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 15, 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 January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1242 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1057, K2025-1056.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00801 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# C_2016296EN.01003901.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/39

---

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)

(Case T-348/16)

(2016/C 296/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (Brussels, Belgium)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Declare that the demand made by the defendant in debit note numbered 3241606289 of 26/05/2016 that the Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis repay part of the grant which it received for the MINATRAN project, a sum of EUR 245 525.43, is unfounded, and declare that that sum constitutes eligible costs; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the demand made by the defendant in debit note numbered 3241606289 of 26/05/2016 that the Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis repay part of the grant which it received for the MINATRAN project, a sum of EUR 245 525.43, is unfounded, and declare that that sum constitutes eligible costs; and

| — | order the European Research Council Executive Agency to pay the applicant’s legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Research Council Executive Agency to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that the sum disputed by ERCEA constitutes eligible costs.

In support of the action, the applicant argues that the costs disputed by ERCEA and, in particular, the staff costs, travel costs and indirect costs are eligible costs. That argument is supported by the evidence which the applicant submitted to ERCEA during the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and, above all, by the comprehensive analysis of the evidence submitted.

---
Raymond Michael MATTSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1024

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 21, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
D.G., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2603

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 82 

To provide that none of the funds made available to the National Endowment 

for the Humanities for any fiscal year may be used to carry out section 

7 of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act 

of 1965. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide that none of the funds made available to the 

National Endowment for the Humanities for any fiscal 

year may be used to carry out section 7 of the National 

Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965. 

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 ‘‘Defund National En5 dowment for the Humanities Act of 2025’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION. 

7 None of the funds made available to the National En8 dowment for the Humanities for any fiscal year may be 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 82 IH

1 used to carry out section 7 of the National Foundation 

2 on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

3 956). 

4 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

5 This Act shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st 

6 fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of 

7 this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      I, Alan Finkelstein, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the
fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Innovative Card Technologies, Inc.

Dated: May 13, 2005           By:/s/ Alan Finkelstein
                              Alan Finkelstein
                              Chief Executive Officer, President and Secretary

      I, Bennet P. Lientz, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the
fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Innovative Card Technologies, Inc.


Dated: May 13, 2005           By: /s/ Bennet P. Lientz, Jr.Bennet P. Lientz,Jr.
                              Chief Financial Officer


      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided by Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EX PARTE Frederick Ike ODOM

CR-16-0898

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
# White-Collar Crime

These crimes are not violent, but they are not victimless. White-collar crimes can destroy a company, wipe out a person's life savings, cost investors billions of dollars, and erode the public's trust in institutions.

- Asset Forfeiture Asset forfeiture is a powerful tool used by law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, against criminals and criminal organizations to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains through seizure of these assets.
- Major Cases Major white-collar crime cases over the years.
- Health Care Fraud Health care fraud is not a victimless crime. It affects everyone and causes tens of billions of dollars in losses each year. The FBI is the primary agency for investigating health care fraud, for both federal and private insurance programs.
- Most Wanted Most Wanted White-Collar Crime.
- Publications A listing of White-Collar Crime-related publications, authored by the FBI's Financial Crimes Section,dating back to 2000.
- News White-Collar Crime News and Press Releases.
Kenneth RICKERSON, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3762

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DENIED.
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   Philadelphia   Mortgage
Corporation  (the  "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending April 30,
2005, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Quarterly Report"), We, Quinton Hamilton, President and director and Shane
Kirk, Secretary, Treasurer and director of the Registrant,  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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.


By/S/ Quinton Hamilton
-----------------
Quinton Hamilton
President and Director
Dated this 5th day of May, 2005


By/S/ Shane Kirk
-----------------
Shane Kirk
Secretary, Treasurer and Director
Dated this 5th day of May, 2005
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Yuying Zhang, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB quarterly report for the period ended September 30, 2005, of Shineco, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this period 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this period report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

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

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

14

----

*Date:**November 20, 2005				                                                                                           **By:*/s/ Yuying Zhang                                        *                                 **                                                                *Yuying Zhang*                                                                                                  Chief Executive Officer and President*

15

----
# C_2018455EN.01001301.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/13

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Ryanair Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners

(Case C-249/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Concept of taxable person - Holding company - Deduction of input tax - Expenditure for consultancy services received for the purpose of the acquisition of another company’s shares - Acquiring company’s intention to provide management services to the target company - Those services not provided - Right to deduct VAT charged on the services received))

(2018/C 455/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd

Defendant: The Revenue Commissioners

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4 and 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as conferring on a company, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which intends to acquire all the shares of another company in order to pursue an economic activity consisting in the provision of management services subject to value added tax (VAT) to that other company, the right to deduct, in full, input VAT paid on expenditure relating to consultancy services provided in the context of a takeover bid, even if ultimately that economic activity was not carried out, provided that the exclusive reason for that expenditure is to be found in the intended economic activity.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.

---
John T. LILLIE, Jr. and Jennifer E. Lillie, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB, AS TRUSTEE OF STANWICH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1679

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 10, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the joint stipulation for dismissal, this appeal is dismissed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Marlon Romaine CARTER

NO. 2019-K-0105

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7176

In Re: WALTER JACOB DAVIS, a/k/a Marcus

Swanson,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CR-94-73, CA-01-59)

Submitted: September 18, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Jacob Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter Jacob Davis, a North Carolina inmate, petitions this

court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to act on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Our review of the district

court docket sheet in that action reveals that after Davis filed

his mandamus petition, the district court entered a final order

dismissing Davis’ § 2255 motion. Accordingly, although we grant

Davis leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus

petition as moot and 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6108

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONALD EARL MCCULLOUGH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00199-BO-1)

Submitted: June 28, 2021 Decided: July 7, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond C. Tarlton, TARLTON POLK PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Earl McCullough appeals his 120-month sentence following his guilty plea 

to engaging in unlawful monetary transactions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. 

McCullough argues that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to inform 

the district court of the full extent of his cooperation. We affirm.

“Plea agreements are grounded in contract law, and as with any contract, each party 

is entitled to receive the benefit of his bargain.” United States v. Edgell, 914 F.3d 281, 287 

(4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because McCullough did not challenge 

the Government’s purported breach of the plea agreement in the district court, we review

only for plain error. Id. at 286. “Under that standard, [McCullough] must show that the 

[G]overnment plainly breached its plea agreement with him and that the breach both 

affected his substantial rights and called into question the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 286-87. McCullough has not identified any 

information that the Government failed to disclose that may have affected the district 

court’s sentencing decision, nor has he shown that the Government’s alleged failure to 

disclose violated his substantial rights, so he has not established plain error.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Geoffrey JOE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4541

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

Affirmed.
Kerri A. LATOUR, et al. v. ALLSTATE INS. CO., et al.

NO. 2019-CC-0168

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

*603Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., would grant.
# C_2016296EN.01002801.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/28

---

Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Make up for ever v EUIPO — L’Oréal (MAKE UP FOR EVER)

(Case T-320/16)

(2016/C 296/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Make up for ever (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Caron, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France)

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 word mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER’ — EU trade mark No 3 416 443

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 985/2015-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the Community word mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER’ No 003416443 valid for all of the goods and services remaining referred to in the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the Community word mark ‘MAKE UP FOR EVER’ No 003416443 valid for all of the goods and services remaining referred to in the application;

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | remit the case to EUIPO for further prosecution if necessary; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to EUIPO for further prosecution if necessary;

| — | render the company l’OREAL liable for the costs resulting from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO, the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the present action before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

render the company l’OREAL liable for the costs resulting from the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of EUIPO, the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the present action before the General Court.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

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

—

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

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

MARCH 30, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b).

1. Case No. SD33196

Re: STATE OF MISSOURI,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. TINA M. LUNEY,

Defendant-Appellant.