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

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 21 (Monday, February 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 19, 2024, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (``IEEE'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards 
development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, 51 new standards have been initiated and 17 existing 
standards are being revised. More detail regarding these changes can be 
found at: https://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/sba/12nov2024/, https://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb/sba/11dec2024/. The following pre-
standards activities associated with IEEE Industry Connections 
Activities were launched or renewed: https://standards.ieee.org/about/bog/cag/approvals/december2024/.
    On September 17, 2004, the IEEE filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 15, 
2024. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on January 24, 2025 (90 FR 8145).

Suzanne Morris
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2025-02113 Filed 1-31-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVE FERRARI, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 17-cv-00018-YGR 

ORDER DIRECTING SUBMISSION OF 

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

On May 4, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action 

settlement and to certify the class. The Court has implemented a process to gather additional 

information to aid it in its assessment of the settlement and to require an audit after distributions. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to provide further information as set forth below by June 5, 2018. 

The information should be provided in a summary chart format, preferably similar to that shown 

in Appendix A hereto from William B. Rubenstein, The Fairness Hearing: Adversarial and 

Regulatory Approaches, 53 UCLA L. REV. 1435, 1460 (2006).1

 To the extent that plaintiff seeks 

reimbursement for expert fees, such fees shall be separately identified. Likewise, to the extent that 

relief differs for separate classes or subclasses, the settlement fund information shall be broken 

down accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2018 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 1

 Counsel are referred to further discussion on these issues in Nicholas M. Pace and 

William Rubenstein, “Shedding Light on Outcomes in Class Actions,” in CONFIDENTIALITY,

TRANSPARENCY, AND THE U.S. CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM, Ch. 2 (Joseph W. Doherty, Robert T. 

Reville, and Laura Zakaras, eds., Oxford University Press, 2008).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO ABREU,

Petitioner,

v.

R. BINKELE,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01941-SAB-HC

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On December 30, 2016, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the conditions of confinement at 

Salinas Valley State Prison, where Petitioner is currently incarcerated. (ECF No. 1). The events 

giving rise to this action occurred at Salinas Valley State Prison, which is located in Monterey 

County and within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Therefore, venue is proper in the Northern 

District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). A civil action which has been filed in the wrong

district may be transferred to the proper district. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

///

///

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-00117-JCS Document 3 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California. This Court has not ruled on the

request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), and in light of the transfer, the Court will not 

determine whether to construe the instant petition as a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00117-JCS Document 3 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



The Board of Directors
Pan Pacific Retail Properties, Inc.:


        We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-63319, 333-63743 and 333-72551, each on Form S-3 of Pan Pacific Retail
Properties, Inc. and to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-61169 on Form S-8 of Pan Pacific Retail Properties, Inc., of our report
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Pan Pacific Retail Properties,
Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements
of income, equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1998, and the related Schedule III. Such report is dated
February 11, 1999, except as to Note 9(f), which is as of March 24, 1999, and
appears in the December 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-K of Pan Pacific
Retail Properties, Inc.


                                            /s/ KPMG LLP



San Diego, California
March 24, 1999
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7285
RUBEN MENDEZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE SNYDER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-352-5) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 25, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ruben Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The district court also construed the petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it. Mendez intended his petition as one under § 2241, and because the district court did not have jurisdiction under § 2255 to consider the validity of Mendez’s sentence on his convictions arising out of the Southern District of Florida, we decline to consider this case under § 2255. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Ruben Mendez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), claiming that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment. SeeUnited States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). A petitioner may challenge his sentence under § 2241 only if 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; In re Jones , 226 F. 3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). Mendez has not established that § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective as discussed in Jones , so he is not entitled to proceed under § 2241. * Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief. 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.

AFFIRMED
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Vernon Samaroo, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Southridge Enterprises Inc. (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, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2005, and to which this
      certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 the Company.                                                                                                                                                             

| | By:    |                                  
| | ------ | ---------------------------------
| |        | /s/
      Vernon Samaroo         
| | Name:  | VERNON SAMAROO                   
| |        |                                  
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and Chief
| |        | Financial Officer                
| |        |                                  
| | Date:  | January 11, 2006                 

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Kelly Wayne RILEY, DOC # R27322, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3315

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 8, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 30, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby                           ( print page 8542)                        gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 23, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 601 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1151, K2025-1151.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-01917 Filed 1-29-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Bobby Lynn SMITH v. STATE

CR-16-1041

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018 Reh. denied March 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michael Jerome LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1842

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 16, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Greg Caracci, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Michael Jerome Lee, appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on reckless driving as a lesser included offense. "Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are rarely addressed on direct appeal because they normally turn on questions of fact and both sides are entitled to present relevant evidence at an evidentiary hearing." *Barnett v. State* , 181 So. 3d 534, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). In order to prevail on an ineffectiveness claim on direct appeal, an appellant must demonstrate " 'ineffectiveness on the face of the record, indisputable prejudice, and an inconceivable tactical explanation for the conduct.' " *Id.* (citation omitted).

As the State argues, Appellant has failed to establish an inconceivable tactical explanation for trial counsel's action of not requesting the instruction at issue, especially in light of the fact that she sought a reckless driving instruction as a lesser included offense on another of Appellant's charged crimes. Indisputable prejudice has also not been established. *See* *Sanders v. State* , 946 So. 2d 953, 960 (Fla. 2006) (holding *828that "the possibility of a jury pardon cannot form the basis for a finding of prejudice" under *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and that "a claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request an instruction on a lesser-included offense may be summarily denied); *see also* *Johnson v. State* , 247 So. 3d 689, 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (citing *Sanders* for the proposition that as a matter of law, the possibility of a jury pardon cannot form the basis for a finding of prejudice under *Strickland* ).

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's judgment and sentence.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Lewis and Roberts, JJ., concur.
Saghi Sissy ATKINSON f/k/a Saghi Sissy Duda, Appellant, v. Alexander Nicholas DUDA, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1063

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Yohan Eba MCEWEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3750

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 5, 2019

Anthony M. Candela of Candela Law Firm, P.A., Riverview, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, BLACK, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
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





I, Peter
Ianace, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of
Espre Solutions, Inc., and Subsidiaries on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such quarterly
report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Espre Solutions, Inc. and
Subsidiaries.








Dated:
May 20,
2008                                                                                                           By:  /  s/ Peter
Ianace


Peter
Ianace, Chief Executive Officer
Roger Marx DESENBERG, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1300

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

          TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

                            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 Annual Report of TravelCenters of America, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Edwin P. Kuhn, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Edwin P. Kuhn
-----------------------------
Edwin P. Kuhn
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
March 30, 2004
Exhibit 31.1**Section 302 Certification**I, Wayne L. Laufer, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this June 30, 2006 Form 10-Q of Bois d’Arc Energy, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: August 7, 2006         /s/ WAYNE L. LAUFER   Chief Executive Officer