that it is a wrongful trespasser.

Certiorari proceedings.

Parson, Closson & Hcllvaine (Jarvis P. Carter, of counsel), for relator.

Archibald R. Watson, corporation counsel (Addison B. Scoville, of counsel), for City of New York.

Thomas Carmody, Attorney-General (William. A. Mc-Quaid, of counsel), for defendant.

Blackmar, J.

The relator occupies with its tracks certain streets in the city of New York for railroad purposes; but resists the payment of the special franchise tax thereon. It has used the streets for a number of years and now argues the invalidity of its right so to do as a ground for exemption from payment of the tax imposed upon the exercise of this privilege. The question has been argued at length by counsel for relator and the defendants. The relator claims that it is unlawfully in the streets and, therefore, cannot be taxed for their use, and the city claims that the relator has a complete special franchise therein. I do not propose to decide' this question. It should be decided in a case of such a nature that the decision could be followed by a judgment either ousting the relator from the streets or adjudging its rights *135thereto. In my opinion, when a railway company, or other public service corporation, is using the public streets under color of right, consisting of a certificate of incorporation, a certificate amending the same, a contract with the municipality, or other documents, it should not be permitted to claim the validity of the instrument to support its use of the streets, and their' invalidity or insufficiency to escape being taxed for such use. Perhaps all the elements, of an estoppel *in pais*do not exist. But the courts have used that word to justify their refusal to entertain or examine a claim of a litigant when the allowance of such claim can only result in injustice, even if all the elements of estoppel *in pais*are not found. The word seems to be so used in People ex rel. United Gas Co. v. Priest, 152 App. Div. 249; People ex rel. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. v. Priest, 206 N. Y. 274. So long as the relator is using the streets, it should not be permitted to escape taxation therefor by alleging that it is a wrongful trespasser.

Writ dismissed, with costs.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Geologic Sequestration 

Meeting Documentation Interagency Meeting – Discuss Interagency Comments, January 13, 2010 

Date Staff Contact Information 

(Name, email, phone #) 

Name of 

Organization 

(Attach list of 

all attendees 

names and 

emails if 

possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting 

requirements, etc.)

Written Comments 

Provided? 

Did they also 

submit to Docket? 

Date sent to EPACCD 

1/13 Suzie Kocchi, 

Kocchi.suzanne@epa.gov

202-343-9387 

Agencies 

attending: 

EPA 

OMB 

DOE 

MMS 

CEQ 

A conference call was held to discuss interagency 

comments on the geologic sequestration proposal 

 

Yes 1/11/10
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 22

Prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for acquisition of voter registration

lists for the House of Representatives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

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

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for acquisition

of voter registration lists for the House of Representatives.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. APPROPRIATED FUNDS NOT TO BE USED FOR

3 ACQUISITION OF VOTER REGISTRATION

4 LISTS.

5 Notwithstanding any law, rule, or other authority, no

6 appropriated funds may be used for acquisition of voter

7 registration lists for the House of Representatives.
2

•HRES 22 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONTRACT TERMINATION.

2 The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall take

3 such action as may be necessary, in accordance with appli4 cable law—

5 (1) to terminate any contract or other agree6 ment that violates section 1; and

7 (2) to dispose of any voter registration list ac8 quired under such a contract or agreement.

Æ