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 7, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby                           ( print page 1204)                        gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1225 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1034, K2025-1033.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00051 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
No. 69348 

FILED 

JAN 1 4 2016 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

PAUL ROBERTS, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND CHARLES THOMPSON, 

SENIOR JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

In this original petition for a writ of mandamus, petitioner 

Paul Roberts challenges an order of the district court allowing the State to 

amend the information pursuant to NRS 173.035(2). Roberts argues that 

the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by granting leave to 

amend the information without a proper affidavit after a motion to add the 

charges was denied by the justice court at the preliminary hearing. 

We conclude that Roberts has not demonstrated that the 

district court manifestly abused or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its 

discretion and decline to exercise our discretion to consider his petition. 

See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 

851 (1991) (holding that it is within this court's discretion whether to 

consider a writ petition); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court 

(Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining 

manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); Pan v. 

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e aU 
(concluding that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that 

extraordinary relief is warranted). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.' 

Saitta 

a. 

Pickering 

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 

Hon. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge 

Mueller Hinds & Associates 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

"We direct the clerk of this court to correct the caption on the docket 

sheet to conform to the caption on this order. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e
George E. WILLIAMS v. Charles PAYNE

2160780

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
© 2023 Fannie Mae

Tips for a 

successful 

interview

Before Your Interview

Preparation is key! Getting to know more about Fannie Mae and preparing yourself will lead to a 

comfortable, successful interview.

Learn about Fannie Mae – Who We Are and 

What We Do

• Check out our Careers website to hear from 

our employees and learn about our Teams.

• Follow us on social media: LinkedIn, 

Instagram, Twitter

Prepare a brief pitch to tell us about yourself. Be 

ready to discuss employment history, career goals, 

and past projects in addition to showcasing your 

skills and how they’re related to the job.

Create a list of questions for the interviewer to 

demonstrate your preparation and care. 

Practice answering and asking questions in 

advance. This will help you feel more comfortable 

and focused during the interview.

Prepare for behavioral interview questions by 

practicing with the “CAR” method. This means you 

should respond to a behavioral interview question 

by first explaining the circumstance, your actions, 

and the result in the situation.

Come prepared. Get a good night’s rest and 

breakfast, bring a pen and paper for notes, 

and dress professionally.

Interviewing for a new job can be stressful, but Fannie Mae’s recruitment team is 

here to help. Check out these expert tips that can help you prepare and ace your 

interview. We hope you’ll join our team. 
© 2023 Fannie Mae

Technical Tips For 

Virtual Interviews

Virtual interviews present 

unique considerations for 

candidates. Being prepared 

before and during a virtual 

interview will help support a 

smooth experience.

Preparing For Virtual Interviews

• Consider your location. Make sure that the area is quiet, well-lit, 

and free from distractions and clutter.

• Ensure that you are not sitting in front of a window as this will 

make you hard to see on camera. 

• Conduct a virtual mock interview with a friend to check your 

location. This will also allow you to check your technology and 

ensure good audio clarity and internet connectivity. 

• If you have connection issues the day of your interview, reach 

out to your coordinator immediately.

• Plan a professional or business-casual outfit for your interview.

During Your Interview

Have fun!

Interviews can be stressful, but we encourage our 

candidates to enjoy the experience as we get to 

know each other and to take pride in showing us 

why you are a great fit for the role and enthusiastic 

about the opportunity.

Have a call-back plan

Establish a call-back plan with the interviewer 

in case you have technical difficulties. 

Listen attentively

During the interview, there may be an audio delay; 

remember to give the interviewer plenty of time to 

finish speaking before you respond. Additionally, let 

the interviewer know if you cannot hear them clearly 

during the interview.

Think out loud

Use the interview to highlight your communication 

skills and problem solving techniques by taking time to 

discuss your approach and problem-solving steps. Most 

importantly, be yourself! We value your interview as a 

way to get to know you, your interests, and career goals.
# C_2023024EN.01003501.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2022 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-469/20) (1)

(State aid - Netherlands law prohibiting the use of coal for the production of electricity - Anticipated closure of a coal-powered power plant - Grant of compensation - Decision not to raise objections - Decision declaring the compensation compatible with the internal market - No express classification as ‘State aid’ - Action for annulment - Act open to challenge - Admissibility - Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Legal certainty)

(2023/C 24/48)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. de Ree and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Kingdom of the Netherlands seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 2998 final of 12 May 2020 on State aid SA.54537 (2020/NN) — Netherlands, Prohibition of coal for the production of electricity in the Netherlands.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 2998 final of 12 May 2020 on State aid SA.54537 (2020/NN) — Netherlands, Prohibition of coal for the production of electricity in the Netherlands; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 2998 final of 12 May 2020 on State aid SA.54537 (2020/NN) — Netherlands, Prohibition of coal for the production of electricity in the Netherlands;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.

---
# C_2018083EN.01002301.xml

| 5.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/23

---

Order of the General Court of 16 January 2018 — fritz-kulturgüter v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (fritz-wasser)

(Case T-862/16) (1)

1

(2018/C 083/35)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

1

---
# C_2022244EN.01002601.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — MF v eu-LISA

(Case T-568/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Post occupied requiring security clearance - Clearance refused by the national security authority - Termination of the contract - No request for a hearing - Right to be heard within the meaning of Article 11(5)(b) of Decision 2015/444)

(2022/C 244/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MF (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (represented by: M. Chiodi, acting as Agent, and by A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 4 September 2020, the applicant seeks annulment, first, of the decision of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) of 29 October 2019 terminating his employment contract and, second, to the extent necessary, of the decision of eu-LISA of 26 May 2020 rejecting his complaint of 29 January 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders MF to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders MF to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.

---
1936.

#### COPELAND *v.*WILCOX.

The only material error committed during the progress of the case in the court below can be remedied by direction; therefore the ease will not be • unconditionally reversed, but will be affirmed with direction.

Foreclosure of mortgage, from city court of Cairo — Judge Singletary. May 5, 1909.

Submitted July 16, —

Decided July 31, 1909.

*B. G. Bell,*for plaintiff.

*Ledford & Terrell,*for defendant.

Powell, J.

Copeland brought an action against Wilcox on a note and mortgage given for the purchase-price of two mules. The defendant’s plea as finally amended set up that the plaintiff had represented and warranted that the mules were perfectly sound in every respect, and that one of them — the one of the greater value' — was not sound, but was worthless; that soon after the trade had been consummated and the note and mortgage given, *560tlie defendant, discovering this fact, tendered back the mules and demanded a rescission. He further set up that, the defendant having refused to take hack the mules, he was obliged to keep them and care for them, and he had thus been put to expense greater in amount than the sum he had received from the use of the mule which was not worthless. The jury returned a verdict rescinding the sale, and awarding the defendant $50 damages against the plaintiff on account of the expense to which the defendant had been put in caring for the mules. There was a special demurrer to that portion of the defense in which the defendant set up that his expense in caring for the mules exceeded the value of the use of the sound mule, and the court overruled the special demurrer. This ruling was erroneous, for the allegations as to this item were entirely too vague, indefinite, and equivocal to withstand the specific attack. However, after examining the whole record, we find that except in this respect the trial was perfectly fair, and that the jury was fully authorized to find in favor of the plea of rescission. Full justice may, therefore, be reached in the case without an unconditional reversal, for if the defendant will write off the recovery which was awarded him for his expense, the error caused by the ruling on the special demurrer to this' portion of the plea will be cured. We therefore affirm the judgment, on condition that the defendant will write off from his recovery the amount allowed in his favor by the jury; otherwise a new trial will result. *Judgment affirmed, on condition.*
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.




February  16,
      2010
            /s/ Gary BertholdGary
      Berthold (Chief Executive Officer)February
      16, 2010
            /s/ Jan KaplanJan
      Kaplan (Chief Financial Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-62-2024]

Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 49, Notification of Proposed Production 
Activity; Sanofi US Services Inc.; (Pharmaceutical Products); 
Ridgefield, New Jersey

    Sanofi US Services Inc. submitted a notification of proposed 
production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in 
Ridgefield, New Jersey within FTZ 49. The notification conforming to 
the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was 
received on December 18, 2024.
    Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be 
limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and 
specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification 
(summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The 
benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ 
procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's 
website--accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    The proposed finished product is Beyfortus[supreg] (Nirsevimab)--
dosage form vaccine (duty-free).
    The proposed foreign-status materials/components include 
Beyfortus[supreg] (Nirsevimab monoclonal antibody active pharmaceutical 
ingredient)--unmixed and mixed drug substance (duty-free).
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to: 
[email protected]. The closing period for their receipt is February 18, 
2025.
    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection 
in the ``Online FTZ Information System'' section of the Board's 
website.
    For further information, contact Diane Finver at 
[email protected].

    Dated: December 31, 2024.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-31702 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: GIS

Filters

              - science_science(2)
              - products_data(2)
              - products_publications(3)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(16)
              - alaska(43)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(39)
              - arkansas(8)
              - california(66)
              - colorado(52)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(12)
              - delaware(15)
              - district of columbia(13)
              - florida(34)
              - georgia(9)
              - hawaii(11)
              - idaho(39)
              - illinois(6)
              - indiana(6)
              - iowa(8)
              - kansas(5)
              - kentucky(3)
              - louisiana(28)
              - maine(15)
              - maryland(24)
              - massachusetts(25)
              - michigan(5)
              - minnesota(8)
              - mississippi(14)
              - missouri(9)
              - montana(43)
              - nebraska(6)
              - nevada(21)
              - new hampshire(11)
              - new jersey(18)
              - new mexico(13)
              - new york(23)
              - north carolina(10)
              - north dakota(10)
              - ohio(7)
              - oklahoma(10)
              - oregon(29)
              - (-)pennsylvania(9)
              - puerto rico(4)
              - rhode island(8)
              - south carolina(8)
              - south dakota(28)
              - tennessee(7)
              - texas(24)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(23)
              - vermont(7)
              - virginia(34)
              - washington(40)
              - west virginia(10)
              - wisconsin(19)
              - wyoming(28)

## By Year

              - 2024(2)

Topic        March 8, 2018        GIS Data Archive for Selected Studies in Pennsylvania

Data Release        May 2, 2022        Prospect- and Mine-Related Features from U.S. Geological Survey 7.5- and 15-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps of the United States (ver. 10.0, May 2023)

staff profileMatthew Conlon

Data Release        December 10, 2020        Bayesian modeling of NURE airborne radiometric data for the conterminous United States: predictions and grids

publication        November 11, 2010        Pennsylvania StreamStats: A web-based application for obtaining water-resource-related information

publication        October 2, 2005        Preliminary integrated geologic map databases for the United States: Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

publication        November 5, 2014        Using ecological indicators and a decision support system for integrated ecological assessment at two national park units in the Mid-Atlantic region, U.S.A.

staff profileW. David Walter, PhD

Project        September 30, 2016        Appalachian Plateau Groundwater Availablity Study
INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. Raymond PHILLIPS, Dawn Phillips and Cristobal Padron, Appellees.

No. 4D18-736

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
----

| (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                registrant. |

|  August              9,              2006 |                                        |                                                                                              |
|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      |                                   |                                                                                         |
|                            |                                   | /s/ Peter              T.              Socha         |
|                                           | Peter                T. Socha               |
|                                           | Title:              Chief Executive Officer |
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

In RE: SIO2 FABRICATING, LLC § Case Number: 24-40215-ELM-7

§

Debtor(s) § Chapter: 7

REQUEST FOR NOTICE UNDER BANKRUPTCY RULE 2002

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Ally Bank hereby gives notice as follows:

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §342(f)(1), AIS Portfolio Services, LLC hereby requests that:

(i) all notices given or required to be given in the case; and

(ii) all pleadings and correspondence served or required to be served in this case,

regarding Ally Bank should be directed to AIS Portfolio Services, LLC at the following mailing address effective

immediately:

Attn: Ally Bank Department

AIS Portfolio Services, LLC

Account: XXXXXXXX4866

4515 N Santa Fe Ave. Dept. APS

Oklahoma City, OK 73118

This request encompasses all notices, copies and pleadings referred to in Rules 2002, 9007 or 9008 of the

Bankruptcy Rules, including, without limitation, notices of any Orders, Motions, Demands, Complaints, Petitions,

Pleadings, Requests, Applications, Schedules, Statements, Plans, and any other documents brought before this court

in this case, whether formal or informal, written or oral, or transmitted or conveyed by mail, delivery, telephone,

telecopier, telex, or otherwise which affects or seeks to affect the above case.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Amitkumar Sharma

Amitkumar Sharma

Claims Processor

Bankruptcy Servicer for Ally Bank

AIS Portfolio Services, LLC

4515 N Santa Fe Ave. Dept. APS

Oklahoma City, OK 73118

(888)455-6662, Fax (817) 461-8070

ECFNotices@aisinfo.com

File # 1584879

Case 24-40215-elm7 Doc 8 Filed 01/26/24 Entered 01/26/24 05:11:20 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Mark P. HAYE, Appellant, v. Stephanie M. WELDON, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2947

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.