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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 15, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 8, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 745 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2022-65, CP2022-71.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2022-12912 Filed 6-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
1
139
Frank Hutchinson and Diane Hutchinson
Terry J. Jackson and Kimberly A. Jackson
HAYS
22ND
98-0348
CHARLES E. (CHUCK) MILLER, JR.

	Appellants Frank Hutchinson and Diane Hutchinson have filed an unopposed motionto dismiss their appeal.  The court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal.  Tex. R. App. P.42.1(a)(2).

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellants' Motion

Filed:   June 7, 2001

Do Not Publish

1
139
Frank Hutchinson and Diane Hutchinson
Terry J. Jackson and Kimberly A. Jackson
HAYS
22ND
98-0348
CHARLES E. (CHUCK) MILLER, JR.

	Appellants Frank Hutchinson and Diane Hutchinson have filed an unopposed motionto dismiss their appeal.  The court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal.  Tex. R. App. P.42.1(a)(2).

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellants' Motion

Filed:   June 7, 2001

Do Not Publish

1
139
Frank Hutchinson and Diane Hutchinson
Terry J. Jackson and Kimberly A. Jackson
HAYS
22ND
98-0348
CHARLES E. (CHUCK) MILLER, JR.

	Appellants Frank Hutchinson and Diane Hutchinson have filed an unopposed motionto dismiss their appeal.  The court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal.  Tex. R. App. P.42.1(a)(2).

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellants' Motion

Filed:   June 7, 2001

Do Not Publish
# C_2018125EN.01000101.xml

| 10.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8843 — Macquarie Group/TDC)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 125/01)

On 28 March 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8843. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8843. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Susan R. GOKOOL, Petitioner v. OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY.

No. 19-317

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Vahan KELERCHIAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-782.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 1, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Karl Heinz DUPUY, Petitioner v. UNKNOWN.

No. 19-5716

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
ASAP COPY AND PRINT, et al., Petitioners v. CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA, INC.

No. 19-482

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
Jason James NEIHEISEL, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6232

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Smith Barney Principal Return Fund:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Zeros Plus Emerging Growth Series 2000 of Smith Barney
Principal Return Fund (the "Fund") for the year ended November
30, 1997, we considered its internal control, including control
activities for safeguarding securities, in order to determine our
auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on
the financial statements and to comply with the requirements of
Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection
of any evaluation of internal control to future periods is
subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and
operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by
employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.  However, we noted no matters involving the internal
control and its operation, including controls for safeguarding
securities that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.




January 15, 1998
John LEHMANN, Petitioner, v. Nicole HAIMS.

No. 19-891.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department denied.
Carter STEPHENS, Petitioner v. Marcelo Britto GOMEZ, et al.

No. 19-5662

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

*478Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000830142
<NAME> ZENIX INCOME FUND INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                      150,481,343
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                     143,897,639
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,114,675
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                     108
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             148,012,422
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                       595,609
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                   30,568,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                         31,164,108
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                   147,110,003
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                       15,936,845
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                       15,690,134
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                    (222,667)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                   (23,340,564)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                   (6,698,458)
<NET-ASSETS>                               116,848,314
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                               71,977
<INTEREST-INCOME>                            6,677,369
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                                 723,422
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                      6,025,924
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                   (4,433,436)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                  (4,069,789)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                      (2,487,301)
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                    6,228,161
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                              0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                          0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                            246,711
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                     (7,333,884)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                       (62,873)
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                 (18,854,685)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                          528,263
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                723,422
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                       120,628,277
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                             5.96
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                   0.38
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                         (0.54)
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                              0.39
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                            0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                               5.41
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                   3.45


</TABLE>
Preston SHANDS, Jr., Petitioner v. SOUTH CAROLINA

No. 19-5578

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of South Carolina denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                           4,112
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,607
<INVENTORY>                                    135,590
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               234,291
<PP&E>                                         437,303
<DEPRECIATION>                                 210,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 481,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,457
<BONDS>                                        294,150
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   481,906
<SALES>                                        501,694
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               501,694
<CGS>                                          433,531
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  476,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,821
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   607
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,413
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,752
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,642
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,642
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
Carl Devon POWELL, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA

No. 18-8753

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7613

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY RASHON BARNES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00313-D-2)

Submitted: June 21, 2021 Decided: June 29, 2021

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Rashon Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Rashon Barnes appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step 

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239, and his motion for 

reconsideration. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying Barnes’ motions. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 

329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. United States v. Barnes, No. 5:17-cr-00313-D-2 (E.D.N.C. 

Aug. 17, 2020; Oct. 13, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Paul DURISO, Petitioner v. WEST GULF MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et al.;

No. 18-9426

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,240
<SECURITIES>                                        22
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                        87
<INVENTORY>                                         25
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,919
<PP&E>                                           2,405
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,344
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           410
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,069
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,308
<SALES>                                          3,379
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,133
<CGS>                                              255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    46
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (974)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (974)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
George CLEVELAND, III, Petitioner v. Jerry B. ADGER

No. 19-5395

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Bryan Timothyleenard SMITH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6312

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Edina HARSAY, Petitioner v. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

No. 19-172

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0256 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LEA ALEX YATES II,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 13, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brie f on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 6 2022

05/06/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0256
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 58 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                      October 10, 2013.
    Resolved, That the resolution from the House of Representatives (H. 
Con. Res. 58) entitled ``Concurrent resolution expressing the sense of 
Congress regarding the need for the continued availability of religious 
services to members of the Armed Forces and their families during a 
lapse in appropriations.'', do pass with the following

                              AMENDMENTS:

(1)Strike the preamble and insert the following:
Whereas the Department of Defense determined that some contractor clergy, like 
        other Department of Defense contractors, were unable to perform their 
        contractual duties during the current lapse in appropriations;
Whereas this determination may have impacted the ability of members of the Armed 
        Forces and their families to worship and participate in religious 
        activities;
Whereas military chaplains on active duty, like all military personnel on active 
        duty, continue to perform their duties during the current lapse in 
        appropriations;
Whereas the Department continues to analyze its authorities under the Pay Our 
        Military Act (Public Law 113-39) with respect to contractors; and
Whereas the Pay Our Military Act appropriates such sums as are necessary to pay 
        contractors of the Department whom the Secretary of Defense determines 
        are providing support to members of the Armed Forces: Now, therefore, be 
        it

(2)On page 2, strike line 3 and all that follows through page 3, line 
2, and insert the following:
            (1) finds that the provision and availability of religious 
        services and clergy is important to the morale and wellbeing of 
        many members of the Armed Forces and their families; and
            (2) hopes the Secretary of Defense is able to determine 
        that contractor clergy provide necessary support to military 
        personnel, and would therefore be covered under the 
        appropriations made available under the Pay Our Military Act 
        (Public Law 113-39).

            Attest:

                                                                      Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 58

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENTS
```
James Alton TURNER, Jr., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6357

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.