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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN GARAMENDI

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 26, 2012

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 25, 2012, I was called 
away from the votes here on the House Floor in order to address an 
important announcement regarding the Bay Delta Conservation Plan in 
California. The joint announcement from California Governor, Jerry 
Brown, and United States Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar, will have 
huge implications for my constituents and all Californians. Therefore, 
I felt it was absolutely necessary to address my concerns regarding the 
new plan. Nevertheless, I realize the importance of the votes I missed. 
Therefore, I would like to state for the record how I would have voted 
on the bills that were before the House of Representatives, yesterday.
  First, I would have supported H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve 
Transparency Act of 2012. I would have opposed H.R. 6082, the 
Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and 
Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan. Lastly, I would have supported 
H.R. 6168, President Obama's Proposed 2012-2017 Offshore Drilling Lease 
Sale Plan Act.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Annual Report of NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2005, dated the date of this Certification (the Report), I, Timothy L. Smith, the President and the Chief 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 complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.



|                     |  |                                                       
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2006 |  | /s/    TIMOTHY L.
SMITH                               
|                     |  | Timothy L. Smith President and Chief Executive Officer



67
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Minigan, Jr., Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of felony murder and two counts of robbery in the second degree, defendant contends that the court erred in admitting certain statements by the victim under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. With respect to the victim’s statement, "My wallet, my wallet,” defendant failed to register an objection and thus has failed to preserve any alleged error for review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). With respect to the victim’s statement that "two black guys beat [me] up”, we find that the statement was made close in time to the struggle in which the victim received a fatal stab wound, without opportunity for studied reflection, and therefore was properly admitted over objection *(see, People v Edwards,*47 NY2d 493, 497-499).

Defendant also argues that Supreme Court improperly permitted bolstering testimony. Defense counsel’s general objection to such testimony on hearsay grounds was insufficient to preserve that issue for our review. Defendant’s contention that the court erred in permitting testimony concerning defendant’s failure to complain to the police about injury to his leg also is unpreserved. We decline to reach either issue in the interest of justice. We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Suzuki, Debra

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 6:08 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan; Sutton, Lisa

Subject: FW: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction SIP Call Final Action

From: Suzuki, Debra  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 2:48 PM

To: 'Tiffany.Floyd@deq.idaho.gov'

Cc: Mary Anderson (mary.anderson@deq.idaho.gov); Kelly, Kate

Subject: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction SIP Call Final Action

Hi Tiffany. This message is a follow-up to my phone call today notifying you about the final action 

the EPA Administrator signed today to ensure states have in place air pollution rules that apply to 

sources at all times, including when the sources are operating during periods of startup, shutdown, 

or malfunction (SSM). 

Idaho is not one of the states for which the EPA is issuing a SIP call to make changes to their SIPs 

because the EPA has determined that the SIP provisions cited in the petition for your state are 

consistent with the Clean Air Act and EPA’s current SSM Policy to the extent they are still part of your 

EPA–approved SIP. 

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians 

concerning the treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, 

specifically how those emissions are treated in state implementation plan (SIP) provisions that the 

EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action, the EPA has revised and clarified its policy 

concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act. 

For more detail on the agency’s final action, we have posted a pre-publication version of the action 

on our website at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html. 

We look forward to continuing to work closely with you to ensure that any future revisions to your SIP 

are consistent with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s SSM policy. If you or your staff have questions, 

please feel free to call me at 206-553-0985. 

Thank you and have a great weekend, 

Debra Suzuki 

EPA Region 10 

Air Planning Unit Manager 

206-553-0985
# C_2014292EN.01002302.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2014 — Esso and Others v Commission

(Case T-540/08) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Duration of the infringement - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction))

2014/C 292/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Esso Société anonyme française (Courbevoie, France); Esso Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical BVBA (Antwerp, Belgium); and Exxon Mobil Corp. (West Trenton, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: R. Subiotto QC, R. Snelders, L.-P. Rudolf and M. Piergiovanni, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Commission decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) and for the reduction of the fine it imposes on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Esso Société anonyme française in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) at EUR 6 2 7 12  895; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Esso Société anonyme française in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes) at EUR 6 2 7 12  895;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Esso Société anonyme française; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Esso Société anonyme française;

| 4. | Orders Esso Deutschland GmbH, ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical BVBA and Exxon Mobil Corp. to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Esso Deutschland GmbH, ExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical BVBA and Exxon Mobil Corp. to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2008 – Commission v Czech Republic**

**(Case C‐87/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2006/73/EC – Measures implementing Directive 2004/39/EC – Organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Re: |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to transpose Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive (OJ 2006 L 241, p. 26). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that directive, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53(1) of that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
Jan 25 10 11:35a __ (907)83^2209 'p,1 

CityofAkhiok 

P.O. Box 5050 

Akhiok Alaska 99615 

January 21,2010 ::;' 

United States of America 

Department of Transportation ;j;? 

Office of the Secretan,' £:i;' 

Washington D.C. j g 

To Whom h Maj' concern: 

On beiialf of the City of Akhiok, and the Akhiok City Council. I am writing this letter in support 

of Servant Air Inc. located on Kodiak Island. 

Our Community is an isolated village with no road access to other communities including 

Kodiak, cKcqpt by airplane. Servant Air Inc. has become die most dependable, safe and 

affordable air service for the community. This company has been vety respectful to the People of 

the villages. 

We would like to support Servant Air service in obtaining a Turbine engine Aircraft, A Turbine 

Engine Aircraft is essential for Kodiak Island taking into consideration ^ e diverse and fast 

changing weather on the Island, such an airciait would help provide fast and safe service to the 

villages, especially Akhiok. 

The Akhiok City Council highly recommends that the Department of Transportation consider 

Servant Airs bid for the essential air sen'ice. This company has made positive impacts on Kodiak 

Island, We fullj' support the continuation of this company in to our community 

Respectfully, 

(7(// ^ Amocii> 

Linda Amodo 

City of Akhiok Mayor
ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)

3 February 2009

Case C-231/08 P

**Massimo Giannini**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeal – Community civil service – Right to a fair hearing – Infringement of Articles 4, 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations – Principle of non-discrimination – Interest of the service and duty of care – Distortion of the evidence and rules on evidence – Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

**Appeal:**against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2008 in Case T-100/04 *Giannani* v *Commission* in which the Court dismissed the appellant’s application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition
COM/A/9/01 with a view to constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators in the fields of economics and
statistics not to include his name on the competition reserve list and for damages to be awarded. Infringement of right to
a fair hearing by reason of the excessive length of the procedure. Infringement of Articles 4, 27 and 29 of the Staff Regulations
and the concepts of interest of the service and duty of care. Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and the
rules on evidence.

**Held:**The appeal is dismissed. Mr Giannini is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

**Summary**

1.        *Procedure – Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance – Reasonable time – Criteria for assessment – Consequences*

2.        *Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Error of law
relied on not identified – Inadmissible*

*(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))*

3.        *Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment
of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted*

*(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Jay M. Rosengarten, Chief Executive Officer of Lucille Farms, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
    March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
    or 78o(d)); and

2.  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 29, 2004


                                By: /s/ Jay M. Rosengarten
                                -----------------------------------
                                Jay M. Rosengarten Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Lucille Farms, Inc. and will be retained by Lucille Farms, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

A T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l s h e re b y p a sse s t h e f o l l o w i n g o rd e r:

A 1 8 E 0 0 1 3

. T A

Y L O R v

. T H E ST A T E

.

U p o n c o n si d e r a

t i o n o f A p p e l l a n t W i l l i a m T a y l o r ’ s m o t i o n f

o r a n e x t e n si o n o f

t i m e t o f i l e a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r d i sc r e t i o n a

r y a p p e a l

, i t i s h e r e b y o r d e r e d t h a t t h e

m o t i o n i s D E N IE D

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t l a n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t

r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t

h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. September 27, 2017

09/27/2017
# C_2008260EN.01001701.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/17

---

Action brought on 18 August 2008 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of an Easter bunny made of chocolate)

(Case T-336/08)

(2008/C 260/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 June 2008 (Appeal Case R 1332/2005-4); and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 June 2008 (Appeal Case R 1332/2005-4); and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: A three-dimensional mark, representing an Easter bunny made of chocolate, for goods in Class 30 (Application No 3 844 446).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the trade mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character and its availability does not have to be preserved. Furthermore, the trade mark applied for demonstrates distinctiveness acquired through use for the purposes of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
#### Top Hat Maintenance, Inc., Respondent, v Zip Maintenance Corp. et al., Appellants.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm the judgment for reasons stated in the decision of Supreme Court (Balbach, J.H.O.). We add only that defendants stipulated to plaintiffs theory of damages (entitlement to the return of the purchase price) and, therefore, defendants are precluded from arguing on appeal that such theory is not cognizable under law *(see, Freidus v Eisenberg,*71 NY2d 981, 982). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Balbach, J.H.O.— Fraud.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Law-ton, JJ.
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **2012 -**  **0216** Docket Number
**2010 -**  **SW -**  **025 -**  **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 92 - 53 - 001, dated June 23, 2008 Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 92 - 53 - 004B, Revision B, dated June 21, 2011


### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
**Order of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 – AEPI
v Commission**

**(Case T-392/08 R)**

Interim measures – Decision of the Commission ordering cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright
– Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency

1.                     *Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – ‘Prima
facie case’ – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification (Art. 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243
EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-23)*

2.                     *Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance,
Art. 104(2)) (see paras 40-45)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the application for interim measures; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Reserves the costs. |
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hanover Compressor Company (the Company) for
the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), Lee E. Beckelman, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ LEE E. BECKELMANName:
    Lee E. BeckelmanTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer Date: March 14, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.