alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 07-19-00030-CR

Gilbert Mendez

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 399th District Court

 of Bexar County

December 17, 2019

Opinion by Chief Justice Quinn

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 17, 2019, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
Larry FIELDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3254

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Carl E. HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3636

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2587-066]

                    On December 16, 2024, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (Michigan EGLE) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Northern States Power Company, in conjunction with the above captioned project on December 6, 2024. Pursuant to section 4.34(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations,[1]                                          we hereby notify Michigan EGLE of the following dates.                

*Date of Receipt of the Certification Request:*                     December 6, 2024.                

*Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request:*                     One year, December 6, 2025.                

If Michigan EGLE fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

Dated: December 31, 2024.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             18 CFR 4.34(b)(5).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2025-00085 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Lori Rappucci, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PetroHunter Energy Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a—15(e) and15d—15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a—15(f) and 15d—15(f)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: February 19, 2008 /s/ Lori Rappucci     Lori Rappucci  Chief Financial Officer
TREADWELL FORD, INC. v. Angela L. BROWN

2160789

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 6, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1177 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-965, K2025-964.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31736 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Donna SATTERWHITE v. Kenneth PRESCOTT and Joe Wingo

1160439

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Walter JACKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1900

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**I, Charles B. Crowell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PetroHunter Energy Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a—15(e) and15d—15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a—15(f) and 15d—15(f)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: February 19, 2008 /s/ Charles B. Crowell     Charles B. Crowell  Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Great American Family Parks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry Eastland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Entertainment Is Us, Inc, Inc. and will be retained by Entertainment Is Us, Inc, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  August 10, 2006   /s/ Larry EastlandLarry EastlandChief Executive Officer
# C_2018166EN.01001701.xml

| 14.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 March 2018 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Dănuţ Podilă and Others v Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București (C-133/17), Costel Nicușor Mucea v SMDA Mureş Insolvency SRL, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of SC Industria Sârmei SA Campia Turzii (C-134/17)

(Joined Cases C-133/17 and C-134/17) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 89/391/EEC - Safety and health of workers at work - Classification of work places as places characterised by particular or special conditions - Assessment of the risks to safety and health at work - Employer’s obligations))

(2018/C 166/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dănuţ Podilă, Vasile Oniţă, Dumitru Cornel Bara, Gheorghe Podilă, Alexandru Daniel Coneru, Mihai Călin Junc, Dănuţ Bungău, Francisc Chudi, Ioan Iancu, Ionel Negruţ, Dan Florin Roxin (C-133/17), Costel Nicușor Mucea (C-134/17)

Applicants:

Defendants: Societatea Națională de Transport Feroviar de Călători ‘CFR Călători’ SA București (C-133/17), SMDA Mureş Insolvency SRL, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of SC Industria Sârmei SA Campia Turzii (C-134/17)

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 114(3) and Articles 151 and 153 TFEU and Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work must be interpreted as not being applicable to national laws, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down strict deadlines and procedures not allowing the national courts to review or establish the classification of the activities of workers in various risk groups, on the basis of which retirement pensions are calculated for those workers.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.

1

---
# C_2016462EN.01003202.xml

| 12.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/32

---

Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Palos Caravina v CdT

(Case T-725/16)

(2016/C 462/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Maria José Palos Caravina (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno and P. Singer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision refusing to grant her application to have communicated to her the decision to appoint Ms [X] to the Spanish translation team announced in October 2015 and, in so far as is necessary, the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision of 5 July 2016 rejecting the complaint against that refusal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision refusing to grant her application to have communicated to her the decision to appoint Ms [X] to the Spanish translation team announced in October 2015 and, in so far as is necessary, the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision of 5 July 2016 rejecting the complaint against that refusal;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.

She considers that the announcement of a person’s ‘arrival’ in a service in no way fulfils the obligation to publish appointment decisions laid down in Article 25 and, in the absence of proper publication, each member of staff has the right to require that the appointment decision at issue be communicated. That right was, therefore, infringed in the present case by the Appointing Authority of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) in adopting the contested decision, namely, the decision of 23 December 2015 refusing to communicate to the applicant the decision in question.

The applicant also submits that the act of relying on Regulation No 45/2001, relating to the protection of personal data, against that right, stemming from Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, is ineffective, because even if an appointment decision fell within the scope of the data protected by that regulation, Article 25 would have to be considered a lex specialis, conferring a right of access on third parties.

lex specialis

---
**Exhibit      32.2**

|   | (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:                May 14,                2007 | By:    | /s/ Bryan              Kenyon                               |   |
|                                             |   | Bryan                Kenyon                                      |   |
|                                             |   | CFO                (Principal                Financial Officers) |   |
|                                             |   |                                                             |   |
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7195** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. SPENCER BOWENS, a/k/a Scooter, a/k/a Clyde, a/k/a Melvin McCurdy, a/k/a Doc Johnson , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:98

- cr - 00110

- REP

- 1 )

Submitted : September 11 , 2012 Decided: September 14, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Spencer Bowens, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Lee Martin, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk , Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Spencer Bowens appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find that the district court correctly concluded that Bowe ns is not eligible for a reduction of sentence. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Bowens , No. 3:98

- cr - 00110

- REP

- 1 (E.D. Va. June 29, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
mat erials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
BLACK POINT ASSETS, INC., as Trustee Under 7304 Belvedere Terrace Land Trust Dated March 1,2013, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3168

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 10.4

                               Government of India
                           Ministry of Communications
                         Department of Telecom Services
                        Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001

No. 37-21/2000-OC                                           Dated: 7/9/2000

To    The Chairman & Managing Director
      Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited
      Lokmanya Videsh Sanchar Bhawan
      Kashinath Dhuru Marg,
      Opposite Kirti College,
      Prabhadevi,
      Mumbai - 400 028

        Sub: - Preponing of demonopolisation of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Sir,

      I am  directed  to inform you that Govt.  had  decided  that the  monopoly
granted to Videsh  Sanchar  Nigam  Ltd.  in the  matter of  International  Voice
Traffic shall  terminate on 31/3/2002.  This may be treated as an advance notice
as required under the  provisions of para 5 of licence  granted to VSNL vide DoT
No. 220-5/98-PHC dt. 22/1/99.

      In lieu of likely losses on account of  preponement  of  demonopolisation,
the following compensatory package has been proposed:

(i)   VSNL would be granted licence to run national long distance services.

(ii)  VSNL would be liable to pay the licence fee,  both by way of entry fee and
      revenue share for operating  national long distance  services and would be
      on the same footing like other private sector operators but the Government
      would  pay a sum  equivalent  to entry  fee and  annual  revenue  share as
      licence  fee,  net of taxes for a period of 5 years with effect from April
      2001.  In  addition,  Government  will not insist  upon  performance  bank
      guarantee of Rs. 400 crores so long VSNL retains PSU character.

(iii) VSNL would be granted Category - A, ISP license.

      VSNL  may  place  this  compensation  package  in lieu of  preponement  of
demonopolisation  before  the  shareholders  in a  general  body  meeting  to be
convened at the earliest and obtain its approval to enable further action in the
matter.

                                                               Yours faithfully,

                                                            /s/ V. Sampath Kamar

                                                              (V. Sampath Kamar)
                                                                       18/9/2000
                                                                   Director (SU)
                                                                   Tel:  3310217
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 43 Filed 01/21/04 Page 1 of 3 PageID 239
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 43 Filed 01/21/04 Page 2 of 3 PageID 240
Case 3:03-cv-00761-P Document 43 Filed 01/21/04 Page 3 of 3 PageID 241