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

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 70 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should 

take all appropriate measures to ensure that the United States Postal 

Service remains an independent establishment of the Federal Government 

and is not subject to privatization. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2025 

Mr. LYNCH (for himself, Mr. LALOTA, Mr. GARBARINO, and Mr. CONNOLLY) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

Congress should take all appropriate measures to ensure 

that the United States Postal Service remains an independent establishment of the Federal Government and 

is not subject to privatization. 

Whereas the United States Postal Service is a constitutionally mandated service per article I, section 8, clause 

7 of the Constitution; 

Whereas the United States Postal Service is a self-sustaining, 

independent establishment that does not receive taxpayer 

funding and relies solely on revenue derived from the sale 

of postal services and products; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 70 IH 

Whereas the United States Postal Service and its more than 

630,000 employees are at the center of the 

$1,900,000,000,000 mailing industry, employing more 

than 7,900,000 Americans; 

Whereas the United States Postal Service serves the needs of 

customers at more than 168,000,000 business and residential addresses every day, maintains an affordable and 

universal network, and connects the country’s rural, suburban, and urban communities; 

Whereas the United States Postal Service is consistently the 

highest rated agency of the Federal Government in nonpartisan opinion polls; 

Whereas the United States Postal Service employs nearly 

73,000 military veterans and is one of the largest employers of veterans in the Nation; 

Whereas postal employees are dedicated public servants who 

do more than process and deliver the Nation’s mail, they 

serve as the eyes and ears of the Nation’s communities 

and often respond first in situations involving health, 

safety, and crime in their communities; 

Whereas privatization of the United States Postal Service 

would result in higher prices and reduced services for its 

customers, especially in rural communities; and 

Whereas privatization of the United States Postal Service 

would jeopardize the booming e-commerce sector and 

cripple a major part of the Nation’s critical infrastructure: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that Congress should take all appropriate 

3 measures to ensure that the United States Postal Service 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HRES 70 IH 

1 remains an independent establishment of the Federal Gov2 ernment and not subject to privatization. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Heyward Conrad HOPKINS, DOC #R26214, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1357

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 15, 2019

Affirmed.
Case 5:03-cv-00124-C Document 23 Filed 10/08/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID 77
BOCA STEL 2, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK, N.A., et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3112

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
#### Oscar B. Stuart, as Trustee for Mrs. W. A. Donaghy, George Stuart, Bruce Stuart, Charles P. Davies, R. A. Shope, E. O. Mansker, W. D. Burnett, Ed. Crossland, Peninsular Investment and Development Company, R. A. Patterson, H. L. Anderson, D. A. Henderson, Henry Williams, F. B. Stuart, R. A. Wackerman and O. B. Stuart, *Appellants,*v. Gotham Realty Corporation and Bank of Bay Biscayne, *Appellees.*

En Banc.

Decision Filed October 31, 1927.

*H. L. Anderson,*for Appellants;

No appearance for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the. record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Strum and Buford, J. J., *concur.*

Brown, J., not participating.
# C_2019187EN.01001001.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Rhein-Sieg-Kreis (C-266/17), Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG (C-267/17) v Verkehrsbetrieb Hüttebräucker GmbH, BVR Busverkehr Rheinland GmbH (C-266/17), Kreis Heinsberg (C-267/17)

(Joined Cases C-266/17 and C 267/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transport - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 5(1) and (2) - Direct award - Contracts for public passenger transport services by bus and tram - Conditions - Directive 2004/17/EC - Directive 2004/18/EC)

(2019/C 187/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-266/17)

Applicant: Rhein-Sieg-Kreis

Defendants: Verkehrsbetrieb Hüttebräucker GmbH, BVR Busverkehr Rheinland GmbH

Intervener: Regionalverkehr Köln GmbH (C-266/17)

Case (C-267/17)

Applicant: Rhenus Veniro GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Kreis Heinsberg

Intervener: WestVerkehr GmbH (C-267/17)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road does not apply to the direct award of contracts for public passenger transport services by bus which do not take the form of service concessions contracts for the purposes of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.

OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0553

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

RAYMOND BERRY,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until May 1, 2024 to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 26 2024

03/26/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0553
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

With reference to the Quarterly Report of Cambridge Display Technology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Fyfe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ DAVID FYFE         
|DAVID FYFE             
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 14, 2007
Alberto MAYEA, Appellant, v. ESTATE OF Alexander Mayea MAYEA, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1366

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

AFFIRMED.
Van JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3473

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 6, 2019]

Van Jackson, Carrabelle, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed. See**Hart v. State* , 246 So.3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (en banc); *Seays v. State* , 253 So.3d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). We again certify conflict with *Cuevas v. State* , 241 So.3d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; *Blount v. State* , 238 So.3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ; *Mosier v. State* , 235 So.3d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; *Alfaro v. State* , 233 So.3d 515, 516 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; and *Burrows v. State* , 219 So.3d 910, 911 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).

Warner, Forst and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129384(164) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, CONTRACTORS, SAGINAW Justices VALLEY AREA CHAPTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 129384 

 COA: 234037 

Midland CC: 00-002512-CL 

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 

CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES, 

and MIDLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR, 

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS 

ASSOCIATION, MICHIGAN CHAPTER, 

MICHIGAN MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS 

ASSOCIATION, MICHIGAN CHAPTER OF 

SHEET METAL & AIR CONDITIONING 

CONTRACTORS, and MICHIGAN STATE 

BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES 

COUNCIL,

 Defendants/IntervenorsAppellees, 

and 

SAGINAW COUNTY PROSECUTOR, 

Intervenor-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of 

February 27, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the 

order was entered erroneously. 

d0522 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2006 

Clerk
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
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 55 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 472
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 55 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 473
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 55 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 474
Case 3:04-cv-02169-R Document 55 Filed 08/05/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 475
#### J. D. Girtman and Kate Girtman, His Wife, *Appellants,*v. Nichols-Ullendorff Realty Company, a Corporation Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Florida, *Appellee.*

Division, B.

Decision Filed December 9, 1927.

*Loftin, Stokes & Galkins,*for Appellants;

*Mitchell D. Price*and *Robert J. Boone,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the. said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
---

Exhibit 4.T

October 23, 2013 DELIVERED VIA EMAIL – wms@aubullion.com Nevada Royalty Corp.11521 North Warren StreetHayden, Idaho 83835 Attention: William Sheriff Dear Sir: Reference is made to the option agreement among Battle Mountain Gold Inc., Battle Mountain Gold, (USA) Inc. and Nevada Royalty Corp. (formerly Great American Minerals, Inc.) dated March 13, 2013 (the “Option Agreement”). This letter agreement will confirm our agreement to amend Section 3.2(d) of the Option Agreement by deleting “12 months” and replacing it with “18 months”. Please acknowledge your acceptance and agreement to the above terms and conditions by signing a copy of this letter agreement in the space provided below and returning it to the undersigned. Such signed copy may be delivered by facsimile or any other means of electronic transmission, and each of which so signed will be deemed to be an original and notwithstanding the date of execution will be deemed to bear the date first set out above. Battle Mountain Gold Inc.

   Battle Mountain Gold (USA), Inc.Signed “David Elliott”

   Signed “David Elliott”David Elliott, Director

   David Elliott, Director
  Nevada Royalty Corp. Signed “Timothy P. Leybold”Name: Timothy P. LeyboldTitle: Chief Financial Officer E-578


---
# C_2021098EN.01003602.xml

| 22.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/36

---

Order of the General Court of 28 January 2021 — MS v Commission

(Case T-602/20) (1)

(2021/C 98/42)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 404, 30.11.2020.

---
**Exhibit10.48**

 

[AGI LETTEHEAD]

 

December 5, 2001

 

Mr. Joe B. McAdams

Affinity Group, Inc.

2575 Vista Del Mar Drive

Ventura, CA 93001

 

Re:  Phantom Stock Agreementdated of January 2, 1992 as amended (the “Agreement,” capitalized terms usedherein and not otherwise defined herein having the meanings given to them inthe Agreement)

 

Dear Joe:

 

The term ofthe Agreement was originally set to expire on December 31, 1998.  By the Terms of your memorandum to me ofNovember 9, 1998, the term of the Agreement was extended to December 31,2001.  Although the Agreement requiredthe payment of the cash value of the Phantom Stock Interest and the New PhantomStock Interest based on Operating Profit for the Accounting Period endingDecember 31, 1998, as confirmed in a letter agreement dated as of August 15,2000, no payments have been made to you in respect of the Company Value as ofDecember 31, 1998.  The making of suchpayment has been deferred.

 

The Company isdesirous of further extending the term of the Agreement and of continuing todefer the payment of the cash value of the Phantom Stock Interest.  In consideration thereof, we have mutuallyagreed as follows:

 

1.             The term of the Agreement is herebyextended to terminate on December 31, 2003. The second sentence of Section 1.6 of the Agreement and clause (iii) ofthe definition of Determination Date in Section 4.1 thereof are hereby amendedby deleting the date “December 31, 2001” and inserting, in lieu thereof,“December 31, 2003.”

 

2.             Regardless of the date on which theDetermination Date actually occurs, company value shall, at a minimum, be anamount equal to the amount it would have been had the Determination Dateoccurred on August 15, 2000 by virtue of your death or disability.

 

3.             Except as herein specificallyamended or modified, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect inaccordance with its terms.

 

 

 

Mr. Joe B. McAdams

December 5, 2001

 

----

 

If theforegoing property sets forth our understanding in respect of the Agreement, Iwould appreciate your so acknowledging by executing the counterpart of thisletter in the space provided below.

 
|                          |   | Very truly  yours, |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|
|                          |   |               |   |
|                          |   | /s/                |   |
|                          |   | Stephen  Adams     |   |
|                          |   | Chairman           |   |
|                          |   |               |   |
|                          |   |               |   |
|                          |   |               |   |
|                          |   |               |   |
| Accepted and  agreed to as of |   |               |   |
| the 5th  day of December 2001 |   |               |   |
|                          |   |               |   |
| /s/                           |   |               |   |
|                          |   |               |   |
| Joe B.  McAdams               |   |               |   |

 

2

----
1797.

#### Daniel *v.*The State.

Indictment for selling liqnor, from Muscogee superior court— Judge Littlejohn presiding. March 12, 1909.

Argued April 13, —

Decided May 4, 1909.

*Henry G. Cameron,*for plaintiff in error.

*George C. Palmer, solicitor-general,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. The evidence authorized the verdict.

2. While a trial judge has the discretion to grant a new trial because of newly discovered evidence which is cumulative in its nature, yet his discretion in refusing to do so will not ordinarily be reversed; especially is this .true where the alleged newly discovered evidence bears upon its face indicia which tend so to discredit it that on another trial the result would probably not be changed.

3. Matters relating to the form or substance of the sentence can not legally be made grounds for a new trial. If the sentence is for any reason erroneous, the error can be corrected only by direct exception.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Robert L. DAVIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0456

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 06, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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 Verdant Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Curd, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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.



November 17, 2008



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ David J. Curd      
| | David J. Curd          
| | Chief Executive Officer



---







| | 
| |
Jason Todd KALAPP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2039

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.3

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each  of the
undersigned   certifies   that  this  annual  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 this annual report fairly represents,  in all
material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Golden
State Petro (IOM 1-B) PLC.


/s/ Tor Olav Troim
---------------------------
Tor Olav Troim
Principal Executive Officer


/s/ Kate Blankenship
---------------------------
Kate Blankenship
Principal Financial Officer

Date: June 30, 2003
Case 3:03-cr-00270-N Document 216 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 625
Exhibit 10.3
 AIRCRAFT TIME SHARING AGREEMENT  (Part 91 Operations)
   Interface Operations, LLC
   Las Vegas Sands Corp.
    INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
TRUTH IN LEASING REQUIREMENTS UNDER FAR § 91.23
 Within 24 hours after execution of this Agreement:
 
 
 At least 48 hours prior to the first flight to be conducted under this Agreement:  Exhibit A
 Carry a copy of this Agreement in the aircraft at all times.




---



##### 



AIRCRAFT TIME SHARING AGREEMENT  (Part 91 Operations)
 Aircraft Time Sharing Agreement
  Time Sharing of the Aircraft
 Term
 Delivery to Recipient
 Fee
       -2-




---



##### 



Return to Base
 Use of Aircraft
     -3-




---



##### 



-4-




---



##### 



Pilots
 Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities of Provider
 Liens
 Taxes
  -5-




---



##### 



Insurance
 Loss or Damage
  -6-




---



##### 



Cape Town Treaty Compliance
  -7-




---



##### 



Representations, Warranties and Agreements of Recipient
 Authorization
 Identification
 -8-




---



##### 



Representations, Warranties and Agreements of Provider
 Authorization
 FAA Registration
 Event of Default
    Providers Remedies
    General Provisions
 -9-




---



##### 



Headings
 Partial Invalidity
 Waiver
 Notices
 To Provider at:
    
    Interface Operations, LLC300 First AvenueNeedham, Massachusetts 02494Attn: Stephen J. OConnorFax:     (781) 449-6616Tel.     (781) 449-6500To Recipient at:
    
    Las Vegas Sands Corp.3355 Las Vegas Blvd. SouthLas Vegas, Nevada 89109Attn: General CounselFax:     (702) 733-5088Tel.:     (702) 733-5631
  Massachusetts Law
 -10-




---



##### 



Entire Agreement
 Amendment
 Binding Effect; Assignment
 Attorney Fees
 Remedies Not Exclusive
 No Third Party Rights
 Counterparts
 Expenses
 Broker/Finder Fees
 -11-




---



##### 



Relationship of the Parties
 Limitation of Damages
 Survival
 Truth-In-Leasing
     -12-




---



##### 



PROVIDER:
    
    
    
    RECIPIENT:INTERFACE OPERATIONS, LLC
    
    
    
    LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP.By:
    
    /s/ Sheldon G. Adelson
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Michael A. LevenPrint:
    
    Sheldon G. Adelson
    
    
    
    
    
    Print:
    
    Michael A. LevenTitle:
    
    Manager & President
    
    
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    President & Chief Operating Officer
  -13-




---



##### 



Schedule A
 (1)
    
    Gulfstream III 1159A aircraft bearing U.S. registration number N623MS and manufacturers
serial number 351(2)
    
    Boeing B737-BBJ aircraft bearing U.S. registration number N108MS and manufacturers serial
number 33102(3)
    
    Gulfstream IV SP aircraft bearing U.S. registration number N972MS and manufacturers serial
number 1285
 -14-