alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 of GFSB Bancorp,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form  10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  we, James Nechro,  Jr.,
President, and Jerry R. Spurlin, Chief Financial Officer,  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 results of operations of the
Company.


/s/James Nechero, Jr.                              /s/Jerry R. Spurlin
---------------------------------                  -----------------------------
James Nechero, Jr.                                 Jerry R. Spurlin
President                                          Chief Financial Officer




September 27, 2002
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 13

- 00984

- CR

CHARLES HENRY JONES , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 339th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1163962 ).

TO THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court , on the 13 th day of January 2015 , the ca se upon appeal to revise or

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by

the trial court on October 29, 2013. After submitting the case

on the appellate record and the arguments properly ra ised by

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered Janua ry 13 , 2015

.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown.Opinion delivered by Justice Keyes.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order o f our said Court in

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

June 5 , 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
#### JOHN F. MAYBIN, garnishee, def’t. b. *vs.*WILLIAMSON & MILLER, pl’ffs. b.

The judgment against a garnishee whose answer admits a specific chattel, must be that he deliver the chattel, and cannot be for the payment of money.

Certiorari to Justice Bradley.

The record showed regular proceedings and judgment by attachment against one Bingham ; and that Maybin was summoned as the garnishee of Bingham. He appeared and answered “ that at the time the attachment was served on him, there was in his possession a bay mare of the value of $40, belonging to Elijah W. Bingham, and nothing more. Defendant requested to deliver to constable said mare, who refused to do so.” Whereupon, judgment having been rendered against the original defendant, the justice gave judgment against the garnishee for $26 78; the amount of the original judgment.

This was the exception; that judgment was erroneously entered for a sum of money, when it should have been for the mare specifically.

*The Court*

reversed the judgment on this ground. No judgment could be regularly given against a garnishee for money, on a declaration by him admitting a specific chattel in his hands, and nothing more. The justice should have ordered him to deliver the chattel to the constable to be inventoried, and would have had the same right *435to commit him for refusing to obey such an order, as for refusing to answer. Even if the mare were not delivered, no judgment could, be given in this action for the value; but the constable might have appraised her, and maintained an action against the garnishee for her. *(Dig.*350.)

*Janvier,*for the garnishee.
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 1312 Unemployed Number in thousands 40 to 44 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU03024935Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Unemployment Level - 40-44 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:09:07 PM)
# C_2020371EN.01002201.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/22

---

Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas süt ürünleri (PINAR Süzme Peynir)

(Case T-559/20)

(2020/C 371/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Johnson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sütas süt ürünleri AS (Bursa, Turkey)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PINAR Süzme Peynir — International registration No 1 394 295

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2020 in Case R 2127/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and allow the applicant’s appeal of 23 September 2019 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and allow the applicant’s appeal of 23 September 2019 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 July 2019;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 15 — Letter Re: Unaudited Interim Financial InformationTo the Shareholders and Board of Directors of Goodrich CorporationWe are aware of the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements and intheir related Prospectuses, of our report dated October 31, 2005 relating to the unauditedcondensed consolidated interim financial statements of Goodrich Corporation that are included inits Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005:     **Registration**    **Number** **Description of Registration Statement** **Filing Date**33-49052 The B.F.Goodrich Company Key Employees’ Stock Option Plan -Form S-8 June 26, 1992     333-03293 The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 May 8, 1996     333-19697 The B.F.Goodrich Company Savings Benefit Restoration Plan -Form S-8 January 13, 1997     333-53879 Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan — Form S-8 May 29, 1998     333-53881 Rohr, Inc. 1982 Stock Option Plan, Rohr, Inc. 1989 StockIncentive Plan and Rohr, Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan — FormS-8 May 29, 1998     333-76297 Coltec Industries Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan and ColtecIndustries Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors -Form S-8 April 14, 1999     333-77023 The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan and GoodrichCorporation 2001 Equity Compensation Plan — Form S-8 April 26, 1999     333-60210 Goodrich Corporation Stock Option Plan — Form S-8 May 4, 2001     333-60208 Goodrich Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan — Form S-8 May 4, 2001     333-98165 Shelf Registration for Debt Securities, Series PreferredStock, Common Stock, Stock Purchase Contracts and StockPurchase Units — Form S-3 August 15, 2002     333-107866 Goodrich Corporation Employees’ Savings Plan — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-107867 Goodrich Corporation Wage Employees’ Savings Plan — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-107868 Goodrich Corporation Savings Plan for Rohr Employees — Form S-8 August 12, 2003     333-109247 Goodrich Corporation Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan -Form S-8 September 29, 2003     333-123721 Goodrich Corporation Outside Director Deferral Plan — Form S-8 March 31, 2005     333-124244 Goodrich Corporation 2001 Equity Compensation Plan — Form S-8 April 22, 2005     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP   Charlotte, North Carolina  October 31, 2005  
82
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, William P. Stewart, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of W.P. Stewart & Co.,
      Ltd.;

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;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this report, fairly present in all material
      respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
      the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and
      have:

      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 company, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the company'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; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
      annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the company's internal control over financial
      reporting; and

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
      to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board
      of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      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 company's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date: March 16, 2005


/s/ William P. Stewart, Jr.
------------------------------------
William P. Stewart, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 925 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 925

 To provide that any new tax increases shall not apply to individuals 
                  with taxable incomes under $200,000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 1993

   Mr. Boehner (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Zeliff, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. 
    Zimmer, and Mr. DeLay) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that any new tax increases shall not apply to individuals 
                  with taxable incomes under $200,000.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
any law enacted by the 103d Congress, no tax increase shall apply to 
any individual whose taxable income for the taxable year is less than 
$200,000.

                                 <all>
```
254 La. 787

#### Francis C. BIENVENU v. Mr. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana.

No. 50148.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 10, 1969.

In re: Francis C. Bienvenu applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ granted. The relator is ordered discharged forthwith. See order.

It is ordered, that the Honorable C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana, release and discharge the Relator forthwith.
#### SWANTICK *v.*KELSEY HAYES WHEEL CORP.

Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation Act — Fraud— Equity — Dismissal.

Suit to set aside order of department of labor and industry-denying compensation for death of plaintiff’s husband, on ground that plaintiff was fraudulently induced to sign paper consenting to *post-mortem*examination on her husband’s body without being given reasonable opportunity to be represented there as required by rule of department, was properly dismissed, where it appears from department’s findings that there was ample proof, besides that revealed at *post-mortem,*to establish fact that death was not due to accident.

Appeal from Wayne; Bell (Frank A.), J., presiding.

Submitted April 14, 1932.

(Docket No. 115, Calendar No. 36,441.)

Decided June 6, 1932.

Bill by Agnes Swantick against Kelsey Hayes Wheel Corporation and Department of Labor and Industry to set aside order denying compensation and grant a new hearing. Bill dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Arthur P. Zirkaloso,*for plaintiff.

*Kerr, Lacey & Scroggie,*for defendant Kelsey Hayes Wlieel Corporation.

Sharpe, J.

Plaintiff filed a claim with the department of labor and industry, alleging that her husband, Michael Swantick, “fell from truck striking his head on iron bench knocking him unconscious was rushed to hospital where he died on April 25, 1931, never regaining consciousness.” On hearing *361before a deputy commissioner, the claim was disallowed. On review before the commission, the finding of the deputy that death was not due to an accident was affirmed.

The plaintiff thereupon filed the bill of complaint herein, alleging that she was fraudulently induced “to sign a paper purporting to give her consent to the holding of a *post-mortem*examination upon the body of her husband;” that she was not given a reasonable opportunity to be represented at the *post-mortem,*as required by a rule of the department, and that the finding of the deputy and the department was unlawfully based thereon. In her prayer for relief she asked that the decision of the department be vacated and a new hearing ordered.

Defendants answered, and then filed a motion to dismiss. It appears in the findings of the commission that there was ample proof, besides that revealed at the *post-mortem,*to establish the fact that the death was not due to an accident. It follows that the reception of such proof, even if inadmissible, as claimed by plaintiff, was not sufficient to establish the charge of fraud.

The order dismissing the bill is affirmed, with costs to appellees.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, North, and Wiest, JJ., concurred. Fead and Butzel, JJ., did not sit.
# C_2020201EN.01003602.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/36

---

Action brought on 9 April 2020 — FCA Italy v EUIPO — Bettag (Pandem)

(Case T-191/20)

(2020/C 201/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FCA Italy SpA (Torino, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and E. Truffo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christoph Bettag (Aachen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Pandem — Application for registration No 17 297 029

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2020 in Case R 1483/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Serious distortion of the facts. |
| --- | --- |

—

Serious distortion of the facts.

---
#### In the Interest of D. L. S., a/k/a D. L. McC., a Child. Juvenile Court Case No. 12678.

No. 70-243.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 21, 1970.

Appeal from Juvenile Court, Orange County; J. C. Kerr, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20046

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE BLAS VARGAS-SAUCEDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-450-ALL

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

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Blas Vargas-Saucedo appeals his conviction and sentence

for being found in the United States after deportation/removal in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Vargas-Saucedo argues that the

sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional

on their face and as applied in his case. He contends that the

unconstitutional portions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 should be severed

from the statute. He asks us to vacate his conviction and

sentence, reform the judgment to reflect a conviction only under
No. 02-20046

-2-

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand his case for resentencing under

that provision. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Vargas-Saucedo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been called

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90

(2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. The Government asks that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
# Cover Page

&8© 2021 The MITRE Corporation – all rights reserved.Federal Government – unlimited usage rights.	&8&F	&8Page &P of &N

# Change Log

# Eval Criteria Overview

&"-,Bold"&14	

&8&F	&8Page &P of &N

# Instructions

# Narrative Response Template

&"-,Bold"&14Draft/Pre-DecisionalBusiness Evaluation Criteria	

&8&F	&8Page &P of &N

# image1.png

# image2.png
# Sept 2022
# C_2023179EN.01000602.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad — Bulgaria) — Proceedings brought by M. Ya. M.

(Case C-651/21, (1) M. Ya. M. (Co-heir’s waiver of succession))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Measures relating to the law on succession - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 13 - Declaration concerning the waiver of a succession made by an heir before the court of the Member State of his or her habitual residence - Subsequent registration of that declaration, at the request of another heir, in the register of another Member State)

(2023/C 179/08)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M. Ya. M.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession,

must be interpreted as not precluding, after an heir has already had registered with a court of the Member State in which he or she is habitually resident his or her declaration of acceptance or of waiver of the succession of a deceased person whose habitual residence was, at the time of his or her death, in another Member State, another heir from applying for a subsequent registration of that declaration with the court of the latter Member State having jurisdiction.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---