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                               ( print page 90085)                            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:*                         November 14, 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 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 588 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-227, K2025-225.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-26324 Filed 11-13-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 90088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26349]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

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: November 14, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean 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 31, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
427 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-246, K2025-244.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-26349 Filed 11-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 634 

Affirming the importance of the security and privacy of the people of the 

United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2016 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. SCHATZ, and Mr. COONS) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Affirming the importance of the security and privacy of the 

people of the United States. 

Whereas the highest priority of Congress should be ensuring 

the safety, security, and constitutional freedoms of the 

United States and the people of the United States; 

Whereas technology has become a critical component of everyday life; 

Whereas the people of the United States store the most sensitive personal information on digital devices and with 

cloud services; 

Whereas criminals and terrorists have used digital communications to perpetrate unlawful conduct; 

Whereas protecting the national security and safety of communities in the United States should not come at the cost 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 634 IS 

of diminished protections under the Fourth Amendment 

to the Constitution of the United States; 

Whereas the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the 

United States is a cornerstone of freedom for the people 

of the United States; 

Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States and Federal laws recognize certain privacy rights and interests in 

the digital information and communications of the people 

of the United States; and 

Whereas preserving privacy and security is essential for the 

continued growth of the digital economy: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) the United States should recognize the need 

3 to protect the safety, security, and personal privacy 

4 of all people of the United States; 

5 (2) legal and policy changes that impact the se6 curity of the United States and the civil liberties of 

7 the people of the United States should be made with 

8 the consideration of Congress, the executive branch, 

9 and the people of the United States; and 

10 (3) in considering the changes described in 

11 paragraph (2), the United States should recognize 

12 the global and economic implications of the security 

13 and privacy policies of the United States. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 944 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 944

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend Public Law 105-188 to provide for the mineral leasing of 
                   certain Indian lands in Oklahoma.

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

SECTION 1. MINERAL LEASING OF CERTAIN INDIAN LANDS IN OKLAHOMA.

    Public Law 105-188 (112 Stat. 620 and 621) is amended--
            (1) in the title, by inserting ``and certain former Indian 
        reservations in Oklahoma'' after ``Fort Berthold Indian 
        Reservation''; and
            (2) in section 1--
                    (A) by striking the section heading and inserting 
                the following:

``SECTION 1. LEASES OF CERTAIN ALLOTTED LANDS.'';

                and
                    (B) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking clause (i) 
                and inserting the following:
                            ``(i) is located within--
                                    ``(I) the Fort Berthold Indian 
                                Reservation in North Dakota; or
                                    ``(II) a former Indian reservation 
                                located in Oklahoma of--
                                            ``(aa) the Comanche Indian 
                                        Tribe;
                                            ``(bb) the Kiowa Indian 
                                        Tribe;
                                            ``(cc) the Apache Tribe;
                                            ``(dd) the Fort Sill Apache 
                                        Tribe of Oklahoma;
                                            ``(ee) the Wichita and 
                                        Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, 
                                        Keechi, Waco, and Tawakonie) 
                                        located in Oklahoma;
                                            ``(ff) the Delaware Tribe 
                                        of Western Oklahoma; or
                                            ``(gg) the Caddo Indian 
                                        Tribe; and''.

            Passed the Senate August 5, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 944

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend Public Law 105-188 to provide for the mineral leasing of 
                   certain Indian lands in Oklahoma.
```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MASIMO CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

APPLE INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1895

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

01722.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JEREMIAH HELM, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, 

Irvine, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by JOHN 

M. GROVER, STEPHEN C. JENSEN, SHANNON LAM, JOSEPH R.

RE. 

 LAUREN ANN DEGNAN, Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

MICHAEL JOHN BALLANCO, WALTER KARL RENNER; ROBERT 

COURTNEY, Minneapolis, MN.

 ______________________ 

Case: 22-1895 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 01/10/2024
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

January 10, 2024 

Date

Case: 22-1895 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 01/10/2024
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-24-00260-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

HAMURABI RODRIGUEZ

On Appeal from the

23rd District Court of Wharton County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR24121

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 13, 2024
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 National Property Analysts Master
Limited Partnership ("NPAMLP") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Edward B. Lipkin, President of EBL&S, Inc., the Managing General
Partner of NPAMLP 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) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NPAMLP.

                                        NATIONAL PROPERTY ANALYSTS MASTER
                                        LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                        (Registrant)

                                        Date: August 12, 2005

                                        By: EBL&S, Inc., its managing
                                            general partner


                                        By: /s/ Edward B. Lipkin
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Edward B. Lipkin
                                        Title: President
#### State *v.*Grisham.

Indictment for feloniously and burglariously breaking and entering into the dwelling-house of one Rice, and feloniously and burglariously stealing thence a twenty shilling bill, &c. the jury find him guilty of the larceny, but not guilty of the, burglary. The Judge at first thought he could not be punished, but at length, seeing the authorities in *H. H. P. C*559, 560, *of the*1 si *Book,*and 302, *of the 2d Book*— where it is said, two or three several charges may be contained in an indictment of burglary, and if lie be found not guilty of the burglary, but guilty of the other charges, lie me.y be punished as if be. were only indicted for them. He gave judgment that the prisoner should be branded in the hand; which was accordingly done in presence of the Court.

*18Note. — Vide *State v. Allen & Royster,*4 *Hawks*356, in which the principle of this decision is distinctly recognized. See also, *State*v. *Twitly, post*102.
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32000R1622R(02)

**Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1622/2000 der Kommission vom 24. Juli 2000 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1493/1999 über die gemeinsame Marktorganisation für Wein und zur Einführung eines Gemeinschaftskodex der önologischen Verfahren und Behandlungen (ABl. L 194 vom 31.7.2000)***Amtsblatt Nr. L 100 vom 06/04/2004 S. 0048 - 0048*

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1622/2000 der Kommission vom 24. Juli 2000 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1493/1999 über die gemeinsame Marktorganisation für Wein und zur Einführung eines Gemeinschaftskodex der önologischen Verfahren und Behandlungen

(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 194 vom 31. Juli 2000)

Seite 12, Artikel 41 Absatz 1 zweiter Gedankenstrich:

anstatt: 

- diese Verfahren oder Behandlungen nicht ein Volumen von mehr als 500000 hl je Jahr oder Versuch betreffen;

muss es heißen: 

- diese Verfahren oder Behandlungen nicht ein Volumen von mehr als 50000 hl je Jahr oder Versuch betreffen;.
Exhibit
31.2





EQUITY
GENERAL PARTNER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Robert
McKinney, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Property Analysts Master
Limited Partnership;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:
                    August 6, 2009By:
                    Feldman International Inc., its equity general
      partnerBy:
                    /s/ Robert McKinneyName:
                    Robert
      McKinneyTitle:
                    President
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

NATALIE SMITH, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF CHAD

SMITH

, Appellant,

v.

VICTORIA ALLEN and CHRISTA MOORE

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 202 3

- 1698

[ April 18, 2024 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Fif teenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Edward A. Garrison , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502023CC000996XXXMB

.

Natalie Smith, Coral Springs, pro se

.

Therese A. Savona of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.

P ER CURIAM

.

Affirmed.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J.

, M AY and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7899

SAMUEL WILLIAMS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICKY FOXWELL, Warden of ECI; ROBERT TROXELL, CDM,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-02267-ELH; 1:18-cv-01507-ELH)

Submitted: May 20, 2021 Decided: May 25, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Williams, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment and denying relief on Williams’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was 

not timely filed. 

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on May 14, 2019. Williams filed the notice of 

appeal on December 23, 2020,

* beyond both the expiration of the appeal period and the 

expiration of the 180-day period following entry of the order in which the district court 

could have reopened the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6). Because Williams failed to file 

a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. 

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the 

envelope containing the notice of appeal, is the earliest date Williams could have delivered

the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. 

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The Judges to the use of Wright Edmondson, *v.*N. Washington & others.

From Wayne.

Where a Judge’s order directs a certiorari to issue to the County Court, it is no violation of duty in the Clerk of the Superior Court to issue the writ without security ; to take such security belongs to the Clerk of the former Court bel ore yielding obedience to the-writ.

By the second section of an act of Assembly, passed .in 1810, entitled *“ an act to compel persons to give security in certain cases,”*it is enacted, “ that iu all cases where *certioraris*are directed to the County Courts, *the derk of the court is hereby required to take security,*in the same manner, &c. that security is taken on appeals from the County to the Superior Court.”

In 1821, one *Jernigan,*against whom *Edmondson*had obtained a judgment in Wayne County Court, presented to the Defendant «¡Va. *Washington,*the Clerk of the Superior Court of that county, the mandate of the Chief-Justice directing him to issue writs of certiorari and su-t *y*perccdeas to bring up the record of that judgment, and to supercede execution thereon. The mandate was unconditional in its terms, and *Washington*issued the writs and the Clerk of the County Court certified the record, no security having been taken by either of them. Whereupon, *Edmondson*conceiving this a breach of duty in the Clerk of the Superior Court, brought this action upon his official bond.

On the trial in the Court below, his Honor Judge ¡DoNNEii, directed a verdict for the Defendants, arid the, Plaintiffs appealed.

The case was here submitted without argument, by *Badger*and *TF. IL Haywood, fr.*for the appellant, and *Gaston*contra. ,

*153Hall, Judge.

—The Judge instructed the Juey, that the Clerk of the Superior Court, in issuing the writ of supercedeas on receiving the mandate of the Chief-Jus-(ice, was not guilty of misconduct in office, so as to subject himself and his securities to the Plaintiff’s action, and in this charge Í think the Judge was guilty of no error. — The act of 1810, c. 793, directs, that in all cases where certioraris are directed to the County Courts, the Clerk of the Court shall take security, in the same manner, and under the same regulations that security is taken on appeals from the County to the Superior Courts.

It was the duty of the Clerk of the *County*Court to take security as directed by this act, before he obeyed the certiorari, and a refusal by him who prayed such certiorari to give .security, would he a sufficient excuse and return to the writ. ■ But this act is inapplicable to the present case. It imposes no such duty upon a Sheriff-to whom a supercedeas is directed *;*nor is any such duty imposed upon the Clerk of the Superior Court who issued the supercedeas, either by law, or the mandate of the Judge who authorised him to issue it. — I therefore think, the rule for a new trial should be discharged.

Per Cüríam. The rule for a new trial is discharged.