alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;
 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:
    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
functions):
   Date: May 12, 2010
    By:

/s/
James M. VanderhiderJames M. Vanderhider, President,Chief Financial Officer and Director
20 P.3d 678

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

October 5, 2000

22147

#### State v. Zrncevich

Affirmed
United States Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Wildlife Services Directive

4.175
August 13, 2014

PUBLICATIONS
1. PURPOSE

To promote the development of high quality publications by Wildlife Services employees and to outline
the review process for manuscripts written by Wildlife Services employees.

2. REPLACEMENT HIGHLIGHTS

This directive replaces WS Directive 4.175 dated December 3, 2003.

3. POLICY

a. WS employees may communicate both technical and appropriate non-technical program
information through formal publications such as scientific and technical journals, conference proceedings,
and magazines. (Note: This differs from official outreach materials such as USDA factsheets, brochures,
flyers, displays, stakeholder announcements and internal newsletters, which require APHIS Legislative
and Public Affairs review.)

b. Informational material written by WS employees and distributed informally through
newsletters, producer association notes, leaflets, and newspapers shall be reviewed by at minimum one
supervisor. At least one supervisory employee should review any material to be published externally with
content involving policy matters of USDA or other Federal, State, or local agencies.

c. Employees of the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) will follow the publication and
peer review process established by their Director.

d. Any manuscript intended for formal publication in a State, national, or other widely
distributed journal, conference proceeding, or magazine must be peer reviewed by at least two reviewers
designated by the appropriate Director prior to submission.

5. IMPLEMENTATION

a. Peer review process of manuscripts intended for formal publication shall be:

(1) Reviewed by a WS operational biologist (coauthors not included) and by a wildlife

professional or other competent reviewer outside the WS operational program. A NWRC
scientist may be used as the second reviewer.


Wildlife Services Directive 4.175 page 2
(2) The author will submit the manuscript to the appropriate Director for review and
approval after considering reviewers’ comments and making appropriate changes in the
manuscript.

(3) The Director will review the manuscript primarily for policy content and has the
prerogative to make editorial comments or refer the manuscript for further review.

(4) Once the Director approves the manuscript, the author may submit it for publication.

(5) Should the Director determine that the manuscript involves policy matters of USDA or
other Federal, State, or local agencies, review by the director of the WS Operational Support
Staff (OSS) will be requested.

(6) WS Form 64, Manuscript Transmittal Record, will be used to document the review
process.

(7) The author will send the transmittal record and manuscript to the Director for approval at
least two months prior to the intended date of submission for publication.
6. APPLICABILITY

This directive applies to all employees of Wildlife Services.

William H. Clay
Deputy Administrator
#### Waite v. Button

26441

10/25/2005

Affirmed
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 65 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Natural Resources 

in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2015 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Natural Resources in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Natural Re4 sources (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, 

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the 

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $13,573,844 for the One Hundred 

9 Fourteenth Congress. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 65 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $6,786,922 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2015, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2016; and 

7 (2) not more than $6,786,922 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2016, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2017. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT (24)13

                                   CERTIFICATE

         I, Lina P. Holm,  Secretary of Public Service  Company of Oklahoma,  an
Oklahoma corporation (the "Corporation"), hereby certify that set forth below is
a complete and  accurate  copy of a certain  resolution  adopted by the Board of
Directors of the  Corporation  on this 19th day of January,  1999, and that such
resolution is in full force and effect as of the date of this certificate.


                       Public Service Company of Oklahoma
                          Board of Directors Resolution
                                January 19, 1999

          RESOLVED,  that each  officer of Public  Service  Company of  Oklahoma
listed at the end of this sentence is hereby authorized to make,  constitute and
appoint,  in his  respective  capacity,  a power  of  attorney  in  favor of the
person(s)  listed  directly after his name at the end of this  sentence,  as his
true and lawful  attorney(s)-in-fact and agent(s), with full power and authority
(and in the case of more than one attorney-in-fact, each attorney-in-fact acting
alone  and  without  the  other)  to  execute  in the name and on  behalf of the
officer, in any and all capacities, the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for 1998 and any and all  amendments  thereto,  to be filed under the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  as  amended,  and any other  documents  and  instruments
incidental  thereto,  and to file the same,  with all  exhibits  thereto and all
documents in connection therewith,  with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
and grant to such  attorney(s)-in-fact,  and  agent(s)  (and in the case of more
than  one  attorney-in-fact,   each  of  them),  full  power  and  authority  of
substitution  and  revocation in the premises and full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing  requisite  and necessary to be done in
and about the  premises,  as fully and all intents  and  purposes as the officer
might or could do in person.
1.       T.D. Churchwell is authorized to make, constitute and appoint R.
         Russell Davis to be his attorney[s]-in-fact.
2.       R. Russell Davis is authorized to make, constitute and appoint T.D.
         Churchwell to be his attorney[s]-in-fact.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
Public Service Company of Oklahoma this day, the 19th of January, 1999.



         /s/ Lina P. Holm
         Lina P. Holm
         Corporate Secretary


         COMPANY SEAL
CHAPTER 11.3**INFECTION WITH *BONAMIA OSTREAE***

Article 11.3.1.

For the purposes of the *Aquatic Code*, infection with *Bonamia ostreae*means *infection*with the *pathogenic agent**~~B.~~ Bonamia ostreae*of the Family Haplosporidiidae. 

Information on methods for *diagnosis*are provided in the *Aquatic Manual*.

Article 11.3.2.

**Scope**

The recommendations in this chapter apply to the following species that meet the criteria for listing as susceptible in accordance with Chapter 1.5.: European flat oyster *(Ostrea edulis)*, ~~Australian mud oyster *(Ostrea angasi)*, Argentinean flat oyster *(Ostrea puelchana)*,~~ Chilean flat oyster *(Ostrea chilensis)*, ~~Asiatic oyster *(Ostrea denselammellosa)*~~**and Suminoe oyster *(Crassostrea ariakensis)*. ~~These recommendations also apply to any other~~*~~susceptible species~~*~~referred to in the~~*~~Aquatic Manual~~*~~when traded internationally.~~

__________________________
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeWhat We DoPublications
Tholos Magazine
        
                  Sitting atop the U.S. Capitol Building's cast-iron dome is the tholos, a structure comprised of 12 columns encircling a lantern that is lit to signal when the House of Representatives, the Senate or both chambers are in session. The tholos supports the base of the Statue of Freedom and provides amazing views of Washington, D.C. The entire Capitol campus is visible from the tholos.
Similarly, Architect of the Capitol (AOC) employees are seen in and around every building and across the grounds — day and night — in support of Congress, the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress. The AOC employee magazine, "Tholos," is fittingly named after this prominent and important architectural feature.
**Read the stories in PDFs below or on our blog.**
Magazine Archives
The first edition of the employee magazine, formerly named "Foundations & Perspectives," was published in 2009. Since then we have strived to communicate stories that demonstrate our commitment to our mission – Serve, Preserve, Inspire.
            
          Volume 12

Winter 2020
    Volume 11

Summer 2019
    Volume 10

Winter 2019
    Volume 9

Fall 2018
    Volume 8

Spring 2018
    Volume 7

Winter 2018
    Volume 6

Fall 2017
    Volume 5

Summer 2017
    Volume 4

Spring 2017
    Volume 3

Fall 2016
    Volume 2

Summer 2016
    Volume 1

Winter 2016
    
            Pagination
    First page
            « First
                          Previous page
            ‹
                                      Page1
              Current page2
          
    
    
      We love our jobs. Do you? Come work with us.
        View Job Listings Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
September 29, 2016

Mr. Zachary Prater

Prater's Midwest Dive Service

501 S West Street

Vermont, IL 61484

Re: FAA–2016–4933

Dear Mr. Prater:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Dan Ngo

Program Analyst
23635, 23636

#### Doe, In re; Doe Children, In re

Affirmed
#### State v. Kaaua

15607

4/22/92

Affirmed
Exhibit 10.9





Current Director Fee Arrangements





Directors of Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. ("Bancorp") receive a monthly fee of $1,000, which is the only compensation paid to directors by Bancorp, except for stock options which may be granted in the discretion of the Board of Directors under Bancorp's 2003 Stock Option and Incentive Plan. Directors of Great Southern Bank receive a monthly fee of $2,000. The directors of Bancorp and the directors of the Bank are the same individuals. As the sole director of Great Southern Financial Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank, William V. Turner, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company and the Bank, receives a monthly fee of $600 for his service on that board. The directors of Bancorp and its subsidiaries are not paid any fees for committee service and are not reimbursed for their costs incurred in attending Board and committee meetings.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;
 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:
    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
functions):
   Date: November 12, 2009
    By:

/s/
Mark A. HouserMark A. Houser, Chief Executive Officer,Chairman of the Board of Directors and Director
# C_2020230EN.01002602.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)

(Case T-681/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark STAYER - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Categorisation of the goods in connection with which genuine use has been proved)

(2020/C 230/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2018 (Case R 1940/2017-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ and Stayer Ibérica.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
#### Herlick v. Tanaka

16650

10/03/94

Affirmed
FOR INFORMATION AND ACTION
DA-2015-20
BAY 13 2015

Subject: APHIS Revises Response to Domestic Detections of Gladiolus Rust caused by
Uromyces transversalis

To: State and Territory Agricultural Regulatory Officials

Effectively immediately, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is revising the
domestic response requirements for the rust pathogen Uromyces transversalis, commonly called
gladiolus rust (GR), which was first detected in the United States in 2006. In 2007, APHIS and
its state partners began taking action in accordance with the Gladiolus Rust National Eradication
and Management Plan whenever the pest was detected in commercial growing areas, domestic
commerce, and residential areas.

Based on the current distribution of the disease and its known biology and plant hardiness zones
in the United States, the pathogen has spread to the limit of its natural range. Given these facts,
APHIS will no longer take domestic action, or require others to take action, when GR is found in
commercial growing areas, domestic commerce, or in residential areas. In addition, APHIS will
initiate rule-making to update the import requirements for GR. APHIS will continue to regulate
other gladiolus rust pathogens that are not known to occur in the United States, including
Puccinia gladioli, Puccinia mccleanii, Uredo gladioli-buettneri, Uromyces gladioli, and
Uromyces nyikensis.

APHIS is committed to supporting industry, stakeholders, and cooperators in the development of
pest management strategies to control the disease in the most effective way. By ceasing domestic
response actions for GR, APHIS and its partners will be able to focus resources on other, more
serious pest threats while removing the burdensome requirements for domestic growers,
homeowners, and cooperators who were often forced to destroy infected plants. GR can be
controlled with best management practices, and APHIS will continue to serve as a technical
resource and will cooperate with other USDA agencies, state departments of agriculture, and the
gladiolus industry to control GR.

For additional details on the GR Program, please call National Policy Manager Lynn Evans-
Goldner at 391-851-2286.

Osama El-Lissy

Deputy Administrator
Plant Protection and Quarantine
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7707** 

CARDELL LAMONT AVENT , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. RANDALL C. MATHENA, Warden, Wallens Ridge State Prison , Respondent

– Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:11

- cv - 00605

- JAG )

Submitted : February 20, 2013 Decided: February 28, 2013

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.
Cardell Lamont Avent, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cardell Lamont Avent seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. Parties in a civil action in which the United States is not a party have thirty days following entry of a final order in which to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). These time periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978); see also Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he ti mely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). However, if a party moves for an extension of time to appeal within thirty days after expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause, a district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Washington v. Bumgarner , 882 F.2d 899, 900

– 01 (4th Cir. 1989). The district court entered judgment against Avent on August 6, 2012; Avent had until Sept ember 5, 2012, to file a timely notice of appeal. Avent filed his notice of appeal on September 6, 2012, one day late. ∗ Avent separately filed a

∗ Avent’s notice of appeal is deemed filed when he delivered it to the prison mailroom on September 6, 2012, with a notarized statement setting forth the date of deposit and a certificate of service. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)

. The fact that Avent mistakenly mailed his notice of appeal to this (Continued)3 motion for extension of time on the same day and within the thirty

- day excusable neglect period. B ecause th is motion remain s pending in the district court, we remand for the limited purpose of determining whether Avent has demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the thirty

- day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will the n be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED

c ourt i s inconsequential. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d) (a notice of appeal mistakenly filed in the court of appeals is considered filed in the district court on the date so noted).
June 4, 1997

18755

#### State v. Lewis

Vacated