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 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 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 575 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1016, K2025-1015.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00042 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
UNPUBLISHED

Filed: May 30, 2001

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1677

VULCAN CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED;

VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,*

versus

PHILLIP J. BARKER, d/b/a Sabra Asia,

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER

_______________

On May 29, 2001, at 11:55 a.m., E.D.T., Judge Widener entered

an order as a single judge under F.R.A.P. 8 due to the requirements

of time, which order stayed an order of the district court entered

in this case which enjoined Barker from appearing in any other

proceeding in any other court until the Vulcan plaintiffs’ petition

to vacate the California arbitration award had been disposed of in

the district court for the Western District of Virginia.

On that same day, May 29, 2001, the Vulcan plaintiffs filed a

motion for reconsideration of Judge Widener’s order of May 29, and
also on that same day our clerk’s office assigned Judge Motz and

Judge King as the other members of a panel to review Judge

Widener’s said order.

In their said motion for reconsideration filed May 29, 2001,

the Vulcan defendants requested immediate consideration of that

motion, noting in the motion and by letter that the California

Superior Court had set a hearing on the merits of the case, among

other things, for today, May 30, at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time (5:00

p.m. E.D.T.).

The panel has considered on its merits the motion of the

Vulcan defendants to reconsider the said order of Judge Widener of

May 29, and, in so doing, it has considered all of the papers,

including letters, submitted to it by the attorneys.

The panel is of opinion that the said order of Judge Widener

of May 29, 2001 is free from error.

It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said motion of

the Vulcan defendants for reconsideration of Judge Widener’s order

of May 29, 2001 shall be, and the same hereby is, denied.

With the concurrences of Judge Motz and Judge King.

Entered at 2:50 p.m. E.D.T. May 30, 2001.

/s/

__________________________

H. E. Widener, Jr.

For the Court

* The plaintiffs here are the defendants in the case in the

California state court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LAI WORLDWIDE FOR THE YEAR ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1999, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                          29,899
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,669
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,250
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,975
<PP&E>                                          13,749
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,228
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,842
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   103,823
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,811
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   92,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   370
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (618)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,785)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,547)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,238)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.58)


</TABLE>
The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of

the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3311

___________

Juanita Whitson, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

Union Electric Company, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: January 6, 1998

 Filed: January 12, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juanita Whitson appeals from the district court&s dismissal of her complaint.

1

After reviewing the record and the parties& briefs, we conclude that the judgment of the

district court was correct, and that an extended opinion would have no precedential

value. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BILLY RAY PRITCHETT, § 

Petitioner, §

§ No. 3:04-CV-1198-N

v. §

§

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

Respondent. §

ORDER

This Court has made an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this

case, and the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge,

filed April 26, 2006. Additionally, this Court has considered the Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge with respect to Petitioner’s objections. 

The findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge with respect to the objections are correct,

and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Petitioner’s objections are

overruled. The April 26, 2006 findings and conclusions are correct and they are adopted as the

findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the United States Magistrate Judge both with respect to the petition and with respect to the

objections are adopted.

SIGNED November 17, 2006.

__________________________________________ 

 DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01198-N Document 18 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 104
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

PENNSYLVANIA LAND HOLDINGS 

COMPANY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED 

LIABILITY COMPANY, AND 

PENNSYLVANIA SERVICES 

CORPORATION, A DELAWARE 

CORPORATION, AND GENERAL 

PARTNER, TRADING AS CUMBERLAND 

COAL RESOURCES, LP, A DELAWARE 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 

 Respondents 

 v. 

ROBERT W. REED AND KAREN REED, 

 Petitioners 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 293 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter.
George RADA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1465

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JULIE A. GALPIN, *

* No. 17-588V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: August 4, 2021

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; Influenza (“flu”) vaccine; 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * SIRVA; shoulder injury.

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Richard H. Moeller, Moore, Heffernan, et al., Sioux City, IA, for Petitioner;

Wei K. Tai, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On August 3, 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the 

petition for compensation filed by Julie Galpin on May 2, 2017. Petitioner alleged 

that the influenza (“flu”)vaccine she received on August 26, 2016, which is 

contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), caused 

her to suffer from a right-sided shoulder injury related to vaccination 

administration (“SIRVA”). Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual 

effects of this injury for more than six months. Petitioner represents that there has 

been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a 

result of her condition.

Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer from 

SIRVA or any other injury. 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The 

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the 

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $30,000.00 in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that 

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, 

the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this decision and the attached 

stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each 

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal 

Claims judge.
# C_2017053EN.01003301.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/33

---

Action brought on 22 December 2016 — SilverTours v EUIPO (billiger-mietwagen.de)

(Case T-866/16)

(2017/C 053/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: SilverTours GmbH (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: P. Neuwald, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘billiger-mietwagen.de’ — Application No 14 343 099

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2016 in Case R 206/2016-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Executive Order 14139

# Providing an Order of Succession Within the Office of the National Cyber Director

                    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 3345*et seq*. (the “Act”), it is hereby ordered that:                 

**Section 1**                    .                     *Order of Succession*. Subject to the provisions of section 2 of this order, and to the limitations set forth in the Act, the following officials of the Office of the National Cyber Director, in the order listed, shall act as and perform the functions and duties of the office of the National Cyber Director (Director) during any period in which the Director has died, resigned, or otherwise become unable to perform the functions and duties of the office of Director:                 

(a) Deputy National Cyber Director;

(b) Chief of Staff;

(c) Assistant National Cyber Director for Policy Development;

(d) Assistant National Cyber Director for Policy Implementation;

(e) Assistant National Cyber Director for Resource Management and Administration; and

(f) General Counsel.

**Sec. 2**                    .                     *Exceptions*. (a) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 1(a)-(f) of this order in an acting capacity shall, by virtue of so serving, act as Director pursuant to this order.                

(b) No individual who is serving in an office listed in section 1(a)-(f) of this order shall act as Director unless that individual is otherwise eligible to so serve under the Act.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of this order, the President retains discretion, to the extent permitted by law, to depart from this order in designating an acting Director.

**Sec. 3**                    .                     *General Provisions*. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:                

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[FR Doc. 2025-00620

Billing code 3395-F4-P
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.,SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer of U.S. Fuel Corporation (formerly Nuclear Solutions, Inc.), (the “Company”), herby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”)
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. 
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by
it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





|By: | /s/ Harry Bagot         |  |                       
|--- | ----------------------- |  | ----------------------
|    | Harry Bagot             |  |                       
|    | Chief Executive Officer |  | Dated: August 1, 2013.
EXHIBIT 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and each of the undersigned directors of the
Company, hereby constitutes and appoints Stephen Adams, Joe McAdams and Mark J. Boggess, and each of them (with full power to each of them to act alone), its/his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, for it/him and on its/his behalf in its/his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities to sign, execute, affix its/his seal thereto and file
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including any amendment or amendments
thereto, with all exhibits and any all documents required to be filed with respect thereto with any regulatory authority.

There
is hereby granted to said attorneys, and each of the, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing, requisite and necessary to be done in respect of
the foregoing as fully as it/he or itself/himself might or could do if personally present, thereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any
of them, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

This
Power of Attorney may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument
and any of the undersigned directors may execute this Power of Attorney by signing any such counterpart.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC. has caused this Power of Attorney to be executed in its name by its President and Chief Executive Officer as of the
1st day of March, 2001.

| |  | AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.
| |  | ----------------------------
| |  | By:                         

75

---

The
undersigned directors of AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC., a Delaware corporation, have hereunto set their hands as of the 1st day of March 2001.

|/s/Stephen Adams   |  |  |  | /s/Thomas A. Donnelly
|------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------
|/s/
Joe B. McAdams |  |  |  | /s/David B. Garvin   
|/s/Wayne Boysen    |  |  |  | /s/David Frith-Smith 
|/s/John Ehlert     |  |  |  | /s/George Parker     

76

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CallWave, Inc. (the Company) for the year
ended June 30,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey Cavins, President and Chief Executive Officer 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, to my knowledge 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    Jeffrey Cavins                
|                  |  |  |  | Jeffrey Cavins,                      
|                  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2018408EN.01002101.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — X, Y v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-180/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common policy on asylum and subsidiary protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46 - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 13 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 18, Article 19(2) and Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Principle of non-refoulement - Decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return - National legislation providing for a second level of jurisdiction - Automatic suspensory effect limited to the action at first instance))

(2018/C 408/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: X, Y

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection and Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in the light of Articles 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, whilst making provision for appeals against judgments delivered at first instance upholding a decision rejecting an application for international protection and imposing an obligation to return, does not confer on that remedy automatic suspensory effect even in the case where the person concerned invokes a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

---