alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83921-83922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24026]


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

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 18, 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 
October 3, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 438 to Competitive Product List. Documents

[[Page 83922]]

are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-25, K2025-24.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24026 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 11.1
<TABLE>

SPECTRIAN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
(In thousands except per share data)

<CAPTION>

                                             Three months ended                    Nine months ended
                                                 December 28,                          December 28,
                                            ---------------------------      ------------------------------
                                               1997             1996             1997               1996
                                              -------          -------          -------            -------

<S>                                           <C>              <C>              <C>                <C>     
Net income (loss)                             $ 6,382          $   138          $19,089            $(5,512)
                                              =======          =======          =======            =======

Weighted average number of shares:
Basic:
   Common stock                                10,744            8,169            9,515              8,118
                                              -------          -------          -------            -------

Diluted:
   Common stock                                10,744            8,169            9,531              8,105
   Common stock equivalents - stock options       747              126              892                n/a*
                                              -------          -------          -------            -------
             Total diluted shares              11,491            8,295           10,423              8,105
                                              -------          -------          -------            -------

Net income (loss) per share - basic           $  0.59          $  0.02          $  2.00            $ (0.68)
                                              =======          =======          =======            =======

Net income (loss) per share - diluted         $  0.56          $  0.02          $  1.83            $ (0.68)
                                              =======          =======          =======            =======
<FN>
*    Due to the  loss  in  this  period,  stock  options  outstanding  would  be
     antidilutive and are therefore not included in the calculation.
</FN>
</TABLE>

                                       20
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                        0000925178
<NAME>                               MOVIE GALLERY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-06-1997    
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-05-1997
<CASH>                                           1,137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,067  
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,853
<PP&E>                                         275,611<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,634<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 263,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13 
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,835 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   263,031 
<SALES>                                         28,162 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,566 
<CGS>                                           17,028 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  185,984 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,632
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,050)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (174)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (876)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                      (876) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.07) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.07) 
<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES $198,656 OF VIDEOCASSETTE RENTAL INVENTORY.
<F2> INCLUDES $104,406 OF ACCUMULATED AMORTIZATION ON VIDEOCASSETTE RENTAL
     INVENTORY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





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 Annual Report of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2012 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date 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 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 operation of Ameritrans Captial Corporation and Subsidiaries.






Date: September 28, 2012



/s/ Richard L. FeinsteinRichard L. FeinsteinChief Financial Officer
Rupprecht Law P. A. 

324 Datura Street, Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

P: (561) 222-6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com 

September 2, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Receipt of Confidentially Submitted Documents for Higher Perspective Cinema, Inc.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Higher Perspective Cinema, Inc. (Docket ID: FAA-2015-3712) confidentially submitted to 

333exemptions@faa.gov the follow documents:

1) Flight Operations & Procedures Manual (FOPM)

2) Motion Picture & Television Operating Manual (MPTOM)

3) Aircraft Flight Manual - Freefly Alta

4) Aircraft Flight Manual - DJI Inspire 1

5) Aircraft Flight Manual - Cinestar X8

6) PIC Qualification Process, Test & Logbook

7) VO Qualification Process & Test

A receipt was obtained on Wednesday, September 2, 2015.

If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me 

at (561)222-6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

Sincerely yours,

_____________________

Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.
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 Service TM.                    

# 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 18, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. 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 October 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage ® Contract 460 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-62, K2025-60.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24067 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
3Jn tbe Wniteb $tates ~ourt of jf eberal ~Iaitns 

No. 18-25C 

(Filed June 7, 2018) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

* 

* 

MITCHELL T. TAEBEL, * 

•k 

Plaintiff, * 

* 

v. * 

* 

THE UNITED STATES, * 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ORDER 

FILED 

JUN - 7 2018 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

This case was filed prose on December 27, 2017, by plaintiff, Mitchell T. 

Taebel. See generally ECF No. 1. In his complaint, Mr. Taebel alleged that the 

Department of Justice is an unconstitutional expansion of the federal government's 

power and therefore a violation of the Tenth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution. Id. Because Mr. Taebel's claim fe ll outside of the court's jurisdiction, 

this Court dismissed his complaint on January 11, 2018. See ECF No. 5. Mister 

Taebel then filed a notice of appeal on January 19, 2018. See ECF No. 7. Despite 

the pendency of his appeal, he now submits a request for a restraining order against 

alleged surveillance by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under Rule 65(b) of the 

Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). 

Considering Mr. Taebel's prose status, the Court will allow the paper to be 

filed and treated as a motion for an injunction pending an appeal under RCFC 62(c). 

Granting the motion, however, would be inappropriate for two reasons. First, this 

court's ability to grant equitable relief under the Tucker Act is extremely limited. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2) & (b)(2); United States v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, 563 

U.S. 307, 313 (2011) (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 2-3 (1969)). As Mr. 

Taebel has brought neither a bid protest nor a backpay claim, his case would not 

qualify for such relief. Second, this Court has already determined that it has no 
subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Taebel's claim. See ECF No. 5. For these 

reasons, Mr. Taebel's request for an injunction is DENIED. If Mr. Taebel wishes to 

seek further relief, he should seek it from the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit-as that is the court that currently has jurisdiction over his case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

- 2 -
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

                              FOR

                        SHOPSS.COM, INC.

                       a Utah Corporation


   The undersigned certify that:

  1. They are the president and secretary, respectively, of Shopss.com, Inc.

  2. Article I of the Articles of Incorporation of this corporation is
     amended to read as follows:

     "The name of this corporation shall be:  AccessTel, Inc."

  3. Article IV of the Articles of Incorporation of this corporation is
     amended to read as follows:

     "The total number of shares of capital stock which the Corporation has
     authority to issue is 120,000,000 shares, of which (i) 100,000,000
     shares shall be designated Common Stock, having a par value of $0.001
     per share, and (ii) 20,000,000 shares shall be designated Preferred
     Stock, having a par value of $1.00 per share.  The Board of Directors
     shall have authority to fix by resolutions the designations and powers,
     voting rights, preferences, conversion and other rights and the
     qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such Preferred Stock,
     including the number of shares of any series, to the full extent
     permitted by the Utah Business Corporation Act."

  4. The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has been duly
     approved by the board of directors and a majority of the shareholders of
     this corporation, such shareholders representing 17,289,696 of the
     31,416,140 shares of common stock outstanding on the record date of
     December 18, 2000.


   We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Utah that the matters set forth in this certificate are true and correct of
our own knowledge.


   DATE:  January 23, 2001

                                  /S/ LAWRENCE LIANG
                                  ______________________________________
                                  Lawrence Liang, Chief Executive Officer
                                  and President


                                  /S/ STUART BOCKLER
                                  _______________________________________
                                  Stuart Bockler, Chief Financial Officer
                                  and Secretary
TS

– 11KK 6F , Physical and Chemical Properties Worksheet, ECOSAR TM Estimates

Redacted
1 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of

orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and

conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 2/22/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

Plaintiff-Appellee, )

 ) No. 95-4133

v. ) (D.C. No. CIV-94-191)

 ) (D. Utah)

LUIS GALVEZ-VALDOVINOS, )

 )

Defendant-Appellant. )

___________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1

____________________________

Before PORFILIO, MCKAY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

_____________________________

Because neither party has requested oral argument, we will consider this case on

the briefs. The facts are well known to both sides and will not be set forth here in detail.
- 2 -

The defendant, Luis Galvez-Valdovinos, was convicted of the possession of

methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The illegal substance was found by

investigating officers hidden in a vehicle defendant was driving in the state of Utah. The

only argument raised on appeal is one which defendant denominates as a challenge of the

sufficiency of the evidence.

More particularly, however, the argument defendant presents is the jury should have

believed his testimony rather than that of the government’s witnesses. Although

defendant had made statements to the investigating officers during the investigation, he

contradicted those statements at trial. Accordingly, he argues: “His testimony concerning

the circumstances surrounding his arrest and his explanations for his being present at a

location where controlled substances were found should have created reasonable doubt in

the minds of the jurors.” This argument is fanciful.

On appeal, we do not judge the credibility of witnesses or the weight of their

testimony. United States v. Muldrow, 19 F.3d 1332, 1339 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 115

S. Ct. 175 (1994). While the argument advanced by defendant is appropriate before a

jury, it is equally inappropriate on appeal. When a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence is made, we judge that evidence and the inferences that can be drawn reasonably

from that evidence in a light most favorable to the government to determine whether any

rational fact-finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United

States v. Pike, 36 F.3d 1011, 1012 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1170 (1995). 
- 3 -

Having applied that test to the record before us, we conclude there is more than ample

evidence to support the verdict.

AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

JOHN C. PORFILIO

CIRCUIT JUDGE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7795

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WINFREE BONNER, JR., a/k/a Stinka,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (CR-01-120; CA-04-619-3)

Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Winfree Bonner, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Winfree Bonner, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Bonner 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 contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Jung, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

*December 11, 1942*

January *12, 1943.*

*180
      *L. A. Tan ell*of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Levitan.*

Rosenberry, C. J.

This case is not distinguishable from the case *of Barber v. Industrial Comm.*241 Wis. 462, 6 N. W. (2d) 199, and is ruled by the decision in that case.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

Barlow, J., took no part.

Fowler and Fritz, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 32.1





Certifications Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Power3 Medical Products, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “report”), I, Helen R. Park, Interim Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my 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.




Dated:  May 5, 2011
/s/  Helen R. ParkHelen R. Park

Interim Chief Executive Officer and

Interim Chief Financial Officer
John F. Hanzel, P.A. 

John F. Hanzel, Esq. 

jfh@nclawoffice.com 

Licensed in NC & VA 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Wilbur Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attorneys at Law 

September 25,2013 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

David A. Grassi, Esq. I Licensed in NC 

David@nclawoffice.com 

Matthew L Spencer, Esq. I Licensed in NC 

mspencer@nclawoffice.com 

RECEIVED 

SEP 3 0 2013 

HEARING DOCKET 

Re: Request for Hearing; Airport Mailers, Inc., Case No. 2012S0700256 

Hearing Docket Clerk: 

On August 14, 2013 our firm has been retained by Airport Mailers, Inc. to draft a letter 

requesting that a hearing be scheduled to address the proposed civil penalty in the 

abovereferenced matter pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.16. Our representation was only limited to the 

drafting of the aforementioned letter as Airport Mailers, Inc.'s counsel, Mr. John L. Wright, was 

unavailable due to an unforeseen personal matter. Please let this letter serve as formal notice that 

Mr. Wright is Airport Mailer, Inc.'s counsel in this matter and that we do not represent Airport 

Mailer's Inc. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 

CC: James H. Dunfee, Jr. 

JFH/mls 

19425-G Liverpool Parkway I Cornelius, North Carolina 28031 I office: 704-892-1375 I fax: 704-892-5784 

www.nclawoffice.com