alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeDiplomatic Couriers...Diplomatic Couriers – History

# 									Diplomatic Couriers – History							

Bureau of Diplomatic Security

The motto of the U.S. Diplomatic Courier Service — “None swifter than these” — is taken from Greek historian Herodotus’ description of the mounted messenger service used by the king of Persia in 430 BC.

The Diplomatic Courier Service traces its origin to 1918, when the U.S. Army established its “Silver Greyhounds” courier unit.

In March of that year, U.S. Army Gen. John Pershing authorized U.S. Army Major Amos J. Peaslee (shown left) to organize a military courier service, the “Silver Greyhounds”, to carry sensitive correspondence between Paris and Washington during World War I and during the U.S.-led peace conference that followed.

Within three weeks, transit times for U.S. correspondence between Paris and Washington dropped from roughly five weeks to less than two weeks.

In November 1918, the Silver Greyhounds’ consignments shifted from being primarily military to being primarily diplomatic. Thus, the Silver Greyhounds became the first U.S. organization dedicated specifically to the movement of diplomatic pouches.

In December 1918, the Silver Greyhounds formally began to support the State Department in advance of the Paris Peace Conference delegation in early 1919.

In 1985, the Diplomatic Courier Service became part of the Diplomatic Security Service during a State Department consolidation that included the creation of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and DSS.

Back to Top
# C_2006072EN.01001401.xml

| 24.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/14

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4162 — Merck/Schering)

(2006/C 72/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 16 March 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Merck KgaA (‘Merck’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the undertaking Schering Aktiengesellschaft (‘Schering’, Germany) by way of tender offer. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 16 March 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Merck KgaA (‘Merck’, Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the undertaking Schering Aktiengesellschaft (‘Schering’, Germany) by way of tender offer.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for undertaking Merck: a global research-based pharmaceutical and chemical company; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for undertaking Merck: a global research-based pharmaceutical and chemical company;

| — | for undertaking Schering:a global research-based pharmaceutical company. |
| --- | --- |

—

for undertaking Schering:a global research-based pharmaceutical company.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4162 — Merck/Schering, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4162 — Merck/Schering, to the following address:

European Commission

Competition DG

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

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

1

---
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3400

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United

house’’.Federal Building and United States Courtin Omaha, Nebraska, as the ‘‘Roman L. Hruska18th Street between Dodge and Douglas StreetsStates courthouse to be constructed at a site on
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3400

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse to be constructed at a site on 18th Street between

Dodge and Douglas Streets in Omaha, Nebraska, as

the ‘‘Roman L. Hruska Federal Building and United

States Courthouse’’.
2

•HR 3400 EH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building and United States courthouse

5 to be constructed at a site on 18th Street between Dodge

6 and Douglas Streets in Omaha, Nebraska, shall be known

7 and designated as the ‘‘Roman L. Hruska Federal Build8 ing and United States Courthouse’’.

9 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

10 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

11 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

12 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec13 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Roman

14 L. Hruska Federal Building and United States Court15 house’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BAY
COMMERCIAL SERVICES 1997 ANNUAL REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,548
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     24,651
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          32,592
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            31,394
<LOANS>                                         74,129
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,369
<DEPOSITS>                                     101,135
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,290
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,271
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,671
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 116,369
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,137
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,334
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   288
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,759
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,860
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,956
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,803
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       52
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (3)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,072
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,650
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,650
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,062
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.96
<LOANS-NON>                                        440
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   471
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    911
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   971
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       31
<RECOVERIES>                                         8
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            211


</TABLE>
# C_2006086EN.01001701.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/17

---

Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-81/06)

(2006/C 86/31)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Simonetti and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired on 21 July 2004.

---

(1)  Official Journal L 197 of 21/07/2001, p. 30.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                          77,115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  264,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,000
<INVENTORY>                                    209,330
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               549,697
<PP&E>                                         357,582
<DEPRECIATION>                               (322,670)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 602,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          237,947
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       142,153
<OTHER-SE>                                     239,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   602,609
<SALES>                                      1,929,037
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,929,037
<CGS>                                          991,170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,191,810
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (158,151)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (108,437)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (108,437)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   391,402
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99

UNION BANKSHARES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT OF FORMER ACCOUNTANT
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of Union Bankshares, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Union
Bankshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2003 and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended
December 31, 2003. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures
in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as
well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe
that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Union
Bankshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the
results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in
the two-year period ended December 31, 2003, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.


                                       /s/  URBACH KAHN & WERLIN LLP


Albany, New York
March 5, 2004
VT Reg. No. 092-0000-126


<PAGE>
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3211

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect employer rights.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 1996

Mr. FAWELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect

employer rights.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Truth in Employment

5 Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds that:

8 (1) An atmosphere of trust and civility in labor9 management relationships is essential to a produc10 tive workplace and a healthy economy.
2

•HR 3211 IH

1 (2) The tactic of using professional union orga2 nizers and agents to infiltrate a targeted employer’s

3 workplace, a practice commonly referred to as ‘‘salt4 ing’’ has evolved into an aggressive form of harass5 ment not contemplated when the National Labor Re6 lations Act was enacted and threatens the balance of

7 rights which is fundamental to our system of collec8 tive bargaining.

9 (3) Increasingly, union organizers are seeking

10 employment with nonunion employers not because of

11 a desire to work for such employers but primarily to

12 organize the employees of such employers or to in13 flict economic harm specifically designed to put non14 union competitors out of business, or to do both.

15 (4) While no employer may discriminate against

16 employees based upon their views concerning collec17 tive bargaining, an employer should have the right

18 to expect job applicants to be primarily interested in

19 utilizing their skills to further the goals of the

20 business.

21 SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

22 The purpose of this Act is—

23 (1) to preserve the balance of rights between

24 employers, employees, and labor organizations which
3

•HR 3211 IH

1 is fundamental to our system of collective bargain2 ing;

3 (2) to preserve the rights of workers to orga4 nize, or otherwise engage in concerted activities pro5 tected under the National Labor Relations Act; and

6 (3) to alleviate pressure on employers to hire

7 individuals who seek or gain employment in order to

8 disrupt the employer’s workplace or otherwise inflict

9 economic harm designed to put the employer out of

10 business.

11 SEC. 4. PROTECTION OF EMPLOYER RIGHTS.

12 Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29

13 U.S.C. 158) is amended by adding after and below para14 graph (5) the following:

15 ‘‘Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requir16 ing an employer to employ any person who seeks or has

17 sought employment with the employer in furtherance of

18 other employment or agency status.’’.

Æ
No. 00-50.

#### R. E. W. *v.*C. A. M. et al.

App. Ct. Mass. Motion of petitioner for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 19, 2011 

y1012 

Order 

 

October 19, 2011 

142424 & (45) 

_________________________________________ 

In re JACK E. CRANE TRUST. 

_________________________________________/ 

JACK D. CRANE, 

Appellant, 

v SC: 142424 

 COA: 293006 

Macomb CC: 2008-195427-TV 

J. RUSSELL LABARGE, JR., Successor Trustee 

of the JACK E. CRANE TRUST, LILIA CRANE, 

and DONALD STREHL, Successor Personal 

Representative of the Estate of DONALD CRANE, 

Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 2, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for 

leave to file brief amicus curiae is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AS
SUBMITTED IN THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THAT PERIOD AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000726712
<NAME> SULCUS COMPUTER CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,760,825
<SECURITIES>                                10,305,176
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,093,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,800,430
<INVENTORY>                                  3,113,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,065,139
<PP&E>                                       7,597,089
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,119,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,995,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,465,453
<BONDS>                                        118,149
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    40,793,066
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,380,712)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,995,956
<SALES>                                     26,287,921
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,955,233
<CGS>                                       12,348,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,348,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,477,497
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               316,668
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             259,428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,870,433)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,870,433)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,870,433)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2012

- NM

- 0 84

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rory D. FRANKLIN.

No. 63984.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 14, 1979.

In re Rory Franklin applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and for a stay order. Parish of Jefferson.

Writ denied. Defendant has an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of conviction.

SUMMERS, C. J.,

is of the opinion that double jeopardy attached and after a directed verdict, defendant cannot be compelled to continue as a defendant in a criminal trial. *State v. Baskin,*301 So.2d 313 (La. 1974).
# Syria

329 items

        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		FY 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity for Proposals for NGO Programs Benefiting Displaced Persons in Al-Hol and Roj Camps, Syria	  April 5, 2024 
        -    Report  		Condition (10)(C) Annual Report on Compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)	  April 4, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Announcement of Additional Visa Restriction Targets for Individuals Involved in the Repression of Syrians	  Matthew MillerMarch 29, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Sanctions on Financial Facilitators and Illicit Drug Traffickers Supporting Syria’s Assad Regime	  Matthew MillerMarch 26, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the Occasion of the 13th Anniversary of the Syrian Uprising	  March 15, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan	  March 9, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the U.S.-Türkiye Strategic Mechanism	  March 9, 2024 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 26, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 26, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL Promoting and Protecting Local Journalists in Mexico	  February 26, 2024 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL FY23 Syria Programs	  February 23, 2024 

123…33next page

Back to Top