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

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# 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 Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 27, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 160 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-147, CP2024-153.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-29009 Filed 1-4-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-4130

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Latayo Raymond Clark, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: August 7, 2003

 Filed: August 14, 2003 

___________

Before BOWMAN, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Clark challenges the sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute, and to possess with intent

to distribute, 50 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine base, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), 846. The district court sentenced Clark to 120

months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, Clark’s counsel has
-2-

moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the

district court erred in denying Clark’s motion for a downward departure. 

The district court’s decision not to grant the downward departure was clearly

discretionary; thus, the decision is unreviewable. See United States v. VanHouten,

307 F.3d 693, 696 (8th Cir. 2002) (discretionary decision not to depart from

Guidelines is unreviewable on appeal absent unconstitutional motive, unless district

court erroneously concluded it lacked authority to depart). 

Following careful review of the record, we find no other nonfrivolous issues.

See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

We also deny Clark’s pending motion and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Abatement Order filed February 27, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 17

- 00838

- CR

____________ JEREL CHINEDU IGBOJI , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 16

- DCR

- 072102



### ABATEMENT ORDER
The reporter ’ s record has not been filed in this appeal. The court reporter has informed the court that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter ’ s fee to prepare the reporter ’ s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(A). This court is unaware whether appellant is entitled to proceed without the payment
of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(B). Accordingly, we enter the following
order. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c).W e ORDER the judge of the 240th District Court to immediately conduct a

hearing at which appellant, appellant ’ s counsel, if any, and counsel for the State shall participate, either in person or by video teleconference, to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. The judge may appoint appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The judge shall see that a record of the hearing is made, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing the findings and conclusions. The transcribed record of the hearing, the court ’ s find ings and conclusions, and a videotape or compact disc, if any, containing a recording of the video teleconference shall be filed with the clerk
of this court within thirty days of the date of this order

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court ’ s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court ’ s active docket when the
trial court ’ s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal fil ed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with this court ’ s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties
of such date.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING


AND FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR 15D-14(B)


UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Legend Oil and Gas, Ltd. (the “Company”) for the three months ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marshall Diamond-Goldberg, as principal executive officer of the Company, and I, James Vandeberg, as principal accounting and financial officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(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 Company.











/s/ Marshall Diamond-Goldberg                                                                Date:May 13, 2011


Marshall Diamond-Goldberg


Principal Executive Officer








/s/ James Vandeberg                                                      Date:May 13, 2011


James Vandeberg


Principal Accounting and Financial Officer








The certifications filed under this Exhibit 32.1 are not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Legend Oil and Gas, Ltd. under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation by reference language contained in any such filing, except to the extent that Legend Oil and Gas, Ltd. specifically incorporates it by reference.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 1, 2013

s0325

Order 

April 1, 2013

146200

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146200

COA: 298749

Kent CC: 08-012557-FC

JOSE ALBERTO VEGA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 25, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1634

JOHN KAY SMOOT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District

Judge. (CA-96-83-A)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Kay Smoot, Appellant Pro Se. Grady Craven Frank, Jr., HAZEL

& THOMAS, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders (1) dismissing

his complaint without prejudice for lack of diversity jurisdiction

and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the

record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Enamelon, Inc. Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1998 and the Condensed Statement
of Operations for the twelve months ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                           
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998  
<CASH>                        13,146,989  
<SECURITIES>                  5,028,805   
<RECEIVABLES>                 3,146,395   
<ALLOWANCES>                  69,800      
<INVENTORY>                   2,980,252   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              24,752,846  
<PP&E>                        3,413,704   
<DEPRECIATION>                630,370     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                28,522,113  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         11,330,791  
<BONDS>                       0           
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         4,833,324
<PREFERRED>                   0           
<COMMON>                      10,242   
<OTHER-SE>                    12,347,756  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  28,522,113
<SALES>                       14,302,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              14,302,137
<CGS>                         6,704,911
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 6,704,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              38,246,643
<LOSS-PROVISION>              61,374
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            (1,608,951)
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (29,101,840)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (29,101,840)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (29,112,673)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (2.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (2.86)
        

</TABLE>
2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d
S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-17-2014 

# U S A v . B r uce C o s t a , J r

.

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t 13-1218

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a
U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a
U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . B r uc e C os t a , J r

. " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 84. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/84

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT January 16, 2014

No. 13

- 1218

USA

v.

BRUCE E. COSTA, JR.

( D. Del . No. 1

- 10

- cr

- 00047

- 001 )

Present: JORDAN, VANASKIE and VAN ANTWERPEN

, Circuit Judges

Unopposed Motion by Appellant to Amend Opini on filed January 2, 2014.

Respectfully, Clerk/arl

____________________ _____________ORDER________________________________ The foregoing Motion is granted. The January 2, 2014 opinion is vacated. A revised opinion and judgment will be entered.

By the Court,

s/ Kent A. Jordan Circuit Judge

Dated: January 17, 2014 ARL/cc: SAW; LCW; MDC; JMV
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pacific Spirit,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date:  August 12, 2005

                                         /s/ Peter Sotola
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Peter Sotola
                                         President, C.E.O. and Director
                                         (Principal Executive Officer)
(OCTOBER 1, 2019–SEPTEMBER 30, 2020)

APPALACHIAN REGION PROFILE | FISCAL YEAR 2020

474 PROJECTS

$161.8M TOTAL ARC 

INVESTMENT

$858M ADDITIONAL PRIVATE

INVESTMENTS

LEVERAGED

FISCAL YEAR 2020 INVESTMENT SNAPSHOT

FISCAL YEAR 2020 INVESTMENT PRIORITIES

26,300 JOBS CREATED 

OR RETAINED

20,800 STUDENTS AND 

WORKERS TRAINED 

AND EDUCATED

READY WORKFORCE

$38.5M

invested to increase the 

education, knowledge, skills, 

and health of Appalachian

residents to work

and succeed

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES

invested in entrepreneurial

$32M

strategies to strengthen the 

economy in Appalachia

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

$70.6M

invested in Appalachia’s critical 

infrastructure development, 

including broadband, 

transportation, and 

water/wastewater systems

NATURAL & CULTURAL ASSETS

$6.4M

invested to leverage the 

economic potential of 

Appalachia’s natural 

and cultural heritage

LEADERSHIP & COMMUNITY CAPACITY

invested to build the capacity and skills of 

$14.2M

Appalachia’s current and next-generation 

leaders and organizations in Appalachia 

to advance community and 

economic development

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION | LEARN MORE: ARC.GOV

FY 2020 COUNTY ECONOMIC STATUS IN APPALACHIA

Levels of

Economic Status

Distressed County

At-Risk County

Transitional County

Competitive County

Attainment County

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 J OHN LEY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 52 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 20 14 3- CR-C MA UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us SILVIO REYES, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 1, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ren e Pal om in o, J r., ap po in te d c ou ns el forSil vi o R ey es inth is di rect cri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withdraw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti onof t heap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o And er s v. C al if orni a , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s th atco un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andReyes’s co nv ic ti on s an d se nt en ces are AFFIRMED .

2
**Exhibit
      32.1**




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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Blast Energy Services,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John
      O’Keefe, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)  The
      Report 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 Company.




Date:
      August 14, 2007




By:
            /s/
                John O’KeefeJohn
                O’KeefeChief
                Executive OfficerPrincipal
                Executive Officer
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

196) ll-K-(I)-10 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:55 AM Sheet 196 of 325 
P.2 

M8 

II-K-(I)-10 

ENERGY CONVERSION PROBLEMS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL USERS 

VIEWPOINT. 

Feeley, F.G. 01 in Corporation. Presented at the 

Fourth Energy Technology Conference. Washington, D.C. 

March 14-16, 1977. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-10
#### Edith Gale PAGE et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Eugenia SHERMAN, Individually and Eugenia Sherman, Executrix of the Estate of Icle Victoria Stinson, Deceased, Defendant in Error.

No. 36630.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 15, 1955.

Little & Hoyt, Oklahoma City, Hicks & Fancher, Hollis, for plaintiffs in error.

Dudley, Duvall, Dudley, Oklahoma City, R. D. Miller, Hollis, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, individually, and as executrix, brought an action against defendants seeking an accounting and the determination of an interest in real and personal property. The trial court ordered an accounting by its order of May 8, 1954, and defendants appeal.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason the order cannot be brought to this court on appeal prior to a final determination of the issues in the trial court. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. In Arthur v. Arthur, Okl., 258 P.2d 1191, 1192, a similar case, it is stated:

> “ ‘An appeal does not lie to this court from an intermediate or interlocutory order made during the pendency of an action, which intermediate or interlocutory order leaves the parties in court to have the issues tried on the merits, unless the appeal sought to be taken comes within some one of the special orders from which an appeal is authorized by statute prior to final judgment in the main action.’ ”

Appeal dismissed.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-99265; File No. SR-MEMX-2023-40]

                    On December 26, 2023, MEMX LLC (the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) [1]                                          and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,[2]                                          a proposed rule change to establish fees for industry members related to certain historical costs of the National Market System plan governing the Consolidated Audit                           ( print page 983)                        Trail. The proposed rule change was noticed for comment on December 29, 2023.[3]                                          On January 2, 2024, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change.                

                        For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.[4] 

Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             17 CFR 240.19b-4.                    
        Back to Citation      

3.                                                     *See*                         Securities Exchange Act Release No. 99257 (Dec. 29, 2023).                    
        Back to Citation      

4.                                 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).                        
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2024-00082 Filed 1-5-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P