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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 423 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 423

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 12, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2473) to designate certain National Forest lands in the State of 
Montana as wilderness, to release other National Forest lands in the State of 
Montana for multiple use management, and for other purposes. The first reading 
of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of 
the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. 
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed ninety 
minutes, with sixty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, fifteen minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Agriculture, and fifteen minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now 
printed in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 5(a) 
of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in 
the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or 
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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
March 31, 2006, 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 March 31, 2006 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 March 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Golden West Financial Corporation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |  |  |                                                                                                       
|----------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|            |  | 
|May 9, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Herbert M. Sandler                                                                                
|Date        |  |  |  | Herbert M. Sandler Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer Golden West Financial
Corporation
|            |  | 
|May 9, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Marion O. Sandler                                                                                 
|Date        |  |  |  | Marion O. Sandler Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer Golden West Financial
Corporation 
|            |  | 
|May 9, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Russell W. Kettell                                                                                
|Date        |  |  |  | Russell W. Kettell President and Chief Financial
Officer Golden West Financial Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MACKIE
DESIGNS INC.'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,459,843
<SECURITIES>                                 9,442,157
<RECEIVABLES>                               28,261,629
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,390,872)
<INVENTORY>                                 34,471,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            77,989,562
<PP&E>                                      30,868,254
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,366,647)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             113,195,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       36,982,742
<BONDS>                                     20,919,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    28,815,023
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,275,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               113,195,176
<SALES>                                     35,570,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,570,938
<CGS>                                       21,812,596
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,812,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,545,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (25,070)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,506,003
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,051,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,454,203
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,454,203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Calvin Daniels, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 582]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demurest, J.), rendered July 18, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence for that crime and the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed for the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the defendant’s right to a public trial was not violated by the court’s exclusion of a toddler, apparently the defendant’s child. The court permitted other family members to remain in the courtroom and its attempt to otherwise preserve order and decorum in the courtroom was not improper *(see, People v Cosentino,*198 AD2d 294; *People v Witherspoon,*157 AD2d 811). This case is distinguishable from the situation in *People v*
      *530
      *Miller*(224 AD2d 639) where the Court excluded the defendant’s two school-aged children who had previously been sitting quietly in the courtroom based on the Court’s "standing policy” not to permit children younger than 12 years of age in the courtroom. There is no contention in the instant case that the child’s mother was excluded from the courtroom *(cf., People v Scott,*237 AD2d 544 *[decidedherewith];People v Gayle,*237 AD2d 532 [decided herewith]).

The sentence imposed for the defendant’s conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). However, the court improperly imposed a sentence for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, a crime for which the defendant was not convicted. Consequently, as the People concede, that sentence must be vacated.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1 – Report of the Audit Committee

Report of the Audit Committee

 

February 21, 2003

Board of DirectorsElectronic Systems Technology, Inc.

The Audit Committee has conducted oversight activities for Electronic SystemsTechnology, Inc. in accordance with the duties and responsibilities outlined in the AuditCommittee charter.

Management is responsible for the Company's internal controls and the financialreporting process. The independent auditors are responsible for performing and independentaudit of the Company's financial statements in accordance with auditing standardsgenerally accepted in the United States and expressing an opinion on the conformity ofthose audited financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generallyaccepted in the United States. The Audit Committee's responsibility is to monitor andoversee these processes. The Audit Committee also recommends to the Board of Directors theselection of the Company's independent accountants.

The Audit Committee, with the assistance of the Company's accounting department andManagement, has fulfilled its objectives and responsibilities as specified by the AuditCommittee charter, and has provided adequate and appropriate independent oversight andmonitoring of Electronic Systems Technology's systems of internal control for the yearended December 31, 2002. 

These activities included, but were not limited to, the following accomplishments forthe year ended December 31, 2002:

Reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements for the year ended December 31,2002 with Management

Discussed with Moe O'Shaughnessy & Associates, P.S. matters requiring discussion byStatement of Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 61.

Discussed with, and received written disclosures and a letter from Moe O'Shaughnessy& Associates, P.S. relating to their independence, as required by IndependenceStandards Board Standard No. 1.

Based on the above, the Audit Committee recommends the audited financial statements forthe year ended December 31, 2002 be included in Electronic Systems Technology's AnnualReport on Form 10KSB to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Respectfully submitted, 

Electronic Systems Technology, Inc Audit Committee

Melvin H. Brown, ChairmanJohn L. SchooleyRobert Southworth
# C_2020279EN.01006201.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/62

---

Action brought on 6 July 2020 — KY v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-433/20)

(2020/C 279/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the implied decision of 17 September 2019, confirmed by the express decision of 10 October 2019, rejecting the request for repayment of the part of the pension rights acquired by the applicant before her entry into service which was not credited on transfer to the EU pension scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision of 17 September 2019, confirmed by the express decision of 10 October 2019, rejecting the request for repayment of the part of the pension rights acquired by the applicant before her entry into service which was not credited on transfer to the EU pension scheme;

| — | 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, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care. In that regard, the applicant submits that, in accordance with an EU institution’s duty of care, it is required to inform the official not only of the minimum subsistence figure rule and its effect on the calculation of the pension, but also of the possibility of postponing the transfer of his or her pension rights until the grant of his or her actual pension rights. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care. In that regard, the applicant submits that, in accordance with an EU institution’s duty of care, it is required to inform the official not only of the minimum subsistence figure rule and its effect on the calculation of the pension, but also of the possibility of postponing the transfer of his or her pension rights until the grant of his or her actual pension rights.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment. The applicant submits that the refusal to repay the part of the national pension rights transferred to the EU scheme, which was not taken into account when calculating the pension rights, may lead to an unjustified appropriation and, therefore, an unjust enrichment for the European Union, and an unjust impoverishment of the official concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment. The applicant submits that the refusal to repay the part of the national pension rights transferred to the EU scheme, which was not taken into account when calculating the pension rights, may lead to an unjustified appropriation and, therefore, an unjust enrichment for the European Union, and an unjust impoverishment of the official concerned.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Preferred Voice, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William J.
Schereck, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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) 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.

/s/ William J. Schereck
--------------------------
William J. Schereck
Principal Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             548
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (595)
<INVENTORY>                                     30,160
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,170
<PP&E>                                          39,164
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (17,767)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 332,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,297
<BONDS>                                        195,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   332,835
<SALES>                                        198,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               198,054
<CGS>                                          115,315
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  181,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   251
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    811
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,528
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (717)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (717)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (7.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (7.17)
        

</TABLE>
Jim Wagoner 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Steckel, Andrew [Steckei.Andrew@epa.gov] 

Monday, July 20, 2015 11 :39 AM 

Jim Wagoner; Sutkus, Caroi@ARB 

Gong, Kevin; Drake, Kerry 

EPA No Comment on Butte Rule 300 

&EPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

July 20, 2015 

Transmittal of EPA Rule Review Comments 

To: 

From: 

Re: 

Jim Wagoner, Butte County Air Quality Management District 

jwagoner@bcagmd .org 

Carol Sutkus, California Air Resources Board 

csutkus@arb.ca.gov 

Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief 

steckel.andrew@epa.gov 

Rule 300 - Open Burning Requirements, Prohibitions and 

Exemptions, version sent to US EPA on July 16, 2015 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft rule revisions identified above. At this time, we have no comments on 

the proposed revisions to this rule. Please direct any questions in this regard to me at ( 415) 94 7-4115 or to Kevin Gong at 

(415) 972-3073. 

Total Contr ol Panel 

To: jwagoner(a·bcagmd.org 

From: stcckel.andrew(tqepa,gov 

Remove this sender from my allow list 

l'ou received this message because the seuder is 0 11 your allow list. 

1
ex_230833.htm


Exhibit 10.02 


 


Schedule of Indemnification Agreements 


  


Mike Brooks


﻿ 


Jason S. Brooks


﻿ 


Glenn E. Corlett


﻿ 


Michael L. Finn


﻿ 


G. Courtney Haning


﻿ 


William L. Jordan


﻿ 


Curtis A. Loveland


﻿ 


Robert B. Moore, Jr.


﻿ 


James L. Stewart


﻿ 


Tracie Winbigler


﻿ 


Thomas D. Robertson


﻿ 


Richards Simms


 


﻿ 


﻿ 


﻿ 


﻿
# C_2022432EN.01002401.xml

| 14.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2022 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

(Case T-417/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ITINERANT - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a duck singing in a circle - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Similarity - Repute - Link - Unfair advantage - No due cause - Article 95(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 27(4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Document produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 432/28)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. De Vietro, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 May 2021 (Case R 1017/2020-5) in relation to opposition proceedings between the intervener and the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Save the Duck SpA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Itinerant Show Room Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Save the Duck SpA.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.

---
# C_2023179EN.01003201.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-555/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Ground for invalidity - Non-compliance with requirements for protection - Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Features of appearance of a product solely dictated by its technical function - Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2023/C 179/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke and J. Lewandowski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 June 2021 (Case R 1007/2018-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tinnus Enterprises LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---