alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bruce HAMMAN, Petitioner, v. TILLMAN COUNTY, the State of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. A-13057.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 19, 1961.

Bruce Hamman, pro se.

Amos Stovall, County Atty., Tillman County, Frederick, for respondent.

BRETT, Judge.

This is an original petition by Bruce Hamman, an inmate of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, for writ of mandamus to give Plamman a speedy trial or dismissal for offenses of burglary and larceny of an automobile, allegedly committed on July 22, 1960 at Grandfield, Tillman County, Oklahoma. To this petition the county attorney, Hon. Amos Stovall, made due response.

The facts briefly appear to be as follows : The petitioner alleges he has been in the jurisdiction of the Tillman County authorities for eight months without a trial. To the contrary, the county attorney alleges *864the facts to be, supported by the record, as follows: The petitioner was not in' the county for eight months, but during all of said time he was confined in the state penitentiary at McAlester, Pittsburg County, Oklahoma, on two separate convictions in Comanche County, Oklahoma, and the courts of Tillman County had not acquired jurisdiction by warrant of arrest or in any other manner at such time.

Under such conditions there is no duty upon the committing magistrate before whom preliminary complaints are pending, and he is without authority to set the said matters for hearing, for jurisdiction of the person is lacking: Inverarity v. Zumwalt, 97 Okl.Cr. 294, 262 P.2d 72S; Jennings, v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 3S3 P.2d 147.

It further appears that the county attorney of Tillman County when apprised of the fact that petitioner desired a hearing on the charges of burglary and larceny of an automobile in Tillman County, Oklahoma, immediately instituted petition for writ ad prosequendum on the charges and caused petitioner to be ordered removed from the penitentiary for arraignment on the charges pending in Tillman County, Oklahoma, before the county judge as committing magistrate. Upon petitioner’s appearance, on June 21, 1961, waiver of preliminary and plea of not guilty were entered, and petitioner was bound over to the district court for trial on two charges, now pending as cases Nos. 2389 and 2390. The cases will be set for trial at the next term of the district court in that County.

This is practically an identical situation with the facts and principles involved in Jennings v. Raines, Okl.Cr., supra, wherein, as here, the county attorney upon being informed a speedy trial was wanted, instituted petition for writ ad prosequendum. The writ ad prosequendum, however, is not exclusive to the state, but is available to the petitioner, and is the relief that should have been sought by the petitioner in this instance. Procedural relief for speedy trial having been pursued by the county attorney, and the case being ready for assignment for trial on the next docket, this proceeding is moot, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

NIX, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4773 

To require the Administrator for General Services to obtain an antivirus 

product to make available to Federal agencies in order to provide the 

product to individuals whose personally identifiable information may have 

been compromised. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2018 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator for General Services to obtain 

an antivirus product to make available to Federal agencies in order to provide the product to individuals whose 

personally identifiable information may have been compromised. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘A Necessary and Tar5 geted Impediment to Viruses Act’’ or the ‘‘ANTI Viruses 

6 Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4773 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVISION OF ANTIVIRUS 

2 SOFTWARE TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AF3 FECTED BY DATA BREACH. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENT TO PROCURE ANTIVIRUS PROD5 UCT.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator for Gen7 eral Services shall procure an antivirus product suit8 able for Federal agencies to provide to individuals 

9 whose personally identifiable information may have 

10 been compromised. 

11 (2) DEADLINE.—As soon as practicable after 

12 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Adminis13 trator shall issue a solicitation for vendors to provide 

14 the antivirus product described in paragraph (1). 

15 Not later than 1 year after such date, the Adminis16 trator shall award the contract for the product. 

17 (b) REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ONE-YEAR LICENSE

18 FOR USE OF ANTIVIRUS PRODUCT.—A Federal agency 

19 that experiences a compromise in its computer systems re20 sulting in the loss of personally identifiable information 

21 shall provide to any individual directly affected a one-year 

22 license of the antivirus product procured under subsection 

23 (a). 

24 (c) FEDERAL AGENCY.—In this section, the term 

25 ‘‘Federal agency’’ has the meaning provided the term ‘‘Ex26 ecutive agency’’ in section 105 of title 5, United States 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4773 IH

1 Code, and also includes the United States Postal Service 

2 and the Postal Regulatory Commission. 

3 (d) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—The funds used by a Fed4 eral agency to carry out this Act shall be derived from 

5 amounts made available to the agency for operating ex6 penses. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (no.33-87110, 33-98482, 333-06757 and 333-85936) on Form S-8 of The Beard Company our report dated April 15, 2010, relating to the balance sheets of The Beard Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficiency) and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2009, annual report on Form 10-K of The Beard Company.





/s/ COLE & REED P.C.





Oklahoma City, Oklahoma


April 15, 2010
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4574 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

108 West Schick Road in Bloomingdale, Illinois, as the ‘‘Bloomingdale 

Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2017 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI (for himself, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. 

KELLY of Illinois, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. 

BOST, Mr. KINZINGER, Mr. FOSTER, Mr. RUSH, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mrs. 

BUSTOS, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. LAHOOD, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SHIMKUS, 

and Mr. GUTIE ́RREZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 108 West Schick Road in Bloomingdale, Illinois, as the ‘‘Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. BLOOMINGDALE VETERANS MEMORIAL POST 

4 OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 108 West Schick Road in 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4574 IH

1 Bloomingdale, Illinois, shall be known and designated as 

2 the ‘‘Bloomingdale Veterans Memorial Post Office Build3 ing’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg5 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

6 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

7 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Bloomingdale Vet8 erans Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
**Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2008 – Vakakis v Commission**

**(Case T-41/08 R)**

Community tendering procedure – Interim proceedings – Loss of an opportunity – Locus standi – Admissibility of the main application – Urgency – Measures of inquiry

1.                     *Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima
facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure
of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 23-25)*

2.                     *Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Prima facie admissibility of the main action (Arts 242 EC
and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 34)*

3.                     *Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC;
Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) and (3) (see paras 42-44)*

4.                     *Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
(see paras 52-53, 65-66)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for an order granting interim measures in the context of the service tender procedure EuropeAid/125241/C/SER/CY for the supply of ‘Technical Assistance to Support Rural Development Policy’ in the Northern Part of Cyprus. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the application for measures of inquiry or organisation of procedure; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Decides that there is no need for a decision on the application for leave to intervene; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Reserves the costs, except that Agriconsulting shall bear the costs incurred by it in connection with the submission of its application for leave to intervene. |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 PRAYER

  Reverend Kris Holzmeyer, Second Baptist Church, Clinton, Tennessee, 
offered the following prayer:
  Heavenly Father, we come to You this day with praise upon our lips. 
You are worthy of all glory and honor. You are faithful, and You hear 
us when we call.
  We come to You this day to say thank you. You have given to us a free 
and prosperous Nation in which to live. We know that You and You alone 
are the provider of that freedom and prosperity.
  We also come before You acknowledging our great sins as a Nation. We 
ask Your forgiveness as we seek Your will for the future of our 
country.
  As our leaders gather in this room to discuss the business of this 
day, bless them with wisdom and knowledge to make the best possible 
decisions for our citizens. And may their actions, their words, and 
their motives bring You honor and glory.
  We ask these things in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord.
  Amen.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008313EN.01003502.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/35

---

Action brought on 11 September 2008 — Mustang v OHIM

(Case T-379/08)

(2008/C 313/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mustang-Bekleidungswerke GmbH + Co. KG (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Weimer, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Decathlon SA (Villeneuve d'Ascq, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM

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 8 July 2008 in Case R 859/2007-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2008 in Case R 859/2007-4;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, including the applicant's costs in both proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, including the applicant's costs in both proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Mustang

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Representation of a wavy line for goods and services in Classes 3, 18 and 25 (Application No 4 081 352)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Decathlon SA

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Existing national and international figurative mark constituted by the representation of a white wavy line on a black background, for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, because there are no aural, visual and conceptual similarities between the opposing marks that could give rise to a likelihood of confusion.

Pleas in law:

---
DLA PCB Import Petition

Schedule of presentations for the informal hearing on July 8, 2014. 

Time Speaker

9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. William Noggle (EPA) – Introduction

9:15 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Dr. Rennae Anderson

9:45 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Presentations/Comments from hearing attendees

11:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. --- Break ---

11:15 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Continue presentations/comments from hearing attendees
# C_2008285EN.01001702.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/17

---

Action brought on 24 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-342/08)

(2008/C 285/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to ensure the elaboration of an external emergency plan for all the establishments covered by Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 (2), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to ensure the elaboration of an external emergency plan for all the establishments covered by Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 (2), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive;

1

2

| — | order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the elaboration of external emergency plans for measures to be taken outside the establishments covered by Article 9 of Directive 96/82/EC is a fundamental requirement of that directive. The Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive in so far as it has not drawn up such plans for 59 establishments situated on its territory while, according to the wording of the directive, those plans should have been drawn up at the latest 3 years after the time-limit for transposing the directive had elapsed, that is on 3 February 2002.

---

(1)  OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.

1

(2)  Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 345, p. 97).

2

---
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC, as Assignee of Bracy, Patrick, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>MVAIC, Respondent. </font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.Marshall &amp; Marshall, PLLC (Barbara Carabell of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered December 19, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's sole argument on appeal, plaintiff failed to establish that it submitted its claim forms to defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) within 45 days after the services at issue had been rendered. As a result, plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment was properly denied (<i>see</i> 11 NYCRR 65-1.1; <a href="../2015/2015_51661.htm" target="_blank"><i>Bajaj v MVAIC</i>, 49 Misc 3d 145</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51661[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: October 11, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
**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**

The undersigned, Garth Braun, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Ted Kozub, Chief Financial Officer, of Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd. for the period ended December 31, 2004 (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 Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd.                                                              |

Dated:  April 7, 2005

/s/ Garth Braun

Garth Braun, President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ Ted Kozub

Ted Kozub

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)

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 Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd. and will be retained by Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

D/ljm/700413.1
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION1



Pursuant to Section 906
of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Reynolds C. Bish, the Chief Executive Officer of Captiva Software Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his
knowledge:



1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Annual Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Annual Report.



Date:    March 15, 2005



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ REYNOLDS C. BISH                    
|Reynolds C. Bish Chief Executive Officer

---

1This Certification accompanies the Annual Report in accordance with § 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Form 10-K), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.