alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marion Woodward Payne, Sara Wolfe Bell, Lea M. Csala, Frances Phelps Waller, Rachael W. Gutman, Anthony J. Mussari, Barbara B. Albert, Magdalene Dysleski, Stella M. Moat, Elizabeth C. Miner, George Loveland, Esquire, Carolyn H. Reif, Judith L. Reishtein, Anthony J. Walaitis, and Stella Walaitis, His Wife, and The Wilkes College Students’ Committee for a Clean Environment, by Mark Chamberlain, Trustee Ad Litem, Plaintiffs, *v.*Jacob G. Kassab, Individually and as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation; City of Wilkes-Barre, John B. McGlynn, Mayor, Marjorie Bart, Robert P. Brader, John V. Morris, Kenneth Remensnyder, Con Salwoski and Joseph A. Williams, Councilmen of the City of Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Defendants.

Argued June 5, 1974,

before President Judge Bowman and Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Judge Crumlish, Jr. did not participate.

*492
      *James F. Geddes, Jr.,*with him *F. Charles Petrillo,*for plaintiffs.

*Gregory S. Ghen,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *David A. Johnston, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, *Robert W. Cunliffe,*Deputy Attorney General, and *Israel Packel,*Attorney General, for Commonwealth, defendants.

*Malcolm M. Limongelli,*with him *Chester R. Muroski,*for Wilkes-Barre, defendants.

July 26, 1974:

Opinion by

Judge Mencer,

The several individuals, citizens of the City ot: Wilkes-Barre, and a group of students attending Wilkes College in Wilkes-Barre, who are the plaintiffs in this *493equity action, filed exceptions to the Adjudication and Decree Nisi of this Court, reported as *Payne v.*Kassab, 11 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 14, 312 A. 2d 86 (1973). We there dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint and held that, in exercising judicial review of the propriety of development of property subject to Article I, Section 27, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, a court must balance conflicting environmental and social concerns and determine (1) whether the proposed development complies with applicable environmental statutes and regulations, (2) whether a reasonable effort is being made to minimize environmental incursion, and (3) whether the environmental harm which will result so clearly outweighs the benefits to be derived that to permit such development would constitute an abuse of discretion.

We also held that public authorities in their discretion may change the use to which public lands are utilized and a different public use may be adopted so long as the terms and limitations of the original grant are not transgressed.

We have carefully considered the plaintiffs’ exceptions filed in this case and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, we make the following

Order

And Now, this 26th day of July, 1974, all of the exceptions filed to the Adjudication and Decree Nisi dated November 21, 1973 are dismissed, the Decree Nisi is affirmed, and the Prothonotary shall enter the Decree Nisi as a final decree.
EXHIBIT 23

Consent of Independent Auditors

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-34169, 333-27979,
333-71858 and 333-89930) and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-84971, 333-41424, 333-58126,
333-84086 and 333-102620) of our report dated January 27, 2003, with respect to the financial statements of Endocardial Solutions, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.



Minneapolis,
Minnesota
March 26, 2003

---

QuickLinks
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00368-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.J.B., et al., Children

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-311-CCL

Honorable Michael P. Peden, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant Crystal CaldwellBays.

SIGNED December 12, 2018.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-051-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# C_2022284EN.01001102.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 — EM v European Parliament

(Case C-299/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - European Parliament - Member of the temporary staff in the service of a political group - Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Article 7 - Transfer - Article 12 and Article 12a(3) - Concept of ‘psychological harassment’ - Failure to assign tasks - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Request for assistance - Loss or harm - Compensation)

(2022/C 284/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: EM (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha, L. Darie and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 March 2021, EM v Parliament (T-599/19, not published, EU:T:2021:111), to the extent that the General Court rejected the claims for compensation in the action, in so far as they sought reparation for the loss or harm suffered by the appellant as a result of being prevented from carrying out tasks during the period from 8 December 2016 to 1 June 2018, the date of his retirement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 March 2021, EM v Parliament (T-599/19, not published, EU:T:2021:111), to the extent that the General Court rejected the claims for compensation in the action, in so far as they sought reparation for the loss or harm suffered by the appellant as a result of being prevented from carrying out tasks during the period from 8 December 2016 to 1 June 2018, the date of his retirement;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 7 500 to EM; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 7 500 to EM;

| 4. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs in relation both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-599/19 and the appeal proceedings and to pay half of the costs incurred by EM in relation to those proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs in relation both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-599/19 and the appeal proceedings and to pay half of the costs incurred by EM in relation to those proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**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 Annual Report ofCoinstar, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-K***”), I, James A. Blanda,Interim 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: 

(1) The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d)); and 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company. 

Dated: February 23, 2010
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, each of the undersigned, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | such Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 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 such Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Golden West Financial Corporation.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                                                        |  | 
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|November 8, 2004 Date |  | /s/ Herbert M. Sandler                                                                                
|                      |  | Herbert M. Sandler Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer Golden West Financial
Corporation
|                      | 
|November 8, 2004 Date |  | /s/ Marion O. Sandler                                                                                 
|                      |  | Marion O. Sandler Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer Golden West Financial
Corporation 
|                      | 
|November 8, 2004 Date |  | /s/ Russell W. Kettell                                                                                
|                      |  | Russell W. Kettell President and Chief
Financial Officer Golden West Financial Corporation
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a) OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Galen C. Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of Outerwall Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 28, 2016 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Galen C. Smith     
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Galen C. Smith         
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
H. Res. 555

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 30, 1994.

Resolved, That all points of order against the conference

report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4299) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for intelligence and intelligencerelated activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence

Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, and against its consideration are waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
<PAGE>

                                                         Exhibit 23.1


Independent Auditors' Report


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Hello Direct, Inc.

Under date of January 21, 2000, we reported on the consolidated balance
sheets of Hello Direct, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1999 and
1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1999, as contained in the annual report on Form 10-K.  In
connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial
statements, we also audited the related financial statement schedule as
listed in the accompanying index.  This financial statement schedule is
the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our
audits.  In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements
taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information
set forth therein.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of Hello Direct, Inc. and subsidiary of our report dated January
21, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Hello Direct,
Inc. as of December 31, 1999, and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of
the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1999, and the
related financial statement schedule, which report appears in this
December 31, 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of Hello Direct, Inc. and
subsidiary.


                                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
January 21, 2000
#### Fire Department of the Village of East Rochester, N. Y., Plaintiff, *v.*John Kavanagh et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Monroe Trial Term,

February, 1913.)

Insurance Law, §§ 133-135—1 foreign insurance companies — penalties.

Sections 133-135 of the Insurance Law, in their applications to agents of foreign insurance companies, make no distinction between residents and nonresidents of any locality, and failure of such an agent to execute and deliver the bond prescribed by the statute before effecting an insurance subjects him to an action for the penalty provided by section 134.

Action to recover a penalty.

Charles P. Williams, for plaintiff.

Hiram Wood, for defendants.

Sawyer, J.

That the insurance in question was *effected*by defendants within the meaning of the statute I entertain no doubt (Century Dictionary, “Effect,” subd. 2), and that in so doing they acted as “agent,” seems likewise clear. Insurance Law, § 4-9.

My review of sections 133, 134 and 135 of the Insurance Law, had in the light of the argument and explanations advanced by counsel, confirms my belief heretofore expressed as to the legislative intention of their enactment and the construction which is to be placed upon them. The sections, in their application to agents of foreign insurance companies, make no distinction between residents and nonresidents of any locality. The phraseology is mandatory. Every person effecting such insurance as agent shall, before so doing, file the required bond with the proper officer in the city or village where the insured property is situated. Fire Department of East Rochester v. Barley, 73 Misc. Rep. 628.

That by their misapprehension of this statute defendants have unwittingly subjected themselves to the penalty therein *296provided, is to be regretted, but the court can do nothing to relieve them.

In accordance with the foregoing, judgment is directed for plaintiff, with costs.

Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 441 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 441

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 25, 1994.
    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds 
vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is 
presented to the House is waived with respect to a resolution reported on the 
legislative day of May 25, 1994, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
4426) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[No. 276-2.

Division Two.

July 30, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Donald B. Kitchen, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clallam County, No. 3219, Joseph H. Johnston, J., entered April 20, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
# C_2005281EN.01003402.xml

| 12.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/34

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 — Scotto v Commission

(Case T-76/05) (1)

1

(2005/C 281/62)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Western Sierra Mining Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Chaffee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

Dated: September 23, 2008

/s/ Michael M. ChaffeeMichael ChaffeeChief Executive Officer

1

---
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06-14-00090-CV

In the Interest of X.R.L., S.J.S., and Z.N.S., Children

(No. 2013-2155-DR IN 307TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

REPORTER'S RECORD

FILING

$10.00

$21.00

$10.00

$287.00

$596.00

$195.00

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

ALEX TYRA, APPT ATTY

ALEX TYRA, APPT ATTY

ALEX TYRA, APPT ATTY

ALEX TYRA, APPT ATTY

BRANDY BONNER, APPT ATTY

BRANDY BONNER, APPT ATTY

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE 

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct 

copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, 

as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 

witness my hand and the Seal of 

the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Sixth District of Texas, this 

June 19, 2015.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___________________________

Deputy
#### Matter of the Appraisal Under the Transfer Tax Acts of the Property of Samuel Roebuck, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

February, 1913.)

Taxes — transfer tax — “ lineal descendants ” — illegitimate children.

The children of a decedent’s illegitimate daughter, though born in lawful wedlock, are not his "lineal descendants,” and legacies to said children are taxable at the rate of five per cent.

Appeal from an order assessing and fixing the transfer tax.

Seldon Bacon and Leonard B. Smith, for appellants.

Harry Howard Dale (James W. Redmond, of counsel), for state comptroller.

Ketcham, S.

Question is made as to the rate of taxation upon legacies to children of the decedent’s illegitimate daughter who themselves were bom in lawful wedlock.

The order appealed from is right, *unless*these children of the daughter are lineal descendants of the decedent under the provision which prescribes one *per centum,*as the rate of taxation upon transfers to'“any lineal descendant of such decedent * * * bom in lawful wedlock.” Tax Law, § 221.

“A lineal descendant is one who is in the line of descent from a certain person.” But the line of descent is not merely derived from the communication of blood by animal generation. “ The line of descent is the course that property takes according to law when the owner dies.” Matter of Beach, 154 N. Y. 242; Matter of Cook, 187 id. 253, 261.

These cases forbid the argument, made in behalf of the legatees, that the words “ lineal descendants ” in the statute-cited *supra*are not used in their legal and technical sense. *590Under these authorities, there is no line of descent between the decedent and these' legatees and they cannot be his descendants.

The order in this respect, is affirmed.

Order .affirmed..
# C_2020297EN.01004801.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/48

---

Action brought on 21 July 2020 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (YOUR DAILY PROTEIN)

(Case T-464/20)

(2020/C 297/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark YOUR DAILY PROTEIN — Application for registration No 17 953 235

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 in Case R 2235/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the publication of the application for registration of the EU mark No 17 953 235; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the publication of the application for registration of the EU mark No 17 953 235;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Source Categories[1]

Emissions 

(tons/yr) %

Cumulative 

%

Hydrochloric Acid Production 2.23E-01 0.05 0.05

Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON) 2.99E+00 0.62 0.67

Municipal Landfills 4.00E+02 82.69 83.36

Plastics Materials and Resins Manufacturing [2] 1.21E+01 2.49 85.85

Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production 5.77E+01 11.93 97.77

Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) 3.37E-01 0.07 97.84

Sewage Sludge Incineration 3.17E+00 0.65 98.50

Tire Production 6.76E-02 0.01 98.51

Unsupported Plastics Film & Sheet 7.20E+00 1.49 100.00

Total Emissions 483.73 100.00

Foot Notes

[1] Chemical Manufacturing: Alkalies and Chloride (not subject 

to Chlorine Production MACT) were not included in the Nov. 

2002 Inventory 

[2] Plastics Materials and Resins Manufacturing (Nov. 2002 

Inventory) was titled Polymers and Resins (I,II,IV) in the May 

1999 Report

Vinyl Chloride