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

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6044-6045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 569]

Delegation of Authority to the Assistant Secretary for Political 
Military Affairs

ACTION: Delegation of Authority.

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

SUMMARY: The State Department is publishing a Delegation of Authority 
signed by the Secretary of State on December 19, 2024. .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, 
signed the following ``Delegation of Authority to the Assistant 
Secretary for Political-Military Affairs to Provide Concurrence under 
10 U.S.C. 335'' on December 19, 2024. The State Department maintains 
the original document.

[[Page 6045]]

    (Begin text.)
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the 
laws of the United States, including section 1 of the State Department 
Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a) and 10 U.S.C. 335, I hereby 
delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, to 
the extent authorized by law, the authority to concur with respect to 
assistance authorized by section 335 of title 10 of the U.S. Code.
    Any function or authority delegated herein may be exercised by the 
Secretary, either Deputy Secretary, or the Under Secretary for Arms 
Control and International Security. Any reference in this delegation of 
authority to any statute or delegation of authority shall be deemed to 
be a reference to such statute or delegation of authority as amended 
from time to time and shall be deemed to apply to any provision of law 
that is the same or substantially the same as such statute. The 
authority delegated herein may be re-delegated, to the extent 
authorized by law.
    This document will be published in the Federal Register.
    (End text.)

Zachary A. Parker,
Director, Office of Organizational Policy, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2025-01207 Filed 1-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6889 

WILLIAM HENCELY DAVIS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID POWELL,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-03-1190-1)

Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Hencely Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Hencely Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and

find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Davis v.

Powell, No. CA-03-1190-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2004). We deny as moot

Davis’ motion and amended motion to consolidate this appeal with

Appeal Nos. 04-6890 and 04-6951. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00801]

[[Page 3979]]

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

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

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00801 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 4817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00914]

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

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 1270 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1091, K2025-1090.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00914 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 4811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00874]

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

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 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1248 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1065, K2025-1064.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00874 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 5920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel; Repository and Genomics Resource (NRGR).
    Date: February 6, 2025.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Address: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 
6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Liza Litvina, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental 
Health, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Bethesda, MD 20852. 301-827-5829, email: [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental 
Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 13, 2025.
Bruce A. George,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2025-01075 Filed 1-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
# C_2017144EN.01002301.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 3 February 2017 — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-58/17)

(2017/C 144/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (1) of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘process emissions sub-installation’ in Article 3(h) of Decision 2011/278/EU covers only incompletely oxidised carbon in a gaseous state, or does it also include incompletely oxidised carbon in a liquid state?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2016371EN.01002301.xml

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/23

---

Action brought on 10 August 2016 — Ellinikos Syndemos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 v EUIPO — 520 Barcode Ellas (520Barcode Hellas)

(Case T-453/16)

(2016/C 371/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ellinikos Syndemos Epicheiriseon gia ti Diacheirisi ton Diethnon Protypon GS1 (Argiroupoli Attikis, Greece) (represented by: A. Mouzaki, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 520 Barcode Ellas — AE Diacheirisis Diethnon Protypon kai Parochis Symvouleutikon Ypiresion (Kifisia Attikis, Greece)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘5 201000 603856 520Barcode Hellas’ — Application for registration No 10 881 861

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2016 in Case R 238/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the legal fees of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the legal fees of the applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Articles 75, 76(1) and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 75, 76(1) and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Timothy SMITH v. Derrick KERNEY and Ean Holdings, LLC and Bernard Kinsey And Safeway Insurance Company of Louisiana

NO. 2019-C-0268

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

Denied.
Christopher COLLIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3508

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
S. 921 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Sunday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty one 

An Act 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to further protect officers and employees 

of the United States, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila 

Federal Officers and Employees Protection Act’’. 

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

It is the sense of Congress that— 

(1) since the founding of the Nation, officers and employees 

of the United States Government have dutifully and faithfully 

served the United States overseas, including in situations that 

place them at serious risk of death or bodily harm, in order 

to preserve, protect, and defend the interests of the United 

States; 

(2) securing the safety of such officers and employees while 

serving overseas is of paramount importance and is also in 

furtherance of preserving, protecting, and defending the 

interests of the United States; 

(3) Federal courts, including the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Second Circuit, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have correctly interpreted 

section 1114 of title 18, United States Code, to apply 

extraterritorially to protect officers and employees of the United 

States while the officers and employees are serving abroad; 

(4) in a case involving a violent attack against Federal 

law enforcement officers Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila, a 

panel of a Federal court of appeals held that section 1114 

of title 18, United States Code, does not apply extraterritorially, 

creating a split among the United States circuit courts of 

appeals; 

(5) in light of the opinion described in paragraph (4), it 

has become necessary for Congress to clarify the original intent 

that section 1114 of title 18, United States Code, applies 

extraterritorially; and 

(6) it is further appropriate to clarify the original intent 

that sections 111 and 115 of title 18, United States Code, 

apply extraterritorially as well. 
S. 921—2 

SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED 

STATES. 

Part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in section 111, by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.—There is extraterritorial 

jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section.’’; 

(2) in section 115, by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(e) There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct 

prohibited by this section.’’; and 

(3) in section 1114— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before ‘‘Whoever’’; 

and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(b) EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.—There is extraterritorial 

jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Ollinger Baggett, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division A.

Opinion Filed July 14, 1927.

*253
      *M. F. Caldwell, Jr.,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*J. B. Johnson,*Attorney General, and *II. E. Carter,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of arson and sentenced to four years in the State Prison. There' were four defendants jointly indicted. All were convicted, but a new trial was granted to two. The only assignment of error insisted upon is based upon the denial of the motion for a new trial as to plaintiff in error.

We cannot see that it would serve any useful purpose to discuss the testimony, which was very meager, vague and unsatisfactory. Suffice it to say that a careful study of the testimony convinces us that it contains no proof of guilt. While the evidence raises a suspicion that plaintiff in error may have been guilty, it amounts to no more. The law presumes that he was innocent, and the burden was upon the State to overcome this presumption by introducing evidence showing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In our opinion this was not done. The jury must have based its verdict on something outside of the evidence. Our conclusion is that this youth of eighteen should not be sent to the penitentiary on the testimony adduced, and that the learned trial judge erred in denying the motion for new trial.

Reversed.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Randall LAMP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-736

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Helen Hall HAMLER v. John B. RICHARDSON

2170242

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Language Line, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis G. Dracup, Chief Executive 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:



|(i) | 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
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: May 12, 2008



/s/ Dennis G. DracupDennis G. DracupChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)


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.
Shirley MOREMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

1160587

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### The HONORABLE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, United States District 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-3544

___________ Loyd William Brody, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 1996 Filed: May 10, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Loyd Brody pleaded guilty to one cou nt of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute one pound of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841 and 846, and consented to one count of criminal forfeiture of the drug proc eeds under 21 U.S.C. § 853. Accordingly, in November 1994 th e district court ordered forfeiture of $10,595.00, and in December 199 4 1 senten ced Brody to 78 months imprisonment and four years supervise d release. The district court denied Brody's subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motionclaiming ineffective assistance of counsel, and this appea l followed. Upon de novo review, we are convinced that the motion, files,

### -2-

and records conclusively show Brody is not entit led to relief. See United States v. Duke , 50 F.3d 571, 576 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert . denied , 116 S. Ct. 224 (1995); Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 694 (1984) (ineffectiveness standard). Because the government brought the crimin al forfeiture count in the criminal indictment, and Brody pleade d guilty to the methamphetamine count and consente d to the forfeiture during the same p roceeding, Brody was not subjected to double jeopardy. Se e United States v. Smit h , 75 F.3d 382, 384 (8th Cir. 1996) (double jeopardy concerns do not arise when congressionally-autho rized multiple punishments are i mposed in single proceeding). Thus, Brody's counsel was no t ineffective for faili ng to raise this issue. Nor was counsel ineffective for failing to challenge the type of methamphetamine used in calculating Brody's sentence: the base offense level to which Brody agreed was clearl y based on D-methamphet amine, and he has neither alleged nor shown that the drug was in fact L-methamphetamine. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EX PARTE Lawrence Eddie HINKLE, Jr.

1160864 (CR-16-0318)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

August 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.