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

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 24 (Thursday, February 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 9090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02275]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--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: February 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean 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 31, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
610 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1167, K2025-1167.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-02275 Filed 2-5-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 265 

Honoring the memory of the victims of the heinous attack at the Pulse 

nightclub on June 12, 2016. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 9, 2021 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the memory of the victims of the heinous attack 

at the Pulse nightclub on June 12, 2016. 

Whereas, on June 12, 2016, a gunman inspired by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria targeted the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, where he killed 49 innocent victims and wounded dozens more in a despicable attack; 

Whereas the attack at the Pulse nightclub was an attack on 

the LGBTQ community, the Hispanic community, the 

City of Orlando, the State of Florida, and the United 

States; 

Whereas the Orlando community continues to mourn the 

tragic loss of life, but has demonstrated remarkable 

strength, unity, and resilience in the aftermath of the 

horrendous event; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 265 ATS 

Whereas June 12 is designated as ‘‘Pulse Remembrance 

Day’’ in the State of Florida to honor the victims and 

survivors of the senseless attack; 

Whereas the people of the United States continue to pray for 

those affected by the tragedy; and 

Whereas June 12, 2021, marks 5 years since the lives of the 

49 innocent victims were tragically cut short by the 

senseless act of terrorism: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) commemorates the 49 victims killed in the 

3 attack at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, on 

4 June 12, 2016, and offers heartfelt condolences to 

5 the families, loved ones, and friends of the victims; 

6 (2) honors the dozens of survivors of the attack 

7 and pledges continued resolve to stand against ter8 rorism and hate; and 

9 (3) expresses gratitude to the brave law en10 forcement and emergency medical personnel who re11 sponded to the attack. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Patrick Deon JOHNSON v. STATE

CR-16-0700

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 99.3

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ChoicePoint Inc. (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies that: Based on my knowledge,



|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Derek V. Smith

Derek V. SmithChairman and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 27, 2003


27
Carlos D. WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1001

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 1, 2019

Carlos D. Walker, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:  March 16, 2009
    /s/ Robert L. ChioiniRobert L. ChioiniChief Executive OfficerDated:  March 16, 2009
    /s/ Thomas E. KlemaThomas E. KlemaChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1****Certification**I, William T. Monahan, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Novelis Inc. (Novelis), certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Novelis;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich 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 includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 13, 2006                             /s/ William T. Monahan   William T. Monahan   Interim Chief Executive Officer
Zackery Antonio DENEGALL, DOC #366840, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3955

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Franklin G. REDFEARN

No. 2018-KH-1408

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF OUACHITA**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Applicant has now fully litigated two applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Hughes, J., would grant for an evidentiary hearing.
Jackson SLOAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4249

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 203 

Condemning the horrific attack in Indianapolis, Indiana, on April 15, 2021, 

and expressing support and prayers for all of those impacted by that tragedy. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 29, 2021 

Mr. YOUNG (for himself and Mr. BRAUN) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

MAY 10, 2021 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the horrific attack in Indianapolis, Indiana, on 

April 15, 2021, and expressing support and prayers for 

all of those impacted by that tragedy. 

Whereas, on April 15, 2021, a mass shooting took place in 

Indianapolis, Indiana, at the FedEx Ground Plainfield 

Operations Center; 

Whereas the people of the United States mourn the 8 innocent lives lost in that unthinkable tragedy: Matthew Alexander, Samaria Blackwell, Amarjeet Kaur Johal, 

Jasvinder Kaur, Amarjit Sekhon, Jaswinder Singh, Karli 

Smith, and John Weisert; 

Whereas the people of the United States express gratitude for 

the heroic actions of the men and women of the IndianVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:45 May 10, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR203.ATS SR203

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 203 ATS 

apolis Metropolitan Police Department, who courageously 

responded to the attack and saved countless lives; 

Whereas the people of the United States express appreciation 

and gratitude for all of the first responders who quickly 

responded to the attack and the professionals and volunteers who cared for the injured; 

Whereas the people of the United States continue to pray for 

the individuals who were wounded in the attack and continue to recover; 

Whereas the entire Indianapolis community—and all Hoosiers—united in support of the victims and their families; 

and 

Whereas the people of the United States will always remember the victims of this attack and stand in solidarity with 

those affected by this senseless tragedy: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) condemns the senseless attack that led to 

3 the tragic loss of 8 lives in Indianapolis, Indiana, on 

4 Thursday, April 15, 2021; 

5 (2) honors the memory of the victims who were 

6 killed; 

7 (3) expresses hope for a full and speedy recov8 ery and pledges continued support for the individ9 uals injured in the attack; 

10 (4) offers heartfelt condolences and deepest 

11 sympathies to the Indianapolis community and the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 203 ATS 

1 families, friends, and loved ones affected by the 

2 tragedy; and 

3 (5) honors the selfless and dedicated service 

4 of— 

5 (A) the medical professionals and other in6 dividuals who cared for the victims in the com7 munity of Marion County, Indiana; 

8 (B) the emergency response teams and law 

9 enforcement officials who responded to the call 

10 of duty; and 

11 (C) the law enforcement officials who con12 tinue to investigate the attack. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 11, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9352-9353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02459]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces that the planned 
meeting on February 12, 2025, of the National Small Business 
Development Center Advisory Board (NSBDCAB) is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Karton, Designated Federal

[[Page 9353]]

Officer, Office of Small Business Development Centers (OSBDC), SBA, 409 
Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416; [email protected]; 
202-619-1816.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting was announced in the Federal 
Register on January 16, 2025, at 90 FR 4827. The cancellation of this 
meeting is due to SBA administrative priorities. SBA will announce the 
new date for this meeting in a future Federal Register notice.

Andrienne Johnson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2025-02459 Filed 2-10-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
```
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2020015DE.01000901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20.1.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 15/9 |

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2017/373 der Kommission vom 1. März 2017 zur Festlegung gemeinsamer Anforderungen an Flugverkehrsmanagementanbieter und Anbieter von Flugsicherungsdiensten sowie sonstiger Funktionen des Flugverkehrsmanagementnetzes und die Aufsicht hierüber sowie zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 482/2008, der Durchführungsverordnungen (EU) Nr. 1034/2011, (EU) Nr. 1035/2011 und (EU) 2016/1377 und zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 677/2011

(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 62 vom 8. März 2017)

Seite 10, Anhang I „Begriffsbestimmungen für die Anhänge II bis XIII (Teil-Begriffsbestimmungen)“, Nummer 14:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „14. | ‚Flugplatzgeländedaten‘ (aerodrome mapping data): Daten, die zum Zweck der Zusammenstellung von Informationen über das Flugplatzgelände erhoben wurden;“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „14. | ‚Flugplatzkartierungsdaten‘ (aerodrome mapping data): Daten, die zum Zweck der Zusammenstellung von Informationen über das Flugplatzgelände erhoben wurden;“ |

Seite 10, Anhang I „Begriffsbestimmungen für die Anhänge II bis XIII (Teil-Begriffsbestimmungen)“, Nummer 15:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „15. | ‚Datenbank der Flugplatzgeländedaten‘ (Aerodrome Mapping Database, AMDB): eine Sammlung von in einem strukturierten Datensatz organisierten und geordneten Flugplatzgeländedaten;“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „15. | ‚Datenbank der Flugplatzkartierungsdaten‘ (Aerodrome Mapping Database, AMDB): eine Sammlung von in einem strukturierten Datensatz organisierten und geordneten Flugplatzkartierungsdaten;“ |

---
&

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA &o
OAKLAND DIVISION 4p es a ?

*,

Sy TA

Sat CW Oy
Coby

CaseNo. i P-c 7 —-O002d~ vo Riese RO

United States of America, )
) "oo,
Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING yg
) TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
v. )
Eric Oase )
Defendant. )
For the reason stated by the parties on the ae on , 2017, the Court excludes time under the Speedy
Trial Act from Ape / 13 , 2017, to Anetl “017 and finds that the ends of justice served by the

continuance outweigh the best interest of the =a and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A). The Court makes this finding and bases this continuance on the following factors:

Failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)).

The case is so unusual or so complex, due to [circle applicable reasons] the number of
defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact

or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or the trial
itself within the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

Failure to grant a continuance would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel,
taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel,
given counsel's other scheduled case commitments, taking into account the exercise of due
diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

xX Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

For the reasons stated on the record, it is further ordered that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. §
3161(b) and waived with the consent of the defendant under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
5.1(c) and (d).

For the reasons stated on the record, it is further ordered that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(1)(E)(F) for delay resulting from removal/transport of the defendant to another district.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
PLZ

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

e A. Olvera oun,

ee United States = Aitey

patep:_4/(3 ,2017
#### Eugenio VARGAS-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-71821, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 14, 2004.

Robert F. Jacobs, Esq., Law Offices of Robert F. Jacobs, PLC, Downey, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC — District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Eugenio Vargas-Garda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). *See id.*§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003).

Petitioner’s contention that the BIA denied him due process first by failing to issue a decision clarifying “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for four years after Congress inserted the term into the statute, and second by refusing to remand his case to the IJ to review the evidence under the new standard for “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” announced in *Matter of Monreal,*23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001), does not raise a colorable due process challenge. *See Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001) (“To be colorable ... the claim must have some possible validity”); *Ortiz v. INS,*179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.1999) (“Due process challenges to deportation proceedings require a showing of prejudice to succeed.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

United States of America, ) CaseNo. [)7-OR—-— CODA] - v a (eu

)
Plaintiff; ) STIPULATED ORDEREXCLUDING FILED
) TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
: ‘ ; MAY -4 2017
ne Oo:
*Hejendant. ) CURR US SCO Sar
NORTHERN oistricT IGT OF CALIFORNIA
For the reason stated by the parties on the record on _~la. 017, the Court excludes time under the Speedy

Trial Act from = ¥ dol) , to_m. ry; wf finds that the ends of justice served by the
continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A). The Court makes this finding and bases this continuance on the following factors:

Failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)().

The case is so unusual or so complex, due to /circle applicable reasons] the number of
defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact

or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or the trial
itself within the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

Failure to grant a continuance would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel,
taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

XK Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel, given
counsel's other scheduled case commitments, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
‘See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B) (iv).

2 < Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

For the reasons stated on the record, it is further ordered that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. §
3161(b) and waived with the consent of the defendant under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
5.1(c) and (d).

For the reasons stated on the record, it is further ordered that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(1)(E)(F) for delay resulting from removal/transport of the defendant to another district.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
patep: 5/4 HA padi | Wane
/Kandis A. Aids |
United States Magistrate Judge

,
smpucaten. A Dee LEZ dose A. Ova
Attorney for Defendant Zwis00 United States Attorney

Darlene B. Comsted-