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

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 1547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00192]

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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules; Hearing of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules; notice of cancellation 
of open hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the 
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure has been canceled: Bankruptcy 
Rules Hearing on January 31, 2025.

DATES: January 31, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief 
Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus 
Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The announcement for this hearing was 
previously published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2024 at 89 FR 
61498.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: January 3, 2025.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2025-00192 Filed 1-7-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
```
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, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned Chief 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:  August 16, 2004

/s/ Bryan Kenyon
Bryan Kenyon, Chief Financial Officer
The HINDU BUSINESS LINE
Saturday, September 15, 2001

Teledensity set to exceed target

Our Bureau
KOLKATA, Sept. 14

        The  country is set to achieve a higher  teledensity  of 17.5 per 100 by
2010 against a target of 15 set by the Government, according to Mr Tapan Sikdar,
Union Minister of State for Communications.

        At present,  India has a teledensity of 3.7 per 100 which is expected to
go up to seven per 100 by 2005.

        Mr Sikdar told  members of the Bengal  National  Chamber of Commerce and
Industry  (BNCCI) here that the basic telecom network in India was growing at 22
per cent per annum while cellular and Internet services were growing at over 100
per cent annually.

        The Indian telecom  network has emerged as the 8th largest in the world,
up from 14th barely two years ago.

        According to him, the focus now was on providing an appropriate  telecom
infrastructure that would facilitate "proliferation of information techonology".
The idea was to benefit from  convergence  and bridge the digital  divide across
the country.

        He,  however,  cautioned  that  this  would  not be  possible  if labour
productivity in the telecom sector did not improve.

        In this  context,  he cited a McKinsey  report  which stated that labour
productivity in the Indian telecom sector was 25 per cent of that in the US.

        "Such a scenario emerging in the age of convergence is alarming. We must
improve productivity. To survive as a nation we need it."

        The  Minister  felt  that   emerging   technologies   would   facilitate
applications  such as tele-education  and tele-medicine  which would benefit the
rural population immensely.

        In the context of developments in the postal system,  Mr Sikdar said the
Department of Posts was regularly taking revenue-generating initiatives aimed at
bridging the deficit between revenue and expenditure. He expressed the hope that
this would be achieved within the next five years.
Robert DAVIS, a/k/a Robert Lee Davis, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2403

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 15, 2019

Affirmed.
# About

The mission of the FBI is to protect and defend against intelligence threats, uphold and enforce criminal laws, and provide criminal justice services.

- Diversity & Inclusion We believe that differences in thought and belief, in race and religion, in orientation, and in ability contribute to more effective decision making, drive innovation, and enhance the employee experience.
- The FBI at Redstone Information for FBI employees relocating to Huntsville, Alabama.
- Employee Assistance Program Resources The FBI Employee Assistance Unit provides these resources for employees. Employees may review the information below and reach out to those listed, or with others, that meet their needs.
- Leadership & Structure The FBI is headed by a Director who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Bureau is organized into multiple branches that coordinate our activities around the world.
- FBI Employees This webpage provides links to useful, unclassified information for all Bureau personnel.
- Mission and Priorities The FBI has dual responsibilities as a law enforcement and intelligence agency. Learn about our vision, mission, priorities, core values, budget, and more.
- Frequently Asked Questions Answers to commonly asked questions pertaining to the FBI. What is the FBI? What is the mission of the FBI? What are the primary functions of the FBI?
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.1

Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18U.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  President  and Chief
Executive  Officer of Nuclear  Solutions,  Inc., (the "Company"),  herby certify
that,  to the best of my  knowledge,  the  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the
Company for the period ended  December 31, 2003 (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.


Dated April 21, 2004.                       /s/ Patrick Herda
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            President and CEO
# C_2021062EN.01003501.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/35

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — Wagenknecht v Commission

(Case T-350/20) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Combating fraud - Meetings of the College of European Commissioners and its President with the representative of the Czech Republic - Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 - Financial regulation - Direct payments from the EU budget in favour of farmers - Alleged conflict of interest of the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic - Alleged failure to act by the Commission - Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi - Definition of the Commission’s position - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 62/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (Pardubice, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Koller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and M. Salyková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act on the applicant’s request to adopt, by virtue of Article 325(1) and Article 319(3) TFEU and of Article 61(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1), binding and dissuasive measures designed to prevent or deal with the alleged conflict of interests of Mr Andrej Babiš, the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, in particular, first, by preventing the Members of the College of Commissioners, particularly its President, from meeting Mr Babiš and discussing with him questions connected with the Multiannual Financial Framework of the European Union for 2021-2027 and with the EU budget in general and, second, by adopting measures intended to put an end to the direct payments of agricultural aid from the EU budget in favour of certain companies over which Mr Babiš exercises control and of which he is the effective proprietor.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | No regard shall be had to the document produced as Annex A.9 and passages from the application referring to the content of that document. |
| --- | --- |

1.

No regard shall be had to the document produced as Annex A.9 and passages from the application referring to the content of that document.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 3. | Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Lukáš Wagenknecht shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 17.8.2020.

---
1 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. 98-40952

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEMON DEWAYNE JACKO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CR-9-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 2, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Kemon Dewayne Jacko appeals his sentence after pleading guilty

to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Jacko argues

that the district court erred by including the amount of cocaine

base, 27.97 grams, seized on July 26, 1996. He contends that this

amount was not relevant conduct; that the only information which

could connect his possession with intent to distribute cocaine base

on July 26, 1996, and October 31, 1997, was information he

proffered as part of his cooperation agreement; and he argues that
the use of this information to determine his sentence violated his

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8 agreement with the Government. The district court

did not clearly err in finding that Jacko’s statements to the

police were not barred by § 1B1.8 from being considered to

determine his sentence. United States v. Gibson, 48 F.3d 876, 878

(5th Cir. 1995). Jacko’s statement that he had sold drugs since

December 1993 bridges the relevant conduct gap between July 26,

1996, and October 31, 1997.

Jacko argues that the district court erred by increasing his

offense level for possession of a firearm under § 2D1.1(b)(1).

However, Jacko concedes that if the July 26, 1996, conduct is

upheld as being relevant conduct, the two-level increase for the

firearm possessed on July 26 would be properly assessed. Based on

his concession and our conclusion that the July 26, 1996, conduct

was properly considered as relevant conduct, we need not consider

this issue.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GREGORY O’NEAL LOWE, §

Petitioner, §

§

V. § No. 3:03-CV-1712-K

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, § 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

Respondent. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of

United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney on Gregory O’Neal Lowe’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court reviewed the proposed

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation de novo. Finding no error, the Court adopts the

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

SO ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2005.

s/ Ed Kinkeade 

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:03-cv-01712-K Document 31 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 130
# C_2016251EN.01004401.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/44

---

Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Mediterranean Premium Spirits v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (GINRAW)

(Case T-258/16)

(2016/C 251/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mediterranean Premium Spirits, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Granell and J. Romaní Lluch, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GINRAW’ — Application for registration No 12 431 681

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 1583/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision rejecting the application for registration of EU trademark No 12 431 681 ‘GINRAW’ in classes 21 and 33 and, consequently, grant the registration of the mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision rejecting the application for registration of EU trademark No 12 431 681 ‘GINRAW’ in classes 21 and 33 and, consequently, grant the registration of the mark;

| — | order EUIPO and, if applicable, the intervener to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, if applicable, the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2016364EN.01002102.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/21

---

Action brought on 2 August 2016 — Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales v EUIPO — Aromas Selective (Aa AROMAS artesanales)

(Case T-426/16)

(2016/C 364/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Perfumes y Aromas Artesanales, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aromas Selective, SL (Dos Hermanas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Aa AROMAS artesanales’– Application for registration No 12 215 018

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2016 in Case R 766/2015-5

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

| — | Existence of priority rights and peaceful co-existence on the market and in the registration of the allegedly conflicting marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Existence of priority rights and peaceful co-existence on the market and in the registration of the allegedly conflicting marks.

| — | Weak distinctive character of the term ‘AROMAS’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Weak distinctive character of the term ‘AROMAS’.

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

—

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

---
# C_2022463EN.01006101.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/61

---

Order of the General Court of 14 October 2022 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-335/20) (1)

(2022/C 463/90)

Language of the case: Czech

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

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
# C_2016200EN.01002901.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/29

---

Action brought on 14 April 2016 — GRID applications v EUIPO (APlan)

(Case T-154/16)

(2016/C 200/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GRID applications GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Meyenburg, 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 ‘APlan’ — Application No 13 374 079

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 in Case R 1819/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, with the result that EUIPO will have to allow Community trade mark application 13374079 to proceed to registration in accordance with the application or, in the alternative, as restricted for the classes of goods and services 9, 35 and 42, or, in any event, solely for Classes 9 and 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, with the result that EUIPO will have to allow Community trade mark application 13374079 to proceed to registration in accordance with the application or, in the alternative, as restricted for the classes of goods and services 9, 35 and 42, or, in any event, solely for Classes 9 and 42;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before OHIM/EUIPO and in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings before OHIM/EUIPO and in the present proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certifications
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 Calamos Asset Management, Inc. (Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Company
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his 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 and incorporated by reference in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Calamos Asset Management,
Inc. May 12, 2005 /s/ John P. Calamos, Sr.John P. Calamos, Sr.Chairman, Chief Executive Officerand Co-Chief Investment Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
 A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Calamos Asset Management, Inc. and
will be retained by Calamos Asset Management, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
31.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



I,
Joseph Jensen, certify that:



|1. | I
    have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TearLab Corporation;                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|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;



Dated:
July 1, 2020



| | /s/
    Joseph Jensen      
| | ---------------------------
| | Joseph
    Jensen          
| | Chief
    Executive Officer
AMERA FEDERAL 300, LTD., a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellant, v. SHOPPING CTR. INTEREST LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and Tab 250, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership, Appellees.

No. 4D18-327

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 17, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Eric DARBY v. STATE

CR-16-0654

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
IT ALL, INC., It All Leasing, L.L.C., Roller Knights, L.L.C., and Jim Wilhelm v. Austin HINDS, Randall Ferguson, Jacqueline Hinds, and Ferguson Properties, LLC

2160154

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.