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 gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1200 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-998, K2025-997.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00026 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**381 KA 12-01782**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
JERMAINE NOWELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN MCDERMOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (MARIA MALDONADO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered April 3, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
# C_2016419EN.01005102.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/51

---

Appeal brought on 16 September 2016 by HD against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-136/15, HD v Parliament

(Case T-652/16 P)

(2016/C 419/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: HD (Aach, Germany) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present appeal admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present appeal admissible;

| — | set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016, HD v Parliament (F-136/15); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016, HD v Parliament (F-136/15);

HD

Parliament

| — | grant the appellant’s claim for annulment made at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the appellant’s claim for annulment made at first instance;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs of both instances. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds.

| 1. | First ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and evidence, manifest error of assessment and infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001, L 8, p. 1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and evidence, manifest error of assessment and infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001, L 8, p. 1).

| 2. | Second ground of appeal, alleging a failure to state reasons for the judgment under appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging a failure to state reasons for the judgment under appeal.

---
Case 24-30327-mvl11 Doc 15 Filed 02/09/24 Entered 02/09/24 15:49:07 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
# C_2022024EN.01002801.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — KR v Commission

(Case T-408/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Dependent child allowance - Article 2 of Annex VII of the Statute - Concept of ‘dependent child’ - Refusal to grant dependent child status to a student receiving a grant - Actual maintenance of the child - Health insurance scheme)

(2022/C 24/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KR (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 25 October 2019 to no longer consider the applicant’s child as a dependent child, within the meaning of Article 2 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, from 1 September 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders KR to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this annual report on Form 40-F of Enterra Energy Trust for the period ended December 31, 2006 I, Victor Roskey, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the issuer, certify that:

1.The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

|                     |     |                                                                                  
|-------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:
April 19, 2007 | By: | /s/ Victor Roskey
Victor Roskey
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the annual report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the issuer for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
# C_2016270EN.01005201.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/52

---

Action brought on 19 May 2016 — Walfood v EUIPO — Romanov Holding (CHATKA)

(Case T-248/16)

(2016/C 270/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Walfood SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Cornu, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Romanov Holding, SL (La Moraleja, Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘CHATKA’ — European Union trade mark No 943670

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 150/2015-5

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 the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Exhibit 13.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of MAX Resource Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the Report), I, Stuart Rogers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/Stuart Rogers



Stuart Rogers

President and Chief Executive Officer

June 29, 2007
James Lee BURL v. STATE

CR-16-0400

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Andrea GUNTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1592

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 1, 2019.

Affirmed.
Case 3:04-cr-00193-M Document 94 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID 290
 

 Case 3:04-cr-00193-M Document 94 Filed 12/28/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID 291
 

 Case 3:04-cr-00193-M Document 94 Filed 12/28/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID 292
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 12618]

Pursuant to section 451 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (the “Act”) (22 U.S.C. 2261), section 1-100(a)(1) of Executive Order 12163, and Delegation of Authority No. 513, I hereby authorize, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the use of up to $16,000,000 made available to carry out provisions of the Act (other than the provisions of chapter 1 of part I of the Act) to provide assistance authorized by part I of the Act in support of countries providing personnel for the Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission in Haiti.

                    This Determination and the accompanying Memorandum of Justification shall be promptly reported to the Congress. This Determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 16, 2024.

Richard R. Verma,

Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2025-00267 Filed 1-8-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
JOHN RIVER CARTAGE, INC. v. LOUISIANA GENERATING, LLC, et al.

NO. 2019-C-0111

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 28 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 28

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine 
                               justices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2025

 Mr. Johnson of South Dakota (for himself, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. 
Fleischmann, Mr. Estes, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Balderson, Mr. Dunn 
 of Florida, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Rose, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Biggs of Arizona, Ms. 
  Van Duyne, Mr. Feenstra, Mr. Harrigan, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, 
Mrs. Cammack, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Finstad, Mr. Fulcher, Ms. Hageman, Mr. 
Rouzer, Mr. Zinke, Mr. Yakym, Mr. Guest, Mr. Moolenaar, Mrs. Fischbach, 
 Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Moran, Mr. Buchanan, Ms. Letlow, Mr. Thompson of 
 Pennsylvania, Ms. Malliotakis, Mrs. Houchin, Mr. Fry, Mr. Ezell, Mr. 
 Ogles, Mr. Ciscomani, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Jackson 
 of Texas, Mr. Mann, Mr. Issa, Ms. Salazar, Mr. Amodei of Nevada, Mrs. 
Harshbarger, Mr. Perry, Mr. Huizenga, Ms. De La Cruz, Mr. Timmons, Mr. 
  Alford, Mr. Massie, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mr. Scott Franklin of 
Florida, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. Flood, 
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Garbarino, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Grothman, 
 Mrs. Bice, Mr. LaLota, Mr. Moore of Alabama, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Hill of 
Arkansas, Mr. Guthrie, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, 
    Mr. Lawler, Mr. Miller of Ohio, and Mr. Schmidt) submitted the 
following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine 
                               justices.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine 
justices.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016343EN.01004601.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/46

---

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Hoffmann v EUIPO (Genius)

(Case T-425/16)

(2016/C 343/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Karl Hoffmann (Bad Schwalbach, Germany) (represented by: C. Jonas, 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 ‘Genius’ — Application No 13 509 071

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2016 in Case R 1631/2015-5

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.

Plea in law

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
Donald Paul ARDOIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., et al.

NO. 2019-C-0016

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

Denied.
EX-10.4




 EXHIBIT 10.4 

AMENDMENT TO 
 DEFERRED
COMPENSATION AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of August 19, 2016 by and between FIRSTBANK,
a Tennessee bank (the “FirstBank”) and CHRISTOPHER T. HOLMES (“Executive”). Together, FirstBank and Executive may be referred to hereinafter as the “Parties”. 

1. FirstBank and Executive are parties to that certain Deferred Compensation Agreement effective as of December 31, 2014 (the
“Deferred Compensation Agreement”), pursuant to which Executive is entitled to receive a payment of three million dollars ($3,000,000) upon the earlier of December 31, 2019, Executive’s Separation from Service or a Change in
Control (as such terms are defined therein). 
 2. This Amendment shall be effective as of the closing date of the initial
listing of FB Financial Corporation’s common stock (“Common Stock”) on the New York Stock Exchange and the completion of its underwritten offering of the Common Stock (the “IPO Effective Date”). 

3. The Parties agree that the Deferred Compensation Agreement shall be amended to denominate Executive’s account under
the Deferred Compensation Agreement in a fixed number of deferred stock units (“DSUs”), such number of DSUs to be determined by dividing three million dollars ($3,000,000) by the initial public offering price on the IPO Effective
Date. The DSUs shall be convertible on a 1-for-1 basis into shares of Common Stock on the payment dates specified in the Deferred Compensation Agreement. The DSUs will be granted pursuant to and subject to the provisions of the FB Financial
Corporation 2016 Incentive Plan and to the terms and conditions set forth in an award agreement evidencing the grant thereof. 

4. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing herein shall be interpreted or construed to change the original payment schedule
included in the Deferred Compensation Agreement. 
 The Parties hereby signify their agreement to these terms by their
signatures below. 
  

									
	 /s/ Christopher T. Holmes
	 		 	 /s/ James W. Ayers

	 Christopher T. Holmes
	 		 	 FirstBank

		 		 		 	 By: James W. Ayers

		 		 		 	 Its: Chairman

					
	 Date:
	 	 August 19, 2016
	 		 	 Date:
	 	 August 19, 2016
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 12, 2022 No. 04-21-00565-CR John Anthony SCHARRINGHAUSEN ,

Appellant
v. The STATEof Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CR2612 Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R After receiving an initial sixty day extension, appellant’s brief was due on October 10, 2022. On October 11, 2022, appellant filed a motion requesting an additional sixty-day extension of time to file appellant’s brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. Appellant’s brief is due no later than November 9, 2022
. Further requests for extension of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 12th day of October, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
# C_2016392EN.01004801.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/48

---

Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (Representation of a bar on the side of a shoe)

(Case T-638/16)

(2016/C 392/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States of America)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: EU position mark (Representation of a bar on the side of a shoe) — Application No 10 263 895

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2016 in Case R 408/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the contested decision so that the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 December 2014 is annulled, opposition B 001919210 accepted and EU trade mark application No 10 263 895 rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision so that the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 December 2014 is annulled, opposition B 001919210 accepted and EU trade mark application No 10 263 895 rejected;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 6 July 2016 in Case R 408/2015-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 6 July 2016 in Case R 408/2015-4;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

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

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rules 19(2) and 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, Articles 151(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009, and the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rules 19(2) and 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, Articles 151(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009, and the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity.

---
John RICE v. Rhonda RICE

2160328

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.