alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. 453

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To designate the Federal building located at 709 West 9th Street in Juneau, Alaska,

as the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders Federal Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HURFF A. SAUNDERS FEDERAL

BUILDING.

The Federal building located at 709 West 9th Street in Juneau,

Alaska, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Hurff A. Saunders

Federal Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Hurff

A. Saunders Federal Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25326]



[[Page 86845]]

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

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. RM2024-9; Order No. 7817]
RIN 3211-AA39


Service Performance Measurement Systems for Market Dominant 
Products

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document acknowledges that the Commission will be 
conducting one or more off-the-record technical conferences to attain 
information that the Commission requires to effectively review the 
Postal Service's Service Performance Measurement (SPM) system.

DATES: Technical Conference: January 15, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., Eastern 
Time, Virtual.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 
202-789-6820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket No. RM2024-9 was initiated by the 
Commission to review the accuracy, reliability, and representativeness 
of the Postal Service's SPM system. SPM produces composite service 
performance results that are generated using several different data 
sources and data processing methods. The service performance results 
produced by SPM are an amalgamation of granular and siloed evaluations 
of performance for the individual segments of mail collection (First 
Mile), mail processing (Processing Duration), and mail delivery (Last 
Mile). Given recent changes in operations and mail mix, the Commission 
has concerns about the continued validity of the design and 
implementation of each of these three systems, as well as how the 
systems function collectively as a whole.
    Commission Information Request No. 3 sought to obtain, inter alia, 
the programming code associated with SPM, as well as a real-world 
example of the relevant SPM calculations being performed. The Postal 
Service moved for reconsideration, arguing that providing the 
information requested would be burdensome, would raise security 
concerns, and might not be technically feasible. The Postal Service 
requested a technical conference to discuss these issues, which the 
Commission found good cause to grant.

    By the Commission.
Jennie L. Jbara,
Primary Certifying Official.
[FR Doc. 2024-25326 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

                              ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
                              --------------------

     ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT, dated as of July 19, 2001 (this "Agreement") between
                                                            ---------
BLUM CB Corp., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and James J. Didion
                                            -------
("Didion").
  ------

     WHEREAS, Didion is a party to that certain Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement dated as of March 3, 1999 (as amended, the "Employment Agreement"), by
                                                      --------------------
and between Didion and CB Richard Ellis Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("CB Richard Ellis Services"); and
  -------------------------

     WHEREAS, the Company is a party to the Amended and Restated Agreement and
Plan of Merger, initially dated as of February 23, 2001, amended and restated on
April 24, 2001, and further amended and restated on May 31, 2001 (the "Merger
                                                                       ------
Agreement"), by and among the Corporation, CBRE Holding, Inc., a Delaware
---------
corporation ("Holding"), and CB Richard Ellis Services, pursuant to the terms
              -------
and subject to the conditions of which, among other things, (1) the Company will
merge with and into CB Richard Ellis Services, (2) the separate existence of the
Company will cease and (3) CB Richard Ellis Services will continue its existence
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Holding (such transactions, collectively, the
"Merger");
 ------

     NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration and intending to be
bound hereby, the parties hereto agree that, upon consummation of the Merger,
the surviving corporation in the Merger will, and hereby does, assume the
Employment Agreement.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
the day and year first above written.

                                       JAMES J. DIDION

                                       /s/ James J. Didion
                                       -----------------------------------------


                                       BLUM CB CORP.

                                       By:   /s/ Claus J. Moller
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:  Claus J. Moller
                                             Title: President
## •"EPARTMEMTO F 

# mmcmno H •nCKE TOPERATION S Docke t Managemen t Facilit y'/(]" } i^r q M , n •T U.S
. Dept
. o fTransportatio n J\lh:\5, U p r^ j 

### Docket No . FAA-2012-008 9 120 0 Ne wJerse yAve
. S E Wes t Buildin g Gran d Floor , Roo m W-12014 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 February? , 201 2 RE : Su n Countr yslo t exemptio n Docke t No
. FAA-2012-008 9 W e strongl ysuppor t an d us e th e non-stop , near-dail ySu n Countr yAirlin e flight s tha t currentl yoperat e betwee n Lansing , Michiga n an d Washingto n DC , Reagan
. Ou rus e t o dal e ha s bee n persona l a s w e hav e famil yi n th e Washingto n D C are a an d th e Su n Countr yflight s hav e bee n idea l - extremel yconvenien t wit h friendl yservic e an d competitiv e fares
. W e forese e additiona l fijture us e fo rou rbusines s purposes . W e realiz e th e issu e involve s Departmen t o fTransportatio n preceden t i n awardin g take offan d landin g right s at Reagan
. W e sincerel yhop e thi s matte rca n b e resolve d i n a manne rtha t woul d allo wth e non-stop , near-dail yservic e fro m Lansin g t o Washingto n Reaga n t o continue
. It' s importan t t o us , personally , as wel l as fo rbusines s trave l fro m throughou t th e mid-Michiga n area . Than k yo u fo ryou rconsideratio n o fthi s request . 

### Sincere! ' 

# ^^^f^^jM r __Ra yan d Pa

t Ha^inmerschmid t 522 5 Blu e Have n Driv e Eas t Lansing , M l 4882 3 Cc : Senato rDebbi e Stabeno w Senato rCar l Levi n Congressma n Mik e Roger s
Adams, Kevin (OST| :,"^T;.mTOr 

From: Biili Mcroberts [billimcroberts@alpenacounty.org] ' " ..'•V^^iT-'^'JOr; 

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 4:02 PM : :' 'J-^tHAt I0;\'o 

To: Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Subject: RE: Request for short email endorsing carrier's request-ii/.p i !_, ^^ oc' -

Kevin, 

Alpena County supports the request of Mesaba and Pinnacle regarding compensation established by Order 2010-5-18 

for EAS at Alpena, Michigan. 

Please let me l<now if you have any questions. 

Billi McRoberts 

(989) 354-2907 Ext 221 

From: Kevin.Adams@dot.Qov rmailto:Kevin.Adam5@dot.gov] 

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 3:13 PM 

To: BiNiMcRobert5(Q)AlDenacQuntv.ora 

Subject: Request for short email endorsing carrier's request. 

Thanks! 

This message has been scanned for viruses and 

dangerous content by MailScanner. and is 

believed to be clean. 

This message has been scaimed for viruses and 

dangerous content by MailScanner. and is 

believed to be clean.
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 Annual Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I Stuart Grayston, President and chief executive officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Stuart Grayston                  
|Stuart Grayston                      
|President and chief executive officer
|March 30, 2004
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 28, 2020 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00853-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.M., A.L.M., AND H.P.M., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 417-54002-2014



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Bridges

Stating he no longer wishes to pursue this appeal, appellant h as filed a motion to dismiss.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the mo tion and dismiss the appeal. See id.

190853F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.M., A.L.M., AND H.P.M., CHILDREN

No. 05-19-00853-CV On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 417-54002-2014. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Justices Molberg and Car lyle participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellee Kelly Marx recover her costs, if any, of this ap peal from appellant Timothy Marx.

Judgment entered January 28, 2020.
#### VIRGIL WEBB v. THE RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY.

*Fellow-Servants.*

1. Where an employe of a railroad company is injured by the negligence of a fellow-servant, the common master is not liable.

2. The fact that a co-employé has authority from the common master to discharge his fellow-servants, does not, of itself, constitute him a vice-principal.

This was a civil action, tried before *Avery, Judge,*atod' a jury, at Spring Term, 1886, of the Superior Court of Meck-lenburg county.

The action was brought to recover damages for an injury to the person of the plaintiff, who was an employé of the defendant.

The plaintiff, a witness in his own behalf, testified in substance, that he was employed to flag the trains, but was ordered by the yard-master, on the occasion when he was injured, to couple some cars. That he got upon the step at the back of the engine, and when the engine approached the cars he was to couple; he notified the engine-man to stop his engine, but that he did not do so, but moved it back rapidly, in consequence of which the injury happened; that the yard-master had the power to discharge the employés; and it was his duty to give signals to the engine-man when coupling was to be done, but that he failed to do so on this occasion.

The plaintiff’s testimoiiy was contradicted by the witnesses for the defendant, who testified to a state of facts, which, if believed, showed that the plaintiff was injured by his own carelessness.

The plaintiff asked his Honor, among other things, to charge the jury, that if they believed that the yard master *388had authority from the defendant to discharge the plaintiff, then they were not fellow-servants. His Plonor refused 'this charge.

The jury found a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

No counsel for the plaintiff.

*Mr. Chas. M. Busbee,*for the defendant.

MekrimoN, J.

We do not deem it necessary to advert in detail to the several assignments of error in this case, because in our judgment, in any just view of the facts of it as they appear in the record, the injury sustained by the plaintiff was most probably the result of casualty- — -possibly of his own carelessness and lack of expertness, and if there was any carelessness on the part of any employee of the defendant, engaged in shifting or moving the cars at the time the injury was sustained, it was obviously that of a fellow-servant, for which the defendant is not amenable.

The injury so sustained by the plaintiff was his misfortune.

It seems that the defendant, nevertheless, generously and commendably cared for him.

No error. Affirmed.
Collection Activity Number of Parties Number of

Responses per Party Total Number

of Responses Time per

Response Cost per

Response (Dollars) Total

Hours Total Cost

(Dollars)

80.1467 Application to be a foreign RIN owner 5 1 5 1 71 5 355 (m) additional attest engagement requirements (at $142/hour) 5 1 5 8 1136 40 5680

TOTAL 10 10 45 6035 Information Collection Burden by Type of Party Table VI - Additional Items of Reporting for Foreign RIN Owners
Exhibit 21SUBSIDIARIES         **Other names under**  **Jurisdiction of** **which entity does****Subsidiary Name** **Incorporation** **business**Cricket Communications, Inc. Delaware Cricket Wireless, Inc. Backwire.com, Inc. Delaware  Telephone Entertainment Network, Inc. Delaware  Cricket Licensee (Reauction), Inc. Delaware  Cricket Licensee I, Inc. Delaware  Chasetel Real Estate Holding Company,Inc. Tennessee  Cricket Alabama Property Company Delaware  Cricket Arizona Property Company Delaware  Cricket Arkansas Property Company Delaware  Cricket California Property Company Delaware  Cricket Colorado Property Company Delaware  Cricket Florida Property Company Delaware  Cricket Georgia Property Company, Inc. Delaware  Cricket Idaho Property Company Delaware  Cricket Illinois Property Company Delaware  Cricket Indiana Property Company Delaware  Cricket Kansas Property Company Delaware  Cricket Kentucky Property Company Delaware  Cricket Michigan Property Company Delaware  Cricket Minnesota Property Company Delaware  Cricket Mississippi Property Company Delaware  Cricket Nebraska Property Company Delaware  Cricket Nevada Property Company Delaware  Cricket New Mexico Property Company Delaware  Cricket New York Property Company, Inc. Delaware  Cricket North Carolina Property Company Delaware  Cricket Ohio Property Company Delaware  Cricket Oklahoma Property Company Delaware  Cricket Oregon Property Company Delaware  Cricket Pennsylvania Property Company Delaware  Cricket Texas Property Company Delaware  Cricket Utah Property Company Delaware  Cricket Washington Property Company Delaware  Cricket Wisconsin Property Company Delaware  Leap PCS Mexico, Inc. California  Leap Wireless Mexico S.A. de C.V. Mexico  Orrengrove Investments Limited Cyprus  
Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

Manhattan Beach, CA 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-87011, 333-87009, 333-71114,333-135049 and 333-147095) of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. of our reports dated July 31, 2013, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Skechers U.S.A., Inc.and subsidiaries, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. 

/s/ BDO USA, LLP 

Los Angeles, CA 

July 31, 2013
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

					NO. 2-04-067-CV

GREGORY L. MANLEY, #546876	APPELLANT

	V.

CAPTAIN MARY DOE MILLER, OFFICER	APPELLEE

JOHN DOE DIETZ, OFFICER MARY DOE

SHIELDS, J. MONNEYHAM, GRIEVANCE 

INVESTIGATOR #210/ALLRED UNIT,

GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATOR #746, AND

S. SCHUMACHER

	----------

	FROM THE 78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

	----------

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	On March 24, 2004, May 3, 2004, and July 12, 2004, we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $125 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not paid the $125 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court's order of July 21, 1998,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D: DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.	

DELIVERED: August 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 3
THROUGH 5 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000925548
<NAME> TOWER AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,404
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  347,272
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    116,506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               572,535
<PP&E>                                       1,541,935
<DEPRECIATION>                                 328,870
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,909,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          385,166
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           475
<OTHER-SE>                                     824,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,909,626
<SALES>                                      1,902,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,902,594
<CGS>                                        1,611,773
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,611,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               115,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                132,270
<INCOME-TAX>                                    52,908
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             79,362
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,988)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    83,381
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.49


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

March 25, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00036

- CR

Roberto Hirineo RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v

.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 10

- 14239

- CRSI2 Honorable J. Manuel Banales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

After we granted court reporter Sonia G. Trevi ñ o’s first motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record, we set the record due on March 16 , 2020

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. R. 35.3(c).
After t he extended due date, the court reporter filed a second request for an extension of time to
file the record until March 31 , 2020.
The reporter’s request is GRANTED. The reporter’s record is due on April 6 , 2020

. See
id. (limiting any extension in an ordinar y appeal to thirty days) ; id. R. 2

. If the court reporter is unable to file the completed record by April 6 , 2020, any further request for additional time to file the record must be accompanied by a signed, written status
report.
The report must describe the transcript by day with the date, description, page counts, and remarks for each day. The page counts must include the total number of pages, the number of pages edited, proofread, and formatted into the required electronic for m (including bookmarks).

The report may describe any unusual aspects of the record. The report must describe any problems the court reporter reasonably believes may delay the completion of the record beyond the requested date.

The preferred form for t he status report, with an accompanying example, is attached_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of March, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court