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:*                         January 6, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

      ( print page 688)    

# 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 1188 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-983, K2025-982.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31743 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

VS.

DAVID HILL,

Defendant.

)

)

)

) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:03-CR-159(02)-G 

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The district court reviewed

the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding

none, the court ACCEPTS the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge.

To the extent that defendant David Hill’s pro se motion for 2 level reduction

(Amendment 782) (docket entry 148) (the “motion”) requests reconsideration of the

court’s denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),

reconsideration is DENIED. And, to the extent that Hill raises a post-conviction

challenge to the initial calculation of his guideline sentence, that challenge is made

through an unauthorized successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Construing the

motion as such, it is TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit for appropriate action.

The court further DIRECTS the clerk of the court to open for statistical

purposes a new Section 2255 case (nature of suit 510 directly assigned, per Special

Order 3-250, to Senior United States District Judge A. Joe Fish and United States

Magistrate Judge David L. Horan) and close the same on the basis of this order.

SO ORDERED.

May 21, 2019.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 2 -
# C_2020230EN.01001701.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 20 April 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-164/20)

(2020/C 230/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Airhelp Limited

Respondent: Austrian Airlines AG

Question referred

Are Articles 5, 6 and 7 of 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the illness and associated unfitness to fly, as diagnosed by an airport doctor, of a passenger who has already boarded an aircraft which has not yet taken off — after which the air carrier refuses to carry that passenger, with the result that the passenger must leave the aircraft and his baggage must be unloaded — must be regarded as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of 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?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-24-00102-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.E.F. AND B.Z.F., Children

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023PA00245

Honorable Raul Perales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal 

because appellant qualifies as indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.

SIGNED July 17, 2024.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Antuan Jmal DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-910

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 4, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0378. JERE WOOD v. MICHAEL LITTEN.

Defendant Jere Wood, the mayor of Roswell, appeals from the trial court’s

order granting a writ of ouster in this quo warranto proceeding.

1 The trial court ruled

that an update to the Roswell city charter that became effective in 2010 rendered

Wood ineligible to serve the fifth mayoral term to which he was elected in 2013. 

Among other arguments raised before the trial court, Wood contended that:

(i) applying the new charter provision to him is unconstitutionally retroactive; and

(ii) the new provision operates as an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

The Supreme Court “has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving

construction of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and of the United States and

all casesin which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision

has been called into question.” Atlanta Independent School System v. Lane, 266 Ga.

657, 657 (1) (469 SE2d 22) (1996) (citing Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par.

II (1)). Because the trial court addressed and rejected Wood’s claims calling into

question the constitutionality of the city charter, it appears that jurisdiction over this

appeal may lie in the Supreme Court. See Northway v. Allen, 291 Ga. 227, 229, n. 2

(728 SE2d 624) (2012) (noting that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction was based on

the trial court’s ruling that a provision in a city charter was constitutional); see

generally Jackson v. Inman, 232 Ga. 566, 568-571 (I) (207 SE2d 475) (1974) (direct

appeal from trial court orders addressing, inter alia, the constitutionality of a city

1 Wood also has filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court; his appeal has

been docketed in that Court as Case No. S18A0246.

October 10, 2017
charter). As the Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for determining

appellate jurisdiction, see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Med. Clinic, Inc., 267 Ga.

177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996), this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the

Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/10/2017
COLUMBIA BANK, Appellant, v. MARSH GROUP, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; J.C. Marsh & Sons, Inc., a Florida Corporation; Francis S. Oosterhoudt, Also Known as F.S. Oosterhoudt, III; Lake City Management Group, Inc., a Florida Corporation; Michael B. Oosterhoudt; Lake City Development LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company; William J. Haley ; Thomas J. Haley; and GTE Federal Credit Union as Successor in Interest To North Florida Federal Credit Union, Appellees.

No. 1D17-4152

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 627 

Honoring the memory of Jereima ‘‘Jeri’’ Bustamante on the sixth anniversary 

of her passing. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 8, 2024 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the memory of Jereima ‘‘Jeri’’ Bustamante on 

the sixth anniversary of her passing. 

Whereas Jereima ‘‘Jeri’’ Bustamante (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘Jeri Bustamante’’) lived the American Dream; 

Whereas, after moving from Panama to the United States 

with her family, Jeri Bustamante— 

(1) attended Miami Beach Senior High School; and 

(2) earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Communication 

and Media Sciences and a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from Florida International University; 

Whereas Jeri Bustamante had a tireless work ethic and a 

passion for communication and paid for her education by 

working while enrolled in school; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 627 IS 

Whereas that tireless work ethic propelled Jeri Bustamante 

to professional success, beginning with an internship at 

a Miami television station and culminating in a period of 

service as press secretary to Governor Rick Scott; 

Whereas the enthusiasm, compassion, tenacity, and vibrant 

energy of Jeri Bustamante are greatly missed by her 

family, friends, and coworkers; 

Whereas the spirit of Jeri Bustamante lives on through the 

Jereima Bustamante Memorial Scholarship, which aims 

to help graduates of Miami Beach Senior High School 

achieve their goals and pursue the American Dream 

through a college education; and 

Whereas April 8, 2024, marks 6 years since the life of Jeri 

Bustamante was tragically cut short in a fatal boating 

accident: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) honors the life and memory of Jereima 

3 ‘‘Jeri’’ Bustamante (referred to in this resolution as 

4 ‘‘Jeri Bustamante’’); 

5 (2) offers heartfelt condolences to the family, 

6 loved ones, and friends of Jeri Bustamante; 

7 (3) recognizes that living the American Dream 

8 remains possible for any individual who, following 

9 the example of Jeri Bustamante, works hard to pur10 sue and achieve a goal; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 627 IS 

1 (4) encourages the recipients of the Jereima 

2 Bustamante Memorial Scholarship to carry on the 

3 legacy of Jeri Bustamante. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2017144EN.01004701.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/47

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 10 March 2017 — Fertisac v ECHA

(Case T-855/16 R)

((Interim proceedings - REACH - Fee due for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized undertakings - Decision imposing an administrative charge and a supplementary fee - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))

(2017/C 144/65)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fertisac, SL (Atarfe, Spain) (represented by: J. Gomez Rodriguez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: E. Maurage, J.-P. Trnka and M. Heikkilä, Agents, and C. Molyneux, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking a suspension of operation of Decision SME (2016) 5150, of 15 November 2016, finding that the applicant was not entitled to the fee reductions applicable to medium-sized undertakings, and of the invoices issued on the basis of that decision, namely ECHA invoices No 10060160 and No 10060161, dated 15 November 2016.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
EXHIBIT
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of OmniReliant Holdings Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the
“Report”), I, Robert John DeCecco III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1) 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      February 16, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Robert John DeCecco IIIRobert
      John DeCecco IIIChief
      Executive Officer (Principal
              Executive
      Officer and Principal
              Accounting
      Officer)
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 31 Filed 03/15/02 Page 1 of 4 PageID 136
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 31 Filed 03/15/02 Page 2 of 4 PageID 137
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 31 Filed 03/15/02 Page 3 of 4 PageID 138
Case 3:00-cv-00022-P Document 31 Filed 03/15/02 Page 4 of 4 PageID 139
Exhibit
      32




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 OmniReliant Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Christopher Phillips, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 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 and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      OmniReliant Holdings, Inc.. and will be retained by OmniReliant Holdings, Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




Date:
        November 14, 2007


By:
            /s/ Christopher
              PhillipsChristopher
              PhillipsPrincipal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial
              Officer
# C_2022037EN.01002801.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Team Beverage v EUIPO — Zurich Deutscher Herold Lebensversicherung (Team Beverage)

(Case T-359/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Team Beverage - Earlier EU word mark TEAM - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 37/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch, N. Willich and N. Achilles, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zurich Deutscher Herold Lebensversicherung AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented: F. Kramer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 (Case R 2727/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Zurich Deutscher Herold Lebensversicherung and Team Beverage.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Team Beverage AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Team Beverage AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.

---
STATE EX REL. Chester BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-1797

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

*771Denied. See State v. Brown, 17-1717, (La. 2/18/19) 265 So3d. 770.
# C_2022359EN.01006402.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/64

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Standard International Management v EUIPO — Asia Standard Management Services (The Standard)

(Case T-768/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark The Standard - Declaration of revocation - Place of the use of the mark - Advertisements and offers for sale to consumers in the EU - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001keywords)

(2022/C 359/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Standard International Management LLC (New York, New York (United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, S. Wickenden, Barrister, and M. Maier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Asia Standard Management Services Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 November 2020 (Case R 828/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 November 2020 (Case R 828/2020-5) as regards the services in Classes 38, 39, 41, 43 and 44; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 November 2020 (Case R 828/2020-5) as regards the services in Classes 38, 39, 41, 43 and 44;

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Standard International Management LLC, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Standard International Management LLC, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---
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 Digital Network International Alliance, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Eppie Wong, CFO and a director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  __/s/ Eppie Wong____________
Eppie Wong, CFO and a director Date:  August 27, 2008
Abdel Oscar DELGADO, Appellant, v. Arnei MOREJON, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2377

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs J

anuary 10, 2001 PAUL FREEMAN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Madison County

No. 00-005 Roger A. Page, Judge

No. W2000-00943-CCA-R3-PC - Filed February 21, 2001

J OE G. R ILEY , J., dissenting. As noted in the majority opinion, the appellant does not contend the City Court did not advise him of his constitutiona

l rights. The sole

issue in this case is

whether the appellant was impaired to the degree that he did not voluntarily enter his guilty plea. The trial judge heard

testimony from two witnesses concerning the procedure followed by the City Court ju dge prior to accepting guilty pleas. The trial judge heard testimony from an officer who was present at the

time of the guilty

plea, and he testi

fied th ere was no indication that the defendant was under the influence of an intoxicant at the time of the plea. The trial judge also was able to observe the demeanor and determine the credibility of the de fendant who also testified. The trial judge entered a three-page order detailing his find

ings. The trial ju

dge specifica

lly noted that it considered “the

credibility

of the witnesses in

open court.” I

take that to

mean he was not impress ed with the credib ility of the de

fendant. The tria

l judge specific

ally found th

at th e “ petitioner

was not impaired at the time of his guilty plea ” and concluded as a matter of law that the “decision to plead guilty was freely , voluntarily and intelligently made.” (Emphasis adde d). Since questions concerning the credibility of witnesses and the weight and value to be given their t estimony are resolved by the trial court, not this court, I am unable to conclude tha t the evidence preponderates

against the find

ings of the trial c

ourt. See State v. Burns , 6 S.W.3d 453, 461 (Tenn. 1999). For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

___________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE