alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          29,725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  387,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,812
<INVENTORY>                                     29,358
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               457,608
<PP&E>                                       5,639,199
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,462,025
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,821,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          601,079
<BONDS>                                        942,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,600
<COMMON>                                       650,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     225,141
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,821,338
<SALES>                                        878,182
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               878,182
<CGS>                                          329,835
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  657,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                186,143
<INCOME-TAX>                                    63,899
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            122,244
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    462
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   121,782
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Austin H. PURCELL, Appellant, v. Mary Frances PURCELL, Appellee.

No. 67-289.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 26, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


Board of Directors
GFSB Bancorp, Inc.

         We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-07131 and 333- 51498) on Form S-8 of GFSB Bancorp,  Inc. of our report
dated  July 26,  2002,  relating  to the  consolidated  statement  of  financial
condition  of  GFSB  Bancorp,  Inc.  as  of  June  30,  2002,  and  the  related
consolidated  statements  of earnings  and  comprehensive  earnings,  changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ending June 30, 2002 and 2001,
which report  appears in the June 30, 2002 annual  report on Form 10-KSB of GFSB
Bancorp, Inc.

                                                  /s/Neff + Ricci LLP
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Neff + Ricci LLP
September 26, 2002

Albuquerque, New Mexico
# C_2021062EN.01003901.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/39

---

Action brought on 21 December 2020 — OT v Parliament

(Case T-757/20)

(2021/C 62/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OT (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible;

| — | annul the contested decision and, where necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and, where necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 19 December 2019 imposing a reprimand on her, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), first, in that the applicant did not ‘receive orders’ within the meaning of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, so that she cannot be accused of infringing that provision, secondly, in that she could not have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed, and, thirdly, in that she did not in any event deserve, in view of the circumstances, a disciplinary penalty. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), first, in that the applicant did not ‘receive orders’ within the meaning of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, so that she cannot be accused of infringing that provision, secondly, in that she could not have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed, and, thirdly, in that she did not in any event deserve, in view of the circumstances, a disciplinary penalty.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons in that the defendant never explained to the applicant what were the specific facts that led it to conclude that she ought to have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons in that the defendant never explained to the applicant what were the specific facts that led it to conclude that she ought to have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed.

---
# C_2021357EN.01000502.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/5

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije — Slovenia) — J.A. v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-186/21 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Immigration and asylum policy - International protection - Directive 2013/33/EU - Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) - Detention of applicants for international protection - Applicant detained subject to a return procedure under Directive 2008/115/EC and in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is making the application for international protection merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of the return decision - Objective criteria on which such grounds may be based - Applicant who has already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure)

(2021/C 357/07)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.A.

Defendant: Republika Slovenija

Operative part of the order

Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an applicant for international protection has already had the opportunity to access the asylum procedure constitutes an objective criterion for the purposes of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---
#### Sim Hugh BANKS, Jr. and Mable Ann Banks, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. O-214.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 24, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on *698appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and SPECTOR, JJ„ concur.
#### MARY RICHARDSON’S Administrator de bonis non *vs.*JOHN VANDEVER’S Executor and terre-tenants.

In' a scire facias on an old judgment, where the nan', could not be found, the court permitted a narr. to be filed *nunc pro tunc.*

Scire Facias on a judgment in debt, without writ, for £134, with interest from the 10th March 1795. Pleas, nul tiel record and payment.

The scire facias set out a judgment for £268, The record produced was of a judgment confessed in the old form, as follows:—

“ Hugh Latimer, surviving administrator of Mary Richardson, dei ceased *vs.*John Vandever. Debt without writ. The defendant, by James M. Broom his attorney specially constituted, comes and confesses judgment to the plaintiff for the sum in the narr., with costs. &c. .June 7, 1806. Before

Hugh W. Ritchie, *Protfi’y,*

Real debt, £134, Interest from March 10, 1795.”

*R. B. Bayard,*for plaintiff.

*J. A Bayard,*for defendant.

The narr. could not be found, and the plaintiff not being able to re-, sist the plea of nul tiel record, or to go on with his present sci. fa. moved the court for leave to file a narr. *nunc pro tunc,*and to continue the cause for that purpose, which was granted without hesitation.
November 29, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PETER HENERY , Appellant

NO. 14

- 09

- 00996

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard ON REMAND from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment
AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision be certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350)




In
connection with the Annual Report of Hyperdynamics Corporation (Hyperdynamics),
on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Steven M. Plumb, Chief Financial Officer of
Hyperdynamics, does hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:
April 17, 2008





By:
            /s/
      Steven M. PlumbSteven
      M. PlumbChief
      Financial OfficerPrincipal
      Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary financial information extracted for the
twelve months ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      23,987,000
<SECURITIES>                                18,409,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,848,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,729,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            68,363,000
<PP&E>                                     121,628,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              44,199,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             154,098,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,240,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       147,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 137,660,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               154,098,000
<SALES>                                     86,075,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            86,075,000
<CGS>                                       66,228,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               66,228,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            38,876,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (2,296,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (16,733,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (7,175,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,558,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,558,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                  POWER OF ATTORNEY

   KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints James W.  Bullock and Leota L.
Pearson (with full power to act alone), as his or her true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full powers of substitution and
resubstitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign an Annual Report on Form 10-K of Endocardial
Solutions, Inc., and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite or
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or their substitute or
substitutes, lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

          Signature                 Title                             Date
          ---------                 -----                             ----
<S>                                 <C>                               <C>

   /s/ James W.  Bullock
------------------------------      President, Chief Executive        February 25, 1998
     James W.  Bullock              Officer and Director

   /s/ Leota L.  Pearson
------------------------------      Controller                        February 4, 1998
      Leota L.  Pearson

   /s/ Graydon E.  Beatty
------------------------------      Director                          February 25, 1998
     Graydon E.  Beatty

   /s/ James E.  Daverman
------------------------------      Director                          February 4, 1998
     James E.  Daverman

 /s/ Robert G.  Hauser, M.D.
------------------------------      Director                          February 4, 1998
    Robert G.  Hauser, M.D.

     /s/ Ronald H.  Kase
------------------------------      Director                          February 4, 1998
      Ronald H.  Kase

    /s/ Steven R.  LaPorte
------------------------------      Director                          February 9, 1998
      Steven R.  LaPorte

    /s/ Peter H.  McNerney
------------------------------      Director                          February 4, 1998
      Peter H.  McNerney


</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 145A/11 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 145A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5111 June 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 145A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5111 June 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2008/C 145A/01 | Recruitment Notice PE/108/S — Director (Function group AD14) — Directorate-General for Translation — Directorate A — Technology Support Services for Translation | 1 |
| 2008/C 145A/02 | Recruitment Notice PE/113/S — Director (Function group AD14) — Directorate-General for Interpretation and Conferences — Directorate A — Interpretation | 8 |
| 2008/C 145A/03 | Recruitment notice PE/114/S — Director (Function group AD14) — Directorate-General for Interpretation and Conferences — Directorate B — Organisation and Planning | 14 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Parliament

2008/C 145A/01

Recruitment Notice PE/108/S — Director (Function group AD14) — Directorate-General for Translation — Directorate A — Technology Support Services for Translation

1

2008/C 145A/02

Recruitment Notice PE/113/S — Director (Function group AD14) — Directorate-General for Interpretation and Conferences — Directorate A — Interpretation

8

2008/C 145A/03

Recruitment notice PE/114/S — Director (Function group AD14) — Directorate-General for Interpretation and Conferences — Directorate B — Organisation and Planning

14

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### JOHN S. GRAY *vs.*JOHN SORDEN.

Appeal dismissed for want of proper security to prosecute.

Appeal from *the*judgment of a justice of the peace.

The entry of surety in appeal was thus made on the justice’s docket.

“ On the eighth day of April 1837, the said John S. Gray appeals, and---becomes surety in the sum of forty dollars ; that the said appeal shall be prosecuted with effect, and also that any judgment which shall be rendered against the said John S. Gray, or his executors or administrators upon said appeal, shall be satisfied.

(Signed) Roger Adams.”

*F'ame,*for defendant,

now moved that the appeal be dismissed, on the ground that no security had been given to prosecute the appeal •; the name of the surety being left blank.

*Robinson, jr.,*contra,

likened it to the case of a bond executed by a party whose name happens to be omitted in the body, which he said would be binding; but

*T. RoHnson,*for plaintiff.

*Frame,*for defendant.

*The Court*

said, the language of the bond was I, or we bind myself or ourselves, which expression connects itself with the signature, and makes the obligation; but this entry does not bind any one.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023071EN.01000801.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas -Lithuania) — P.I. v Migracijos departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos

(Case C-280/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Common asylum policy - Eligibility for refugee status - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 10(1)(e) and (2) - Reasons for persecution - Concepts of ‘political opinion’ and ‘attributed political opinion’ - Attempts by an applicant for asylum to defend himself, in his country of origin, by legal means against non-State actors acting illegally and in a position to exploit the mechanism by which that State imposes penalties for criminal offences)

(2023/C 71/08)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P.I.

Defendant: Migracijos departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10(1)(e) and (2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘political opinion’ includes attempts by an applicant for international protection, within the meaning of Article 2(h) and (i) of that directive, to defend his personal material and economic interests by legal means against non-State actors acting illegally, where those actors, on account of their connections with the State via corruption, are in a position to exploit, to the applicant’s detriment, the mechanism by which that State imposes penalties for criminal offences, in so far as those attempts are perceived by the actors of persecution as opposition or resistance as part of a matter related to those actors or their policies and/or methods.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
#### Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety, Appellant, v. Jerome W. Valenti, Appellee.

Argued March 6, 1975,

before Judges CRUMLISH, Jr., Kramer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three.

*John L. Heaton,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *Anthony J. Maiorana,*Assistant Attorney General, *329
      *Robert W. Cunliffe,*Deputy Attorney General, and *Israel Rachel,*Attorney General, for appellant.

*Chris F. Gillotti,*for appellee.

April 8, 1975:

Opinion by

Judge Rogers,

The Secretary of Transportation, pursuant to Section 61.8(b) (2) of the Vehicle Code, Act of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, *as amended,*75 P.S. §618 (b) (2), suspended the operating privileges of Jerome M. Valenti for a period of three months for violating Section 1002 (b) (8) of the Act, 75 P.S. §1002 (b) (8) by operating his vehicle at the rate of 70 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour speed zone. Valenti appealed to the court below, a judge of which sustained the appeal on the ground that the magistrate’s conviction report was not properly completed and that the Commonwealth had not, therefore, proved that Valenti had been convicted of the offense charge. The Commonwealth has appealed and we reverse.

At the trial de novo below the Commonwealth proved the violation charged by the testimony of a State police officer. The appellant made no defense other than that a conviction had not been proved.

We have repeatedly held that the issue in appeals from suspensions imposed pursuant to Section 618(b) (2) is whether the licensee has violated the Act and that the fact or propriety of a conviction by a magistrate is irrelevant and entitled to no consideration. *Civitello v. Commonwealth,*11 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 551, 315 A.2d 666 (1974) *; Commonwealth v. Mislivets,*12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 59, 315 A.2d 307 (1974) ; *Commonwealth v. Thomas,*9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 474, 308 A.2d 165 (1973).

ORDER

And now, this 8th day of April, 1975, the order of the court below is reversed and the order of suspension imposed by the Secretary of Transportation is reinstated. A reinstated order shall be issued within thirty (30) days.