alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 17.1 17.2 

Housing Starts and Sales (SAAR, Thous. Units)Housing Starts 978 1,158 1,158 1,135 1,133 1,187 1,236 1,285 1,340 1,347  Single-Family (1 Unit) 643 706 745 757 792 775 815 850 905 917  Percent Change: Year-over-Year  Multifamily (2+ Units) 335 451 414 379 341 412 421 435 435 430 New Single-Family Home Sales 517 497 488 509 517 524 546 571 591 609  Percent Change: Year-over-Year Total Existing Home Sales (Single-Family, Condos and Co-Ops) 5,050 5,280 5,403 5,200 5,290 5,398 5,424 5,450 5,503 5,501  Percent Change: Year-over-Year Total Home Sales (New + Existing) 5,567 5,777 5,891 5,709 5,807 5,921 5,970 6,021 6,094 6,110  Percent Change: Year-over-Year Home Prices (NSA, Thous. $)Median New 293 290 301 305 289 302 314 320 304 315 Median Total Existing 203 228 227 221 216 237 237 232 227 248 FHFA Purchase-Only Index (% Change: Quarterly YoY, Annual Q4/Q4) 5.3% 5.6% 5.7% 5.8% 5.1% 4.5% 4.6% 5.2% 5.2% 4.5% Mortgage Rates (Percent)30-Year Fixed Rate Mortgage 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.8 5-Year Adjustable Rate Mortgage 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 Single-Family Mortgage Originations (NSA, Bil. $, 1-4 Units)Mortgage Originations 394 508 434 375 353 474 441 381 308 396  Purchase 165 269 271 211 180 282 287 253 188 283  Refinance 229 239 164 163 172 192 154 128 120 113 Refinance Share (%) 58% 47% 38% 44% 49% 40% 35% 34% 39% 29% 

May 10, 2016Note: Interest rate forecasts are based on rates from April 29, 2016.Note: Unshaded areas denote actuals. Shaded areas denote forecasts.Sources: Actuals: Census Bureau, National Association of REALTORS®, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Freddie Mac, Federal Reserve Board. Forecasts: Fannie Mae Economic & Strategic Research GroupOpinions, analyses, estimates, forecasts, and other views of Fannie Mae's Economic & Strategic Research (ESR) Group included in these materials should not be construed as indicating Fannie Mae's business prospects or expected results, are based on a number of assumptions, and are subject to change without notice. How this information affects Fannie Mae will depend on many factors. Although the ESR group bases its opinions, analyses, estimates, forecasts, and other views on information it considers reliable, it does not guarantee that the information provided in these materials is accurate, current or suitable for any particular purpose. Changes in the assumptions or the information underlying these views could produce materially different results. The analyses, opinions, estimates, forecasts, and other views published by the ESR group represent the views of that group as of the date indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of Fannie Mae or its management.

 Housing Forecast: May 2016

 --------------- 2015 --------------- --------------- 2016 --------------- --------------- 2017
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:*                         January 6, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1175 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-963, K2025-962.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31734 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
*       *       *       *       *





EXHIBIT
32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of InoLife Technologies,
Inc. (Formerly NexxNow, Inc.) (the “Company”) certify that:




1. The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period  ended
September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and




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





November  17,
      2009
            /s/ Gary BertholdGary
      Berthold (Chief Executive Officer)November
      17, 2009
            /s/ Jan KaplanJan
      Kaplan (Chief Financial
Officer)
Exhibit 12.2  CERTIFICATION  I, Mark Gelmon, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of MAX Resource Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: April 28, 2014/s/Mark GelmonMark Gelmon
Chief Financial Officer
Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
Jeffery ROTHERMEL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4001

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 20, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

The mandate in 2D15-4030 having issued September 30, 2016, this petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is dismissed as untimely. See Fla. R. App. p. S.141(d)(5).

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
# C_2021035EN.01004901.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Almea v EUIPO — Sanacorp Pharmahandel (Almea)

(Case T-190/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Almea - Earlier national word mark MEA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 35/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Almea Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Furneaux and E. Humphreys, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Mrozowski, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sanacorp Pharmahandel GmbH (Planegg, Germany) (represented by: I. M. Helbig, S. Rengshausen and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 (Case R 246/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Sanacorp Pharmahandel and Almea.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Almea Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Almea Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.

---
Nicholas Dwight BYRAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-26

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 15, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joanna A. Mauer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Nicholas Byram ("Byram") appeals his convictions and sentences on four grounds, only one of which merits discussion. He contends the trial court fundamentally erred by violating his double jeopardy rights through his separate convictions for resisting arrest with and without violence.

Byram was convicted on, among other charges, one count of resisting arrest with violence and one count of resisting arrest without violence. Because a defendant's continuous resistance to an ongoing attempt to effect his arrest can be convicted only as one count of resisting arrest, we reverse. *See**Johnson v. State* , 246 So.3d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). As the conviction for resisting without violence violates double jeopardy, it must be vacated and, if the reversal alters the lowest permissible sentence, Byram should be resentenced.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Rowe and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
# C_2021163EN.01001002.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2020 — AR v St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH

(Case C-727/20)

(2021/C 163/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: AR

Respondent: St. Vincenz-Krankenhaus GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude an interpretation of a rule of national law such as Paragraph 7(3) of the German Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal Law on leave) according to which the as yet unexercised entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker who became ill to an extent that rendered him or her unfit for work in the course of the leave year, but who could still have taken — at least some of — the leave in the leave year before the onset of his or her illness, lapses 15 months after the end of the leave year in the event of a continuing uninterrupted period of incapacity for work even if the employer has not actually enabled the worker to exercise his or her leave entitlement by duly informing him or her of the leave concerned and inviting him or her to take it? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (1) and Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude an interpretation of a rule of national law such as Paragraph 7(3) of the German Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal Law on leave) according to which the as yet unexercised entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker who became ill to an extent that rendered him or her unfit for work in the course of the leave year, but who could still have taken — at least some of — the leave in the leave year before the onset of his or her illness, lapses 15 months after the end of the leave year in the event of a continuing uninterrupted period of incapacity for work even if the employer has not actually enabled the worker to exercise his or her leave entitlement by duly informing him or her of the leave concerned and inviting him or her to take it?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does this also preclude the lapse of entitlement at a later date under these conditions if incapacity for work continues? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does this also preclude the lapse of entitlement at a later date under these conditions if incapacity for work continues?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---
Angel Ruben Lopez HERNANDEZ, Beneficiary and Former Personal Representative of the Estate of Angel Lopez Maldonado, Appellant, v. Angel Raul Lopez HERNANDEZ, Beneficiary and Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Angelo Lopez Maldonado, Star Insurance Company, Julius S. Williams, Esquire, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-3006

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 19, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 27, 2019

Angel Ruben Lopez Hernandez, Dublin, Ohio, pro se.

Angel Raul Lopez Hernandez, Miramar, pro se.

No Appearance for Other Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See* § 733.609(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) ("A personal representative's fiduciary duty is the same as the fiduciary duty of a trustee of an express trust, and a personal representative is liable to interested persons for damage or loss resulting from the breach of this duty.").

ORFINGER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 1 , 2022

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00642

- CV

LAM MAI , Appellant

V. MAIN 2601 PARTNERS, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause N o. 2021

- 53412

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 6, 20 2 2

. The notice of appeal
was filed September 2 , 2 02 2

. To date, our records show that appellant has no t paid the appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring pa yment of fees in civil
cases unless party is excused by statute or by appellate rules from paying costs )

. Tex. Gov’t Code § 51.207 (appellate fees and costs).

On Octobe r 6, 20 2 2 , this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate fi ling
fee on or bef

ore Oct ober 17
, 20 2 2 or the appeal was subject to dismissal without2

further notice . Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee or otherwise responded to the court’s order

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time)

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, a n d Z immerer
Kelvin L. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2354

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TEXAS COMMISSION ON 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND 

THE CITY OF DRIPPING SPRINGS, 

 

 Appellants,

v.

SAVE OUR SPRINGS ALLIANCE, INC.,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00239-CV

Appeal from the

345th District Court

of Travis County, Texas 

(TC# D-1-GN-19-003030)

O R D E R

The Court on its own motion, VACATES the October 21, 2021 submission and oral 

argument setting. The above styled and numbered cause will be rescheduled at a later date. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of October, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 106626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31165]

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

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 30, 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 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 560 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-957, K2025-957.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31165 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2021035EN.01002002.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/20

---

Appeal brought on 10 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-444/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-311/20 P)

(2021/C 35/29)

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.

---
# C_2021062EN.01003601.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/36

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 31 December 2020 — ExxonMobil Production Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-731/20 R)

(Interim measures - Directive 2003/87/EC - Decision 2011/278/EU - System for greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2021/C 62/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ExxonMobil Production Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and J. Hoss, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 279 TFEU and Article 156 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, seeking that the Commission be ordered to transfer 7 428 258 emission allowances to the account of the installation of the applicant by 31 December 2020 at the latest.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2021163EN.01003202.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/32

---

Order of the General Court of 4 March 2021 — NEC OncoImmunity v EASME

(Case T-132/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ (2014-2020) - Grant agreement - Termination letter - Act coming within a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable - Inadmissibility - Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 - Loss of SME status)

(2021/C 163/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NEC OncoImmunity AS (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: T. Nordby, R. Bråthen and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (represented by: G. Niddam and A. Galea, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application primarily based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in EASME's letter No Ares (2019) 7905893 of 23 December 2019 terminating the grant agreement concluded under the ‘Horizon 2020’ framework programme for research and innovation (2014-2020) and, in the alternative, an application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the terms of that agreement were breached.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action as dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action as dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | NEC OncoImmunity AS is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

NEC OncoImmunity AS is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---
T.S., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1761

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.