alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2422 

KOFFI KPOGNON,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A76-781-031)

Submitted: August 28, 2006 Decided: September 19, 2006

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C., for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.

Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol Federighi, Senior

Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil

Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Although Kpognon subsequently presented the claim to the

Board in a motion to reconsider, no petition for review of the

Board’s order denying that motion has been filed.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Koffi Kpognon, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“Board”) denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We

have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the

Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Kpognon’s motion to

reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006). We conclude

that Kpognon’s equitable tolling argument was not administratively

exhausted and is therefore not properly before the court. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(d)(1) (2000) (“A court may review a final order of removal

only if the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies

available . . . .”); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th

Cir. 2004) (holding court lacks jurisdiction to consider a claim

that was not raised before the Board and was therefore not

exhausted under § 1252(d)(1)).* Accordingly, we deny the petition

for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re:

Kpognon, No. A76-781-031 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2005). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Case 3:04-cv-01853-P Document 20 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 296
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN FORM 10-K AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             9,300
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    196,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (7,100)
<INVENTORY>                                      343,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 559,000
<PP&E>                                           204,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (31,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,019,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            151,600
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             400
<OTHER-SE>                                       341,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,019,500
<SALES>                                        1,498,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,498,800
<CGS>                                          1,135,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,402,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (1,600)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                30,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   67,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                      27,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               40,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      40,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       1.07
        

</TABLE>
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 Trycera Financial (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned principal executive and financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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:  October 7, 2010








/s/ Bryan Kenyon


Bryan Kenyon, CFO


(Principal Financial Officer)
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 154 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Election Day as a Federal 

holiday. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. FITZPATRICK (for himself and Mrs. DINGELL) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish Election 

Day as a Federal holiday. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Election Day Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PATRIOT DAY. 

6 Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 

7 amended by inserting after the item relating to Columbus 

8 Day the following: 

9 ‘‘Election Day.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00056]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

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[supreg] 
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 Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1215 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1021, K2025-1020.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00056 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2017063EN.01003401.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/34

---

Action brought on 22 December 2016 — RRTec v EUIPO — Mobotec (RROFA)

(Case T-912/16)

(2017/C 063/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RRTec sp. z o.o. (Gliwice, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mobotec AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘RROFA’ — Application for registration No 12 699 534

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 2392/2015-1

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.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 880 

Supporting afterschool programs and Lights On Afterschool, a national 

celebration of afterschool programs held on October 24, 2024. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Ms. SMITH (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. KAINE, Mr. CASEY, Ms. WARREN, 

and Mr. BRAUN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered 

and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting afterschool programs and Lights On Afterschool, 

a national celebration of afterschool programs held on 

October 24, 2024. 

Whereas millions of children in the United States have parents who work outside the home; 

Whereas high-quality programs that expand learning opportunities for children, such as afterschool, before-school, 

summer, and expanded learning opportunities, provide 

safe, challenging, engaging, and fun learning experiences, 

including experiences that encourage the study of science, 

technology, engineering, and math that help children and 

youth develop social, emotional, physical, cultural, and 

academic skills; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 880 ATS 

Whereas high-quality afterschool programs and high-quality 

expanded learning opportunities provide students with 

hands-on, engaging lessons that are aligned with the 

school day; 

Whereas high-quality afterschool programs complement regular and expanded school days and support working families by ensuring that the children of those families are 

safe and productive during the hours parents are working; 

Whereas high-quality afterschool programs engage families, 

schools, and diverse community partners in advancing the 

well-being of children and youth in the United States; 

Whereas high-quality afterschool programs that partner with 

high-quality community-based organizations build stronger communities by integrating schools with the larger 

community; and 

Whereas Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of 

afterschool, before-school, summer, and expanded learning opportunities programs will be held on October 24, 

2024, to highlight the critical importance of those highquality programs to children and the families and communities of those children: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports Lights On After2 school, a national celebration of afterschool programs held 

3 on October 24, 2024. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. ENSLEY REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE, LLC, and Gilmer Drug Co.

1150842

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Case 7:04-cv-00114-R Document 4 Filed 11/01/04 Page 1 of 4 PageID 14
Case 7:04-cv-00114-R Document 4 Filed 11/01/04 Page 2 of 4 PageID 15
Case 7:04-cv-00114-R Document 4 Filed 11/01/04 Page 3 of 4 PageID 16
Case 7:04-cv-00114-R Document 4 Filed 11/01/04 Page 4 of 4 PageID 17
Case 3:04-cr-00289-O Document 197 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1407
 

 Case 3:04-cr-00289-O Document 197 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1408
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 1 of 20 PageID 50
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 2 of 20 PageID 51
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 3 of 20 PageID 52
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 4 of 20 PageID 53
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 5 of 20 PageID 54
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 6 of 20 PageID 55
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 7 of 20 PageID 56
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 8 of 20 PageID 57
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 9 of 20 PageID 58
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 10 of 20 PageID 59
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 11 of 20 PageID 60
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 12 of 20 PageID 61
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 13 of 20 PageID 62
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 14 of 20 PageID 63
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 15 of 20 PageID 64
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 16 of 20 PageID 65
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 17 of 20 PageID 66
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 18 of 20 PageID 67
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 19 of 20 PageID 68
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 10 Filed 06/16/03 Page 20 of 20 PageID 69
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0 569 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ZACARIAS WAYNE RAGSDALE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 14 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 9 2023

07/10/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0569
Joshua DIXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3457

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. JARROD KEVIN DIXON, a/k/a Jerod, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:02-cr-00441-TLW-1) Submitted: June 2, 2008 Decided: June 25, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorneys, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: On January 29, 2003, Jarrod Kevin Dixon was sentenced to seventy-one months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On December 13, 2007, the district court found Dixon in violation of the terms and conditions of his supervised release and sentenced him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment - the statutory maximum - and an additional one year term of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3) (2000); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). On appeal, Dixon asserts that the district court plainly erred in sentencing him to an additional year of supervised release. The Government agrees and has filed a motion to remand for resentencing. On January 26, 2002, when Dixon committed the underlying offense, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) permitted reimposition of supervised release only if the district court imposed less than the maximum prison term for a defendant’s supervised release violation. Thus, because the active prison term imposed upon Dixon for violation of supervised release was the statutory maximum, the imposition of an additional one year term of supervised release on Dixon constituted plain error that affected his substantial rights. United States v. Castorani , 88 F. App’x 552 (4th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (citing United States v. Maxwell , 285 F.3d 336, 342 (4th Cir. 2002).- 3 - Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s finding that Dixon violated the terms of supervised release, vacate the sentence imposed by the district court, and remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
Eric Mentail ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3286

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 6 (Friday, January 10, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 2059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00269]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 566]

Delegation of Authority; Authorities of the Under Secretary for 
Arms Control and International Security

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the 
laws of the United States, including section 1(a)(4) of the State 
Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(4)), I hereby 
delegate to C.S. Eliot Kang, to the extent authorized by law, all 
authorities vested in or delegated to the Under Secretary for Arms 
Control and International Security by any act, order, determination, 
delegation of authority, regulation, or executive order, now or 
hereafter issued.
    The Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Deputy Secretary for Management 
and Resources, and the Under Secretary for Management may exercise any 
function or authority delegated herein. This delegation of authority 
does not modify any other delegation of authority currently in effect.
    This delegation will be effective on December 31, 2024, and will 
expire upon the entry upon duty of a confirmed Under Secretary for Arms 
Control and International Security unless sooner revoked and shall be 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: December 20, 2024.
Antony J. Blinken,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2025-00269 Filed 1-8-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.5

                         EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST

                             ARTICLES SUPPLEMENTARY

     Equity Office Properties Trust, a Maryland real estate investment trust
(hereinafter called the "Trust"), hereby certifies to the State Department of
Assessments and Taxation of Maryland that:

     Pursuant to Section 3-802 of the Maryland General Corporation Law (the
"MGCL"), by resolution of the Board of Trustees of the Trust duly adopted at a
duly called meeting held on February 10, 2000, the Trust elected to be subject
to the provisions of Section 3-804(c) of the MGCL, subject to any rights
conferred by the Trust by provision in its declaration of trust as now or
hereafter in effect on holders of any class or series of preference or preferred
shares of the Trust now or hereafter created.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Trust has caused these Articles Supplementary to be
signed in its name and on its behalf by its President and Chief Executive
Officer and witnessed by its Secretary on February 28, 2000.

WITNESS:                             EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST


By: /s/ Stanley M. Stevens           By:  /s/Timothy H. Callahan
    ----------------------                ----------------------
     Stanley M. Stevens                   Timothy H. Callahan
     Secretary                            President and Chief Executive Officer



     THE UNDERSIGNED, President and Chief Executive Officer of Equity Office
Properties Trust, who executed on behalf of the Trust Articles Supplementary of
which this Certificate is made a part, hereby acknowledges in the name and on
behalf of said Trust the foregoing Articles Supplementary to be the act of said
Trust and hereby certifies that the matters and facts set forth herein with
respect to the authorization and approval thereof are true in all material
respects under the penalties of perjury.


                                          /s/Timothy H. Callahan
                                          ----------------------
                                          Timothy H. Callahan
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
Secret JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2220

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 6, 2019]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm appellant's conviction and sentence for aggravated battery causing great bodily harm, which was enhanced to a first-degree felony for use of a firearm and resulted in a thirty-year prison sentence. Appellant contends that because the jury found that she used a firearm, she should have been convicted and sentenced for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, which could not be enhanced. Appellant is incorrect. When the State charges a defendant with aggravated battery causing great bodily harm based on section 784.045(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2017), and not section 784.045(1)(a)2., a deadly weapon is not an essential element of the crime, and the crime can be reclassified upward. *See* *Lareau v. State* , 573 So.2d 813, 814 (Fla. 1991) ; *see also* *Stoute v. State* , 915 So.2d 1245, 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (same).

We affirm as to the remaining issues raised as the claimed errors either lacked merit or were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. *See* *State v. DiGuilio* , 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).

Warner, Ciklin and Levine, JJ., concur.