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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 17, 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 December 2, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 844 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-557, K2025-555.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-29720 Filed 12-16-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Before the 

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

 WASHINGTON, DC 

INTRA-ALASKA MAINLINE SERVICE 

MAIL RATES 

Docket OST-2003-14695 

NOTE CONCERNING NOTICE OF FUEL ADJUSTMENTS

The Postal Service would like to remind the Department to be mindful of the Postal Service’s 

need for sufficient advance notice (7-10 working days) before the Saturday on which any fuel 

adjustment is to become effective. Such advanced notice is necessary to allow the Postal Service 

adequate time to input updated rates into our system. To note, the Postal Service made a similar 

request in our August 11, 2008 submission to the docket. 

Communications with respect to this 

document should be addressed to: 

 Joseph Anzalone, Esq. 

 Office of General Counsel 

 United States Postal Service 

 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW 

 Washington, DC 20260-1127 

 joseph.anzalone@usps.gov 

Date Filed: April 6, 2011 

1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David J. Foster, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report of
Argonaut Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Report fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Argonaut Technologies, Inc.

Date: May 14, 2003

                             By:  /s/ DAVID J. FOSTER
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             Name:  David J. Foster
                             Title: Sr. Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
Dennis LONG, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D17-3670

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 14, 2018 Rehearing Denied October 30, 2018

Dennis Long, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Brett Coleman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

*483The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

Wolf, Lewis, and Rowe, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(2)
              - products_data(2)
              - products_publications(11)
              - multimedia_video(4)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - multimedia_video-149196(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - (-)news_news-149248(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(4)
              - arizona(2)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(4)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - (-)puerto rico(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - tennessee(1)
              - washington(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

National News Release        February 7, 2023        Ley Bipartidista de Infraestructura ayuda a científicos a cartografiar la geología de Puerto Rico
CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC, Appellant, v. RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D18-296

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 18, 2018]

David E. Gurley and Joseph M. Herbert of Gurley & Associates, Sarasota, for appellant.

Megan S. Reynolds and Bradley S. Copenhaver of Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Frye of Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gross, Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.
IB 

House Calendar No. 58 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 579 

[Report No. 113–233] 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 East Court Street 

in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2013 

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 579 RH

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 

East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘R. 

Jess Brown United States Courthouse’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 579 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse located at 501 East 

5 Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, shall be known and 

6 designated as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States Court7 house’’. 

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

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

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

11 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

12 to be a reference to the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States 

13 Courthouse’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 58 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 579 

[Report No. 113–233] 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located 

house’’. as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States Courtat 501 East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* 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. 01-41217 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE SANCHEZ-QUIJANO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-617-ALL

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Sanchez-Quijano appeals his conviction and sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. Sanchez argues that the magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction to conduct his rearraignment in the absence of a referral order by the district court. Sanchez did not object in the district court to the magistrate judge’s exercise of authority. He waived his right to raise the procedural defect in his guilty plea proceeding as aNo. 01-41217 -2- basis for relief. United States v. Bolivar-Munoz , 313 F.3d 253, 257 (5th Cir. 2002). Sanchez also argues that his indictment was constitutionally defective because it did not charge that he had a general intent to commit the offense. Sanchez’s indictment was sufficient because it enumerated the statutory elements of the offense, informed him of the charge, and fairly implied that his reentry was voluntary in view of the allegation that he had been deported and removed from the United States and was present without having first obtained the Attorney General’s consent. United States v. Guzman-Ocampo , 236 F.3d 233, 239 & n.13, cert. denied , 533 U.S. 953 (2001); United States v. Berrios-Centeno , 250 F.3d 294, 297-300 & n.4 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 928 (2001). Sanchez is not entitled to relief on this claim. Sanchez’s acknowledges that his argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but states that he is raising the issue to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Almendarez-Torres held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90. This court must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres unless and until it is overruled by the Supreme Court. United States v. Dabeit ,No. 01-41217 -3- 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This claim is without merit.
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 8

List of Significant Subsidiaries

The following table lists our significant subsidiaries, as defined in Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X, as at
December 31, 2003. The table includes the legal name of the subsidiary, its jurisdiction of incorporation and the percentage of ownership. The table omits certain holding companies.

|Legal Name                                        |  | Jurisdiction |  | % Ownership
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------ |  | -----------
|Comunicacion y Telefonia Rural S.A. (CTR)         |  | Chile        |  | 96%        
|SR Telecom USA, Inc. (formerly Netro Corporation) |  | U.S.A.       |  | 100%       
|SR Telecom SAS                                    |  | France       |  | 100%       
|TDMA Services Co. Ltd.                            |  | Thailand     |  | 100%       
|SR Telecom Pty Ltd.                               |  | Australia    |  | 100%       

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40613

**Humberto Rosales Cruz,**

Petitioner

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Bobby Lumpkin,** Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division **,**
Respondent

— Appellee

**.**

Application for Certificate of Appealability from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:20

- CV

- 305

Before **Southwick, Graves,** and **Costa,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Humberto Rosales Cruz, Texas prisoner # 01970936 , seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction of attempted murder. The district court denied Cruz’s petition after concluding it was time barred

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 2, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40613 Document: 00516341265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2022No. 21

- 40613

2 under the Ant iterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).

Cruz also moves for an evidentiary hearing.

This court must examine the basis of its own jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. Trent v. Wade , 776 F.3d 368, 387 (5th Cir. 2015). Unless
other wise authorized, a magistrate judge ’s report and recommendation does not constitute a final decision by the district court and is therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Trufant v. Autocon, Inc. , 729 F.2d 308, 309 (5th Cir. 1984) . Here, Cruz fil ed his notice of appeal after the magistrate judge issued her report and recommendation but before the district court disposed of his § 2254 petition. Because the magistrate judge’s order was not a final appealable decision, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See § 1291; Trufant , 729 F.2d at 309. Moreover, Cruz’s premature notice of appeal was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court from the district court’s order dismissing his petition as time barred. See FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Investors

Mor tg. Ins. Co. , 498 U.S. 269, 276

- 77 (1991); see also United States v. Cooper , 135 F.3d 960, 963 (5th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, this matter is **DISMISSED** for want of jurisdiction

. All
motions are **DENIED** as moot. Case: 21-40613 Document: 00516341265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2022
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_publications(12)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(2)
              - multimedia_video(4)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)
              - (-)other_basic-37(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - delaware(1)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - (-)maryland(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - new york(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - wisconsin(1)

## By Year

About        November 9, 2018        About the USGS Water Science Center for Maryland, Delaware, and Washington, D.C.
Juanteaz MCDONALD v. STATE of Mississippi

2015-CT-00816-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: August 28, 2018 Closed: October 18, 2018

Certiorari - Dismissed.
Jeffery RAHAUISER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1165

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 26, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO . 09
- 22
- 00408
- CR

__________________ ALBERT WENDELL SELLS , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19
- 33290

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 9, 2022, we notified the parties that the notice of appeal had been filed outside the time for which an extension of time may be granted for filing a notice of appeal

. The appellant, Albert Wendell Sells, filed a Motion to Correct the Record. Sell s argues his motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law on December 1, 2022. We deny the Motion to Correct the Record and dismiss the appeal.2 The trial court sentenced Sells on August 4, 2022. Sells timely filed a motion for new trial on September 2, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a). A trial court must rule on a motion for new trial within 75 days after imposing or suspending sentence.
See Tex. R. App. P. 21.8(a)

. A motion for new trial i s deemed denied when the period prescribed in Rule 21.8(a) expires. See Tex. R. App. P. 21.8(c). Sells’s mot i on for new trial was overruled by operation of law well before December 1, 2022. When a defendant appeals from a conviction in a criminal case, the time to file a notice of appeal runs from the date sentence is imposed or suspended in open
court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a ). The notice of appeal must be filed “within 90 days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. ” Id

. Sells filed a notice of appeal on November 30, 2022 , more than 90 days after the date the trial court imposed the sentence. An appellate court may extend the time to file the notice of appeal if, w ithin 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the defendant files a notice of appeal in the trial court and files a mot i on for extension of tim e in the appellate
court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Sells failed to file a notice of appeal a nd a motion for an extension of time within the time permitted by the rule. See id.
“T imely filing of a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to hearing an appeal .” Castillo v. State , 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

“ If a n otice of appeal is not timely filed, the court of appeals has no option but to3 dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdicti on.” Id

. Sells did not file a notice of appeal within the time permitted by Rule 26. He does not argue that he obtained an out

- of

time a ppeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSED

. PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 31, 2023 Opinion Delivered February 1, 20 23 Do Not Publish Before Horton , Johnson and Wright, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                   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 Quarterly Report of Endeavour International
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, I, John N. Seitz, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



/s/ John N. Seitz
--------------------------
John N. Seitz
Co-Chief Executive Officer

November 5, 2004



         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Endeavour International Corporation and will be retained
by Endeavour International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Termination of the supply agreement



 Exhibit 4.17 
 This Agreement is made on the 27th day of September 2006 between 
 Philips Electronics Hong Kong
Limited, Philips Semiconductors Competence Centre HK (“Philips”) 
 And 
 PSi Technologies, Inc., also acting on behalf its affiliated companies (“PSI”) 
 WHEREAS Pursuant to a meeting held in Hong Kong on 27th day September 2006, 
 Philips and PSi have reached a final settlement in relation to the termination of the supply agreement made between Electronics Devices Limited, Philips Electronics UK Ltd. And PSi Technologies, Inc. 14th January 2004 (“Supply Agreement”). 
 NOW, the parties agree as follows: 
  

	 1.
	 With effect from 27th September 2006 (“Termination Date”), the Supply Agreement is terminated. 


  

	2.	Both Parties refer to the attached Total Cost Summary as shown in Annex A and both parties agree to settle all outstanding obligations and liabilities detailed thereto.


  

	3.	Each party agrees to release the other party from all obligations and liabilities which may arise under any terms and conditions contained in the Supply Agreement, and all the
rights created thereunder shall also be terminated at the same time. 

  

	4.	Details regarding the termination of the Supply Agreement will be defined and agreed upon between the parties in a separate document. Each party hereby releases the other from all
obligations liabilities and claims whatsoever which it has against the other party for or by reason or in respect of any terms and conditions under the Supply Agreement. In this regard, neither party shall not raise any further claims or otherwise
against the other party. 

  

	5.	The governing law and jurisdiction of this Agreement shall be the same as those set out in the Supply Agreement. 

  

									
	 Philips Electronics Hong Kong Limited
 Philips Semiconductors Competence Centre HK
	 		 	PSi Technologies, Inc.
					
	By:	 	/s/    THEO HALDERS        	 		 	By:	 	/s/    GORDON J.
STEVENSON        
	Name:	 	Theo Halders	 		 	Name:	 	Gordon J. Stevenson
	Title:	 	VP & GM	 		 	Title:	 	COO








 Annex A 
  

	9.	Total Cost Summary (2006-09-27 Meeting) 

  

					
	 (1)    Leadframe & Other Materials
	  	US$	31   	 
	 (2)    Equipment Spare Parts
	  	US$	341K	*
	 (3)    Low Grade & Excess Unit
	  	US$	 10K	 
	 (4)    Equipment Restoration
	  	 	(US$7.6K	)
	 (5)    PSPI Material Purchase Support
	  	 	(US$478K	)
	 (6)    PSI-CD Subcon Cost
	  	US$	 103.4K	 
		  	 	 	 
	          Total
	  	US$	0K	 

 Remarks: PSI will return all Philips equipment and spare parts to Philips HK. 
 In relation to the post termination arrangement of the supply agreement, the parties agree that: 
  

	1.	PSi shall within reasonable period from the Termination Date, return all the consigned equipment and all spare parts to such location as designated by Philips.


  

	2.	Philips shall use it reasonable effort in assisting PSi in identifying alternative applications for the excess materials.