alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 7.1 Definitions of terms as used in this part.

(a) *the Act* means the Trademark Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 427, as amended, codified in 15 U.S.C. 1051 *et seq.*

(b) *Subsequent designation* means a request for extension of protection of an international registration to a Contracting Party made after the International Bureau registers the mark.

(c) The acronym *TEAS* means the Trademark Electronic Application System, and, as used in this part, includes all related electronic systems required to complete an electronic submission through TEAS.

(d) The term *Office* or the abbreviation *USPTO* means the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

(e) All references to sections in this part refer to 37 Code of Federal Regulations, except as otherwise stated.

(f) The definitions specified in § 2.2 of this chapter apply to this part.

[68 FR 55769, Sept. 26, 2003, as amended at 80 FR 33190, June 11, 2015; 84 FR 31511, July 2, 2019; 84 FR 37098, July 31, 2019]
#### Alfred D. Leonard, Respondent, *v. “*Samuel” Jacobson, the Name Samuel Being Fictitious, Etc., Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

April, 1899.)

Supplementary proceedings — Punishment of debtor for wilful failure to appear. *

Where the wilful failure of a judgment debtor to appear for examination on the return day' of an order in supplementary proceedings is not shown to have prejudiced the judgment creditor, the debtor should only be fined such an amount as would repay the attorney for the creditor his costs and expenses.

Apbeal from an order of the Special Term, adjudging the appellant guilty of contempt of court and imposing a fine.

E. Townsend Goldberg (M. D. Steuer, of counsel), for appellant.

William S. Beers, for respondent.

O’Dwyer, J.

The finding in the order “ that the misconduct of the judgment debtor was calculated to or actually did defeat, impair, impede, and prejudice the rights and remedies of the judgment creditor to his actual loss and injury in the sum of $103.8.6, the amount of the judgment against the judgment debtor,” is without any support in the evidence submitted upon the motion and cannot be sustained. Reynolds v. Gilchrest, 9 Hun, 203; Donohue v. Lyons, 30 App. Div. 622.

In the absence of proof that the misconduct complained of did result in loss to the judgment creditor, the order should have been that such moderate fine be imposed as would pay the prosecuting attorney for his costs and expenses, and the debtor appear for examination.

The debtor concededly failed to appear on the return day, and the evidence fully justifies the finding that he wilfully disobeyed the order requiring him to appear for examination. For this misconduct the order fixed-the costs and expenses at $40, and after a careful examination, we are of opinion that that sum is .fair and reasonable.

It follows that the order appealed from should be modified by reducing the fine imposed to $40, and requiring the judgment *326debtor to appear and submit to an examination, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

McCarthy and Corlan, JJ., concur.

Order modified by reducing the fine imposed to $40, and requiring judgment debtor to appear and submit to examination, and as modified affirmed, without costs. »
§ 222.7 Order regarding second filing fee and electronic filing registration. ( a ) *Issuance of order.* Once a proceeding has become active with respect to all respondents who have been served and have not opted out within the 60-day period set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1506(i), the Board shall issue an order to all parties in the proceeding providing that within 14 days of the order— ( 1 ) The claimant must submit the second payment of the filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 201.3(g) through eCCB; and
( 2 ) All claimant(s) and respondent(s) must register for eCCB unless they have been granted a waiver pursuant to § 222.5(f).
( b ) *Receipt of second payment from claimant* — ( 1 ) *Confirmation of active proceeding.* Upon receipt of the second payment of the filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 201.3(g) and after completion of the 14-day period specified in the Board's order, the Board shall issue a scheduling order through eCCB.
( 2 ) *Notice to respondent.* If any claimant or respondent has not registered for eCCB, the scheduling order shall be accompanied by a notice to those parties that unless they have been granted a waiver pursuant to § 222.5(f), they must register for eCCB and that a failure to do so within a time set by the Board may result in default or failure to prosecute. Such scheduling order and notice shall be served on the respondent according to the procedures set forth in § 222.5(d)(2).
( c ) *Failure of claimant to submit second payment.* If the claimant(s) fails to submit the second payment of the filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 201.3(g) within 14 days from the date of the Board's order, the Board shall issue another notice to the claimant(s), which shall provide that the proceeding shall be dismissed without prejudice unless the claimant(s) submits the second payment of the filing fee within 14 days. If the claimant(s) fails to submit the second payment of the filing fee within 14 days of the issuance of that notice, the Board shall dismiss the proceeding without prejudice, unless the Board finds that the proceeding should not be dismissed in the interests of justice.
[87 FR 17004, Mar. 25, 2022]
§ 360.3 Time of filing. ( a ) During the month of July each year, any party claiming to be entitled to cable compulsory license royalty fees or satellite compulsory license royalty fees for secondary transmissions during the preceding calendar year must file a claim or claims with the Copyright Royalty Board. No party will receive royalty fees for secondary transmissions during the specified period unless the party has filed a timely claim to the fees. Claimants may file claims jointly or as a single claim. Claimants must file separate claims for cable compulsory license royalty fees and satellite compulsory license royalty fees. The Copyright Royalty Board will reject any claim that purports to be for both cable and satellite royalty fees.
( b ) Claims filed with the Copyright Royalty Board will be considered timely filed only if they are filed online through eCRB during the month of July, as determined in accordance with § 303.7.
( c ) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, in any year in which July 31 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, holiday, or other nonbusiness day within the District of Columbia or the Federal Government, the due date for claims to cable or satellite compulsory license royalty fees will be the first business day in August.
( d ) For claims filed electronically through eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board will accept the confirmation email generated by eCRB as proof of filing. The Copyright Royalty Board will accept no other offer of proof regarding claims filed electronically through eCRB.
[82 FR 27018, June 13, 2017, as amended at 85 FR 37752, June 24, 2020; 87 FR 35899, June 14, 2022]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Release of the 2023 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction

# 									Release of the 2023 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

May 2, 2023

Today the Department of State submitted to Congress its 2023 Annual Report on International Child Abduction.  The Department is committed to protecting the safety and well-being of U.S. citizens overseas, especially our most vulnerable citizens – children.  The Department’s Office of Children’s Issues is a leader in U.S. government efforts to prevent international parental child abduction, help children and families involved in abduction cases, and promote the Hague Abduction Convention.  The Office’s dedicated staff works closely with our interagency partners, foreign counterparts, and other stakeholders in pursuit of our common goals of preventing abductions from the United States and achieving the prompt resolution of cases involving children who were wrongfully removed or retained by a parent from their country of habitual residence.

The Department strongly believes the Hague Abduction Convention is one of the most effective tools to deter and resolve international parental child abduction and secure the prompt return of abducted children.  We actively engage with foreign governments to encourage them to ratify or accede to the Convention and to fulfill their treaty obligations.  Unfortunately, there are countries that are reluctant to ratify or accede to the Convention and others which, although treaty partners with the United States, fail to live up to their commitments.

The 2023 Annual Report on International Child Abduction (IPCA) cites 14 countries as demonstrating a pattern of noncompliance:  Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Ecuador, Egypt, Honduras, India, Jordan, Peru, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates.

The Department will continue to actively work with all countries that are parties to the Convention and to encourage them to take more effective measures to resolve cases of international parental child abduction.  The Department invites other countries to join the Convention and work with the United States to resolve all pending international parental child abduction cases.

For more information, please see the full Report.

Tags

ArgentinaBelizeBrazilBulgariaBureau of Consular AffairsChild AbductionEcuadorEgyptHondurasIndiaJordanOffice of the SpokespersonPeruRomaniaRussiaSouth KoreaUnited Arab Emirates

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
Order entered September 20, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00495-CR

JEFFREY SCOTT HAZLETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-81088-2015

ORDER

The reporter’s record has not been filed. The Court ORDERS the trial court to make 

findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived of the reporter’s record because 

of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q/A for the period ended October 31, 2006 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 this Form 10-Q/A for the period ended October 31, 2006
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Thor Industries, Inc.
 Date:  June 12, 2007
    /s/ Wade F. B. ThompsonWade F. B. ThompsonChairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer (principal executive officer) 26
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DEC 08, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 37 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 00 13 2- CR-OR L-22 GJK UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us THOMAS K. TANN ER, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m be r 8, 2 01 0) Befo re BARKETT an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es , andHUNT, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM:

Honora ble Will is B. Hunt, Jr., United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation.Tho m as K. Tann er ap pe al s h is 26 2- m on th sen te nc e fo ll owi ng a pl ea o f

gu il ty for d is tri bu ti on of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 2A( a)(2 )(B) . Tann er s eek s re ve rs al of h is sen te nc e arg ui ng th atth e d is tri ct
co urt erredin fin di ng th athe ha d apri orco nv ic ti on th atsubjec te d h im to an in crea se d m in im

um an d m ax im

um sen te nc e u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(b )(1 ). On th is reco rd , we fin d n o re ve rs ib le erro r. In e va lu at in g Tan ne r’s pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in co ns id eri ng th e st at e co urt in di ct m en t fo r hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on in li gh t o f th e am bi gu it y in th e st at e co urt’s fin al jud gm en t i n t ha t ca se . See Un it edSta te s v . Agu il ar-Ort iz , 45 0 F .3d12 71 , 12 73 -7 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . Bas edth ereupo n, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de te rm in in g t ha t Tan ne r ha d apri orco nv ic ti on in st at e co urt fo r th e fel on y
ex po su re o f hi s s ex ua l o r ge ni ta l p art s t o ach il d u nd er Vi rg in iaCo de § 1 8.2 -3 70 , whi chsupp orts th e se nt en ce i m po se d wi th in th e in crea se d s ta tu to ry ran ge of 1 5 t o 40 y ears as s etfor th in § 2 25 2A( b) (1 ). AFFIRMED.

2
19

Cooperating Agencies that 

Participated in Draft PEIS Preparation

California Department of Fish and Game

California Department of Water Resources

California State Water Resources Control Board

Hoopa Valley Tribe

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Marine Fisheries Service

Western Area Power Administration

Consulting Agencies That 

Participated in Draft PEIS Preparation

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

Agencies that Participated in 

Draft PEIS Preparation

Post Draft PEIS

Activities

Public Involvement continued after release of the Draft

PEIS. During a comment period that lasted over 200 days,

Information Forums and Public Hearings were held

throughout northern California. In addition, Interior continued to hold small group briefings on request.

Just prior to releasing the Draft PEIS in November 1997,

Interior discovered that PROSIM, one of the primary analytical tools used in the PEIS, included inconsistent hydrologic input data. Interior released the revised model,

PROSIM 99, at the PROSIM Workshop in November 1998.

In July 1999, Interior released the Supplement to the

Draft PEIS to display the impacts of using PROSIM99 with

the PEIS Alternatives. The evaluation showed no change in

the analyses. Information Forums and Public Hearings for

the supplement were held throughout northern California.
The PEIS is intended to provide the basis for a decision on

whether to implement at the programmatic level provisions

of CVPIA, including: 

■ Water contract renewals 

■ Water Transfers 

■ Tiered water pricing 

■ CVP Operations 

■ Fish and Wildlife Water Acquisition 

■ Fish and Wildlife habitat restoration

■ Water Acquisition to Increase Refuge Water Supplies

■ Land Retirement 

■ Facility Modifications

For many provisions, additional environmental documentation will be necessary to determine site-specific impacts.

The PEIS is designed to allow subsequent environmental

documents to incorporate PEIS analysis by reference and to

limit the need to re-evaluate the region-wide and cumulative impacts of CVPIA. 

This PEIS will not provide the basis for a decision about

whether to implement (b)(2) water dedication and management or Level 2 refuge water supplies, because the

nature of these mandates does not require compliance with

NEPA before implementation.

This PEIS alone will not provide the basis for a decision

to implement the increased instream flows in the Trinity

River. That program is being analyzed in the Trinity River

Mainstem Fishery Restoration EIS/EIR, a separate and concurrent NEPA document.

To obtain a copy the Final PEIS please contact:

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento, California 95825-1898

www.mp.usbr.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento, California 95825-1898

www.fws.gov

Final PEIS What Happens Next?

20
```

[107th Congress Public Law 97]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ097.107]

Public Law 107-97
107th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
     for other purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2001 -  [H.J. Res. 79]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 107-44 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 
107(c) <<NOTE: Ante, p. 822.>>  and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 
10, 2002''; and by striking the date specified in section 
123 <<NOTE: Ante, p. 261.>>  and inserting in lieu thereof ``January 1, 
2002''.

    Approved December 21, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 79:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
            Dec. 20, considered and passed House and Senate.

                                  <all>
```
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40609

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

SCOTT ML WEBB ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 322

Filed: January 14, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourt h Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Timothy L. Hansen , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty

- five years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years , for robbery

, affirmed

.
Stephen D. Thompson, Ketchum, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Scott ML Webb was convicted of robbery , Idaho Code §§ 18

- 6501, 18

- 6502, 18

- 204.

The district court sentenced Webb to a unified term of twenty

- five years with a minimum period

of confi nement of ten years

. Webb appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.
Sentencing is a matte r for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entir e sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho2 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Webb ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1978 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1978

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan 
      Street in Sherman, Texas, as the ``Paul Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2007

Mr. Hall of Texas (for himself, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Poe, Mr. 
  Neugebauer, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. 
Burgess, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Thornberry, 
 Ms. Granger, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Ortiz) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan 
      Street in Sherman, Texas, as the ``Paul Brown United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 101 East Pecan Street in 
Sherman, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Paul Brown 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Paul Brown 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```