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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           IN HONOR OF BARBARA SCHAARS' DISTINGUISHED CAREER

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BEN CHANDLER

                              of kentucky

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career and 
contributions of a Central Kentucky educator and one of my 
constituents, Barbara Schaars.
   After graduating from North Hardin High School in Radcliff, 
Kentucky, Barbara received both her bachelor's and master's degrees in 
special education from the University of Kentucky. A proud member of 
the Kentucky Education Association, she taught special education, 
gifted education, first grade, and art in the Anderson County School 
District for over 30 years before finally retiring in 2007. Along the 
way, she touched the hearts and minds of hundreds of students.
   Barbara's accomplishments speak for themselves. She served twice as 
president of the Beta Chapter of Delta Kappa Gamma Society 
International, an honor society for women educators. She received a 
citation for outstanding elementary art program from the Kentucky State 
Legislature and was honored with the Golden Apple Award from Ashland 
Oil. As coach of Anderson County Schools' academic teams and creative 
problem solving teams, her dedication to her students went beyond the 
classroom.
   Since her retirement, Barbara has been pursuing her Masters of 
Divinity at Lexington Theological Seminary. She is a student minister 
at Bethany Christian Church, Disciples of Christ and previously served 
as the president of the Women's Fellowship at the First Christian 
Church, Disciples of Christ in Lawrenceburg.
   Barbara's passion for education, whether in the classroom or at 
church, inspires those around her and challenges all of us to make a 
positive difference in everything we do. Mr. Speaker, please join me in 
recognizing one of Central Kentucky's finest educators, Mrs. Barbara 
Schaars.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                       200
<INVENTORY>                                      9,508
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,973
<PP&E>                                          10,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,837
<BONDS>                                          6,077
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         32
<COMMON>                                            62
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,244
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,358
<SALES>                                         40,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,903
<CGS>                                           24,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,554
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,780
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,733
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,046
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,046
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
        

</TABLE>
#### Willie O. BALLARD, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12671.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 11, 1959.

Ben Huey, Norman, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., J. Walker Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

Willie O. Ballard, plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was charged in the county court of Cleveland County with the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was tried before a jury and found guilty and the punishment left to the trial judge, who, on the 17th of June, 1958, sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of $150 and to serve *111310 days in the county jail. A motion for a new trial was overruled on June 19, 1958. The defendant lodged his appeal in this court on September 29, 1958.

To said appeal the attorney general filed a motion to dismiss for the reason that the statutory time for appeal had expired before the filing of defendant’s petition in error. In support of said motion to dismiss the attorney general relies upon Title 22 O.S.A. § 1054:

> “In misdemeanor cases the appeal must be taken within sixty (60) days after the judgment is rendered: Provided, however, that the trial court or judge may, for good cause shown, extend the time in which such appeal may be taken not exceeding sixty (60) days. In felony cases the appeal must be taken within six (6) months after the judgment is rendered, and a transcript in both felony and misdemeanor cases must be filed as hereinafter directed.”

The record reflects that judgment and sentence was rendered on June 17, 1958, and on June 19, 1958, the defendant was given -45 days in which to prepare and serve •casemade; 10 days in which to suggest amendments and 5 days to settle casemade. No where in the record is there an order ■extending time in which to appeal.

This court has consistently held that unless the appeal is lodged within the time prescribed by statute that it is without jurisdiction to consider the cáse upon its ■merits. It was said in the case of Nowlin v. State, Okl.Cr., 308 P.2d 668:

> “Criminal Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal ' unless it is filed within the time allowed by [Title 22 O.S.A. § 1054], or lawful extension thereof.”

In the case of McLean v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 271, 244 P.2d 335, 336, the court held:

> “When an appeal in a misdemeanor case is not taken within 60 days prescribed by statute (Title 22 O.S. *1951,*Par. 1054), the record or case-made must affirmatively show that the trial court or judge thereof for good cause shown extended the time; otherwise this court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment, and such appeal will be dismissed.”

For the reasons herein stated it is our conclusion that the appeal in the within case was not perfected within the time prescribed by law, that this court has acquired no jurisdiction to consider such appeal and therefore, the motion to dismiss is hereby sustained.

POWELL, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
# C_2019025EN.01004401.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/44

---

Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Armani v EUIPO — Asunción (le Sac 11)

(Case T-654/18)

(2019/C 25/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milano, Italy) (represented by: S. Martínez-Almeida y Alejos-Pita, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Felipe Domingo Asunción (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark le Sac 11 — Application for registration No 13 612 593

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 August 2018 in Case R 2464/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision so as to hold that the appeal brought by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is to be rejected and the EUTM Application to be admitted; or, alternatively, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision so as to hold that the appeal brought by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is to be rejected and the EUTM Application to be admitted; or, alternatively, annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and if the case might be, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of appeal incurred within the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and if the case might be, the intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of appeal incurred within the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the procedural rules applicable to proceedings before EUIPO and in particular of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the procedural rules applicable to proceedings before EUIPO and in particular of Article 94 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

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

| — | Infringement of Articles 18 and 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 18 and 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 CORRECTING THE ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 1627

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 55) 
directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1627, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            S. Con. Res. 55

       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 1627) 
     an Act to amend title 38, United States Code, to furnish 
     hospital care and medical services to veterans who were 
     stationed at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, while the water 
     was contaminated at Camp Lejeune, to improve the provision of 
     housing assistance to veterans and their families, and for 
     other purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
     shall make the following correction: in section 201, strike 
     ``Andrew Connelly'' and insert ``Andrew Connolly''.

  The concurrent resolution was concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________
```
# Floyd - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northwest Georgia Regional Commission Executive Director Boyd Austin Email &#x62;&#97;u&#x73;&#116;i&#x6e;&#64;n&#x77;&#103;r&#x63;&#46;o&#x72;&#103;The post Northwest Georgia Regional Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts:
       H.R. 6316.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution; 
     clause 18 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution; 
     section 5 of Amendment XIV to the Constitution.
```
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Christopher R. Gardner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quaretly Report of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.

December 30, 2008By:

/s/CHRISTOPHER R. GARDNERChristopher R. Gardner
Chief Executive Officer


I,
Richard C. Yonker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.

December 30, 2008By:

/s/RICHARD C. YONKERRichard C. Yonker
Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation and will be retained by Vitesse Semiconductor
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
# C_2008327EN.01001002.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2008 — Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale v District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg

Land

(Case C-409/08)

(2008/C 327/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Naumburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale

Applicant:

Defendant: District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg

Defendant:

Land

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 81(1)(a) and (d) and 81(2) EC, be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from court costs (fees and expenses) granted by the Land of Saxony-Anhalt to the Investment Bank established by it under Paragraph 6(1) of the Investitionsbank-Begleitgesetz (Investment Bank Ancillary Law) of 18 December 2003 (Gesetz- und Verordungsblatt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA) No 47/2003, p. 371) is invalid as infringing the prohibition of measures that restrict competition? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 81(1)(a) and (d) and 81(2) EC, be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from court costs (fees and expenses) granted by the Land of Saxony-Anhalt to the Investment Bank established by it under Paragraph 6(1) of the Investitionsbank-Begleitgesetz (Investment Bank Ancillary Law) of 18 December 2003 (Gesetz- und Verordungsblatt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA) No 47/2003, p. 371) is invalid as infringing the prohibition of measures that restrict competition?

Land

| 2. | If the question in 2.1 is answered in the negative: Should the Community-law rules on competition under the first sentence of Article 86(2) EC be interpreted as meaning that the Investment Bank, like the Land of Saxony-Anhalt, enjoys exemption from court cost and fees only when it performs official tasks within the meaning of Paragraph 6 of the Regulation of 30 December 2003 establishing the Investment Bank of Saxony-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA 2004, p. 20), as amended by amending regulation of 2 December 2006 (GVBl. LSA, p. 534)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the question in 2.1 is answered in the negative: Should the Community-law rules on competition under the first sentence of Article 86(2) EC be interpreted as meaning that the Investment Bank, like the Land of Saxony-Anhalt, enjoys exemption from court cost and fees only when it performs official tasks within the meaning of Paragraph 6 of the Regulation of 30 December 2003 establishing the Investment Bank of Saxony-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA 2004, p. 20), as amended by amending regulation of 2 December 2006 (GVBl. LSA, p. 534)?

Land

---
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sebastien C. DuFort, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of VOYAGER PETROLEUM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES;

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(s) 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 small business issuer'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(s) 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):

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 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: NOVEMBER 19, 2007                      /S/ SEBASTIEN C. DUFORT
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             SEBASTIEN C. DUFORT,PRESIDENT
                                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
# C_2010288EN.01004002.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/40

---

Order of the General Court of 29 July 2010 — Duta v Court of Justice

(Case T-475/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Recruitment - Post as Legal Secretary - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

(2010/C 288/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Radu Duta (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Krieg, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially by M. Schauss, then by A. Placco, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2008 in Case F-103/07 Duta v Court of Justice, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Radu Dutashall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Radu Dutashall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.

---
# C_2008327EN.01004302.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/43

---

Action brought on 22 October 2008 — Voslamber v Commission

(Case F-86/08)

(2008/C 327/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dietrich Voslamber (Freiburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Thielen, Rechtsanwalt)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 July 2008, in so far as it rejected the applicant's application for primary sickness insurance cover for his spouse.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of DG ADMIN.B of the European Commission of 9 July 2008 against the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of DG ADMIN.B of the European Commission of 9 July 2008 against the applicant;

| — | Uphold the applicant's application that in his case his spouse is entitled to primary insurance through the JSIS; |
| --- | --- |

—

Uphold the applicant's application that in his case his spouse is entitled to primary insurance through the JSIS;

| — | Reserve the applicant all rights to provide a more detailed statement of reasons for this application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Reserve the applicant all rights to provide a more detailed statement of reasons for this application;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---