alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 622

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

#### § 622.410 Restrictions within the Tortugas marine reserves.

The following activities are prohibited within the Tortugas marine reserves: Fishing for any species and anchoring by fishing vessels.

(a) *EEZ portion of Tortugas North.* The area is bounded by rhumb lines connecting the following points: From point A at 24°40′00′′ N. lat., 83°06′00′′ W. long. to point B at 24°46′00′′ N. lat., 83°06′00′′ W. long. to point C at 24°46′00′′ N. lat., 83°00′00′′ W. long.; thence along the line denoting the seaward limit of Florida's waters, as shown on the current edition of NOAA chart 11438, to point A at 24°40′00′′ N. lat., 83°06′00′′ W. long.

(b) *Tortugas South.* The area is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

| Point | North lat. | West long. |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A | 24°33′00′′ | 83°09′00′′ |
| B | 24°33′00′′ | 83°05′00′′ |
| C | 24°18′00′′ | 83°05′00′′ |
| D | 24°18′00′′ | 83°09′00′′ |
| A | 24°33′00′′ | 83°09′00′′ |
# EUR-Lex - 12008E/AFI/DCL/48 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E/AFI/DCL/48

**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 - B. DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROTOCOLS ANNEXED TO THE TREATIES - 48. Declaration concerning the Protocol on the position of Denmark **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0353 - 0353 *

48. Declaration concerning the Protocol on the position of Denmark

The Conference notes that with respect to legal acts to be adopted by the Council acting alone or jointly with the European Parliament and containing provisions applicable to Denmark as well as provisions not applicable to Denmark because they have a legal basis to which Part I of the Protocol on the position of Denmark applies, Denmark declares that it will not use its voting right to prevent the adoption of the provisions which are not applicable to Denmark.

Furthermore, the Conference notes that on the basis of the Declaration by the Conference on Article 222, Denmark declares that Danish participation in actions or legal acts pursuant to Article 222 will take place in accordance with Part I and Part II of the Protocol on the position of Denmark.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 220.3 Definitions.

The following definitions supplement, by adding to, the terms defined at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508.

*Adaptive management.* A system of management practices based on clearly identified intended outcomes and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; and, if not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those outcomes are met or re-evaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition that knowledge about natural resource systems is sometimes uncertain.

*Decision document.* A record of decision, decision notice or decision memo.

*Decision memo.* A concise written record of the responsible official's decision to implement an action categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA).

*Decision notice.* A concise written record of the responsible official's decision when an EA and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) have been prepared.

*Environmentally preferable alternative.* The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will best promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's section 101 (42 U.S.C. 4321). Ordinarily, the environmentally preferable alternative is that which causes the least harm to the biological and physical environment; it also is the alternative which best protects and preserves historic, cultural, and natural resources. In some situations, there may be more than one environmentally preferable alternative.

*Reasonably foreseeable future actions.* Those Federal or non-Federal activities not yet undertaken, for which there are existing decisions, funding, or identified proposals. Identified proposals for Forest Service actions are described in § 220.4(a)(1).

*Responsible official.* The Agency employee who has the authority to make and implement a decision on a proposed action.

*Schedule of proposed actions (SOPA).* A Forest Service document that informs the public about those proposed and ongoing Forest Service actions for which a record of decision, decision notice or decision memo would be or has been prepared. The SOPA also identifies a contact for additional information on any proposed actions.
§ 251.123 Most directly affected Native Corporation determination. ( a ) Before issuance of the first special use authorization for a specific CSU pursuant to § 251.124 on or after the effective date of this subpart, the authorized officer shall give notice to Native Corporations interested in providing visitor services within the CSU and give them an opportunity to submit an application to be considered the Native Corporation most directly affected by the establishment or expansion of the CSU under section 1307(b) of ANILCA (16 U.S.C. 1397(b)). In giving notice of the application procedure, the authorized officer shall make clear that this is the only opportunity to apply for most directly affected status for that particular CSU. ( 1 ) At a minimum, an application from an interested Native Corporation shall include the following: ( i ) Name, address, and telephone number of the Native Corporation; date of its incorporation; its articles of incorporation and structure; and the name of the applicable CSU and the solicitation to which the Native Corporation is responding;
( ii ) Location of the Native Corporation's population centers; and
( iii ) An assessment of the socioeconomic impacts (including changes in historical and traditional use and landownership patterns) on the Native Corporation resulting from establishment or expansion of the applicable CSU.
( 2 ) In addition to the minimum information required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, Native Corporations may submit such additional information as they consider relevant.
( b ) Upon receipt of all applications from interested Native Corporations, the authorized officer shall determine the most directly affected Native Corporation considering the following factors: ( 1 ) Distance and accessibility from the Native Corporation's population centers and/or business address to the applicable CSU;
( 2 ) Socioeconomic impacts (including changes in historical and traditional use and landownership patterns) on Native Corporations resulting from establishment or expansion of the applicable CSU; and
( 3 ) Information provided by Native Corporations and other information considered relevant by the authorized officer to assessment of the effects of establishment or expansion of the applicable CSU.
( c ) In the event that two or more Native Corporations are determined to be equally affected for purposes of the most directly affected Native Corporation determination pursuant to this section, each such Native Corporation shall be considered a preferred operator under this subpart.
( d ) A Native Corporation determined to be most directly affected for a CSU shall maintain that status for all future visitor service solicitations for that CSU.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1028
ARTHUR LUMA BECKE, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: September 24, 2008 Decided: October 6, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Nyoh, PETER NYOH & ASSOCIATES, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Elizabeth Petrela Papez, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Arthur Luma Becke, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider its prior order, which denied Becke’s motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country conditions in Cameroon. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2008); Jean v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Becke (B.I.A. Nov. 13, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# EUR-Lex - 12005SPN05/01 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12005SPN05/01

**Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union - Annex V:List referred to in Article 18 of the Protocol: other permanent provisions - 1.Company law **

*
Official Journal L 157 , 21/06/2005 P. 0093 - 0093 *

1. COMPANY LAW

Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, Part III, Title III, Chapter I, Section 3, Free movement of goods

SPECIFIC MECHANISM

With regard to Bulgaria or Romania, the holder, or his beneficiary, of a patent or supplementary protection certificate for a pharmaceutical product filed in a Member State at a time when such protection could not be obtained in one of the abovementioned new Member States for that product, may rely on the rights granted by that patent or supplementary protection certificate in order to prevent the import and marketing of that product in the Member State or States where the product in question enjoys patent protection or supplementary protection, even if the product was put on the market in that new Member State for the first time by him or with his consent.

Any person intending to import or market a pharmaceutical product covered by the above paragraph in a Member State where the product enjoys patent or supplementary protection shall demonstrate to the competent authorities in the application regarding that import that one month's prior notification has been given to the holder or beneficiary of such protection.

--------------------------------------------------
SENATE OF THE UNITED ST ATES 

NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { 

Convened January 3, 1983 

Adjourned November 18, 1983 

Convened January 23, 1984 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Thursday, April 5, 1984 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WILLIAM F. HILDENBRAND, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett, Executive Clerk 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Mar. 8, 1983-- Motion entered to reconsider the vote by which the resolution of 

ratification to the Montreal Protocols No. 3 and 4 (Ex. B., 95-1) was defeated--Mr. 

Baker. 
1 

TREATIES 

Calendar Treaty Subject Reported 

No. Doc. No. Bv 

1 EX. B, Montreal Aviation Protocols Nos. 3 and 4 Feb 10 83 Reported 

95-1 favorably, by Mr. Percy, 

Committee on Foreign 

Relations, with a proposed 

resolution of advice and 

consent to ratification 

with conditions (Printed 

renort-Ex. Rept. 98-1) 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Message Nominee, Office, And Predecessor Reported 

No. No. Bv 

THE JUDICIARY 

514 664 James Harvie Wilkinson III, of Virginia, to Mar 15, 84 Mr. Thurmond, 

be United States Circuit Judge for the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Fourth Circuit, vice John D. Butzner, Jr., without printed report. 

retired. 

[NEW REPORTS] 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

* 538 767 Donald D. Engen, of Virginia, to be Apr 4, 84 Mr. Packwood, 

Adm1mstrator of the Federal Aviation Committee on Commerce, 

Administration, vice J. Lynn Helms, Science, and 

resigned. Transportation, without 

orinted renort 

*Signifies nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of the Senate. 
2 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE 

Foreign Service nominations begmnmg Philip Birnbaum, and endmg Ronald Allen Witherell, 

which nommations were received by the Senate and appeared m the Congressional Record of January 

30, 1984.
`CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Call Now, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas R Johnson, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge

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

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



March 25, 2004				_s/ Thomas R Johnson____________








         Thomas R Johnson









    Chief Executive Officer`
# EUR-Lex - 12008E088 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E088

**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 5: Police cooperation - Article 88 (ex Article 30 TEU) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0084 - 0084 *

Article 88

(ex Article 30 TEU)

1. Europol's mission shall be to support and strengthen action by the Member States' police authorities and other law enforcement services and their mutual cooperation in preventing and combating serious crime affecting two or more Member States, terrorism and forms of crime which affect a common interest covered by a Union policy.

2. The European Parliament and the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall determine Europol's structure, operation, field of action and tasks. These tasks may include:

(a) the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of information, in particular that forwarded by the authorities of the Member States or third countries or bodies;

(b) the coordination, organisation and implementation of investigative and operational action carried out jointly with the Member States' competent authorities or in the context of joint investigative teams, where appropriate in liaison with Eurojust.

These regulations shall also lay down the procedures for scrutiny of Europol's activities by the European Parliament, together with national Parliaments.

3. Any operational action by Europol must be carried out in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of the Member State or States whose territory is concerned. The application of coercive measures shall be the exclusive responsibility of the competent national authorities.

--------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RICHARD HENDERSON

,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below

, Appellee. §

§ No. 566 , 2017

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 1512002005 (N )

§

§

§

Submitted: March 9 , 2018

Decided: March 13 , 2018

ORDER

This 13 th day of March 2018 , it appears to the Court that , on February 22,

2018 , the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant to show cause

why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file an opening b rief and

appendix in this matter on or before the February 12, 2018 deadline . The appellant

has not responded to the no tice to show cause within the required ten

- day period and

therefore dismissal of this appeal is deemed to be unopp o sed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule s 3(b)(2)

and 29 (b) , that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
#### MRS. E. G. AUTH, Respondent, v. FARMERS ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant.

(169 N. W. 82.)

This case is governed by the decision rendered in Auth v. Kuroki Elevator Co. ante, 533.

Opinion filed July 19, 1918.

Rehearing denied September 25, 1918.

Appeal from the District Court of Bottineau County, North Dakota, Honorable *A. G. Burr,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*J. J.*Weeks, for respondent.

*W. J. Cooper (H. S. Blood,*of counsel), for appellant.

Grace, J.

This action is on the short cause calender, and was submitted at the same time as the case of Auth v. Kuroki Elevator Co. ante, 533, 169 N. W. 80.

The facts in the case are the same as in Auth v. Kuroki Elevator Co. In principle, this case is also identical with that.

On the authority of the case of Auth v. Kuroki Elevator Co. the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.
# White Cane Safety Day, 2006

Our Nation believes in the promise of all our citizens, and we must work to ensure that the opportunities of America are more accessible to every person. Many Americans who are blind or visually impaired use white canes to enable them to enjoy greater mobility, engage in productive work, and participate fully in all aspects of life. On White Cane Safety Day, we celebrate the many achievements of Americans who are blind or visually impaired, and we recognize the white cane as an important symbol of their determination and independence. 

My Administration remains committed to removing barriers that confront Americans with disabilities. Since we launched the New Freedom Initiative 5 years ago, we have worked to improve access to community life, expand educational opportunities, strengthen training and employment services, and promote the development of technology for people with disabilities. We are building on the progress of the Americans with Disabilities Act and working to make America a place where all citizens have the opportunity to realize their full potential. 

The Congress, by joint resolution (Public Law 88-628) approved on October 6, 1964, as amended, has designated October 15 of each year as “White Cane Safety Day.” 

                    NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 15, 2006, as White Cane Safety Day. I call upon public officials, business leaders, educators, librarians, and all the people of the United States to join as we work to ensure that the benefits and privileges of life in our great Nation are available to Americans who are blind or visually impaired, and to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs.                          ( print page 61366)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. 

[FR Doc. 06-8760

Billing code 3195-01-P
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of SRKP 14, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A.
      Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      ss.
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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





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





/s/
                Richard A. RappaportRichard
                A. Rappaport
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              March
                5, 2008
#### § 51.12 Are there any other additional procedures that I must follow to apply for a concession contract?

The Director may specify in a prospectus additional solicitation and/or selection procedures consistent with the requirements of this part in the interest of enhancing competition. Such additional procedures may include, but are not limited to, issuance of a two-phased prospectus—a qualifications phase and a proposal phase. The Director will incorporate simplified administrative requirements and procedures in prospectuses for concession contracts that the Director considers are likely to be awarded to a sole proprietorship or are likely to have annual gross receipts of less than $100,000. Such simplified requirements and procedures may include, as appropriate and without limitation, a reduced application package, a shorter proposal submission period, and a reduction of proposal information requirements.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5355 

To ensure that the National Advisory Council on Indian Education includes 

at least 1 member who is the president of a Tribal College or University. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2024 

Mrs. FISCHER (for herself and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To ensure that the National Advisory Council on Indian 

Education includes at least 1 member who is the president of a Tribal College or University. 

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 ‘‘National Advisory 

5 Council on Indian Education Improvement Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘NACIE Improvement Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5355 IS

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON INDIAN EDU2 CATION. 

3 By not later than 180 days after the date of enact4 ment of this Act and notwithstanding any other provision 

5 of section 6141 of the Elementary and Secondary Edu6 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7471), the President shall 

7 ensure that the National Advisory Council on Indian Edu8 cation established under such section includes at least one 

9 member who is a president of a Tribal College or Univer10 sity (as defined in section 316(b) of the Higher Education 

11 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS