alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-29019]


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

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: January 5, 2024.

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 29, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 41 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-155, CP2024-161.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-29019 Filed 1-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
II 

Calendar No. 566 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4581 

[Report No. 115–334] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2018 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, with an amendment 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop 

best practices for utilizing advanced passenger information and passenger name record data for counterterrorism screening and vetting operations, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Screening and Vetting 

5 Passenger Exchange Act of 2017’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4581 RS

1 SEC. 2. PASSENGER SCREENING BEST PRACTICES. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 270 days after the 

3 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Home4 land Security shall develop best practices for utilizing ad5 vanced passenger information and passenger name record 

6 data for counterterrorism screening and vetting oper7 ations. 

8 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—The Secretary of Homeland 

9 Security shall, to the greatest extent practicable— 

10 (1) make available to certain countries, includ11 ing visa waiver program countries under section 217 

12 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

13 1187), the best practices required under subsection 

14 (a); and 

15 (2) provide assistance to such countries in im16 plementing such best practices. 

17 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

18 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Screening and Vetting 

19 Passenger Exchange Act of 2017’’. 

20 SEC. 2. PASSENGER SCREENING BEST PRACTICES. 

21 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 270 days after the 

22 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 

23 Security shall develop best practices for utilizing advanced 

24 passenger information and passenger name record data for 

25 counterterrorism screening and vetting operations. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4581 RS

1 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—The Secretary of Homeland 

2 Security shall, to the greatest extent practicable— 

3 (1) make available to appropriate countries, in4 cluding visa waiver program countries under section 

5 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

6 U.S.C. 1187), unclassified versions of the best prac7 tices developed under subsection (a); and 

8 (2) provide assistance to such countries in imple9 menting such best practices. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 566 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4581 

[Report No. 115–334] 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 

operations, and for other purposes. data for counterterrorism screening and vetting senger information and passenger name record develop best practices for utilizing advanced pasSEPTEMBER 4, 2018 

Reported with an amendment 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY
 RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(d) PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Stanley Shuster, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Grand Havana Enterprises, Inc.; 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
 4.
I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 
 (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 
 (b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
 (c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the 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, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 
 5.
I have disclosed, based on the most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 
 (a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 
 (b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.   Date: February 9, 2005/s/  Stanley ShusterName: Stanley ShusterTitle:  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### ALLEN v. STATE.

No. A-12043.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 14, 1954.

Harold McArthur, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Ivan Eugene Allen was charged by information filed in the court of common pleas of Tulsa County with the crime of reckless driving, was tried before a jury and found guilty, but the jury being unable to agree upon the punishment to be assessed, left the same to the court, who fixed the penalty at a fine of $150, cost of prosecution, and to be imprisoned for 10 days in the county jail of Tulsa County. Appeal to this court has been perfected by the defendant.

The section of the Statute involved is § 121.3 of Titl.e 47, O.S.A.

We have carefully read the record, which discloses that on the 14th day of April, 1953, the defendant drove his 1949 Ford Coach upon County Road 3⁄40 miles north of Tulsa, at a speed that was neither careful nor prudent, and that was greater than was reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and of other conditions then existing, and at a speed greater than would permit him to bring said automobile to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. The evidence disclosed that defendant drove his vehicle to the left of the center of the highway and across a bar ditch causing the vehicle to overturn some 15 feet below the surface of the highway; that the vehicle tore out a section of the bannister along said highway, a 2x10 timber piercing the car just above the heads of the occupants. The defendant was found to have the odor of alcohol on his breath and admitted to having drunk “three beers.”

Defendant testified and claimed that he fell asleep and by such fact the accident occurred. He admitted to having plead guilty previously to a charge of speeding, but did not remember whether he had been previously twice convicted for reckless driving or not.

*153 The evidence amply sustains the verdict of the jury. The Court was lenient in assessing the punishment. No further recitation is required. Tit. 20 O.S. 1951 § 47, as amended in 1953.

JONES and BRETT, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JANUARY 1, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
JANUARY 1, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jan-1-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-2-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jan-1-2000
<CASH>                                            21,877
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      2,418
<ALLOWANCES>                                         259
<INVENTORY>                                       51,412
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  80,167
<PP&E>                                           211,041
<DEPRECIATION>                                    54,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   350,629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            101,138
<BONDS>                                          103,037
<COMMON>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                           23
<OTHER-SE>                                       165,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     350,629
<SALES>                                          721,091
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 721,091
<CGS>                                            499,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    499,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 199,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     155
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 4,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   17,967
<INCOME-TAX>                                       5,198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               12,769
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                            281
<NET-INCOME>                                      12,488
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.53


</TABLE>
# C_2010161EN.01003902.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2010 — Freixenet v OHIM (Shape of a frosted white bottle)

(Case T-109/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark representing a frosted white bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2010/C 161/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Freixenet, SA (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia, Spain) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2007 (Case R 97/2001-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a frosted white bottle as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Freixenet, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Freixenet, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4762 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4762

  To require the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
              unique ZIP code for particular communities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2018

 Mrs. Demings introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
              unique ZIP code for particular communities.

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

SECTION 1. ZIP CODES.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the United States Postal Service shall designate a single, unique 
ZIP code for, as nearly as practicable, each of the following 
communities:
            (1) Ocoee, Florida.
            (2) Oakland, Florida.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BOBBY LEE BROADDUS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00194-GCM-1; 3:12-

cv-00432-GCM)

Submitted: January 9, 2019 Decided: January 28, 2019

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Lee Broaddus, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Lee Broaddus seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Broaddus has not 

made the requisite showing.∗

 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

 ∗ We conclude that Broaddus is not aided by our recent decisions in United States 

v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018), petition for cert. filed (No. 18-420) (U.S. Oct. 

3, 2018), or Lester v. Flournoy, 909 F.3d 708 (4th Cir. 2018). Rather, his case is 

controlled by Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc).
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Map Created: September 2006.

Data Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS, 2002-2004;

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2003;

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF3.

County Economic Status in Appalachia, Fiscal Year 2007

(Effective October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007)

The Appalachian Regional Commission uses an index-based county 

economic classification system to identify and monitor the economic 

status of Appalachian counties. See the reverse side for a description of 

each economic level. 

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

TENNESSEE 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

Distressed (78)

At-Risk (78)

Transitional (221)

Competitive (26)

County Economic Levels

Attainment (7)
County Economic Status Classification System, FY 2007

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) uses an index-based county economic classification system to 

identify and monitor the economic status of Appalachian counties. The system involves the creation of a 

national index of county economic status through a comparison of each county’s averages for three economic 

indicators—three year average unemployment rate, per capita market income, and poverty rate—with national 

averages. The resulting values are summed and averaged to create a composite index value for each county. 

Each county in the nation is then ranked, based on its composite index value, with higher values indicating 

higher levels of distress.

County Economic Levels

Each Appalachian county is classified into one of five economic status designations, based on its position in the 

national ranking. 

Distressed

Distressed counties are the most economically depressed counties. They rank in the worst 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties.

At-Risk

At-Risk counties are those at risk of becoming economically distressed. They rank between the worst 10 percent 

and 25 percent of the nation’s counties.

Transitional

Transitional counties are those transitioning between strong and weak economies. They make up the largest 

economic status designation. Transitional counties rank between the worst 25 percent and the best 25 percent of 

the nation’s counties.

Competitive

Competitive counties are those that are able to compete in the national economy but are not in the highest 10 

percent of the nation’s counties. Counties ranking between the best 10 percent and 25 percent of the nation’s 

counties are classified competitive.

Attainment

Attainment counties are the economically strongest counties. Counties ranking in the best 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties are classified attainment.

Attainment 

Counties

Best 10% of 

U.S. Counties

Competitive 

Counties

Best 10+ to 25% of 

U.S. Counties

At-Risk 

Counties

Worst 10+ to 25% 

of U.S. Counties

Distressed 

Counties

Worst 10%

 of U.S. 

Counties

ARC County Economic Status Designation by National Index Value Rank

Ranked Index Values 

of U.S. Counties

Transitional Counties

Higher Index Values Lower Index Values
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.52  


 
 

THE HOME DEPOT, INC.
  MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN
  FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES    
    


        On February 24, 2005, the Leadership Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of The Home Depot, Inc. approved performance
measures to be used to determine payments to the Company's Executive Officers under the Company's Management Incentive Plan for the Company's 2005 fiscal year. The performance measures are based on
actual sales and operating profit measured against specified targets. 











QuickLinks


THE HOME DEPOT, INC. MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2005 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014 (the “Report”) of MCG Capital Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Keith Kennedy, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:


|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.




/s/ KEITH KENNEDYName:Keith KennedyTitle:Chief Executive OfficerDateAugust 7, 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Supreme Court Cause No. DA-23-0131 

 

JOHN D. MUNRO,

Appellant, 

vs. 

ALLEN MUNRO, et. al. 

Appellee. 

ORDER GRANTING 

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

OPENING BRIEF 

 The Court, having reviewed Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time, Rule 

21(1) allowing at least one extension of time, hereby grants the Motion. 

Appellant’s opening brief shall be due on April 23, 2023. 

 BY THE COURT 

 ___________________________ 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 27 2023

03/27/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0131