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 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 523 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-736, K2025-735.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30104 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit
13





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 Capital Reserve Canada Ltd. (the “Company”)
on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the” Report”),  Steve
Claussen, President and Principal Accounting Officer, and  Nicole
Wood, Chief Financial Officer,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 202,
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 present, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








Date:                      July
15,
2009                                                                           By:/s/
Steve Claussen


Name:  Steve
Claussen


Title:    President
(Principal


Executive Officer and
Principal


Accounting Officer)








Date:               July
15,
2009By: /s/
Nicole Wood


Name:  Nicole
Wood


Title:    Chief
Financial Officer
1 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 Local Rule

47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40196

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ PADRON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-96-CR-240-1

- - - - - - - - - - September 16, 1997 Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Francisco Hernandez Padron appeals his conviction for

possession with intent to distribute marijuana. 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(D). He argues that the district court abused its

discretion by admitt ing his pre-arrest statement that he was

traveling to see h is probation officer, by admitting evidence of

Padron's 1992 conviction for possession 37 pounds of marijuana, and

by allowing Padron's probation officer to testify regarding the2 Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966).

1992 conviction and his travel restriction. He also contends that

his right to due process was violated by a reference to postarrest

and post Miranda

- warning 2 statements to arresting agents and that

trial counsel was ineffective.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and we conclude that the district court did not commit

reversible error by admitting the challenged evidence. S ee United

States v. Beechum

, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978)(en banc);

United States v. Williams

, 957 F.2d 1238, 1244 (5th Cir. 1992).

Neither did the district court commit reversible error by allowing

the testimony regarding Padron's postarrest and post Miran d awarning statements. U nited States v. Shaw

, 701 F.2d 367, 382 (5th

Cir. 1983); United States v. Warren

, 578 F.2d 1058, 1074 (5th Cir.

1978). Padron's contention that trial counsel was ineffective is

not ripe for review. U nited States v. Higdon

, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14

(5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 5.1

Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
                            JIM D. JOHNSTON, ATTORNEY

450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:  Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      As legal counsel for Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), I am rendering this opinion in connection with the
registration on Form S-1 (the "Registration Statement") under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, of 58,969,461 shares of common stock of the Company (the
"Common Stock"), including 19,019,659 shares of common stock issuable by the
Company upon the exercise of certain warrants described in the Registration
Statement (the "Warrant Shares"), to be sold by the selling stockholders named
in the Registration Statement.

      I have examined such instruments, documents and records as I deemed
relevant and necessary for the basis of my opinion hereinafter expressed. In
such examination, I have assumed the genuineness of all signatures and the
authenticity of all documents submitted to me as originals and the conformity to
the originals of all documents submitted to me as copies. With respect to my
opinion below that the shares of Common Stock and the Warrant Shares have been
duly authorized, I have relied solely upon my examination of the authorized
shares provision of the Company's Certificate of Incorporation, as amended to
the date hereof and as certified to be complete and true by the Secretary of the
Company. With respect to my opinion that the Warrant Shares will be validly
issued, I have assumed that such shares will be evidenced by appropriate
certificates, duly executed and delivered.

      Based on such examination, I am of the opinion that the shares being
registered pursuant to the Registration Statement are duly authorized shares of
common stock that are (or will be in the case of the Warrant Shares if and when
issued upon the exercise or conversion of the warrants in accordance with the
terms of the warrants) validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

      I hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and the use of my name wherever it appears in the
Registration Statement. This opinion is to be used only in connection with the
sale of the shares of Common Stock and the Warrant Shares by the selling
stockholders while the Registration Statement is in effect.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/    JIM D. JOHNSTON
-------------------------
JIM D. JOHNSTON, ATTORNEY


Date: May 19, 2006
Johnnie Lee DAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4766

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 102180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29738]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, 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: December 17, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 2, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 847 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-560, K2025-558.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-29738 Filed 12-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Rafael LESENDE, DOC# Y63264, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4157

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 14, 2018.

Lee Hollander of Law Offices of Hollander and Hanuka, Naples, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Brandon R. Christian, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Rafael Lesende challenges his convictions and sentences for perjury (count one), possession of a vessel with a missing or altered hull identification number (count two), and possessing a part-a boat engine-with a missing or altered identification number-an engine serial number (count three). We affirm Mr. Lesende's convictions and sentences without prejudice to any right he may have to seek postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 or Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d) on the question of whether, with respect to count three, the possession of a part of a vessel with a missing or altered serial number, as opposed to a missing or altered vessel or hull identification number, is actually criminalized by section 328.07(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2016).

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and KELLY and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**STATEMENT
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF**


**KERYX
      BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**


**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 Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ronald
      C.
      Renaud, Jr ,
      Senior
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, based on 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.




Date:
                November8,
                2006
            
            /s/
                Ronald C. Renaud, JrRonald
                C. Renaud, Jr
              Senior
                Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
                Treasurer
              (Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)
Altaria BUTLER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0024

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 02, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC. n/k/a Ditech Financial, LLC., Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Phyllis B. Johnson c/o Jakthan Property Management, and Denise F. Ray, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-2478

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Robert Netolicka, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MSX International, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b) designed such internal controls over financial reporting, orcaused such internal controls over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’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 thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.Date: April 18, 2006/s/ROBERTNETOLICKA
Description of Restricted Stock Units granted to Andrew J. McKenna



 EXHIBIT 10(q) 
 DESCRIPTION OF RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS GRANTED TO ANDREW J. McKENNA 
 In recognition of his responsibilities as
non-executive Chairman and upon the recommendation of the Governance Committee of the Board of Directors (“Board”) of McDonald’s Corporation (the “Company”), a Special Committee of the Board awarded Andrew J. McKenna a grant
of 14,222 restricted stock units (“RSUs”) on June 10, 2008, pursuant to authority delegated by the Board. Upon vesting, each RSU represents the right to receive one share of the Company’s common stock or, at the Company’s
discretion, cash equal to the fair market value thereof. The RSUs will vest on the later of (i) one year from the date of grant or (ii) Mr. McKenna’s retirement from the Board. The RSUs will immediately vest upon
Mr. McKenna’s death or if his service on the Board terminates because he becomes disabled. 
 Mr. McKenna also received grants of 17,000 RSUs
in 2007, 15,000 RSUs in 2006 and 10,000 RSUs in 2005, on the same terms as described herein, such grants are disclosed in Exhibit 10(q) to Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2007 and on Forms 8-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2006 and May 16, 2005, respectively.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40834 Summary Calendar

__________________
AARON BERNARD WOODS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:94-CV-181

- - - - - - - - - - May 16, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Aaron Bernard Woods appeals from the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an abuse of the writ. Woods argues that at the time he filed his first federal habeas petition, he was unaware of his instant claim that his conviction was invalid because the jury failed to make an affirmative finding that he used or exhibited a deadly weapon in connection with the offense of aggravated robbery. We haveNo. 95-40834 -2- reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons stated by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_education(87)
              - science_faqs(12)
              - science_science(562)
              - products_data(327)
              - products_maps(82)
              - products_publications(3046)
              - products_software(11)
              - products_web_tools(36)
              - multimedia_audio(224)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(213)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(11)
              - multimedia_before_after(30)
              - multimedia_image(1326)
              - multimedia_image-141769(111)
              - multimedia_image-141770(16)
              - multimedia_image-141771(734)
              - multimedia_image-141772(18)
              - multimedia_image-141774(7)
              - multimedia_image-141775(141)
              - multimedia_image-141776(81)
              - multimedia_image-141783(2)
              - multimedia_image-204460(215)
              - multimedia_image-207195(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(21)
              - multimedia_video(600)
              - multimedia_video-149194(179)
              - multimedia_video-149195(233)
              - multimedia_video-149196(42)
              - multimedia_video-149197(65)
              - multimedia_video-149198(46)
              - multimedia_video-149225(4)
              - multimedia_webcam(1)
              - multimedia_webcam-141785(1)
              - documents_file(1062)
              - documents_file-149203(2)
              - documents_file-149204(8)
              - documents_file-149206(2)
              - documents_file-149208(2)
              - documents_file-149209(1)
              - documents_file-149210(2)
              - documents_file-149213(4)
              - documents_file-149214(19)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149216(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149217(2)
              - documents_file-149218(4)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - documents_file-149220(17)
              - documents_file-149222(990)
              - documents_file-149224(6)
              - news_news-149245(47)
              - news_news-149246(9)
              - news_news-149247(1)
              - news_news-149248(41)
              - news_news-149249(19)
              - news_news-149250(44)
              - news_newsletters(26)
              - news_other_news(287)
              - connect_locations(2)
              - connect_social_media(8)
              - connect_staff_profiles(159)
              - other_basic-37(19)
              - other_basic-42(245)
              - (-)other_basic-43(1)

## By Location

## By Year

Training Materials        May 9, 2019        Earth as Home

Human Capital        March 15, 2022        USGS Library

Training Materials        September 11, 2019        Water Webquest - Middle School Learning Tool for Water Education
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARRY J. WILLIBY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ALPHABET INC., DBA Blogger, DBA 

Google Adsense, DBA Google, Inc., DBA 

YouTube, LLC; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-17328 

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05986-JST 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Harry J. Williby appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 

action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with the operation of his 

YouTube channels. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Williby’s request for oral 

argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

FILED

AUG 27 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 18-17328 

an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Williby’s action 

because Williby failed to cure the deficiencies in his complaint, as ordered. See id.

at 1260-63 (setting forth factors for determining whether a pro se action should be 

dismissed under Rule 41(b) and requiring a definite and firm conviction that the 

trial court committed a clear error of judgment in order to overturn such a 

dismissal).

Williby’s contention that Judge Tigar should have recused himself is

unpersuasive.

Williby’s motion for judicial notice, or in the alternative, to supplement the 

record on appeal, is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.