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

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 170 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to enhance the administrative subpoena authority of the United States Postal Service, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS (for herself, Ms. MENG, and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to enhance the 

administrative subpoena authority of the United States 

Postal Service, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘USPS Subpoena Au5 thority Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE 

7 SUBPOENA AUTHORITY. 

8 Section 3016(a)(1) of title 39, United States Code, 

9 is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 170 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub2 paragraph (D); 

3 (2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting 

4 the following: 

5 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In any investigation 

6 relating to a covered offense, the Postmaster 

7 General may issue in writing and cause to be 

8 served a subpoena requiring the production and 

9 testimony described in subparagraph (B). In 

10 this subparagraph, the term ‘covered offense’ 

11 means a violation of— 

12 ‘‘(i) any section in this chapter; 

13 ‘‘(ii) any section of chapter 83 of title 

14 18 insofar as such violation involves the 

15 use of the mails; 

16 ‘‘(iii) any other provision of law enu17 merated in section 3001(a); or 

18 ‘‘(iv) the Controlled Substances Act 

19 (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), insofar as such 

20 violation involves the use of the mails. 

21 ‘‘(B) PRODUCTION AND TESTIMONY.—Ex22 cept as provided in subparagraph (C), a sub23 poena issued under subparagraph (A) may re24 quire— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 170 IH

1 ‘‘(i) the production of any records (in2 cluding books, papers, documents, and 

3 other tangible things that constitute or 

4 contain evidence) that the Postmaster Gen5 eral considers relevant or material to such 

6 investigation; and 

7 ‘‘(ii) testimony by the custodian of the 

8 things required to be produced concerning 

9 the production and authenticity of those 

10 things. 

11 ‘‘(C) APPLICATION.—A subpoena issued in 

12 connection with an investigation under section 

13 3005(a) shall not require testimony as set forth 

14 in subparagraph (B)(ii).’’; and 

15 (3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by 

16 paragraph (1) of this section, by amending clause 

17 (iii) to read as follows: 

18 ‘‘(iii) delegation of subpoena approval 

19 authority be limited to the Postal Service’s 

20 General Counsel, a Deputy General Coun21 sel, or the Chief Postal Inspector.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2018352EN.01001301.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Viking Motors AS and Others v Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet

(Case C-475/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 401 - Domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes - Prohibition - Concept of ‘turnover tax’ - Local sales tax - Essential characteristics of VAT - None))

(2018/C 352/17)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Viking Motors AS, TKM Beauty Eesti OÜ, TKM King AS, Kaubamaja AS, Selver AS

Defendants: Tallinna linn, Maksu- ja Tolliamet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that it does not preclude the maintenance or introduction of a tax such as the sales tax at issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SCOTTY LAYNE HARRISON )

)

v. ) 3-04-CV-314-D

)

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice )

Correctional Institutions Division )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the District Court’s order filed on October 31, 2007, re-referring this case to the

undersigned for further proceedings following the Fifth Circuit’s decision remanding the case to the

District Court, Jason D. Hawkins was appointed to represent Mr. Harrison and an evidentiary

hearing was scheduled for February 21, 2008.

On February 15, 2008, Harrison executed and filed his motion for voluntary dismissal. On

February 21, 2008, Harrison appeared in person and through counsel before the undersigned and

after the court questioned Harrison and counsel, it is clear that his motion for voluntary dismissal

is knowingly and understandingly made.

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the District Court grant Petitioner’s motion

to dismiss.

A copy of this recommendation shall be transmitted to Petitioner, his counsel and counsel
for Respondent.

SIGNED this 21st day of February, 2008.

___________________________________

WM. F. SANDERSON, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you

must file your written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of this

recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)

(en banc), a party’s failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district judge

of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain

error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law

accepted by the district court.
Sara Ellen CLARK v. REED ENERGY, LLC

2160488

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**I, John P. Calamos, Sr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Calamos Asset Management, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) 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(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability 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.      August 11, 2005     /s/ John P. Calamos, Sr.     John P. Calamos, Sr.  Chairman, Chief Executive Officer  and Co-Chief Investment Officer
Gustave J. LABARRE, Jr., et al. v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC and Georgia Gulf Chemical & Vinyls, LLC

NO. 2018-CC-1796

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 14, 2019

Denied.
Case 3:03-cv-02190-D Document 1 Filed 09/26/03 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
Case 3:03-cv-02190-D Document 1 Filed 09/26/03 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2
Case 3:03-cv-02190-D Document 1 Filed 09/26/03 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
Case 3:03-cv-02190-D Document 1 Filed 09/26/03 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
Case 3:03-cv-02190-D Document 1 Filed 09/26/03 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
Case 3:03-cv-02190-D Document 1 Filed 09/26/03 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
Case 3:03-cv-02190-D Document 1 Filed 09/26/03 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7
Merilyn ERBY v. PILGRIMS PRIDE

2160835

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 4814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00917]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

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

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Date of required notice: January 16, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 8, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1273 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1095, K2025-1094.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00917 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
STATE of Louisiana v. Danny WEST

NO. 2018-KH-0710

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

Denied.
EX PARTE Marion Cortez FELDER

1160756 (CR-15-1446)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Jacob A. REED, Appellant, v. Melissa Sexton REED, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1120

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 24, 2019

Jacob A. Reed, Edgewater, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee*, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding that, in appellate proceedings, the trial court's decision carries a presumption of correctness and, thus, the appellant has the burden to bring forth an adequate record to demonstrate error); *Mathieu v. Mathieu*, 877 So.2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (treating the challenge to adequate findings as unpreserved error unless previously brought to the trial court's attention in a motion for rehearing).

BERGER, LAMBERT, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
Mayceo Tylik WILSON, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 1D17-3443 1D17-3445

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

Affirmed.
Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 1 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 2 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 3 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 4 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 5 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 6 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 7 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 8 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 9 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 10 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 11 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 12 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 13 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 14 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 15 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 16 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 17 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 18 of 19

Case 23-09003-mxm    Doc 26    Filed 07/17/23    Entered 07/17/23 17:40:40    Desc MainDocument      Page 19 of 19
# C_2018455EN.01001501.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 October 2018 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-503/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/60/EC - Fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene - Refuelling of private pleasure craft))

(2018/C 455/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Tomat and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Brandon, acting as Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that by allowing the use of marked fuel for the purposes of propelling private pleasure craft, even where that fuel is not subject to any exemption from or reduction in excise duty, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by allowing the use of marked fuel for the purposes of propelling private pleasure craft, even where that fuel is not subject to any exemption from or reduction in excise duty, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.

---
# C_2020036EN.01000201.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 December 2019 — Czech Republic v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-482/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Approximation of laws - Directive (EU) 2017/853 - Control of the acquisition and possession of weapons - Validity - Legal basis - Article 114 TFEU - Amendment of an existing directive - Principle of proportionality - Absence of impact assessment - Interference with the right to property - Proportionality of the measures adopted - Measures creating barriers in the internal market - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Measures obliging Member States to adopt legislation with retroactive effect - Principle of non-discrimination - Derogation for the Swiss Confederation - Discrimination affecting Member States of the European Union or Member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) other than that State)

(2020/C 36/02)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, O. Serdula and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and G. Tornyai, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Wiącek and D. Lutostańska, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: O. Hrstková Šolcová and R. van de Westelaken, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by A. Westerhof Löfflerová, E. Moro and M. Chavrier, subsequently by A. Westerhof Löfflerová and M. Chavrier, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: French Republic (represented by: A. Daly, E. de Moustier, R. Coesme and D. Colas, acting as Agents), European Commission, (represented by: M. Šimerdová, Y.G. Marinova and E. Kružíková, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic, Hungary, the Republic of Poland and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic, Hungary, the Republic of Poland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---
1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Lawrence O. Davis, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2 The Honorable Clyde S. Cahill, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-3009

___________ Favis Clay Martin, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 15, 1996 Filed: February 22, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Favis Clay Martin appeals the district court's 1 order denying his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Martin was convicted in 1981, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Martin v. United States , 691 F.2d 1235 (8th Cir. 1982), cert. denied , 459 U.S. 1211 (1983). Martin later filed a section 2255 motion; the district court 2 denied relief, and this court affirmed. Martin v. United States , No. 93-2054, 1993 WL 265072 (8th Cir.) (unpublished per curiam), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 566 (1993).We have reviewed the record, and agree with the district court that Martin's current motion is successive, because both grounds for relief were rejected in his earlier motion. We also agree that Martin has not shown his abuse of the writ should be excused. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a); McCleskey v. Zant , 499 U.S. 467, 493-94 (1991).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 14

- 14

- 00862

- CR
In the 

### Court of Appeals For the 

### Fourteenth District of Texas

At Houston


No. 876249 -F In the 185 th District Court Harris County, Texas

 

### WOODROW MILLER

Appellant
v. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

 

### STATE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS: COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, in accordance with Rules 10.5(b)(1) and 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and files this motion for extension of
time in which to file the State’s brief in th is case, and, in support thereof, presents the following: ACCEPTED 14-14-00862-CR FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/2/2015 4:28:50 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK1. In the 1 85 th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 876249

- F ,

the trial court denied relief to the Appellant on October 9, 2014 , in Ex parte Woodrow
Miller

. 2

. A w ritten notice of appeal w as timely file d on October 15 , 2014

. 3 . Appellant’s brief was filed with this Court on January 9 , 2015

. 4

. The State’s brief was due to be filed with this Court on February 9 , 2015

. 5 . An extension of time in which to file the S tate’s brief is requested until April 6 , 2015

. 6

. No p revious extension s have been granted to t he State.

7 . The facts relied upon to explain the need for this extension are:
The State’s brief in this case is being prepared by the Chief of the Appellate D ivision. H e has numerous other duties in that position

. Therefore, additional time has been necessary in order to prepare the State’s brief

.WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will g r ant an extension of time until

April 6 , 201 5 , in which to fil e the State’s brief in these cases

.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alan Curry
ALAN CURRY Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755

- 5826 TBC No. 05263700 curry_alan@dao.hctx.net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been mai led to the appellant a t the following address es on April 2, 2015 : Woodrow Miller 12929 Main S treet Houston, Texas 77035

- 56

- 3

/s/ Alan Curry
ALAN CURRY Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755

- 5826 TBC No. 05263700 curry_alan@dao.hctx.net
Date: April 2, 2015