alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27418]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 14, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 8, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 30 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-106, CP2024-110.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-27418 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128620(31) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, AMERIGO PALARCHIO, as Conservator Justices and Guardian of LINDA PALARCHIO, a legally incapacitated person, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128620 COA: 258847 Wayne CC: 02-238086-NF AUTOMOBILE CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 3, 2006 order is considered. In lieu of granti ng the motion, we clarify that this case is remanded to the Wayne Circuit Court only for reconsideration of its decision regarding room and board expenses. In all other respects , leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remain ing question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

W EAVER , J., dissents and states as follows:

I dissent from the order remanding this case to the trial court only for reconsideration of its decision rega rding room and board expenses.

I would grant reconsideration and would grant leave to appeal in this case to
reconsider Griffith v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co , 472 Mich 521 (2005).

K ELLY , J., would grant reconsid eration and, on reconsider ation, would grant leave to appeal to reconsider Griffith v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co , 472 Mich 521 (2005).

d0122 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 29, 2007

Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 17, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. (“PXI Systems”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Kinetic Systems, Lockport, IL, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 5, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on October 6, 2023 (88 FR 69672).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-27622 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
EX-10.1(e)


 EXHIBIT 10.1(e) 

Appendix A to Executive Employment Letter dated December 22, 2016 

Executive: Peter M. Ziemba 

Introductory Paragraph: 
 WTAM – Executive Vice
President-Business and Legal Affairs, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary 
 WTI – Same 

Employment Agreement dated May 24, 2011 
 Paragraph 1:

 $300,000 
 Paragraph 3(a): 

None. Paragraph 3(a) is inapplicable to the named Executive. 

Paragraph 3(b): 
 January 14, 2014, January 28,
2015 and January 27, 2016 
 Paragraph 14: 
 Chief
Executive Officer 
 Paragraphs 4(j) and 14: 

Indemnification Agreement dated April 26, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10(m)(7)


                               AMENDMENT TO THE
                         ICF KAISER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                              SECTION 401(k) PLAN

     WHEREAS, Kaiser Group International, Inc., which was formerly named ICF
Kaiser International, Inc. (the "Company"), maintains that ICF Kaiser
International, Inc. Section 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"), which was most recently
restated effective January 1, 1996;

     WHEREAS, the Company would like to amend the Plan to increase the amount of
pre-tax contributions and employer matching contributions under the Plan;

     WHEREAS, the Company has retained the authority pursuant to Section 10.2 of
the Plan to amend the Plan;

     NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, effective January 1, 2001, the
following amendments are adopted:

     1.  The Plan is renamed the Kaiser Group International, Inc. Section 401(k)
Plan.

     2.  All references to ICF Kaiser International, Inc. shall be replaced with
Kaiser Group International, Inc.

     3.  Section 1.24 is deleted in its entirety and the remaining Sections are
renumbered accordingly.

     4.  Section 4.1 is deleted in its entirety and the following language is
substituted therefor:

          Subject to the rules set forth in this Article IV, each Participant
          who is an Employee may elect to defer into this Plan in 1% increments
          up to a maximum of 15% of Compensation, or such other maximum
          percentage as may be determined in writing by the Committee.
          Participants shall not be required to make contributions to the Plan
          or Trust.

     5.  Section 3.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

         A Participant's Account shall be fully vested at all times.

     6.  The last sentence of Section 4.3 is deleted in its entirety and the
following language is substituted therefor:

          The Employer matching contribution shall equal to 250% of such
          Participant's Salary Deferrals.

      7.  Section 5.2 is deleted in its entirety and the remaining
subsections are renumbered accordingly.

          Executed this 1st day of January, 2001.



                       KAISER GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                            By: /s/ John T. Grigsby, Jr.
                                ------------------------
                                Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2012025EN.01002002.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/20

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Angelo Grisoli v Regione Lombardia

(Case C-315/08) (1)

(Article 104(3), first indent, of the Rules of Procedure - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Pharmacies - Proximity - Supply of medicinal products to the population - Operating authorisation - Territorial distribution of pharmacies - Minimum distance between pharmacies)

(2012/C 25/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Angelo Grisoli

Defendant: Regione Lombardia

Other party to the proceedings: Commune di Roccafranca

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 152 and 153 EC — Opening of new pharmacies — National legislation fixing limits on the basis of the number of inhabitants and laying down the conditions for authorising the opening of a new pharmacy

Operative part of the order

Article 49 TFEU does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the establishment of new pharmacies by providing that

| — | in towns with a population of less than 4 000 inhabitants, only one pharmacy may be set up and |
| --- | --- |

—

in towns with a population of less than 4 000 inhabitants, only one pharmacy may be set up and

| — | in towns with more than 4 000 inhabitants, the establishment of a new pharmacy is subject to conditions, such as the exceeding by at least 50 % of the number of inhabitants needed for a pharmacy and a minimum distance from already existing pharmacies, |
| --- | --- |

—

in towns with more than 4 000 inhabitants, the establishment of a new pharmacy is subject to conditions, such as the exceeding by at least 50 % of the number of inhabitants needed for a pharmacy and a minimum distance from already existing pharmacies,

on condition that such legislation permits, by way of derogation from its basic rules, the establishment of a sufficient number of pharmacies to guarantee an appropriate pharmaceutical service in areas with special demographic or geographical characteristics, something which it is for the national court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q (the "Report") of Amaru,
Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Colin Binny, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 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/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
President, Chief Executive Officer
May 7, 2008
# C_2020175EN.01001701.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Bonnafous v Commission

(Case T-646/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Audit Report on HR Management in the EACEA - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits)

(2020/C 175/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Laurence Bonnafous (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by A. Blot and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Ehrbar and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFUE seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 6753 final of 9 October 2018 rejecting the application for access to the final 2018 audit report on HR Management in the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) dated 21 January 2018 brought by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laurence Bonnafous to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laurence Bonnafous to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
# C_2009220EN.01003104.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — KLG Europe Eersel BV v Reedereikontor Adolf Zeuner GmbH

(Case C-534/08) (1)

1

2009/C 220/63

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 21, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51244 Conference Calendar

JOHN W MELTON Plaintiff-Appellant

v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH BOYD UNIT; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION BOYD UNIT; WARDEN II, BOYD UNIT BEN BROWN; CAPTAIN HORTMAN; LSM III CONNIE HILL; VIRGINIA BUCHANAN; LVN LYNDA SANCHES Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:06-CV-153
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John W. Melton, Texas prisoner # 1168128, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The magistrate judge denied Melton’s motion to appeal IFP and certified that the appeal was not taken inNo. 06-51244

* * Melton consented to the magistrate judge entering the final judgment in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). 2 good faith. ** By moving for IFP, Melton is challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Failure to identify an error in the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. B rinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs
are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Melton offers only a conclusory assertion of perjured testimony at the Spears*** hearing to challenge the dismissal ofhis civil rights complaint. Melton has not shown that the magistratejudge’s determination that his appeal would be frivolous was incorrect. The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Accordingly, Melton’s request for IFP status is denied , and his appeal is dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2. Melton is reminded that he has three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996); Melton v. Livingston, No. 06-20097 (5th Cir. Jan. 18, 2007). Accordingly, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). We caution Melton that further frivolous filings may result in additional sanctions against him. IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### A. R. JORDAN, A. R. Jordan, as President of the Denco Bus Lines, a Foreign Transportation Corporation, and The Denco Bus Lines, a Foreign Corporation, Plaintiffs in Error, v. W. F. SNAKARD, Defendant in Error.

No. 37462.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 4, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1958.

*397Brown & Verity, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Moore & Fitzgerald, Stillwater, P. D. Erwin, Chandler, for defendant in error.

JACKSON, Justice.

The defendant in error has objected to the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine this case on appeal for the reason that the appeal was not filed in this •court within twenty days from the date the •case-made was settled. The objection is well taken. The case-made was settled July 2, 1956. It was not filed in this court until July 27, 1956, which was more than ■twenty days after settlement of case-made. In Video Independent Theatres, Inc. v. Walker, Okl., 308 P.2d 958, it is held in the second paragraph of the syllabus as follows:

> “By virtue of the provisions of 12 O.S.1955 Supp. § 972, all proceedings by case-made for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments or final orders .shall be commenced within twenty days from the date the case-made is settled, and where case-made and petition in error are not filed in Supreme Court within twenty days from date case-made is settled, such court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and will dismiss the same.”

Since the appeal was not filed within twenty days from the date the case-made was settled, this court is without jurisdiction to review the appeal.

In addition to the foregoing, the appeal was not filed within the three months time allowed by statute nor an authorized extension thereof.

Appeal dismissed.

CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

WELCH, C. J., and DAVISON and JOHNSON, JJ., dissent.
# C_2008158EN.01000802.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/8

---

Appeal brought on 7 March 2008 by Portela & Companhia SA against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 11 December 2007 in Case T-10/06, Portela & Companhia SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-108/08 P)

(2008/C 158/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Portela & Companhia (represented by J. Conceição Pimenta, advogado)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Juan Torrens Cuadrado and Josep Gilbert Sanz

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 22 April 2008 the President of the Court of Justice ordered the removal of the case from the Court's register.

---
#### John Ray METCALF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAMONS, INC., a Utah corporation, and LeVon P. Dormeyer, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 13486.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 25, 1974.

*883Brant H. Wall, Gregory B. Wall, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Raymond M. Berry of Worsley, Snow & Christensen, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a summary judgment against plaintiff. Affirmed with costs to defendant.

Metcalf, an employee of Samons, was asked by the latter’s manager to run an errand for the store, with the understanding that Metcalf would be paid mileage for using his own car, nothing else. While on the errand, he had a collision, and now asks his employer, Samons, to pay the damage, on a principal-agent theory, —that he was in the course of doing something on behalf of his employer.

There was nothing in the master-servant agreement here calling for such an indemnity, and there is nothing to indicate that Samons in any way was negligent.

We find no authority for plaintiff’s urgence to extend the agency contract beyond its four corners, but there is authority to the contrary.1

CALLISTER, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

1

. Earll v. McCoy, 116 Cal.App.2d 44, 253 P.2d 86 (1953); Sec. 438 Restatement of Agency 2d.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         159,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,406,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,480,389
<INVENTORY>                                     77,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,804,147
<PP&E>                                       2,046,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                 787,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,927,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,609,544
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,232
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,927,394
<SALES>                                     10,186,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,186,857
<CGS>                                       11,259,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,059,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,363,287
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,236,230)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,589,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,647,230)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,647,230)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)
        

</TABLE>