alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED A NDREW ROBERT RUSSO , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 597 LT Case No. 2015

- CF

- 001897

- A

- X STATE O F FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decisio n filed July 19 , 2 022 3.850 A ppeal f rom the Circuit Co urt for M arion C ounty , Anthony M

. T atti, J udge. Andrew R

. R usso, Blowntstown, p r o se. No Appearance f or Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

WALLIS , SASSO an d NARDELLA , JJ. , c oncur

.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 105644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31005]

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

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 27, 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 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1122 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-904, K2025-904.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31005 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2021217EN.01001602.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/16

---

Appeal brought on 28 September 2020 by Lukáš Wagenknecht against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 July 2020 in Case T-715/19, Wagenknecht v European Council

(Case C-504/20 P)

(2021/C 217/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (represented by: A. Koller, advokátka)

Other party to the proceedings: European Council

By order of 14 April 2021, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and that Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht shall bear his own costs.

---
Presented to: REDACBy: Al Larkin, FAA Airport Technology R & D Date: August 16, 2017

RPA - P6Non – Destructive Airport Pavement Testing Technology

*

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

RPA P6 Pavement NDT Funding Bar Chart

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

RPA P6 - Airport Pavement NDT Technology

 Planned for FY 2017

 Research Goals

RPA – P6 Funding Requirements 
        - Development of New Pavement Roughness Index for In-Service Airport Pavement
        - Evaluation of Alternative Profiling Technologies for Airport Pavement  Acceptance

 Need
        - The FAA predicts that the airline industry will grow from 731 million passengers in 2011 to 1.2 billion in 2032. Because of this, airport pavements will need to be evaluated faster and more efficiently; nondestructive airport pavement testing is the hub of airport pavement evaluation. 

• Draft New Pavement Roughness Index.

• Alternate Longitudinal Pavement Profiling Devices to the Existing FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10 for Construction Acceptance Procedures. 

• Pavement Construction Acceptance using Light Weight Deflectometer (LWD) and Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer (PSPA).
| FY2017                          | FY 2018    | FY2019     |
|---------------------------------|------------|------------|
| RPA-P6 – NDT Technology         | $1,600,000 | $1,275,000 | $1,440,000 |
| Non – FWD Technology            | $300,000   | $265,000   | $270,000 |
| Pavement Evaluation             | $300,000   | $265,000   | $360,000 |
| Pavement Roughness              | $500,000   | $355,000   | $450,000 |
| Remaining Airport Pavement Life | $500,000   | $390,000   | $360,000 |

*

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

Cape May Taxiway Charlie

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

Cape May Profiling Equipment

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

CL Inertial Profiler Plots 

• Cape May Taxiway C Inertial Profiler Traveling from Sta 9 + 00 to 36 + 00 (S to N)

• Cape May Taxiway C Inertial Profiler Traveling from Sta 36 +00 to 9 + 00 (N to S)

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

Taxiway C CL Design and As Built Profiles

Sta 9 +00

Sta 35 + 00

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

Taxiway C CL Design and As Built Profiles

Sta 9 + 00

Sta 35 + 00

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

Taxiway Charlie CL Profile Comparison

Sta 9 + 00

Sta 35 + 00

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

Taxiway Charlie CL Profile Comparison

Sta 9 + 00

Sta 35 + 00

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

Cape May Transverse Profile Comparison

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

Cape May Transverse Profile Comparison

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

Cape May Transverse Profile Comparison

*

RPA - P6 Nondestructive Airport Pavement Testing 

August 16, 2017

			Thank You

		   QUESTIONS?
Andria PARDES, Petitioner, v. Michael PARDES, et al., Respondents.

No. 3D18-2161

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 16, 2019

Weissman & Dervishi, P.A., and Jeffrey M. Weissman (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner.

Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A., and Paul Morris ; Law Offices of Kornreich & Associates, and Gerald I. Kornreich and Amber Kornreich, for respondent Michael Pardes.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*222In this dissolution of marriage case, Petitioner Andria Pardes seeks certiorari review of a trial court order denying her motion to disqualify the attorney of Respondent Michael Pardes. The factual findings in the trial court's order are supported by competent substantial evidence in the record, and the trial court's legal conclusions do not depart from the essential requirements of law. We therefore deny the petition.

Petition denied.
# C_2021035EN.01001902.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/19

---

Appeal brought on 9 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-535/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-308/20 P)

(2021/C 35/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg

By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SHARA COOPER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3012

[November 21, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jeffrey Colbath, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 50-2006-CF-004008-AXXX-MB.

Shara Cooper, Ocala, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 OrderPro Logistics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
L. Windorski, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of August 19, 2002.

/s/ Richard L. Windorski
----------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
# C_2020433EN.01002401.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 21 September 2020 — PN and LM v Ryanair Designated Activity Company

(Case C-445/20)

(2020/C 433/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: PN, LM

Defendant: Ryanair Designated Activity Company

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a trade union-organised strike by an operating air carrier’s own staff constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)?

| 2. | Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it of any significance that the strike was held in connection with staff demands not previously agreed by contract between the staff and the operating air carrier?

| 3. | Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it of any significance that the strike in question was triggered by the operating air carrier’s conduct during negotiations with the trade union?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-60998 and 333-61102 of James Monroe Bancorp, Inc. on Forms S-8 of our
report, dated January 16, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
James Monroe Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and
the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity
and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999 appearing in
this Form 10-KSB.


/s/ Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P.C.


Winchester, Virginia
February 12, 2002
# C_2020201EN.01000802.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 January 2020 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Jumbocarry Trading GmbH

(Case C-39/20)

(2020/C 201/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Jumbocarry Trading GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 103(3)(b) and 124(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1) applicable to a customs debt that was incurred before 1 May 2016 and whose period of limitation had not yet expired as of that date? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 103(3)(b) and 124(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1) applicable to a customs debt that was incurred before 1 May 2016 and whose period of limitation had not yet expired as of that date?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the principle of legal certainty or the principle of legitimate expectations preclude that applicability? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the principle of legal certainty or the principle of legitimate expectations preclude that applicability?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

---
STATE EX REL. Willie FULLILOVE v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2018-KH-0087

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 18, 2019

Denied.
Raudel DEL TORRO MEJAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1202

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 16, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### A. H. Bouldin, *Appellant,*v. J. G. Davis, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 7, 1927.

*Abbott & G'aulden,*for Appellant;

*Catts & White,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and *881inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J-, and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
**Exhibit 21.1**   Subsidiaries of  American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. Jurisdiction of IncorporationAmerican Medical Systems, Inc. Delaware   American Medical Systems Australia Pty. Ltd. Australia   American Medical Systems Benelux B.V.B.A. Belgium   American Medical Systems Canada Inc. Canada   American Medical Systems France S.A.S. France   American Medical Systems Deutschland GmbH Germany   American Medical Systems Iberica S.L. Spain   American Medical Systems UK Limited United Kingdom   AMS Research Corporation Delaware   AMS Sales Corporation Delaware   American Medical Systems Gynecology Inc. California   American Medical Systems Europe B.V. The Netherlands   THERMATRX, INC. Delaware   AMS –American Medical Systems do Brasil Produtos Urológicos e Ginecológicos Ltda. Brazil   Influence Medical Technologies, Ltd. Israel   CryoGen Europe S.A.S. France   Ovion Inc. Delaware
1

JOINT MOTION TO ENTER AGREED SCHEDULING ORDER

Plaintiff Flexible Funding Ltd. Liability Co. and Defendant The Original Mowbray’s Tree 

Service Incorporated (“Mowbray’s”) submit this Joint Motion to Enter Agreed Scheduling Order 

and respectfully represent: 

On September 26, 2024, the Court held a status conference. At that status conference, 

counsel for Mowbray’s informed the Court that the parties would work on an agreed scheduling 

order to submit to the Court. The Court advised that should the parties agree on a scheduling order, 

the status conference continued to October 24, 2024 at 9:00 am would be taken off calendar. 

The parties have conferred and have agreed to the proposed scheduling order submitted 

with this motion. The parties respectfully request that the Court enter the Agreed Scheduling Order 

proposed by the parties. 

 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FT. WORTH DIVISION

IN RE:

FLEXIBLE FUNDING LTD. LIABILITY CO., 

et. al., 

 Debtors.

FLEXIBLE FUNDING LTD. LIABILITY CO.,

Plaintiff

v.

THE ORIGINAL MOWBRAY’S TREE 

SERVICE INCORPORATED,

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 21-42215-11-mxm

Chapter 11

Adversary Proceeding No. 24-04020-mxm

Case 24-04020-mxm Doc 20 Filed 10/17/24 Entered 10/17/24 11:05:46 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
2

Respectfully submitted, 

DATED: October 17, 2024 SULLIVAN BLACKBURN PRATT LLP

/s/ Christopher D. Sullivan

Christopher D. Sullivan 

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

California Bar No. 148083

csullivan@sullivanblackburn.com

601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200

San Francisco, CA 94111

Counsel for Flexible Funding Ltd. Liability Co. 

DATED: October 17, 2024 REED SMITH LLP

/s/ Paul D. Moak (with permission)

Paul D. Moak 

Texas Bar No. 00794316

pmoak@reedsmith.com

1221 McKinney Street

Suite 2100

Houston, TX 77010

Counsel for The Original Mowbray’s Tree Service 

Incorporated

Case 24-04020-mxm Doc 20 Filed 10/17/24 Entered 10/17/24 11:05:46 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that on October 17, 2024, a copy of the foregoing was served through 

the Court’s electronic filing system as to all parties who have entered an appearance in this 

proceeding. 

/s/Christopher D. Sullivan

Christopher D. Sullivan

Case 24-04020-mxm Doc 20 Filed 10/17/24 Entered 10/17/24 11:05:46 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40347 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Heber Centeno,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CR

- 81

- 10

Before **Smith, Dennis,**  and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Heber Centeno, federal prisoner # 65426

- 179 , appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which was based on his contention that harsh prison conditions ; his obesity, hypertension, and depression, which put hi m at greater risk of hospitalization

* 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 September 8, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40347 Document: 00516464815 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2022No. 21

- 40347

2 and death from COVID

- 19; and his lengthy sentence were extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting early release.
We decline to reach the Government’s argument that Centeno failed to exhaust his administrative remedies given that the Government did not appeal the district court’s order finding that exhaustion was satisfied. See Greenlaw v. United States , 554 U.S. 237, 244

- 45 (2008 ); United States v. Ibarra

- Luna , 628 F.3d 712, 715 & n.16 (5th Cir. 2010).
We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Contrary to Centeno’s c ontention, the district court did not misapply the relevant factors when it denied relief, given that it considered his age and that his current health conditions were being managed by Centeno and the Bureau of Prisons. See United States v. Rodriguez , 27 F.4th 1097, 1099

- 1101 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2022) ; United States v. Thompson , 984 F.3d 431, 43 3

- 35 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 2688 (2021)

. Accordingly , Centeno has failed to show that the district court abuse d its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release. See Rodriguez , 27 F.4th at 1100

- 01; Thompson , 984 F.3d at 433

- 35 ; Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 693. The judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 21-40347 Document: 00516464815 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2022
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 390 

Designating the week of October 1, 2023, through October 7, 2023, as 

‘‘National Community Policing Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 30 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2023 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mr. CORNYN, Ms. HASSAN, and Mr. PETERS) 

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week of October 1, 2023, through October 

7, 2023, as ‘‘National Community Policing Week’’. 

Whereas police officers are indispensable members of the 

community who put their lives on the line to protect others; 

Whereas promoting strong relationships, founded in trust and 

mutual respect, between law enforcement officers and the 

communities they serve helps ensure the safe and effective execution of the law; 

Whereas relationships developed through community policing 

help protect both law enforcement officers and civilians; 

Whereas law enforcement officers and communities that work 

together to address public safety concerns can create lasting solutions to difficult challenges; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 390 ATS 

Whereas community policing has helped produce reductions 

in both violent and property crime; 

Whereas events in recent years have sparked a nationwide 

call to improve the interactions between law enforcement 

officers and the communities they serve, particularly communities of color; 

Whereas community policing facilitates peaceful dialogue, capable of fostering understanding and trust, between law 

enforcement officers and civilians; 

Whereas community policing informs the public about the 

challenges that law enforcement officers face in executing 

their duties and provides law enforcement officers insight 

into the concerns of community members; 

Whereas a long-term commitment to community policing is 

necessary to eliminate the underlying causes of crime; 

Whereas the advancement of community policing should be 

supported to ensure that State and local law enforcement 

agencies have necessary resources; and 

Whereas community policing has been recognized as an important tool for improving the relationship between law 

enforcement officers and the communities they serve: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week of October 1, 2023, 

3 through October 7, 2023, as ‘‘National Community 

4 Policing Week’’; and 

5 (2) supports community policing and encour6 ages the people of the United States, law enforce7 ment agencies, and elected officials to identify ways 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•SRES 390 ATS 

1 in which communities can improve public safety, 

2 strengthen relationships, and build trust. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB