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

58483 

Federal Register 

Vol. 71, No. 192 

Wednesday, October 4, 2006 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8058 of September 29, 2006 

National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, 2006 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Domestic violence has no place in our society, and we have a moral obligation 

to help prevent it. The terrible tragedies that result from it destroy lives 

and insult the dignity of women, men, and children. National Domestic 

Violence Awareness Month is an opportunity to underscore our commitment 

to bringing an end to violence in the home. 

A home should be a place of stability, comfort, and love. Domestic violence 

shatters this important foundation. My Administration is strongly committed 

to addressing domestic violence and helping those who have been victimized. 

In January, I was proud to sign legislation reauthorizing the Violence Against 

Women Act. Since I announced the Family Justice Center Initiative in 2003, 

we have opened 11 Family Justice Centers across the country. These centers 

offer services to victims and their families, including legal advice, counseling, 

and support. In addition, we are continuing to work with faith-based and 

community organizations to provide training, expertise, and funding to help 

deliver hope and healing to those who need it most. 

During National Domestic Violence Awareness Month and throughout the 

year, we are grateful for the advocates, counselors, and others who provide 

care to those affected by these acts of cruelty and for the law enforcement 

personnel and others who work to bring offenders to justice. We extend 

our compassion to the victims of domestic violence and urge them to seek 

assistance through local Family Justice Centers, faith-based and community 

organizations, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1–800–799– 

SAFE. By working together, we can build an America where every home 

honors the value and dignity of its loved ones. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 2006 as National 

Domestic Violence Awareness Month. I urge all Americans to reach out 

to victims and help end domestic violence. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with MISCELLANEOUS
58484 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 192 / Wednesday, October 4, 2006 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth 

day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the 

Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtyfirst. 

[FR Doc. 06–8522 

Filed 10–3–06; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with MISCELLANEOUSGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5538 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5538

     To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to amend certain 
 regulations to permit certain children to accompany their parents or 
   legal guardians through Global Entry airport lanes, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 16, 2024

 Mrs. Blackburn (for herself and Ms. Hassan) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to amend certain 
 regulations to permit certain children to accompany their parents or 
   legal guardians through Global Entry airport lanes, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Travel for Families Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF GLOBAL ENTRY TO YOUNG CHILDREN OF ENROLLEES.

    The Secretary of Homeland Security shall amend section 235.12 of 
title 8, Code of Federal Regulations--
            (1) to permit a child who is younger than 11 years of age, 
        is not enrolled in Global Entry in accordance with such 
        section, and is traveling with his or her parent or legal 
        guardian who is enrolled in Global Entry in accordance with 
        such section to accompany such parent or legal guardian through 
        a Global Entry lane upon arrival at an international airport in 
        the United States; and
            (2) to permit an applicant for enrollment in Global Entry 
        to schedule a single appointment for a personal interview 
        relating to such membership on behalf of himself or herself and 
        up to 4 children described in subsection (a) who are also 
        seeking enrollment in Global Entry and of whom such applicant 
        is the parent or legal guardian.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 12006E024 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E024

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Three - Community policies - TITLE I - Free movement of goods - Article 24 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0051 - 0051 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0046 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0188 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0011 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 24

Products coming from a third country shall be considered to be in free circulation in a Member State if the import formalities have been complied with and any customs duties or charges having equivalent effect which are payable have been levied in that Member State, and if they have not benefited from a total or partial drawback of such duties or charges.

--------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINCTON. D.C.20463

AtE 2I 2018

VIA ELECTRONIC F'IRST CI,ASS MAII,

Nicholas Mezlak

Noah Bookbinder

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in V/ashington

455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

6th Floor

Washington, DC 20001

Melanie Sloan

1229 Independence Avenue, SE

V/ashington, DC 20003

MUR 6696R

Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies

Dear Mr. Mezlak, Mr. Bookbinder, and Ms. Sloan,

This is in reference to the complaint your organization filed with the Federal Election

Commission on November 14, 2012, concerning allegations that Crossroads Grassroots Policy

Strategies ("Crossroads GPS") violated 52 U.S.C. $ 3010a(c), a provision of the Federal Election

Campaign Act of I97I, as amended. That complaint was the subject of MUR 6696. On August

3,2018, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia remanded MUR 6696 to the

Federal Election Commission for fuither consideration.

On August 28,2018, the Commission considered the complaint in light of the remand but

was equally divided on whether to approve the Office of General Counsel's recommendation to

dismiss the allegations that Crossroads GPS violated 52 U.S.C. $$ 301Oa(c)(l) and (2).

Accordingly, the Commission closed its file in this matter.

Documents related to the case will be placed on the public record within 30 days. See

Disclosure of Certain Documents in Enforcement and Other Matters, 81 Fed. Reg. 50,702

(Aug.2,2016).

RE
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, allows a complainant to seek

judicial review of the Commission's dismissal of this action. See 52 U.S.C. $ 30109(a)(8).

If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 694-1650.

Sincerely,

Lisa Stevenson

Acting General Counsel

BY: Jin Lee

Acting Assistant General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-814]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 392

[DoD Instruction 5134.04]


Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document removes regulations from Title 32 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations concerning the Director of Small and Disadvantaged 
Business Utilization. This part has served the purpose for which it was 
intended in the CFR and is no longer necessary.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.M. Bynum (703) 696-4970.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The revised DoD Instruction 5134.04 is 
available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/513404.htm.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 392

    Organizations.

PART 392--[REMOVED]

0
Accordingly, by the authority of 10 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 392 is 
removed.

    Dated: January 24, 2006.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 06-814 Filed 1-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
Case 16-28863 Doc 8 Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/14/16 08:34:20 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 13, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00129

- CV

Stanton P. BELL , et al., Appellants/Cross

- Appellees

,

Appellant s

v.

CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, LLC , Appellee/Cross

- Appellant,

Appelle e s

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI22093

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting : Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Just ice

The panel h as considered the appellees ’ motion for p anel rehearing an d the motion is

hereb y DENIED.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of May, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Case 16-27494 Doc 5 Filed 08/26/16 Entered 08/26/16 16:25:21 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-27494 Doc 5 Filed 08/26/16 Entered 08/26/16 16:25:21 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
§ 86.33 What information must I give on match commitments, and where do I give it? ( a ) You must give information on the amount and the source of match for your proposed BIG-funded facility on the standard grant application form at *http://www.grants.gov .*
( b ) You must also give information on the match commitment by the State, a subgrantee, or other third party in the project statement under “Match and Other Contributions.”
( c ) In giving the information required at paragraph (b) of this section, you must: ( 1 ) State the amount of matching cash;
( 2 ) Describe any matching in-kind contributions;
( 3 ) State the estimated value of any in-kind contributions; and
( 4 ) Explain the basis of the estimated value.
Larry Greene AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 

916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax 

www.airquality.org 

December 21, 2011 

Mr. Michael Guzzetta 

Stationary Source Division 

California Air Resources Board 

PO Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, SMAQMD Rule 101 

Dear Mr. Guzzetta: 

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of Rule 101, General Provisions and 

Definitions, for revision to the State Implementation Plan. Rule 101 was recently amended on 

October 27, 2011. Please also forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA. 

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. 

Program Coordinator 

(sent via e-mail) 

Attachments: 

1. SIP Checklist Rule 101 

2. Final Version Rule 101 

3. Underline/Strikeout Version Rule 101 

4. Evidence of Public Notice 

5. Signed Resolution 

6. Public Comments and Responses 

7. Rule 101 Evaluation Form 

8. Staff Report
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1026

___________

Kent Thorsheim, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

State of Iowa; Polk County Iowa; City *

of Des Moines; Keri Jobe; Cindy * [UNPUBLISHED]

Miller; Janis Lavorato; Julie Burger; *

Roger J. Kuhle; Mark Godwin; *

John Paul Roehrick, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2012

Filed: July 2, 2012

___________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Kent Thorsheim appeals the district court’s1

dismissal of his complaint. Upon careful de novo review, see Reynolds v. Dormire,

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the Southern District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Celeste F. Bremer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.
636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for failure to state claim reviewed de

novo); Knutson v. City of Fargo, 600 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo), we find no basis for reversal. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                           PERSISTENCE SOFTWARE, INC.

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Persistence Software, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Brian Tobin, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ BRIAN TOBIN
---------------
Brian Tobin
Acting Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2004
#### William C. Dugger et al., appellees, v. Eliza C. Smith, appellant.

Filed October 31, 1913.

No. 17,143.

Appeal: Bill ox Exceptions: Authentication. On appeal, a document appearing in the record as a bill of exceptions, when not authenticated as such by the certificate of the clerk of the district court, will be disregarded.

Appeal from the district court for Morrill county: Hanson M. Grimes, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*G. J: Hunt,*for appellant.

*Williams & Williams, F. A. Wright*and *J. G. Motherseadj contra.*

Rose, J.

For the purpose of burning grass and weeds in an irrigating ditch running through a meadow of defendant, she set out a fire, which spread to the lands of plaintiffs. This is an action to recover resulting damages in the sum of $393. She denied the negligence imputed to her, but the jury rendered a verdict against her for $247. From a judgment thereon, she has appealed.

The rulings assailed cannot be reviewed without an examination of the evidence. The bill of exceptions is challenged by motion, because it is not authenticated as such by the certificate of the clerk of the district court. In this respect there was a failure to comply with a mandatory provision of statute. Code, sec. 587b. For this reason, the evidence cannot be considered on appeal. *Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. Lamb,*92 Neb. 608. The judgment must, therefore be affirmed. A consideration of the testimony as disclosed by the document purporting to be a bill of exceptions would not, however, result in a reversal.

, , „ Affirmed.

Barnes, Fawcett and Hamer, JJ., not sitting.
# EUR-Lex - 12008E076 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E076

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART THREE: UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS - TITLE V: AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE - Chapter 1: General provisions - Article 76 **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0075 - 0075 *

Article 76

The acts referred to in Chapters 4 and 5, together with the measures referred to in Article 74 which ensure administrative cooperation in the areas covered by these Chapters, shall be adopted:

(a) on a proposal from the Commission, or

(b) on the initiative of a quarter of the Member States.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 12.8 Memorial headstones and markers. ( a ) *Who may be memorialized.* ( 1 ) A person's eligibility for memorialization in a national cemetery is determined in accordance with the provisions of Federal statutory law.
( 2 ) The superintendent may authorize the installation of a memorial headstone or marker of an eligible person provided that no more than one individual memorial headstone or marker is authorized for each eligible person. The erection of an individual memorial marker to a person is not allowed in the same national cemetery in which the decedent's name is inscribed on a group burial headstone or marker.
( b ) *Application.* ( 1 ) The person eligible to submit an application requesting a memorial headstone or marker is the next-of-kin of the decedent to be memorialized. An application received from a close relative will be honored if it is submitted on behalf of the next-of-kin or if the next-of-kin is deceased.
( 2 ) An applicant for a memorial headstone or marker shall submit such a request to the superintendent.
Rockingham,

No. 4739.

#### James W. Walker, Jr. *v.*Kathleen M. Walker Van Der Haas.

Argued June 3, 1959.

Decided June 30, 1959.

*168*Sleeper & Mullavey*and *Edward E. Williams (Mr. Williams*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Shaines & Brown (Mr. Shaines*orally), for the defendant.

Kenison, C. J.

The extent to which custody orders of minor children in divorce decrees in one state are entitled to full faith and credit under the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, as implemented by 28 U. S. C. A., *s.*1738, in another state is a question attended with uncertainty and somewhat at large. There are different rationales and recommended solutions without any uniform basis for decision as can be seen from the principal and concurring opinions in *New York ex rel Halvey*v. *Halvey,*330 U. S. 610, and the principal, concurring and dissenting opinions in *May*v. *Anderson,*345 U. S. 528. See Hazard, May v. Anderson: Preamble to Family Law Chaos, 45 Va. L. Rev. 379 (1959); Ehrenzweig, Interstate Recognition of Custody Decrees, 51 Mich. L. Rev. 345 (1953); Note, 56 Col. L. Rev. 630 (1956). “The United States Supreme Court decision in *Kovacs*v. *Brewer*[356 U. S. 604 (1957) ] does little to clarify the uncertainties which characterize the problem of successive custody awards in different states ... As the case was left, each opinion inferred, without deciding, that in some circumstances a custody decree may be entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. The rest is left to the future.” Leflar, Conflict of Laws, 1958 Annual Survey of American Law, as reported in 34 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 47, 48 (1959).

Whatever rule may emerge as the definitive one in determining-successive custody awards in different states, we are not required to predict it or delineate it in broad strokes for the purpose of deciding the present custody dispute. See Comment, Full Faith and Credit: Extraterritorial Effect of Custody Decrees, 13 U. Miami L. Rev. 101 (1958); anno. 9 A. L. R. (2d) 434.

For the reasons hereinafter stated, we are of the opinion that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Trial *169Court was in error in entering a decree in favor of the plaintiff on the sole basis of according full faith and credit to the Massachusetts custody decree.

The *ex parte*decree awarding custody to the father without notice or hearing to the mother is not binding on the courts of this jurisdiction. The custody of the children resident here was to be determined by the laws of this state. *Hanrahan*v. *Sears,*72 N. H. 71, 72; *Brown*v. *Jewell,*86 N. H. 190. The primary consideration is the present and prospective welfare of the children. *Sheehy*v. *Sheehy,*88 N. H. 223. The record does not indicate that these matters were considered by the Court in arriving at its decision.

Treating the present petition as one in the nature of a petition for habeas corpus, the Superior Court has authority to issue appropriate temporary orders pertaining to the custody of these children. *Sheehy*v. *Sheehy, supra.*

*Remanded.*

All concurred.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133567 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133567 

 COA: 265830 

Oakland CC: 2005-202983-FH 

STEVEN PATRICK SIEBIGTEROTH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 1, 2007 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0618 

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. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
# EUR-Lex - 12008E/AFI/DCL/58 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E/AFI/DCL/58

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - DECLARATIONS annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 - C. DECLARATIONS BY MEMBER STATES - 58. Declaration by the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Malta on the spelling of the name of the single currency in the Treaties **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0357 - 0357 *

58. Declaration by the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Hungary and the Republic of Malta on the spelling of the name of the single currency in the Treaties

Without prejudice to the unified spelling of the name of the single currency of the European Union referred to in the Treaties as displayed on the banknotes and on the coins, Latvia, Hungary and Malta declare that the spelling of the name of the single currency, including its derivatives as applied throughout the Latvian, Hungarian and Maltese text of the Treaties, has no effect on the existing rules of the Latvian, Hungarian or Maltese languages.

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