alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:03-cv-00616-M Document 14 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 69
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 843 

Designating October 2024 as ‘‘National Learning Disabilities Awareness 

Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2024 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER (for himself and Mr. BUDD) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating October 2024 as ‘‘National Learning Disabilities 

Awareness Month’’. 

Whereas in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401), a specific learning disability— 

(1) is defined as a disorder in 1 or more of the basic 

psychological processes involved in understanding or in 

using language, spoken or written, which may manifest 

itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, 

write, spell, or do mathematical calculations; 

(2) includes conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, 

and developmental aphasia; and 

(3) does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 843 ATS 

of intellectual disabilities, of emotional disturbance, or of 

environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage; 

Whereas a specific learning disability is the most prevalent 

disability of students who are served by parts A through 

D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 

U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), impacting 34 percent of all students who received special education services; 

Whereas, for academic year 2022, the National Assessment 

of Educational Progress reports that— 

(1) more than 95 percent of 4th and 8th grade students with a specific learning disability were not proficient in reading; and 

(2) more than 93 percent of 4th and 8th grade students with a specific learning disability were not proficient in math; 

Whereas the math and reading scores reported by the National Assessment of Educational Progress for academic 

year 2022 indicate that Black and Hispanic students 

with a specific learning disability experience greater opportunity gaps than White and Asian students; 

Whereas research shows that students with specific learning 

disabilities can achieve success commensurate with their 

peers, if given appropriate instruction and support; 

Whereas developmentally appropriate universal screening 

should begin as early as possible to assess which students 

demonstrate the most pervasive risk factors for specific 

learning disabilities; and 

Whereas research rooted in the science of reading establishes 

an evidence base of effective instructional methods for developing reading skills for students with or at risk for 

specific learning disabilities: Now, therefore, be it 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 843 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates October 2024 as ‘‘National 

3 Learning Disabilities Awareness Month’’; and 

4 (2) calls on State and local education agencies 

5 to continue to meet the needs of students with spe6 cific learning disabilities through a free and appro7 priate public education. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2021009EN.01001901.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 November 2020 — Deutsche Post v EUIPO Pošta Slovenije (Representation of a stylised horn)

(Case T-25/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of an EU figurative mark representing a stylised horn - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a post horn on a yellow background - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Lack of distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 9/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: 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: Pošta Slovenije d.o.o. (Maribor, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Kavčič and R. Jerovšek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2019 (Case R 994/2019 1) relating to opposition proceedings between Deutsche Post and Pošta Slovenije.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche Post AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---
Case 3:03-cv-03056-D Document 38 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 184
 

 Case 3:03-cv-03056-D Document 38 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 185
Kathy Lou ROBERTS, DOC #H49321, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1026

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

CHARLES RAY MASON
(TDCJ No. 736893),

Petitioner,
Vv. No. 3:00-CV-731-M
LORIE DAVIS, Director

Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division,

OP WO? COP CO? LOD WOR 0? 00? 002 003 603 LO

Respondent.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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.

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings,
and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(0), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions,
and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has

failed to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition



[currently] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable
whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling” — that Petitioner did not
fully and properly exhausted state court remedies prior to filing the 28 U.S.C. § 2254
application. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).1

Tn the event that Petitioner will file a notice of appeal, the Court notes that he
must pay the appellate filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal.

SO ORDERED this | | day of May, 2017.

NN O

1 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended effective on
December 1, 2009, reads as follows:

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny a
certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Before
entering the final order, the court may direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a
certificate should issue. If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue
or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a
certificate, the parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate from the court of
appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does
not extend the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the time
to appeal an order entered under these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if
the district court issues a certificate of appealability.

2
Christopher Justin THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-518

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 28, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report and Transition Report on Form
20-F of Silverline Technologies Limited (the "Company") for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2002, and the transition period from April 1, 2002 to June 30,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
I, Krishna K. Subramanian, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Executive for
International Initiatives and of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)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 results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  February 15, 2003       By:   /s/ Krishna K. Subramanian
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Krishna K. Subramanian
                                    Acting Chief Financial Officer and
                                    Executive for International Initiatives and
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


     This certification accompanies this Annual Report and Transition Report on
Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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 696)    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® 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® Contract 1104 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-879, K2025-880.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31686 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Mario Dwayne Brown

, * From the 1 42nd District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR52672

.

Vs. No. 11

- 20

- 00 033

- CR * December 16, 2021

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Trotter

, J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is an

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

we modify the trial court ’s judgment and the district clerk’s bill of cost s to delete

the $4,600 court

- appointed attorney’s fees that were assessed against Appellant.

As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
EXHIBIT 32

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

                      18 U.S.C 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB of Mass Megawatts Wind
Power,  Inc.  (the  Company) for the period ended October 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Jonathon
Ricker,  the  Principal  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of  2002,  that,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge:

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

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


Dated:    12/13/04                      By:  /s/ Jonathan Ricker
        --------------                     ---------------------------------
                                           Jonathan Ricker
                                           Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Chief Financial Officer and
                                           Principal Accounting Officer


                                                                               1
<PAGE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40553 (Summary Calendar)

DANNY RENE SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
BILL SKINNER, SHERIFF OF WOOD COUNTY, WILLIAM “BILL” COHEN, JAIL ADMINISTRATOR, JAMES ROBERTS, DEPUTY, NOEL MARTIN, DEPUTY, JAMES TURNER, DEPUTY, CHUCK HOUGHTON, DEPUTY AND JAILER, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (USDC No. 6:96-CV-463)

- - - - - - - - - - December 17, 1997 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Danny Rene Smith, Texa s prisoner number 708840, appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. Smith alleged confiscation of personal property, that the prison food was inadequate, and that he was kept in “isolationsegregation” in violation of his due process rights as a pretrial
detainee. He also requests appointment of appellate counsel. The2

request for appointment of appellate counsel is DENIED.
Smith’s motion for a “special monitor” is frivolous. It is
therefore DENIED.

A pretrial de tainee’s claims that conditions of confinement

are unconstitutional is reviewed under the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment. S ee Bell v. Wolfish , 441 U.S. 520, 535-

37 ( 1979); H are v. City of Corinth, Miss. , 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th
Cir. 1996)( en banc ). Smith had no due process right to be assigned

to the general prison population. M itchell v. Sheriff Dept.,
Lubbock County, Tex. , 995 F.2d 60, 62-63 (5th Cir. 1993).
Smith’s claim regarding the prison food is equally meritless.

He has not shown that the food was no t reasonably adequate and consisting of sufficient nutritional value, or that he was not regularly fed. G reen v. Ferrell , 801 F.2d 765, 770-71 and n.5 (5th
Cir. 1986).
Smith’s confiscation-of-property claim was adjudicated in his prior § 1983 action; he does not argue that res judicata does not apply, and he has not alleged that another co nfiscation occurred subsequent to that adjudication.

S mith’s appeal is without arguable merit, and it is thus
frivolou s. S ee Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). It is therefore DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Smith’s complaint and this

court’s dismissal of the appeal count as two “strikes” under the3

Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.
Alan Boyd CURTIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1210

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 06, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

In his petition for writ of mandamus, petitioner seeks to compel the circuit court to render a written order of revocation of probation after it failed to do so following an August 10, 2007, hearing in which it revoked petitioner's probation and imposed new sentences. We grant the petition and order the circuit court to render such an order. See Espinoza-Brito v. State, 246 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; Dawkins v. State, 936 So. 2d 710, 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; Greer v. State, 831 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ; State v. Sullivan, 640 So. 2d 77, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) ("If a trial court fails or refuses to enter a written order that is needed for an appeal, counsel has the remedy of filing a motion or a petition for writ of mandamus with this court to compel the trial court to enter such an order."). Because we are confident that the circuit court will promptly comply with the ruling of this court, we withhold formal issuance of the writ. Within 20 days of this order, the State of Florida shall file in this court a copy of the circuit court's written order of revocation of probation.

NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
# C_2022276EN.01000902.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 276/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2022 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-151/20) (1)

(Own resources of the European Union - Financial liability of a Member State - Import duties - Payment to the Commission of amounts corresponding to non-recovered own resources - Action based on unjust enrichment of the European Union - Obligations of a Member State with regard to own resources - Obligation to lodge a security - Exemption from making available amounts corresponding to established entitlements declared irrecoverable)

(2022/C 276/14)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and O. Serdula, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Materne and P. Němečková, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: S. Baeyens and J.-C. Halleux, Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, Agent).

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking repayment of the sum of 40 482 255 Czech koruny (CZK) paid in respect of the European Union’s own resources.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Upholds the Czech Republic’s action in so far as it concerns the repayment by the European Commission of the sum of 17 828 399,66 Czech koruny (CZK) paid in respect of the European Union’s own resources; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Upholds the Czech Republic’s action in so far as it concerns the repayment by the European Commission of the sum of 17 828 399,66 Czech koruny (CZK) paid in respect of the European Union’s own resources;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.

---
Rockford Lewis UPTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4241

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 03, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
T.L.B.P. and S.L.P. v. LEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160275

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**INTERVIDEO, INC.**

 

**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

InterVideo, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-107441 and 333-124542) of InterVideo, Inc. of our report dated March 31,2005 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of InterVideo, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the yearsin the two-year period ended December 31, 2004, which report appears in the December 31, 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K of InterVideo, Inc. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Mountain View, California 

March 31, 2006
Reuben ELLIS and Lasunda Ellis V. Quincy T. QUIETT, Bella Noche, Good Life Productions, XYZ Insurance Co., Plaza Holdings, and ABC Security Co.

No. 2019-C-0065

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE**

PER CURIAM:

*888**WRIT GRANTED.** In accordance with La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(D), as mover, Plaza Holdings, LLC ("Plaza Holdings") bore the initial burden of proof in its motion for summary judgment, and it introduced the lease in support of its assertion that it owed no duty to plaintiff, Reuben Ellis. Because Plaza Holdings will not bear the burden of proof at trial that it had a duty to protect Ellis from the criminal acts of third persons, Plaza Holdings' burden was "to point out to the court the absence of factual support for one or more elements essential" to the plaintiff's claims.

We find that Plaza Holdings met its burden of pointing out the absence of a duty, legal or contractually assumed, owed to plaintiff. We disagree with the court of appeal that the provisions of the lease agreement "conflict"; instead, we find that the following clause supersedes and overrides other provisions of the lease: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, contained in this section or elsewhere in this Lease, even though a portion of the Common Facilities Costs will be used to provide security services with respect to the Common Areas, Lessor does not assume any responsibility for security." Based upon the clear and unambiguous language of the lease agreement, Plaza Holdings did not contractually assume a duty to provide security.

Therefore, pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 966, the burden then shifted to Reuben Ellis "to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law." *Id.* Plaintiff, who introduced no evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, failed to meet this burden.

For the foregoing reasons, we grant this writ, reinstate the district court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Plaza Holdings, LLC, and dismiss the claims of Reuben Ellis with prejudice.
Christopher JONES v. STATE

CR-16-0468

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 4, 2017 Reh. denied September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.