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

[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: 2025-00935]

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

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 10, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1286 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1110, K2025-1109.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00935 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2016243EN.01003801.xml

| 4.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/38

---

Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Andrea Incontri v EUIPO – HigicoL (ANDREA INCONTRI)

(Case T-197/16)

(2016/C 243/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Incontri Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HigicoL, SA (Baguim do monte, Portugal)

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: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANDREA INCONTRI’ – Application for registration No 10 985 323

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2016 in Case R 146/2015-4

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | totally alter the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

totally alter the contested decision;

| — | as a consequence, accept EUTM Application No 10 985 323 ANDREA INCONTRI in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a consequence, accept EUTM Application No 10 985 323 ANDREA INCONTRI in its entirety;

| — | order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the EUIPO opposition and appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the EUIPO opposition and appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
**Exhibit 32**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the interim  report of Ecotality, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Jonathan R. Read, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and I, Barry S. Baer, acting in the capacity as the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Jonathan R. Read    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Jonathan R. Read        |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| August 20, 2007         |   |
|                    |   |
|                    |   |
| /s/ Barry S. Baer       |   |
| Barry S. Baer           |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| August 20, 2007         |   |

 

----
# C_2017347EN.01002301.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 23 August 2017 — Ministère public v Marin-Simion Sut

(Case C-514/17)

(2017/C 347/31)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministère public

Applicant:

Defendant: Marin-Simion Sut

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Can Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 (1) be interpreted as being inapplicable to acts for which a custodial sentence has been imposed by a court of an issuing Member State, when those same acts are punishable in the territory of the executing Member State only by a fine, which means, in accordance with the domestic law of the executing Member State, that the custodial sentence cannot be executed in the executing Member State, which would be to the detriment of the social rehabilitation of the person sentenced and of his family, social and other ties?

1

---

(1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

1

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 30, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60302 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES ALLEN MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:04-CV-72 USDC NO. 2:02-CR-74-1

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Allen Morris, federal prisoner # 11614-042, was convicted following a guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute in excess of five grams of a mixture and substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 230 months and 120 months of imprisonment. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, setNo. 06-60302 -2- aside, or correct his sentence. The district court dismissed Morris’s claims, but preserved for further briefing Morris’s claim regarding the drug quantity used to determine his sentence. The record does not indicate that the district court has ruled upon the drug quantity issue. Morris now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s partial dismissal of his § 2255 claims. In general, courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Similarly, in a § 2255 proceeding, “the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held” and a COA is to be issued from a “final order.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a) and (c)(1). Moreover, the district court is required to “deny a COA as to each issue presented by the applicant.” Whitehead v. Johnson , 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998) (§ 2254 proceeding). Given that the district court did not rule on and ordered further briefing on Morris’s drug quantity claim, the judgment denying Morris’s other § 2255 claims was not a final order and appellate jurisdiction does not exist. See Young v. Herring , 777 F.2d 198, 202 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Morris’s motion for COA is denied, and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Morris’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is also denied.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 26 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 26

To constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for 
  the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress, or until their successors are 
                                chosen.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 14, 2025

Mr. Thune submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for 
  the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress, or until their successors are 
                                chosen.

    Resolved, That the following shall constitute the majority party's 
membership on the following committees for the One Hundred Nineteenth 
Congress, or until their successors are chosen:
    Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: Mr. Boozman 
(Chair), Mr. McConnell, Mr. Hoeven, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. 
Marshall, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Justice, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Thune, Mrs. 
Fischer, Mr. Moran.
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: Mr. Lee (Chair), Mr. 
Barrasso, Mr. Risch, Mr. Daines, Mr. Cotton, Mr. McCormick, Mr. 
Justice, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Hoeven.
    Special Committee on Aging: Mr. Scott (FL) (Chair), Mr. McCormick, 
Mr. Justice, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Scott (SC).
    Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship: Ms. Ernst 
(Chair), Mr. Risch, Mr. Paul, Mr. Scott (SC), Mr. Young, Mr. Hawley, 
Mr. Budd, Mr. Curtis, Mr. Justice, Mrs. Blackburn.
                                 <all>
```
Brittany MADRID, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Richard HARRIS, III Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4162

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 02, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed. Denied.
EX PARTE Robert PRESLEY

CR-17-0132

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 13, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Gordon FLACH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Joseph FARRELL, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4717

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 06, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The parties' stipulation for dismissal filed May 2, 2019, is treated as a notice of voluntary dismissal and is granted. This appeal is dismissed.
Oscar DOPICO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1495

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 22, 2019

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of Language Line, Inc.;

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 report;

3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant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 a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                         |  |                                                         
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 19, 2006
|                         | 
|By:                      |  | /s/ Matthew T. Gibbs II                                 
|                         |  | Matthew T. Gibbs II Chief Financial Officer and Director
Company — L-3 Communications Corporation.     Holdings – L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.     Participant – The individuals who are described in (a) or (b) below:          (a) An employee of a Participating Company who participates in a Pension Plan and (1) whoseAdjusted Compensation for a calendar year, including all amounts deferred by the employee under anydeferred compensation plan sponsored by the Company, exceeds the maximum dollar amount for thatyear under Section 401(a)(17) of the Code, or (2) for whom benefits under the Pension Plan arelimited by Sections 401(a)(17) or 415 of the Code, provided that the employee meets any otherrequirements as determined by the Committee in its sole and exclusive discretion. An employee whosatisfies the requirements for participation in this SERP for any calendar year shall continue tobe a Participant for all subsequent years regardless of whether he or she meets the participationrequirements of this paragraph for any such subsequent year.          (b) An employee who is an Additional SERP Participant.The Committee shall limit participation in this SERP to a select group of management or highlycompensated employees within the meaning of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Actof 1974, as amended, as determined by the Committee, in its sole and exclusive discretion.     Participating Company — The Company and any affiliate thereof that maintains aPension Plan listed in Appendix A.     Pension Benefit — The Participant’s accrued benefit under the Pension Plan.     Pension Plan — The tax-qualified defined benefit plan, among those listed in AppendixA, in which the Participant participates (or, in the case of an Additional SERP Participant, wouldhave been eligible to participate had he or she been an employee of the Participating Company onthe date prior to the date the Pension Plan was frozen to newly hired employees).     Section 409A Change of Control Event — A change in ownership or effective control ofHoldings, or in the ownership of a substantial portion of the assets of Holdings, within themeaning of Section 409A(a)(2)(A)(v) of the Code.     SERP — This L-3 Communications Corporation Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan.     Supplemental Pension Benefit — The benefit, if any, to which a Participant isentitled under the terms of this SERP.L-3 Communications Corporation
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                       SANTA FE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                  1997 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN

WHEREAS, Santa Fe International Corporation ("SFIC") has established a
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan (hereafter "Plan") for the benefit of
non-employee Directors of SFIC and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4.7 of the plan, the Board of Directors may at any
time or from time to time amend the Plan, provided such amendment does not
adversely affect the vested rights of any participant in the Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has determined that it is appropriate at this
time to amend the Plan in a manner not inconsistent with the terms of the Plan,

NOW THEREFORE, effective this 23rd day of March 1999, the Santa Fe International
Corporation Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan is amended as follows:

1.   The current Section 2.1 Grant Of Options is DELETED and the following
     Substituted therefore:

     "2.1 Grant Of Options. The Committee is authorized to grant Options to
     Grantees in accordance with the terms and conditions required pursuant to
     this Plan and with such additional terms and conditions, not inconsistent
     with the provisions of the Plan, as the Committee shall determine. Current
     and future non-employee Directors of the Company and any of its
     subsidiaries that have not previously received any stock options from the
     Company shall be granted a one-time award of a right to purchase 10,000
     shares (or such higher amount determined by the Board) of Common Stock at
     the fair market value at the date of approval of the Plan or their election
     to the Board. Subsequently each Director shall receive an Option of 5,000
     shares (or such higher amount determined by the Board) of Common Stock on
     an annual basis.

Dated: March 23, 1999


                              SANTA FE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION


                              By:        /s/ Cary A. Moomjian
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                      Santa Fe International Corporation
---

Exhibit 4.BB

PROMISSORY NOTEof
     
    Battle Mountain Gold Inc. (“BMG”) FOR VALUE RECEIVED, BMG promises to pay to David Elliott of 200 Burrard Street, Suite 700, Vancouver, BC V6C 3L6(“Lender”) the amount of $50,000.00 (fifty thousand dollars) plus interest at the rate of 6% (six per cent) per annum calculated from December 10, 2015 until the date or dates of repayment on a non-compounding basis not in advance, on the demand of the Lender provided cash funds of $400,000.00 or more have been received by BMG from the proceeds of one or more equity issuances by BMG prior to the time of the demand by the Lender. Executed this 9thday of December, 2015 on behalf of BMG by: Signed “Ian Brown” Ian Brown
    Chief Financial Officer (having the authority to bind BMG) E-680


---
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Steven G. Holder, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ECC Capital Corporation; 

 

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 report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within 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 and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 15, 2005