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

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 436

Directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate

allegations pertaining to the House Post Office.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 24, 1994

Mr. KLUG (for himself, Mr. BOEHNER, and Mr. ROBERTS) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

to investigate allegations pertaining to the House Post Office.

Whereas allegations reported in public and made in official

Department of Justice court documents that personnel of

the House Post Office provided illegal cash to certain

Members in three ways: (1) cash instead of stamps for

official vouchers, (2) cash for postage stamps which had

earlier been purchased with official vouchers, and (3)

cash for campaign checks;

Whereas the Department of Justice has secured admissions

of criminal guilt regarding past activities in the House

Post Office;

Whereas multiple concerns and allegations of possible wrongdoing by House employees, a House officer, and Members

had been raised within the report of the House Adminis-
2

•HRES 436 IH

tration Committee Task Force to Investigate the Operation and Management of the House Post Office;

Whereas all these allegations directly affect the rights of the

House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of

its proceedings, and the rights, reputation, and conduct

of its Members;

Whereas Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution gives each

House of Congress responsibility over disorderly behavior

of its Members; and

Whereas the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has

jurisdiction over the conduct and behavior of current

House Members, officers, and employees, including investigatory authority, and is the appropriate body of this

House to conduct any inquiry: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Offi2 cial Conduct is instructed to immediately investigate any

3 alleged violation, by any Member, officer, or employee of

4 the House, of the Code of Official Conduct or of any law,

5 rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct that is relat6 ed to activities, described by or referred to in, documents

7 that it received on July 22, 1992, from the Committee

8 on House Administration pertaining to the House Admin9 istration Committee Task Force to Investigate the Oper10 ation and Management of the House Post Office investiga11 tion. Not later than 60 days after this resolution is agreed

12 to and periodically thereafter, the Committee on Stand13 ards and Official Conduct shall report to the House the

14 status of this investigation. Not later than September 30,
3

•HRES 436 IH

1 1994, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

2 shall report to the House its findings of fact and rec3 ommendations on possible disciplinary actions.

Æ
#### Robert Rook et al., Respondents, v 60 Key Centre, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Mobile Materials Handling Equipment, Ltd., Appellant. 60 Key Centre, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Aluma Systems Corporation, Third-Party Defendant. Burke Company, Fourth-Party Plaintiff, v Frank L. Ciminelli Construction Co., Inc., Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant. Mobile Materials Handling Equipment, Ltd., Fourth-Party Plaintiff, v Frank L. Ciminelli Construction Co., Inc., Fourth-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Fourth-Party Defendants.

[656 NYS2d 1014]

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Fourth-party defendant Frank L.. Ciminelli Construction Co., Inc., and defendant and fourth-party plaintiff Mobile Materials Handling Equipment, Ltd., appeal from an order denying their motion to compel plaintiff Robert Rook to be examined by a neuropsychologist for the defense; permitting Rook’s attorney to attend an examination by a defense physician / psychiatrist; and directing that such examination be videotaped.

Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for an examination by a neuropsychologist but in allowing neuropsychological testing to be performed by or under the supervision of a physician *(see generally, Paris v Waterman S. S. Corp.,*218 AD2d 561, 563-564). We note that, in their papers, appellants implied that such relief was acceptable. We further note that appellants have availed themselves of the benefits of the orders by having Rook examined by their psychiatrist, thus waiving any claimed error.

Appellants are not aggrieved by the court’s directive allowing Rook’s attorney to be present during the examination and requiring that the examination be videotaped. Appellants expressly consented to allowing the examination to be observed and videotaped, albeit through a one-way mirror. Appellants’ challenge is more properly to the court’s refusal to require a one-way mirror. However, appellants do not address that issue, nor would we be inclined to interfere with the court’s management of such minor details of discovery. Finally, the directive that the examination of Rook be limited to one day is not contained in the order on appeal. Indeed, Rook’s cross motion in that regard was denied. (Appeals from Order of Supreme *902Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Discovery.) Present^Den-man, P. J., Pine, Lawton and Balio, JJ.
# C_2022171EN.01003101.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — UGA Nutraceuticals v EUIPO — Vitae Health Innovation (VITADHA)

(Case T-149/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark VITADHA - Earlier Spanish word mark VITANADH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 171/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UGA Nutraceuticals Srl (Gubbio, Italy) (represented by: M. Riva, J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Vitae Health Innovation, SL (Montmeló, Spain) (represented by: E. Torner Lasalle, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2021 (Case R 2719/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Vitae Health Innovation and UGA Nutraceuticals.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders UGA Nutraceuticals Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders UGA Nutraceuticals Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---
#### Roberto LARIAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1494.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

# AGENCY:

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

                    Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued an exposure draft of a classified Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 56:                     *Classified Activities.*

Due to the classified nature of the proposal, the exposure draft will only be made available to those individuals who have been designated as having a need to know and who hold the proper clearances.

Additionally, FASAB staff will hold two classified reading sessions for those individuals without SIPR accounts to review the exposure draft. Only those individuals who have been designated as having a need to know and hold the proper clearances will be allowed to attend.

—Session I: Wednesday July 18, 2018 9:30-11:30 a.m.

—Session II: Wednesday August 1, 2018 1:30-3:30 p.m.

                    To request attendance at one of the reading sessions please contact Monica Valentine at                     *valentinem@fasab.gov*                     by July 16, 2018 for Session I and July 27, 2018 for Session II. Please provide your name, organization, and contact information.                

The Board requests comments on the exposure draft by August 13, 2018 and encourages respondents to provide responses to all of the questions raised and the reasons for their positions.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

Authority:Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463.

Dated: July 12, 2018.

Wendy M. Payne,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2018-15234 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-178-000]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Institution of Section 206 
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On June 29, 2018, the Commission instituted a proceeding in Docket 
No. EL18-178-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act 
(FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), to determine the just and reasonable 
replacement rate, based on its finding that PJM Interconnection, 
L.L.C.'s currently effective Open Access Transmission Tariff is unjust, 
unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory or preferential. Calpine 
Corporation v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 163 FERC ] 61,236 (2018).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-178-000, established 
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-178-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as 
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: July 2, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14772 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
```
Exhibit 12.1

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXEDCHARGES
The ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the periods shownhas been computed by dividing earnings available for fixed charges (income fromcontinuing operations before income taxes plus fixed charges includingcapitalized interest) by fixed charges (interest expense including capitalizedinterest). Interest expense includes the portion of operating rental expensewhich we believe is representative of the interest component of rental expense.
**Years Ended December, 31                                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------                                                               2003         2002          2001         2000         1999                                                            -----------  -----------   -----------  -----------  -----------**                                                                           (In thousands, except ratio data)Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations  Before Income Taxes..................................... $   126,683  $    64,396   $    22,642  $   (40,224) $     5,492Fixed Charges:Interest expense (including capitalized interest).........       5,506        7,700        15,767       17,932       14,315Interest relating to rental expense (1)...................       6,795        5,205         2,609        2,387        2,428                                                            -----------  -----------   -----------  -----------  -----------    Total fixed charges...................................      12,301       12,905        18,376       20,319       16,743                                                            -----------  -----------   -----------  -----------  -----------Earnings available for fixed charges...................... $   138,984  $    77,301   $    41,018  $   (19,905) $    22,235                                                            ===========  ===========   ===========  ===========  ===========Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (2)....................       11.30         5.99          2.23          -           1.33
---------------------

(1) The representative interest portion of rental expense was deemed to beone-third of all rental expense.
Kruger, Brett (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Robert F. Selig [rselig@craa.com] 

Monday, February 20, 2012 5:57 PM 

Karen Erazo 

Alexander Vander Bellen; Carl Nelson; Daniel Weiss; Ed Faberman; Howard Kass; Jeff 

Manley; Joanne Young; Johnathan Hill; Marshall Sinick; Robert E. Cohn; Robert F. Selig; 

Stephen Morrissey; Rosenberg, Esta (OST); Hedberg, Brian (OST); Kruger, Brett (OST); 

Nicole Noll 

Subject: Re: Exemption Renewal Application 

Lansing has no objections and fully supports the application. 

Bob Selig 

Executive Director 

Capital Region Airport Authority 

Lansing, MI 48906 

517-886-3711 

On Feb 20, 2012, at 5:21PM, "Karen Erazo" <Karen.Erazo@suncountry.corn> wrote: 

MN Airlines, LLC d/b/a Sun Country Airlines is filing the attached exemption renewal application with the 

US Departmet of Transportation today. 

In order to expedite action on the request, please provide a response as to whether or not you object to 

this application by replying to this e-mail, 

Thank you, 

Karen Erazo 

Manager, Legal Affairs 

Phone: 651-681-3950 

Fax: 651-681-3901 

Book Online at www.suncountry.com! 

<OST-2002-12211 Renewal Exemption Application.pdf> 

1
[No. 873-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

February 28, 1972.]

#### United Pacific Insurance Company, *Plaintiff,*v. Philip B. Lundstrom *et al., Appellants,*Milmanco Corporation, *Respondent.*
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

MARK E. SANBORN,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent.

______________________

2013

- 3046

______________________

Appea l from the Merit Systems Protection Board in

case n o. DA315H110431

- B

- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Mark E. Sanborn, moves without opposition for a 60

- day extension of time to file his principal brief.

Upon Consideration Thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The motion is granted. The petitioner’s brief is due on

or before April 30, 2013. Case: 13-3046 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 02/27/2013MARK SANBORN v. ARMY 2

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s27 Case: 13-3046 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 02/27/2013
#### M. Elizabeth SINGH, etc., Appellant, v. 1565 COLLINS CORPORATION, etc., Appellee.

No. 72-140.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 26, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023104EN.01002801.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2023 — Harbaoui v EUIPO — Google (GC GOOGLE CAR)

(Case T-568/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark GC GOOGLE CAR - Earlier EU word mark GOOGLE - Relative ground for refusal - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 104/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zoubier Harbaoui (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Bove, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, M. Eberl and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 June 2021 (Case R 902/2020-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Zoubier Harbaoui to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Zoubier Harbaoui to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---
#### Theodore Augustine PAPA, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 39949.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 21, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
#### GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT v. R. J. McMULLEN et al.

No. 8403.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 15, 1937.

A. L. Cowell, of Stockton, Cal., and Hankins & Hankins, of. San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

W. Coburn Cook, of Turlock, Cal., for appellees.

Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and MATHEWS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of motion of appellees for advancement of cause for hearing and for affirmance of order of District Court, and good cause therefor appearing, it is ordered that the motion be granted, that a decree of affirmance be filed and entered accordingly, and mandate of this court to issue as provided in rule 32.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000753557
<NAME>                        LBO CAPITAL CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollar

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-1-02000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         63
<SECURITIES>                                   11,506
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,506
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 332,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,120,276
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,210
<OTHER-SE>                                     (788,980)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   332,506
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,291
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             92,945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (94,347)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (94,347)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.00)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER





I, Tami J. Story, certify
that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 10KSB of Earth Search Sciences, Inc.;





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 registrant 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
registrant, 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
registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and





c) Disclosed in this report any change
in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant'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 registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of the registrant'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 could adversely affect the registrant'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
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Date:
      April 23 , 2008
            /s/
      Tami J. StoryTami J.
    StoryChief Financial
      Officer