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.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 18, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1105 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-880, K2025-881.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31687 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 13.1

                            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 Galen Holdings PLC (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Roger M. Boissonneault, 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, 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: January 5, 2004

/s/ Roger M. Boissonneault
------------------------------
Name: Roger M. Boissonneault
Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                       8
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Donald K. Peterson, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Avaya Inc.

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
December 12, 2003

| |  | /s/DONALD K. PETERSONDonald K. Peterson Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PATRICIA MCSPARRAN,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 445 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

James Cowan and Nancy Cowan, * From the 266th District Court

 of Erath County,

 Trial Court No. 34694

Vs. No. 11-20-00041-CV * January 6, 2022

Rex Worrell and Paige Worrell-Burrus, * Opinion by Williams, J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

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

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by 

reason of this appeal are taxed against James Cowan and Nancy Cowan.
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 Great American Family Parks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard W. Jackson, Chief 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 Entertainment Is Us, Inc. and will be retained by Entertainment Is Us, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  August 10, 2006   /s/ Richard W. JacksonRichard W. JacksonChief Financial Officer
# C_2017112EN.01005102.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/51

---

Order of the General Court of 7 February 2017 — Starbucks (HK) v EUIPO — Now Wireless (nowwireless)

(Case T-908/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 112/72)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 13.2.2017.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Systems Management
Solutions, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

      To my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the
year ended June 30, 2004 (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 operations of the Company.

Dated: October 12, 2004


                                  BY: /s/ Jim Karlak
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      JIM KARLAK
                                      PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
March 29, 1965

Mr. Eldon Jeffrey8 Executive Secretary Opinion No. C-408 State Board of Barber Examiners Re: Whether the Texas Barber Austin, Texas Law can be interpreted to make it legal for a mobile barber shopmounted on a truck, to operate on the streets of a city, going from door to door to renBearMr. Jeffreys: der barber services.

You have requested an opinion from this offlceupon the following question:

"Could the Texas Barber Law be interpreted tomake it legal for a mobile barber shopmounted on a truck, to operate on the streets of a city going from door to door to give barber services?" Article 729, Vernon's Penal Code, provides that: "Everyperson owning,operatingormanaging a barber shop or beauty parlor shall register his full name and the location of said shop or ~parlorIn a book to be kept in the office of State Board of Health for that purpose, and every owner, operator ormanager of a barber shop or beauty parlor that is first opened for business hereafter shallwithin five days after the opening of such shop or parlor register,in likemanner. In event of a change in themanager or location of any such shop or parlor, themanager of same shall call at or communicateby mail with saidboard within five days after such change takes place and lnform saidboard thereof." (Emphasisadded). Section 4 of Article 73&a,Vernon's Penal Code, provides in part that:

-1934-Mr. Eldon Jeffreys,page 2 (C- 408)

'Barber shop,as definedherein, shall lace where barbering ispracticed ??thb

. . !(Emphaslsadded). A study of Article 73&a, the Texas Barber Law, falls to disclose any specificprohibitionagainst operatingmobile barber shops. In fact, Section 4 of Article 73&a sets forth that a barber shop shallmean any place where barbering Is practiced. This would seem to includemobile shopsas well as ones located at a fixed and permanent site. SUMMARY The provisions of Article 73&a,Vernon's Penal Code, the Texas Barber Law, would not prohibit the operation ofmobile barber shops. Very truly yours, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General

PB:mkh APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman Howard Fender Harry Gee John Reeves Harold Kennedy APPROVED FOR TRE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Stanton Stone

-1935-
1

Under Rule 9(b), the court must comply with the requirements of Rule 9(a). Rule 9(a)(1)

provides, in pertinent part, that the court must state in writing the reasons for an order regarding the

detention of a defendant in a criminal case. 

2

The other elements of § 3143(b) are not pertinent. McBirney does not pose a danger to the

community, and he is not prosecuting this appeal for purposes of delay. The court assumes

arguendo that he does not present a risk of flight.

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Criminal No. 3:04-CR-059-D

VS. §

 §

EDWIN T. McBIRNEY, III, §

 §

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 AND ORDER 

Defendant Edwin T. McBirney, III (“McBirney”) moves the court pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3143(b) for release on bond pending appeal. For the reasons that follow, see Fed. R. App. P.

9(a)(1) and (b),1 the court denies the motion.

Section 3143(b) provides that a defendant who has been found guilty of an offense and

sentenced to a term of imprisonment shall be detained unless the judicial officer finds, inter alia,

that the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact.2 A substantial question of law or fact is

one that is nonfrivolous and novel, raising substantial doubt as to the outcome of its resolution, with

the defendant required to show that a contrary appellate ruling would more probably than not result

in reversal, an order for a new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a

reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the

 

 Case 3:04-cr-00059-D Document 140 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1016
- 2 -

expected duration of the appeal process. See § 3143(b)(1)(B)(i)-(iv); United States v. ValeraElizondo, 761 F.2d 1020, 1022-25 (5th Cir. 1985).

To obtain release pending appeal, McBirney relies on two principal issues to contend that

his appeal will result in reversal and possible dismissal of all or most of the charges against him

and/or a new trial. These arguments were presented in his post-verdict motions, and the court

rejected them in its August 21, 2006 memorandum opinion and order. See United States v.

McBirney, 2006 WL 2432675 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2006) (Fitzwater, J.). For the reasons set out in

that memorandum opinion and order, which the court applies in full to the present decision, the court

holds that McBirney has not demonstrated a substantial question of law or fact under the standard

explained in Valera-Elizondo. 

* * *

McBirney’s October 17, 2006 motion for release on bond pending appeal is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

October 25, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cr-00059-D Document 140 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1017
Exhibit 32.1



Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b)
or

Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
NGP Capital Resources Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen K. Gardner, 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,
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, as amended; 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:  August 7, 2012



| | /s/ Stephen K. Gardner               
| | -------------------------------------
| | Stephen K. Gardner                   
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2021382EN.01002601.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/26

---

Order of the General Court of 15 July 2021 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of an orange square containing seven concentric black circles)

(Case T-455/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark depicting an orange square containing seven concentric black circles - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 382/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Bergmann, F. Ferrari and L. Goglia, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2020 (Case R 2385/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Wallmax and Roxtec.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Roxtec AB shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Roxtec AB shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

| 3. | Wallmax Srl shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Wallmax Srl shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.

---
EX PARTE Ricky Dewayne BOOTH

CR-16-0816

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40182

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE JIMENEZ-PALACIOS, also known as Jose Jimenez-Palacio,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-1079-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Jimenez-Palacios has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jimenez-Palacios has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 11 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-15625

 

D. C. Docket No. 04-03399 CV-JTC-1

HAL B. PARKERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ORIX FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,

ORIX USA CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

 

(June 11, 2007)

Before DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge.

PER CURIAM:

______________________________

*Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by

designation.
2

The appellant, Hal Parkerson, appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment for the appellees, Orix Financial Services, Inc., Orix USA

Corp., Orix Capital Markets, LLC, and Orix Commercial Alliance Corp., on

Parkerson’s claims of age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination

Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623, et seq., and retaliation, in violation

of the ADEA and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.

It is clear to us, based on the district court’s order and concessions made by

counsel at oral argument, that the district court reviewed the entire record that was

before the magistrate judge when she issued her Report and Recommendation. 

Furthermore, we conclude that Parkerson failed to carry his burden of

demonstrating pretext. Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.
Case 3:03-mc-00113 Document 1 Filed 12/23/03 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1
Case 3:03-mc-00113 Document 1 Filed 12/23/03 Page 2 of 6 PageID 2
Case 3:03-mc-00113 Document 1 Filed 12/23/03 Page 3 of 6 PageID 3
Case 3:03-mc-00113 Document 1 Filed 12/23/03 Page 4 of 6 PageID 4
Case 3:03-mc-00113 Document 1 Filed 12/23/03 Page 5 of 6 PageID 5
Case 3:03-mc-00113 Document 1 Filed 12/23/03 Page 6 of 6 PageID 6
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2509-051]

PE Hydro Generation, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an 
Environmental Assessment

    On January 3, 2022, the PE Hydro Generation, LLC filed a subsequent 
minor license application for the 862-kilowatt Shenandoah Hydroelectric 
Project No. 2509 (project). The project is located on the South Fork of 
the Shenandoah River near the Town of Shenandoah in Page and 
Rockingham, Counties, Virginia.
    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on October 18, 
2024, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for 
environmental analysis (REA Notice). Based on the information in the 
record, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would 
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to license the 
project.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's 
regulations, the unique identification number for documents relating 
to this environmental review is EAXX-019-20-000-1734604304. 40 CFR 
1501.5(c)(4) (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested 
parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and 
considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports 
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission 
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, 
environmental justice communities, Tribal members, and others, access 
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For 
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as 
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is 
encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or [email protected].
    The application will be processed according to the following 
schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues EA.................  December 31, 2025.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Kristine 
Sillett at (202) 502-6575 or [email protected].

    Dated: December 31, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-00086 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
Michael S. WINTERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0063

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Julie PHAM, Appellant, v. John A. DARNELL, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2023

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 15, 2019

Julie Pham, Champaign, Illinois, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, EISNAUGLE and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
F.S. v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160754

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.