alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#onhareIn the

t&e fomire or rail1 wbs thePa finy

pmvlofoR statingthbt me wife to relinquisi~ her shere of We oore-.

fae dtspodtive prtwiafoacp of the toatawmtary trust createdby the will of Albertdrndlywore he follkwar

**I.** :

(b) l/6 ts a 00~.

end 2/6 to a tar for a

3 prriecl llkewls6siaammd by the e or Mm. andly, PxwMed, tmtever,that:

:" ,(Il.,,zr

ei%ltbr the &tvoP the dwghs8r **pradeaeasod hh**  **hndly, thq**  **sham OS**  au&h deaeaeedatLUd 8houXdg;o to hfo or hather ahlldrwi,if any, to be used **for** theiraupportendedumtian.

. U in the aontiaganay but ferth 3.n abovr t&m tare no ohlldreaof the **duueamd sod**  **or ~&u&hter**  **the sham**  **of the**  **der3edant**

**8hould mm&**  **in the**  **estate.** (a) **ff b&-a.**  **iiaudly** pradeaea*ed **t!m mara**  **arid** daugmar **l/J of**  **tha** iaaw **uaa to**  **go** to the roli and **i/3 to**  the **daugkiter fer**  **a period**  of ten yew8 biter #rs, hmily*a death, **provfded, howtiver,**  tbatt

ox- her chfldren, U any.2) 1) If in t&e c0U.iqeacy set forth ia above the deceasedpemum left no child or atildnn, ~uoh person*etlhare Wig LO l-%LWiKi

in the **Wt%t8.**

**ial 2/j**  **to the**  **daughter and**  l/J to tne eor4 to be paid ten yas-a after 34~s. ikuadly’rs death providedthe recipientthereofw&8 than alive. **lb) ff**  **either the**  **son or**  **dauater falled**  to **Uv8** until **ten per8**  **after Sm.**  **Mandlg~s** iieat~h, the blareof euch pwoon use to be: (1) Pald to ~umiving ainildren, If any, upanthel~attaini~ theirmajority.

**ahudrea, the**  **corpuu was**  **to go**  **to four**  **named** ergnnisatloaxa **Jsnnodlately upon**  **Cirr.** **kWdly*5** **dwithr** {d), dk, **84W8&S** pt4pfAIcIII 184 gadr With ML; speut to powilbleamouata rete&iedin &he eata* under the contlngeney

### metforth ln If(b) (2)above+.. . .Wbar3 6s of the iaaoma benel%alar%e8 Ln the InsWit trust

W%r% 1fs ted to the life of the settler and a etatad period ~haaftar; BO in tke Bethsh GRPB, the right8 af the c~iaia**dwmau ware**  loxpprr8~lyasrdeoontiugent u n their king olive a6 a at&ted period after the death of C fG sattlorr uador the **d~oi~iano ’** **froxi** other **status, umy**  **of uUoh-**  **aso** cited in t,hs above quotation, the pmioeuc%of any OIMof thoiba &otorr ulll mke for the taxrtnlty a4 a trust; their aiwa~rariw in the iaotaat aaue yrmiden a trip10 bar to croaten$ion8 thnt the trust Is tan wcelflpt*
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a) OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Ian Morris, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of HouseValues, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot 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 bythis report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial 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 establishingand 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 materialinformation 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 proceduresand 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 overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’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 ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) Allsignificant 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 financialinformation; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 5, 2005
Case 3:04-cv-00857-L Document 10 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 93
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00857-L Document 10 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 94
# C_2016222EN.01002602.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/26

---

Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE)

(Case T-180/16)

(2016/C 222/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER SHAPE’ — Application for registration No 11 566 262

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2907/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2021062EN.01001201.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře (Czech Republic) lodged on 23 September 2020 — CityRail a.s. v Správa železnic, státní organizace

(Case C-453/20)

(2021/C 62/13)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Úřad pro přístup k dopravní infrastruktuře

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CityRail a.s.

Defendant: Správa železnic, státní organizace

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the place of loading and unloading for the transport of goods, including related tracks, constitute part of railway infrastructure as defined by Article 3(3) of Directive 2012/34? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the place of loading and unloading for the transport of goods, including related tracks, constitute part of railway infrastructure as defined by Article 3(3) of Directive 2012/34? (1)

| 2. | Is it in accordance with Directive 2012/34 that an infrastructure manager may at any time change prices for the use of railway infrastructure or service facilities to the detriment of freight forwarders? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it in accordance with Directive 2012/34 that an infrastructure manager may at any time change prices for the use of railway infrastructure or service facilities to the detriment of freight forwarders?

| 3. | Is Directive 2012/34 binding for Správa železnic, státní organizace (the Railway Administration) pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Directive 2012/34 binding for Správa železnic, státní organizace (the Railway Administration) pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| 4. | Can the rules set out in a network statement be deemed discriminatory if they are not consistent with the EU legislation to which the Railway Administration is obliged to adhere? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the rules set out in a network statement be deemed discriminatory if they are not consistent with the EU legislation to which the Railway Administration is obliged to adhere?

---

(1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Luther ROBERTSON

No. 2018-KH-0670

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Applicant has now fully litigated several applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

WEIMER, J., recused.
# C_2016335EN.01005101.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/51

---

Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)

(Case T-402/16)

(2016/C 335/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Stadtwerke GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘berlinGas’ — application No 14 067 714

Mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 in Case R 291/2016-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTIONS 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Supreme Holdings, Inc., on Form 10-ksb for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Thomas John Cloud, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sections 906 of the Sabanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 al material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Supreme Holdings, Inc.



By/s/ Thomas John Cloud, Jr.

Thomas John Cloud, Jr.

President and CEO

May 30, 2003





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTIONS 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Supreme Holdings, Inc., on Form 10-ksb for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert Joseph Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sections 906 of the Sabanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(3)

The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange act of 1934; and

(4)

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in al material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Supreme Holdings, Inc.



By/s/ Robert Joseph Wilson

Robert Joseph Wilson

Secretary/Treasurer and CFO

May 30, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

ROBERT W. PARRISH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No.

Defendant. ) 1:03-CV-217-C

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed

August 17, 2005 (Doc. 26). Neither party has filed objections within the ten-day period specified

in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

WHEREFORE, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a judgment in accordance with the terms of this order

shall be entered forthwith.

Dated September 2, 2005.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 1:03-cv-00217-C Document 27 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 78
IA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 8 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide 

certain line item veto authority to the President. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK (for himself and Mr. WEBER of Texas) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to provide certain line item veto authority to 

the President. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HJ 8 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. In approving and signing a bill or joint 

3 resolution that is presented under section 7 of article I, 

4 the President may reduce an appropriation in such bill or 

5 joint resolution, and such bill or joint resolution shall be6 come law with such reduction incorporated. 

7 ‘‘SECTION 2. If the President reduces an appropria8 tion under section 1 of this article— 

9 ‘‘(1) not later than 10 days after the date of 

10 such reduction, the President shall notify the House 

11 of Representatives and the Senate of such reduction; 

12 ‘‘(2) the House of Representatives and the Sen13 ate may consider disapproval of such reduction; and 

14 ‘‘(3) if two-thirds of each House votes to dis15 approve of such reduction, the amount of the appro16 priation in law subject to such reduction shall be 

17 treated as returned to the amount originally pre18 sented to the President under section 1.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Lollie B. Alverson, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Atlantic Coast Line Railway Company, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 21, 1927.

*Maguire & Voorhis,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*W. B. Crawford*and *Alexander Akerman,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, the briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 56 Filed 12/23/03 Page 1 of 2 PageID 292
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 56 Filed 12/23/03 Page 2 of 2 PageID 293
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - (-)news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - (-)other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - new mexico(1)
              - rhode island(1)

## By Year

General        August 2, 2018        370.410.1 - Training - General Provision

General        December 29, 2023        Science Information Service (SIS)

General        July 11, 2019        Giuseppina Mattietti

General        July 11, 2019        Madalyn Blondes

General        July 11, 2019        Sally Sennert

General        May 1, 2019        General Questions To Pose While Exploring Topographic Maps

General        July 11, 2019        Alanna Simpson

General        July 11, 2019        Geoff Gilleaudeau

General        July 11, 2019        Jacob Richardson

General        July 11, 2019        William F. Hoover

General        July 11, 2019        Jess Rodysill

General        January 24, 2023        Don't Take It for Granite

General        August 3, 2018        429.1 - Space Management

General        March 1, 2018        Birdsall-Dreiss Distinguished Lecturer: Clifford I. Voss

General        July 30, 2020        New Mexico Water Science Center Sediment Laboratory

newsletter        November 30, 2014      Earth Science Matters - Volume 1, Fall 2014
Brooke GARDNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1187

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 1, 2019.

Affirmed.
Charles CANNON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4947

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2020371EN.01001502.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/15

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 12 August 2020 — Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v EFSA

(Case T-162/20 R)

(Interim relief - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Publication of the conclusion on the review conducted by EFSA regarding the reconsideration of the approval of the active substance mancozeb - Request for certain passages to be treated as confidential - Refusal to grant confidential treatment - Application for interim measures - No prima facie case)

(2020/C 371/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and by G. Rusconi and O. Cesana, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of EFSA Decision EFSA/LA/DEC/22911258/2020 of 28 January 2020 concerning the request for internal review of the decision relating to the applicant’s requests for confidential treatment of the conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of the active substance mancozeb.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 7 April 2020 made in Case T-162/20 R is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 7 April 2020 made in Case T-162/20 R is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
REGIONS BANK as Successor to Amsouth Bank, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Elizabeth A. PETRILLO, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0633

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.