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

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 107180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31167]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: December 31, 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 
December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 562 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-971, K2025-970.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31167 Filed 12-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 106622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31161]

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

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 30, 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 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1183 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-978, K2025-977.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31161 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - (-)products_maps(3)
              - products_publications(2)
              - multimedia_audio(24)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(24)
              - multimedia_image(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(4)
              - multimedia_video(7)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(3)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(15)
              - arizona(1)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(11)
              - colorado(10)
              - connecticut(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(3)
              - nevada(7)
              - new mexico(6)
              - new york(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - pennsylvania(3)
              - rhode island(1)
              - (-)south dakota(3)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(14)
              - virginia(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

map        February 2, 2024        Generalized potentiometric maps of the Fort Union, Hell Creek, and Fox Hills aquifers within the Standing Rock Reservation

map        January 1, 1975        Bouguer gravity, aeromagnetic, and generalized geologic maps of part of the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming

map        January 23, 2023        Maps of elevation of top of Pierre Shale and surficial deposit thickness with hydraulic properties from borehole geophysics and aquifers tests within and near Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, 2020–21
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,326

WILLIAM BERKLEY, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING ON 

A MOTION FILED IN CAUSE NO. 20000D5705-243-1 

IN THE 243 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT RD

EL PASO COUNTY

PER CURIAM.

O P I N I O N

On March 26, 2010, appellant filed a pro se motion in the convicting court in which

he asked the court to dispense with the judgment and execution of judgment and order his

immediate release. Essentially, appellant asserted that his transfer to and confinement in the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division prior to his execution subjects

him to multiple punishments in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The State filed a

response to the motion, and, on April 8, 2010, after considering both appellant’s motion and
BERKLEY – 2

the State’s response, the trial court denied appellant’s motion in its entirety. Appellant now

purports to appeal the trial court’s order on his motion.

As this Court recently explained in Skinner v. State, S.W.3d , No. AP-76,296

(Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 4, 2010):

The Legislature prescribes the jurisdiction of the appellate courts.

Conferring a defendant’s general right to appeal, article 44.02 provides in

relevant part: “A defendant in any criminal action has the right of appeal under

the rules hereinafter prescribed . . . .” Our cases indicate that a “criminal

action” no longer exists after a defendant has been convicted and the direct

appeal process from that conviction has been exhausted. For example, in

holding that a trial court has no jurisdiction to order postconviction DNA

testing when the statutory requirements were not met, we explained: “When

a conviction has been affirmed on appeal and the mandate has issued, general

jurisdiction is not restored in the trial court.” Once general jurisdiction has

expired, and absent direction from a higher court, a trial court can act only if,

and to the extent, it is authorized to do so by a specific statutory source.

Likewise, we have held that appellate jurisdiction to review a trial court’s

order relating to postconviction DNA testing is limited to the appellate

jurisdiction conferred by the DNA testing statute.

(Citations omitted.)

Like the defendant in Skinner, appellant was convicted, and the direct appeal process

from that conviction has been exhausted. Also like the defendant in Skinner, appellant’s

motion to dispense with judgment and the trial court’s ruling thereon was basically a

complaint regarding the trial court’s order setting an execution date. No statute specifically

authorizes an appeal from a trial court’s order denying relief on this type of a motion. The

appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained.

Do Not Publish

Delivered: April 16, 2010
Exhibit 99.2

 

```
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 Enterra Energy Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, LucChartrand, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, solely for the purpose ofcomplying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

> 
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

 

```
 /s/ Luc Chartrand
					   	 																Luc Chartrand
                                           			 														Chief Financial Officer
                                            																	August , 2002
```
1831.

#### CAMPBELL *v.*FOUTE, Judge.

Where a judge to whom a bill of exceptions is tendered returns the same to counsel for correction, under Civil Code, § 5545, on the ground that it is. not true, or that it does not contain all the necessary facts, and specifies his objections in. -writing, as required by that section, this court -will not issue mandamus against the jud'ge to compel him to sign the bill of exceptions, unless counsel removes the objections specified by the judge.

Application for mandamus.

Submitted April 12, —

Decided April 20, 1909.

*J. B.*Conyers, for movant.

*W. B. Milner, solicitor,*contra.

Per Curiam.

Campbell, through his counsel, tendered to the judge a bill of exceptions, complaining of the judge’s refusal to grant him a discharge, under a demand for trial, according to section 958 of the Penal Code. Within the time required by law, the judge returned to counsel the bill of exceptions, together with a statement in writing that it did not contain all the necessary facts; and set forth a list of the facts which he says should have been incorporated in the bill of exceptions. Counsel for the plaintiff in error, insisting that these proposed corrections would be unfair to him and would not set forth the actual truth of the matter, has filed in this court a petition for mandamus, setting up what he claims to be the entire history of the ease, including the written specifications returned by the trial judge in connection with the bill of exceptions; from which it appears that the judge did not refuse absolutely to sign the bill of exceptions, but, on the other hand, expressly stated that when the revisions indicated were incorporated in the bill of exceptions, he would sign it.

The determination of what is true -and what is not true as to matters occurring on the trial of a case, when it is sought to review the trial by a bill of exceptions, addresses itself exclusively to the presiding judge; and this court is by law compelled to take his statement as true. If the judge says that certain corrections are necessary, to make the bill of exceptions speak the truth, we have no power to allow counsel to take issue with him, nor can we take issue with him ourselves. It is the duty of counsel to make these corrections and tender to the trial judge the bill of exceptions as corrected. If there are other and additional facts which counsel thinks should be stated in connection with the matters which the *114trial judge requires to be stated, he may yet (for the time for the final return of the bill of exceptions has not yet expired) ask the judge to state these facts; and if the judge considers them to be true, he will no doubt allow them to be incorporated in the bill of exceptions before it is finally signed. But if he does not do so, this court can not and will not interfere.

*Mandamus nisi denied.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132882 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JOHN VANDE LUYSTER, as Stephen J. Markman, Personal Representative of the Justices Estate of Angelyn Vande Luyster, 

Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 132882 

 COA: 257046 

Ottawa CC: 02-042262-NH 

BARTHOLOMEW D. SAK, M.D.

and DONALD M. FIX, M.D.,

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

HOLLAND COMMUNITY 

HOSPITAL, 

 Defendant.
 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of November 29, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the November 

28, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

Braverman v Garden City Hospital (Docket Nos. 134445-6). On order of the Court, the 

case having been decided on April 9, 2008, 480 Mich 1159 (2008), the application is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REMAND this case to the 

Ottawa Circuit Court for reinstatement of the complaint. The plaintiff is within the class 

of plaintiffs identified in this Court's order in Mullins v St Joseph Mercy Hosp, 480 Mich 

948 (2007). Furthermore, as noted in Braverman, supra, the decision in Lindsey v 

Harper Hospital, 455 Mich 56 (1997), is no longer controlling; thus, the plaintiff had an 

additional two years in which to file the complaint. 

l0519 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
    /s/ Ronald A. Klein
    
    Dated: May 10, 2006Ronald A. Klein, Chief Executive Officer/s/ W. Anderson Geater, Jr.
    
    Dated: May 10, 2006W. Anderson Geater Jr., Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dstage.com Inc , a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Robert P. Atwell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Albert Golusin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively 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 result of operations of the Company.
  
 
 /s/ ROBERT P. ATWELL
 Robert P. Atwell
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 August 16, 2004
 
    /s/ ALBERT GOLUSIN
 Albert Golusin
 Chief Financial Officer
 August 16, 2004
James Edward PRYOR v. STATE of Mississippi

2017-CT-00516-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: December 11, 2018 Closed: March 14, 2019

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Certiorari - Denied
# C_2021044EN.01004204.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/42

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Eurowings GmbH v GDVI Verbraucherhilfe GmbH

(Case C-365/20) (1)

(2021/C 44/62)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MINGHU CHE,

Petitioner,

v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 70959

Agency No. A099

- 763

- 749

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016 **

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Minghu Che , a native and ci tizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum
, withholding of

removal
, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

* 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). 

# FILED

JUN 20 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 70959

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinat ions created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 10 34,

1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.

The agency found Che not credible based on inconsistencies between his

testimony and documentary evidence , and on his evasive and agitated demeanor

during the heari ng. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination

. See id

. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under
the “totality of circumstances”). Che ’s explanations do not compel a contrary

res ult. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000 ). In the absence of

credible testimony, Che’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review Che ’s CAT claim because he did not raise it

to the BIA

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no

jurisdiction over claims not presented below).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
William ADAMS, Appellant, v. Reinaldo Laboy IRIZARRY, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-721

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_publications(7)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(3)
              - california(3)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(3)
              - (-)florida(1)
              - hawaii(5)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - montana(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - utah(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(1)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(4)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        May 4, 1995        Exploring Storm Surge
Lloyd JARROW v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2018-KH-0152

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an *433exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Applicant has now fully litigated several applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
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 United Energy Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James McKeever,
Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

|                         |                          |  |                                  
|------------------------ | ------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------
|Dated:
  August 14, 2006 | By: /s/
  James McKeever
|                         |                          | 
|                         |                          |  | James
  McKeever                 
|                         |                          |  | Interim
  Chief Financial Officer

---
Orin BATTLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2404

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EX PARTE Stephen LINTON

CR-16-0858

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Dale Dwayne CRAIG

NO. 2017-KP-1365

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Denied.
Archie J. HINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2198

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
IN the INTEREST OF C.L., a child.

C.L., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-4953

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed July 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.