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 7, 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 26, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1212 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1010, K2025-1009.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00053 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Case 3:04-cv-02532-K Document 10 Filed 06/01/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 34
2

information or accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence." Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). A sentence that falls within the statutory limits is not considered cruel and unusual punishment "unless the statute fixing punishment is unconstitutional or the sentence is so unreasonably disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience." Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion).

Appellant does not argue that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence or that the relevant statutes are unconstitutional. The sentence imposed was within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. See NRS 193.130(2)(d); NRS 200.481(2)(e)(2); NRS 205.690(2). At sentencing, the district court was made aware of the opportunity for appellant to be gainfully employed as well as the availability of a safe and sober living situation. Appellant proposed services through Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services as a condition of probation, which respondent argued against given the gravity of appellant's crimes. We conclude that the sentence imposed is not unreasonably disproportionate to the offense and therefore does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we



### ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A < •cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge Washoe County Alternate Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 3
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 85 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 85

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
the deduction for certain taxes, including State and local property and 
                             income taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 28, 2021

Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. 
 Booker, Mr. Durbin, and Ms. Duckworth) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
the deduction for certain taxes, including State and local property and 
                             income taxes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Securing Access to Lower Taxes by 
ensuring Deductibility Act'' or the ``SALT Deductibility Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL, ETC. 
              TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Section 164(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking paragraph (6).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
AGREED JUDGMENT Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION

IN RE:

DIVINE N. NYIAWUNG, 

 Debtor 

DIVINE N. NYIAWUNG,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION,

 Defendant. 

Case Number: 22-40639-MXM

(Chapter 7)

Adv. No. 23-04036-MXM

AGREED JUDGMENT
AGREED JUDGMENT Page 2 of 2

Upon consideration of the Complaint (ECF No. 1) and the Stipulation for Entry of 

Agreed Judgment filed by the parties (ECF No. 23), as well as the consent of the parties as 

evidenced by their signatures below, it is therefore

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the student loan debt owed by Divine N. 

Nyiawung to the Department of Education is dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8),

and is hereby DISCHARGED.

### END OF JUDGMENT ##

AGREED TO CONTENT AND FORM:

LEIGHA SIMONTON

Acting United States Attorney

 /s/ Dawn Whalen Theiss 

Dawn Whalen Theiss

Assistant United States Attorney

Texas Bar No. 24051755

1100 Commerce Street, Third Floor

Dallas, Texas 75242-1699

Telephone: 214-659-8628

Facsimile: 214-659-8807

dawn.theiss@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for United States

Department of Education

/s/ Kenneth L. Neeley

Kenneth L. Neeley

NEELEY LAW

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Kyle Schumacher

Kyle Schumacher

Josh Lane

Schumacher Lane PLLC

NEELEY LAW

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
?he Attorney General of Texas 

December 8, 1977 

Honorable Felipe Reyna 

District Attorney 

3rd Floor, McLennan County 

Courthouse Annex 

Waco, Texas 76701 

Opinion No. H-1101 

Re: Use of misdemeanor 

convict laborers. 

Dear Wr. Reyna: 

you have requested our opinion concerning the use 

convict laborers under articles 43.09 and 43.10 of the 

of 

Texas 

Code of .Criminal,Prdcedure. You ask whether it would be 

necessary to establish a county workhouse orcounty farm in 

order for a commissioners court to utilize the, labor or persons convicted of misdemeanors on public roads, bridges and 

other projects of the county; 

Article 43.09 provides 'in part: 

When a defendant is convicted of a 

misdemeanor . . . he may ~. . ~. be put 

to work in the workhouse, or on'the 

county farm, or public improvements 

of the county . . . . 

Article 43.10 provides in part: 

1. Each commissioners court may provide for the erection of a workhouse 

and the establishment of a county farm 

in connection therewith for the purpose 

of utilizing the labor of said parties 

so convicted; 

. . . . 

5. They shall be put to labor upon 

the public roads, bridges or other 

public works of the' county when their 

labor cannot be utilized in the county 

workhouse or county farm. 

p. 4514 
Honorable Felipe Reyna - Page 2 (~-1101) 

In Attorney General Opinion O-3260 (1941) this office 

ruled that it would not be necessary to establish a workhouse 

or county farm in order to use misdemeanor convict labor upon 

public improvements. The statutes involved therein were identical in pertinent respects to articles 43.09 and 43.10. 

In light of the unchanged language of the statute, the 

article 43.09 provision that such labor may be used "in the 

workhouse, or on the county farm, or public improvements of 

the county," and the language of axicle 43.10(5), we believe 

Attorney General Opinion O-3260 (1941) is controlling. 

added). 

(Emphasis 

you have also asked about the nature of liability of the 

county to a convict laborer injured while performing~such labor. 

We must decline to answer this question since the issues involved 

are in litigation. Garcia v: Texas Department of Corrections, 

No. 31,691-D, District Court of Fort.Bend County, 130th Judicial 

District of Texas., Richmond, Texas 11469. 

Opinion H-139 (1973). 

See At~torney General - 

SUMMARY 

It is not necessary to establish a county 

workhouse or county farm in order to utilize misdemeanor convict laborupon public 

improvements of the county underarticles 

43.09 and 43.10 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure. 

General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4515
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 90 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 90

To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to repeal the authority 
   of the President to assume emergency control of the police of the 
                         District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 28, 2021

 Mr. Van Hollen (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Baldwin, 
  Mr. Markey, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Casey, Ms. Cortez Masto, and Mr. Wyden) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to repeal the authority 
   of the President to assume emergency control of the police of the 
                         District of Columbia.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Police Home 
Rule Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT TO ASSUME EMERGENCY CONTROL OF 
              POLICE OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    (a) Repeal of Authority.--The District of Columbia Home Rule Act is 
amended by striking section 740 (sec. 1-207.40, D.C. Official Code).
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is 
amended by striking the item relating to section 740.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of Louisiana v. Ellis ELLISON

No. 2018-KP-2083

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The district court's grant of an out-of-time appeal and appointment of appellate counsel is vacated for failure to comply with *State v. Counterman* , 475 So.2d 336 (La. 1985) and La.C.Cr.P. arts. 924 - 930.7. The district court is directed to reconsider whether the applicant will be granted an out-of-time appeal after affording the State the opportunity to respond to the application. *See* La.C.Cr.P. art. 927(A). The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

GUIDRY, J., recused.

HUGHES, J., would deny.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Audrey Reich, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dynamic Alert Limited;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



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



4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c)

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



5. 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 function):



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



6. I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.







Date:  December 22, 2006





By: /s/ Audrey Reich



Audrey Reich

President/CEO, principal executive officer
Jerri NEEMAN, Former Wife, Appellant, v. Scott NEEMAN, Former Husband, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0546

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 833 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 833

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services to negotiate fair prescription drug prices 
                 under part D of the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 18, 2021

 Ms. Klobuchar (for herself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, 
 Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Coons, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. 
 Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. 
  Hirono, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Manchin, Mr. 
 Merkley, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Peters, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Shaheen, 
 Ms. Smith, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, Mr. 
  Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services to negotiate fair prescription drug prices 
                 under part D of the Medicare program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Empowering Medicare Seniors to 
Negotiate Drug Prices Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION 
              DRUGS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860D-11 of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-111) is amended by striking subsection (i).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-2853

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * v. * * Arthur A. Blumeyer, III; * * Defendant, * * Appeal from the United States Hope P. Blumeyer; Arthur A. Blumeyer, * District Court for the Eastern IV; Carter C. Blumeyer; Brian A. * District of Missouri. Blumeyer; Peggy P. Blumeyer; Hope P. * Blumeyer, guardian and custodian of a * [UNPUBLISHED] minor, Hope P. Blumeyer; * * Defendants-Appellants, * * David D. Yeagley; Bel-Aire Insurance * Company; Walter A. Rodgers, * * Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: August 6, 1999

Filed: August 13, 1999

___________ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________-2-

PER CURIAM. Hope P. Blumeyer, Arthur A. Blumeyer IV, Carter C. Blumeyer, and Brian A. Blumeyer (collectively, the Blumeyers) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their petitions brought under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) (1994), in which the Blumeyers asserted legalinterests in certain personal property ordered forfeited to the United States. Havingcarefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we reject the Blumeyers’ arguments and affirm for the reasons set out in the district court’s thorough memorandum and order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 FORT WORTH DIVISION

MARTIN G. CASTILLO, Jr., §

(TDCJ #695172) §

 §

V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:05-CV-218-Y

 §

STATE OF TEXAS § 

FINAL JUDGMENT

Pursuant to an order issued this same day, and Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 58: 

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Petition

for Writ of Mandamus be, and is hereby, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and alternatively, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).

It is further ORDERED that all costs of court are taxed

against the party that incurred them.

SIGNED May 27, 2005.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00218-Y Document 8 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 28
# C_2019065EN.01001401.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverfassungsgericht — Germany) — proceedings brought by Heinrich Weiss and Others

(Case C-493/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Economic and monetary policy - Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank - Validity - Secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme - Articles 119 and 127 TFEU - Powers of the ECB and the European System of Central Banks - Maintenance of price stability - Proportionality - Article 123 TFEU - Prohibition of monetary financing of Member States in the euro area))

(2019/C 65/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverfassungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Heinrich Weiss, Jürgen Heraeus, Patrick Adenauer, Bernd Lucke, Hans-Olaf Henkel, Joachim Starbatty, Bernd Kölmel, Ulrike Trebesius, Peter Gauweiler, Johann Heinrich von Stein, Gunnar Heinsohn, Otto Michels, Reinhold von Eben-Worlée, Michael Göde, Dagmar Metzger, Karl-Heinz Hauptmann, Stefan Städter, Markus C. Kerber

Interested parties: Bundesregierung, Bundestag, Deutsche Bundesbank

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Consideration of the first to fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2015 on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme, as amended by Decision (EU) 2017/100 of the European Central Bank of 11 January 2017. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consideration of the first to fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Decision (EU) 2015/774 of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2015 on a secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme, as amended by Decision (EU) 2017/100 of the European Central Bank of 11 January 2017.

| 2. | The fifth question is inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The fifth question is inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(iii) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|----- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(iv) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Language Line Holdings, Inc.
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 7, 2008                                 
|                                                     
|/s/ Michael Schmidt                                  
|Michael Schmidt Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report.