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 19, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean 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 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 533 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-815, K2025-815.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30198 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Exhibit 3
```

```
CDMC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
Series 2003-4
```

```
Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
to Certificateholders for 2003
```

```
ClassInterest         Principal PaidRealized  Ending Balance
     Distribution                   Losses
```

```
B1   81,552.56        37,124.88     0.00      2,278,275.12
B2   33,348.00        15,180.87     0.00      931,619.13
B3   22,235.50        10,122.18     0.00      621,177.82
B4   11,116.00        5,060.30      0.00      310,539.70
B5   11,116.00        5,060.30      0.00      310,539.70
B6   11,120.43        5,062.06      0.00      310,663.62
IA1  1,586,774.81     7,422,572.56  0.00      44,866,743.44
IA2  1,521,512.56     6,796,915.10  0.00      43,203,084.90
IA3  234,923.03       3,080,888.82  0.00      19,081,795.18
IA4  945,371.59       0.00          0.00      19,081,795.18
IA5  220,000.00       0.00          0.00      6,000,000.00
IIA1 390,494.17       1,408,828.96  0.00      10,845,171.04
IIA2 1,333,205.88     5,658,769.50  0.00      43,561,230.50
IIA3 132,606.98       1,414,692.37  0.00      10,890,307.63
IIA4 494,784.01       0.00          0.00      10,890,307.63
IIP  0.00             18,674.56     0.00      527,280.69
IIX  155,342.16       0.00          0.00      4,130,677.61
IP   0.00             33,822.61     0.00      767,206.86
IX   210,715.26       0.00          0.00      5,181,391.72
RI   0.23             50.00         0.00      0.00
RII  0.23             50.00         0.00      0.00
RIII 0.23             50.00         0.00      0.00
```
NO. 07-12-0144-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JANUARY 25, 2013

ABRIAN CASAREZ,  

	Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,  

	Appellee

_____________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2011-464,873; HONORABLE DRUE FARMER, PRESIDING

***Memorandum Opinion***

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Abrian Casarez challenges his misdemeanor conviction for driving while intoxicated.  His sole issue involves the trial court’s decision to allow the State to proffer rebuttal evidence.  According to appellant, that decision gave the State an “unfair advantage,” and “denied . . . [him] his constitutional right to a fair trial, due process of law and effective assistance of counsel . . .” since the rebuttal testimony was redundant of prior testimony.  We overrule the issue for several reasons.

	First, the grounds for objection uttered at trial must comport to those urged on appeal.  *Lucio v. State,*351 S.W.3d 878, 890 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).  And, though appellant objected to the rebuttal testimony by stating “objection,” “[n]o new evidence has been brought up” and “[b]olstering [of] the witness,” nowhere did he mention the constitutional rights to a fair trial, due process, or the effective assistance of counsel.  Thus, the grounds urged before us do not comport with those disclosed at trial and were not preserved for review.

	Second, appellant testified on his own behalf.  In response to the State’s evidence that he turned the wrong way on a one-way street and jumped a concrete median to correct the situation, appellant not only denied that but contended that there was no such median present.  Instead, what the troopers supposedly saw was a concrete curb on the other side of the road.  The rebuttal testimony addressed that topic for the most part.  The officers, during rebuttal, attested that there was no concrete curb on the far side of the road, only a concrete median.  So, their comments were uttered in answer to appellant’s description of the scene, a description which had not been mentioned by anyone before appellant testified.  Thus, the rebuttal in question was proffered to contradict new evidence and the defensive theory offered by appellant and we cannot say that the trial court erred in admitting it as valid rebuttal testimony.  *See Laws v. State,*549 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (recognizing that the prosecutor is entitled to present evidence that tends to refute the defensive theory of the accused and the evidence introduced in support of it); *Jensen v. State,*66 S.W.3d 528, 539 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d) (stating the same). 

We overrule appellant’s issue and affirm the judgment. 

						Brian Quinn 

						Chief Justice

Do not publish.

3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0029

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSE LUIS PERALTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 25, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 16 2021

09/16/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0029
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RONALD G. WEAVER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 15 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of June, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Report of Across America Real Estate Development
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Alexander V. Lagerborg, 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; and

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

May 9, 2005                                          /s/ Alexander V. Lagerborg
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Alexander V. Lagerborg
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
Lolita COUSINS v. Dr. Mitchell A. PIERCE, Jr. and Smile Solutions, DMD

NO. 2018-CC-1593

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

December 17, 2018

Denied.
WASH FAMILY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Wash Family Construction, Inc., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. L. Martin HURBI and Threse Quinnhurbi, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3836

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 25, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of prohibition is denied. Petitioner's request for oral argument is denied as moot.

KELLY, CRENSHAW, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30599

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-2218

- - - - - - - - - -

March 11, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Thomas, prisoner no. 24664-034, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He argues that 1)

he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his

attorney at the time of the entering of his guilty plea and of

his sentencing failed to inform him of his right to appeal and 2)

the factual basis was insufficient to establish that he used or

carried a weapon during and in relation to a drug trafficking

offense.
No. 97-30599

-2-

Our review of the evidentiary hearing and of Thomas’ guilty

plea hearing reveals that the district court did not clearly err

in finding that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to

appeal his conviction and sentence. United States v. Gipson, 985

F.2d 212, 216 (5th Cir. 1994).

The factual basis signed by Thomas and Thomas’ statements at

his guilty-plea hearing indicate that he used a vehicle during a

drug trafficking offense with knowledge that a gun was present in

the vehicle in relation to the offense. These facts are

sufficient to establish that he carried a weapon under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1) under the current law of this circuit. See United

States v. Muscarello, 106 F.3d 636, 639 (5th Cir. 1997), cert.

granted, 118 S. Ct. 621 (Dec. 12, 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 123 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 957 

[Report No. 113–169] 

To reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid for sodium produced 

on Federal lands, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2013 

Mrs. LUMMIS (for herself, Mr. HIMES, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. MCCARTHY of 

California, and Mr. COOK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

JULY 22, 2013 

Additional sponsors: Mr. MCKEON, Mr. WEBER of Texas, and Mr. VALADAO

JULY 22, 2013 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 957 RH

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid for 

sodium produced on Federal lands, and for other purposes. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 957 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Soda Ash 

5 Competitiveness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN ROYALTY RATE ON SODA ASH. 

7 Notwithstanding section 102(a)(9) of the Federal 

8 Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

9 1701(a)(9)), section 24 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 

10 U.S.C. 262), and the terms of any lease under that Act, 

11 the royalty rate on the quantity or gross value of the out12 put of sodium compounds and related products at the 

13 point of shipment to market from Federal land in the 5- 

14 year period beginning on the date of enactment of this 

15 Act shall be 2 percent. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 123 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 957 

[Report No. 113–169] 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the royalty required to be 

for other purposes. paid for sodium produced on Federal lands, and 

JULY 22, 2013 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Jose Gilberto SOLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1574

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 922 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 922

 To amend title 40, United States Code, to extend the authorization of 
    the Northern Border Regional Commission, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2013

  Mr. Michaud (for himself, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Mr. Welch, Ms. Shea-
    Porter, and Mr. Owens) introduced the following bill; which was 
referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in 
  addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 40, United States Code, to extend the authorization of 
    the Northern Border Regional Commission, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Northern Border Regional Commission 
Reauthorization Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. NORTHERN BORDER REGIONAL COMMISSION.

    (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 15751 of title 40, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
    ``(b) Northern Border Regional Commission.--There is authorized to 
be appropriated to the Northern Border Regional Commission to carry out 
this subtitle $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 
2018.''; and
            (3) in subsection (c), as so redesignated in paragraph (1) 
        of this subsection, by inserting ``by the Commission, if in 
        that fiscal year at least $10,000,000 is made available to the 
        Commission under this section'' before the period.
    (b) Technical Amendment.--Subtitle V of title 40, United States 
Code, is amended by redesignating chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 as chapters 
151, 153, 155, and 157, respectively.
                                 <all>
```
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant, v. Blanche FOX, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Malcolm Fox, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2327

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 29, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6926 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EARL EDWARD WEBB,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:98-cr-00037; 5:00-cv-00061-F)

Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 6, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Edward Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Earl Edward Webb 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)(1) (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 any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Webb has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. Webb’s motion to supplement

the record on appeal is denied. 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
Exhibit 10.25
December 1, 2003
Mr. Gary Greenfield9800 Bent Cross DrivePotomac, MD 20854
Dear Gary:
     GXS Corporation (together with its parent GXS Holdings, Inc. (the“Parent”) and their subsidiaries, the “Company”) is pleased to offer youemployment as its Chief Executive Officer.
     You will be paid a salary at the initial annual rate of $1,200,000,payable in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll practices forsalaried employees and subject to applicable taxes, and will eligible foremployee benefits made available generally to senior executives of the Company,including six weeks of annual vacation.
     Like all Company employees, you will be required, as a condition to youremployment with the Company, to sign the Company’s standard ProprietaryInformation and Inventions Agreement and to provide any documentation requiredby law.
     The Company will recommend to the Board of Directors or its CompensationCommittee that you receive options (the “Options”) to purchase (i)approximately 0.5% of the outstanding common stock of Parent (on a fullydiluted basis, including common stock reserved for issuance under the Parent’sstock incentive plan) and (ii) approximately 0.5% of the outstanding preferredstock of Parent. The exercise price of the Options will be the fair marketvalue of the underlying stock at the time of grant. The Options will vest onthe date that is six months after you commence employment, subject toaccelerated vesting in the event that either your employment is terminated bythe Company without cause or the Company names a permanent successor to you asChief Executive Officer (other than as a result of your resignation ortermination for cause).
     Your employment with the Company will be “at will”, meaning that eitheryou or the Company will be entitled to terminate your employment at any timeand for any reason, with or without cause. This letter is the entire agreementrelated to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior understandings oragreements, whether oral or written, between you and the Company. The terms ofthis letter will be governed by Maryland law.
 

 

     This offer, if not accepted, will expire at the close of business onDecember 2, 2003.
Very truly yours,
GXS Corporation  
By: /s/ David R. Golob      Name: David R. Golob 12-2-03
|        | (1)    |        | The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |   |
|                                 | (2)    |                                 | The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

| /s/  AmirElbaz                      |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| AmirElbaz                                     |   |
| ExecutiveChairman(PrincipalExecutive Officer) |   |
Errol WATTS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4155

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 07, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of mandamus is denied.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT
TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Date of Report (Date of
earliest event reported)

November 18,
2005
 
 
  
  001-31970
    
    81-0597059(Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)12001 Tech Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan
    
    48150(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 
  
  see
 o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



TABLE OF CONTENTS




---



##### 



ITEM 2.03. CREATION OF A DIRECT FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR AN OBLIGATION UNDER AN OFF-BALANCE SHEET
ARRANGEMENT OF A REGISTRANT.




---



##### 



TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP.Dated: November 18, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Joseph S. CantieJoseph S. Cantie
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K ofthe Company for the year ended December 31, 2007, I, Hal Giomi, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)           such Annual Report on Form 10-K of theCompany for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)           the information contained in such AnnualReport on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of The Bank Holdings.

 
| Dated:  April 1, 2008           |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   |
| /s/  Hal Giomi                       |   |
|                                 |   |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----