alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22750]


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

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: October 3, 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 
September 27, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 411 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-773, K2024-66.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22750 Filed 10-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6483
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. COLLINS KUSI SAKYI, a/k/a CK, a/k/a Kwame Kusi, a/k/a Quan, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00405-LMB-1) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Collins Kusi Sakyi, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Collins Kusi Sakyi seeks to appeal the district’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and motion for extension of time in which to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Sakyi seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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. DISMISSED
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


I, Helaine M. Kaplan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of periods covered by this report on Form 10-K
of the COMM 2012-CCRE2 Mortgage Trust (the "Exchange Act Periodic Reports");

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a whole,
do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
this report is included in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in
this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act Periodic Report, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations
under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: CoreLogic Commercial Real
Estate Services, Inc. as Servicing Function Participant, Midland Loan Services,
Inc., a Division of PNC Bank, National Association as Special Servicer,
National Tax Search, LLC as Servicing Function Participant, Park Bridge Lender
Services LLC as Operating Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer,
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Custodian, Situs Holdings LLC as Operating Advisor for the 260 and 261 Madison
Avenue Loan, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Certificate Administrator
for the 260 and 261 Madison Avenue Loan, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas as Custodian for the 260 and 261 Madison Avenue Loan.


    Dated:   August 30, 2013


    /s/ Helaine M. Kaplan
    Signature

    President
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management

 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 13-305 Date: November 2013 

Subject: Calendar Year 2014 Interest Rate 

The U.S. Treasury has announced the calendar year 2014 interest rate of 1.625 percent, which is the same

rate as calendar year 2013. This rate is applicable to “post-1956” military service credit accounts. The 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) also will apply this rate to civilian service credit and 

voluntary contribution accounts.

Employing agencies must assess interest on the unpaid balance in post-1956 military service credit 

accounts on an employee’s “interest accrual date” (IAD), and interest is compounded annually. 

The actual interest rate applied is a “composite” rate, based on the rates in effect during the 12-month period 

preceding the IAD. Thus, it has components of both the current and previous year’s interest rates. For instance, 

the rate applied on October 1, 2014, reflects a composite interest rate of 1.625 percent [three months (October 1

to December 31, 2013) at 1.625 percent and nine months (January 1 to September 30, 2014) at 1.625 percent]. 

Chapter 23 of the Civil Service Retirement System/Federal Employees Retirement System (CSRS/FERS) 

Handbook contains guidance for computing interest on military service credit deposits, including the 

determination of the IAD and the formula for composite interest rates. It is available at

http://www.opm.gov/retire/pubs/handbook/hod.htm. For your convenience, we have attached a PDF file 

formatted spreadsheet containing the composite interest rates for each IAD through December 31, 2014. 

To reduce the unpaid balance in a military service credit account prior to the assessment of additional 

interest, a remittance must be received on time. To be considered timely, remittances must be physically in 

the possession of the agency official authorized to receive them by the close of business on the last regular 

business day before the IAD. Thus, for deposits sent by mail, the date on the postmark does not constitute 

the date of remittance.

If you have questions about this letter, please send an email to FinancialBALs@opm.gov or call us on 

202-606-0606. We look forward to assisting you.

 

 

 

Kim Farington 

Associate Chief Financial Officer 

Financial Services

Attachment
| 1. | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31,      2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for      the period ending July 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Henya Food Corp. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:       September 19, 2008          |
|----------------------------------------------|
|                                         |
| /s/ Henry      Ender                         |
| Henry      EnderChief      Executive Officer |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 14, 2020

NO. 03-19-00589-CV

Samuel J. Burleson, Appellant

v.

Ken Anderson and The State of Texas, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 425TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER AND TRIANA

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on July 15, 2019. Having reviewed the 

record, the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted his appeal and did not comply with a 

notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of 

prosecution. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is 

made.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ROBERT J. MARSHALL, JR.,

Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 5 MAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 863 FR 

2015 dated December 13, 2018 

overruling the exceptions and entered 

judgment against taxpayer of the 

November 2, 2018 order that Affirmed 

the PA Board of Finance and 

Revenue at No. 0811195 dated 

December 3, 2015.

JOHN K. HOUSSELS, JR.,

Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 6 MAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 867 FR 

2015 dated December 13, 2018 which 

overruled the exceptions and entered 

judgment against taxpayer of the 

November 2, 2018 order that Affirmed 

the PA Board of Finance and 

Revenue at No. 0712902 dated 

December 3, 2015.

CRAIG S. AND CHRISTINE L. 

ANDREWS,

Appellants

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 7 MAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 185 FR 

2016 dated December 13, 2018 which 

overruled the exceptions and entered 

judgment against taxpayer of the 

November 2, 2018 order that Affirmed 

the PA Board of Finance and 

Revenue at No. 0811417 dated March 

1, 2016.

RONALD S. LEVENTHAL,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

No. 8 MAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 186 FR 

2016 dated December 13, 2018 which 
v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

overruled the exceptions and entered 

judgment against taxpayer of the 

November 2, 2018 order that Affirmed 

the PA Board of Finance and 

Revenue at No. 0811439 dated March 

1, 2016

ANNETTE SHARPE,

Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 9 MAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 187 FR 

2016 dated December 13, 2018 which 

overruled the exceptions and entered 

judgment against taxpayer of the 

November 2, 2018 order that Affirmed 

the PA Board of Finance and 

Revenue at No. 0813370 dated 

March 1, 2016

JOHN THOMPSON,

Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 10 MAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 188 FR 

2016 dated December 13, 2018 which 

overruled the exceptions and entered 

judgment against taxpayer of the 

November 2, 2018 order that Affirmed 

the PA Board of Finance and 

Revenue at No. 0812883 dated 

March 1, 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: August 20, 2019

AND NOW, this 20th day of August, 2019, the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

is AFFIRMED. The Application for Oral Argument is DENIED.
#### BROWN v. BROWN.

No. 3352.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Oct. 13, 1938.

Sam G. Croom, of Houston, for appellant.

J. B. Ross, of Houston, for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

This case was appealed from the 55th Judicial District Court of Harris County, is before us on transfer by the Supreme Court.

The suit was filed by appellant, Irene Brown, as an' action for divorce, custody of children and division of community property. Plaintiff alleged numerous acts of cruel treatment as grounds for divorce. By cross action the defendant, Ernest Brown, also sought divorce and prayed for conformation of an alleged agreement partitioning the community property. Trial was to a jury and at the conclusion of the evidence the trial court refused to submit the case to the jury, and on his own motion entered judgment denying the petition for divorce of both parties.

In view of another trial we will not discuss the evidence except to say that plaintiff testified to various acts of cruel treatment. She testified that defendant cursed and abused her, struck her with his fist, seriously injuring her, and that he drew a knife on her and threatened her life. She was corroborated by a daughter. The defendant testified, *but*did not dispute the testimony as to these acts of cruelty.

Opinion.

Plaintiff’s evidence clearly entitled her to go to the jury on the issues of cruel treatment, and the trial court erred in refusing her request for submission. Daniel v. Daniel, Tex.Civ.App., 16 S.W.2d 303, and cases cited.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. *,*

Reversed and remanded.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Kabe Exploration, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Erik Ulsteen, President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certifies to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| 1      | Such   Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30,   2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for   the quarter ending June 30, 2011, fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 
| Date:   August 15, 2011 |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ Erik Ulsteen             |   |
| Erik   Ulsteen               |   |
| President                    |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer    |   |
| Secretary                    |   |

 

----
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50696 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SKYLER STEPHEN NEWSOME,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-98-CR-74-5

___________________________________________

April 14, 2000

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Skyler Stephen Newsome appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for

aiding and abetting the possession and distribution of “crack” cocaine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He asserts that the district court erred in

denying his pre-sentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea, in failing to hold an

evidentiary hearing thereon, and in sentencing him.2 United States v. Dabdoub-Diaz , 599 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that defendant’s

conclusional allegation unsupported by specifics did not justify a hearing to relitigate representations made in open court).

3 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e); United States v. Brewster , 137 F.3d 853 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 119 S. Ct. 247 (1998).

4 United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1992).

2 Newsome sought to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that the prosecution

misled him about his sentence. This allegation was insufficient to warrant an

evidentiary hearing, as it was found to be vague, unsubstantiated, and contrary to his

sworn statement at rearraignment that, other than his discussions with his attorney

concerning the sentencing guidelines, no one had made any promise, prophecy, or

prediction regarding his sentence. 2

Considering the totality of the circumstances, Newsome did not establish a fair

and just reason for the withdrawal of his guilty plea. 3 The district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying the motion for same. Finally, because Newsome knowingly

and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sente nce, the allegations of sentencing

errors will not be considered. 4

The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
6/26/2015

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXA

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

%J

OACase No. 

Perez, Jose Diaz Tr. Ct. No. 18,373 

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant's Pro Se motion 

of time in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. Th

petition has been extended to Friday, August 28, 2015. 

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition F

Review must be filed with The Court of Criminal Appeals.

A

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
Exhibit 32.2





SECTION 1350
CERTIFICATION











In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Abington Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2008, (the “Report”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jack J. Sandoski, Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial 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;
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/
      Jack J. SandoskiJack
      J. SandoskiSenior
      Vice President andChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      8, 2008










A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act has been provided to
Abington Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Abington Bancorp, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Spartan Coat, Apron, Towel and Linen Supply Co., Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Louis Simon, Individually and as Secretary-Treasurer of the Amalgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

April 3, 1958.

*272
      *Gerard Tore*for plaintiff.

*Jacob Sheinkman*for defendant.

' William B. Groat, J.

" The plaintiff is engaged in the business of renting laundered linens, towels and aprons, etc. to various retail establishments, such as beauty parlors, restaurants and the like, in the- Greater New York area including the State of New Jersey. It brought an action to restrain the defendant union from engaging in an alleged secondary boycott and from allegedly coercing the plaintiff, by means of picketing its premises and those of its customers, into breaching its contract with another local and to recognize the defendant as the -bargaining agent for its employees.

Plaintiff now moves for a temporary injunction *“*as prayed for in the complaint ’’. The defendant, by cross motion, moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

It appears from the plaintiff’s own papers that it is engaged in interstate commerce since it does business in the State of New Jersey, and for the past two years has been using a nonunion wash plant in that State. That being so, and it not having been established that the activity complained of threatens a breach of this State’s peace, exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the National Labor Relations Board over activities which are either protected or prohibited by the.National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor-Management'■Relations Act of 1947, commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act (U. S. Code, tit. 29, § 151 *et seq.; Garner*v. *Teamsters Union,*346 U. S. 485; *Weber*v. *Anheuser-Busch,*348 U. S. 468).

The foregoing view compels the conclusion that plaintiff must present the grievances charged in its complaint to the National Labor Relations Board, to whose jurisdiction defendant is subject. The motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is, accordingly, granted. *(Shenker Displays*v. *Goldman,*144 N. Y. S. 2d 7.)

*273In view of the foregoing disposition, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction is denied as is also that branch of the defendant’s motion as seeks the dismissal of the complaint for legal insufficiency.

Submit order.
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-Q (the Report) of Blackbird Petroleum Corporation (the Company) for the period ended
July 31, 2009, each of the undersigned Antonio Treminio, the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Accounting Officer, of the Company, 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 the best of each of the undersigneds knowledge and belief:  (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.  Dated:
	September 18, 2009/s/ Antonio TreminioAntonio Treminio, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)