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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-9056-8]

*Responsible Agency:*                     Office of Federal Activities, General Information 202-564-5632 or                     *https://www.epa.gov/​nepa.*

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) 

Filed May 24, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through May 28, 2021 10 a.m. EST 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

## Notice 

                    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:                     *https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/​cdx-enepa-public/​action/​eis/​search.*

*EIS No. 20210061, Final, USFS, CA,*                     Stanislaus National Forest Over-Snow Vehicle (OSV) Use Designation,  Review Period Ends: 07/06/2021, Contact: Kathryn Wilkinson 248-672-0518.                

*EIS No. 20210062, Final, TREAS, MD,*                     Construction and Operation of a Currency Production Facility within the National Capital Region,  Review Period Ends: 07/06/2021, Contact: Charles Davis 202-874-3259.                

*EIS No. 20210063, Draft Supplement, USACE, CA,*                     American River Watershed Common Features Water Resources Development Act of 2016, American River Contract 2,  Comment Period Ends: 07/19/2021, Contact: Public Affairs Office 916-557-5101.                

*EIS No. 20210064, Draft, GSA, MD,*                     U.S. Food and Drug Administration Muirkirk Road Campus Master Plan,  Comment Period Ends: 07/19/2021, Contact: Marshall Popkin 202-919-0026.                

*EIS No. 20210065, Final, BIA, NV,*                     Southern Bighorn Solar Projects,  Review Period Ends: 07/06/2021, Contact: Chip Lewis 602-390-2014.                

Dated: May 28, 2021.

Cindy S. Barger,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2021-11736 Filed 6-3-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Douglas Scott KING, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Melba KING, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 69105.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Nov. 19, 1996.

*29Richard B. Dempsey, Richard B. Dempsey, Jr., Washington, for appellant.

Frederick H. Schwetye, Union, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., and GRIMM and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

In this dissolution action, husband raises one point on appeal. He alleges the trial court erred in awarding wife 99% of the marital assets and ordering him to pay her $432,300. He contends the “award is clearly erroneous and a gross abuse of discretion.”

In its judgment, the trial court found that the parties acquired assets during the marriage that lasted approximately six years. The trial court’s judgment found that “in each instance the source of funds used for the purchase or acquisition of the equity interest in said items of marital property was the contribution of the separate pre-marital cash and pre-marital equity interest” of wife. Further, the trial court found that during the marriage, husband appropriated and used for his own personal gain and benefit approximately $432,300.

We have studied the transcript, legal record, and briefs. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Rule 73.01 and *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976). No error of law appears.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
Eonorelbla f%Q. 'ii. Cox, Page 2 

X~e hers aarefully read the pmpoeed pl8n rhiab 

you hero aubrnitt0a an your voluntary eyetom and poliay in 

apploylng, proaotlng and retelniw employe8a in your Qepartmant and it appears that pou hare atteqted to aaaply 

wlth the lawa of Texas an6 our opinloa No00 O-1818 in &t&tl.ng your plan. we have not fotuhl any pG4rtioular provision 

tiiah in bur o?lnlon wculC be ln oontrarentlan of rtate law. 

Fbwevcr, we euggast that ln defining wpsrauknent eaployeeV 

it arigbt'be mada more olsarly to appear that the Dep8mmnt 

is not attempting to (llrcr arployeer a peramnent statue bat 

that nnoh taw ia u8ed a8 merely bmwrlptlm or mplayeeei who 

have bean rettinadb$lond e probationary period and to rhloh 

dlffetint roles aad pollaln will be applied. 

Be are unabls to glts an umtandltional aertlfloatfon that all the ~rovislona ef your plan a216 in 8triot ooapllanae with all the Jaw6 of Toma - aon8tltati6aal. diatutory aa e6mrmi law. Rowuver, we am of the oplnioa that' 

ths plan a~ a I&O&~ eontee vlthln the llmltatlanr Inpored by 

law an&any alaorep8na~en nhlob ruy be Ulrootsred OT uhlah 

m.lght~de+dop in the adminlrtration oY the plan stay bo rmdlly 

reaedie4 by ambment. ;tr sona oonfllet whioh is not DOU apprirsnt~rbould later develop, the stats law nould, OS emme, 

M~4l’lldQI th?l QfiMdilQ pl’OribiQL 

APPROVEI; APR 4, 1940
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1168 

CAF 15-01576 

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF MICHELLE K. RUSIECKI, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

AARON J. MARSHALL, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

DEBORAH J. SCINTA, ORCHARD PARK, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

NUCHERENO & NAGEL, BUFFALO (MARTEN R. VIOLANTE OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

MICHELE A. BROWN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Mary G.

Carney, J.), entered August 18, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order granted the motion of

respondent to dismiss the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see generally Matter of Chendo O., 175 AD2d 635, 635).

Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 1997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1009]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for 
Review

January 3, 1996.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law 96-511. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Special Request: In order to conduct the survey described below in 
early February 1996, the Department of Treasury is requesting Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and approval of this information 
collection by January 17, 1996. To obtain a copy of this information 
collection, please write to the IRS Clearance Officer at the address 
listed below. Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
    OMB Number: 1545-1432.
    Project Number: PC:V 95-019-G.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Problem Resolution Program (PRP) Case Processing Customer 
Opinion Survey.
    Description: Over the last two years, IRS has made changes to its 
case processing quality standards. In light of these changes, the 
duration of time since IRS last solicited customer feedback, 
considerable costs of processing case work and measuring results, IRS 
needs to determine whether the data it is gathering, especially on the 
timeliness, accuracy and communication elements of its case work 
reflects the perception of its customers on elements.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 400.
    Estimated Burden Hours per Respondent: 7 minutes, 30 seconds.
    Frequency of Response: Other.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 50 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf, (202) 395-7340, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-1009 Filed 1-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00020-CR

Ex parte Dimas Rojas Martinez §

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (C-1-010016-

1296924-AP)

March 20, 2014

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the inclusion in
this Form 20-F/A of our Report dated April 2, 2002 with respect to the financial
statements of Mar Profundo Girassol for the year ended December 31, 2001, and to
the incorporation of such Report into the company's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8, File Nos. 33-85168, 333-09292 and
333-74321.



BARBIER FRINAULT & ASSOCIES
Member of Andersen Worldwide Organization



Neuilly-sur-Seine, France
July 15, 2002


/s/ FRANCIS SCHEIDECKER
Exhibit 10.6



 Exhibit 10.6 
 UNION STREET ACQUISITION CORP. 
 102 South Union Street 
 Alexandria, VA 22314 
 [            ,             ], 2006 
 Union Street Capital Management, LLC 
 102 South Union Street 
 Alexandria, VA 22314 
 Gentlemen: 
 This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-136530), as amended and as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Registration Statement”) relating to the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of the securities of Union Street Acquisition Corp. (the
“Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the Company’s consummation of a “Business Combination” or (ii) the Company’s dissolution and liquidation (each as described and defined, and in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Registration Statement) (the “Termination Date”), Union Street Capital Management, LLC (the “Provider”) shall make available to
the Company certain office space, utilities, secretarial support and other administrative services as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 102 South Union Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. In exchange therefor, the Company shall
pay the Provider the sum of $7,500 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. The Company has informed the Provider that certain net proceeds from the IPO will be held in trust (the
“Trust Account”) as more fully described in the Registration Statement. By agreeing and signing below, the Provider hereby irrevocably waives any and all rights, interests, claims, demands, damages, actions, causes of action
or suit of any nature whatsoever, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, in law or equity, that the Provider may have against the Company or the Trust Account in respect of funds held in the Trust Account. 
 [signature page to follow] 







 Union Street Capital Management, LLC 
 [            ,             ], 2006 
 Page 2 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	UNION STREET ACQUISITION CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	


  

			
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	
	UNION STREET CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/

	Name:	 	
	Title:
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5531 

To prohibit the use of United States contributions to the United Nations 

to support the iVerify tool developed by the United Nations Development 

Programme, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2023 

Mr. CLINE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of United States contributions to the 

United Nations to support the iVerify tool developed 

by the United Nations Development Programme, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘End U.N. Censorship 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5531 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—No Federal funds made available 

3 to the Department of State or any other department or 

4 agency may be used— 

5 (1) to develop, implement, or otherwise support 

6 the iVerify tool developed by the United Nations De7 velopment Programme; 

8 (2) for any other effort that seeks to label 

9 speech or expression as mal-, mis-, or dis-informa10 tion; 

11 (3) to make any voluntary contributions to the 

12 United Nations or any entity of the United Nations 

13 that— 

14 (A) fund, implement, develop, or otherwise 

15 support the iVerify platform or any similar 

16 platform; or 

17 (B) otherwise support initiatives that seek 

18 to label speech or expression as mal-, mis-, or 

19 disinformation; or 

20 (4) to make any contribution to any other inter21 national organization for the purposes of funding, 

22 implementing, developing, or otherwise supporting 

23 the iVerify platform or any similar effort that seeks 

24 to label speech or expression as mal-, mis-, or 

25 disinformation. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5531 IH

1 (b) RESCISSION.—Any amounts withheld pursuant to 

2 this section— 

3 (1) shall be permanently rescinded as of the 

4 date on which the Secretary makes the determina5 tion described in subsection (a)(1); 

6 (2) shall be deposited in the general fund of the 

7 Treasury; and 

8 (3) shall not be considered arrears to be repaid 

9 to the United Nations or any entity of the United 

10 Nations. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
## NUMBER 13

- 22

- 00211

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

CHRIS HOLT

, Appellant,

v.

KIM GRIGG

, Appellee.

On appeal from the 117 th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justice s Benavides, Silva , and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

This matter is before the Court on appellant and appellee ’ s joint motion for non

suit and voluntary dismissal of all claims

. The parties request a dismissal stating that they

have negotiated a settlement.2 The Court, having considered the joint motion, is of the opinion that the motion

should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1) ( allowing the C ourt to “dismiss the

appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order unless such disposition would prevent a

party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled” )

. Accordingly, we grant

the motion, and we dismiss the appeal. Costs will be borne by the party incurring the

same . Becaus e the appeal is dismissed at appellant and appellee ’ s joint request, no

motion for rehearing will be entertained.

L. ARON PEÑA JR.

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

2nd day of February, 202 3

.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11439]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the                               ( print page 30672)                            exhibition “Impressionism to Modernism: Monet to Matisse from the Bemberg Foundation” at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, in Houston, Texas, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Matthew R. Lussenhop,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-12048 Filed 6-8-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
EXHIBIT 32




<PAGE>



      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bella Trading Company, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Sara Preston, the
Chief Executive and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
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 her 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 the Company.



November 1, 2006                       By:  /s/ Sara Preston
                                            ----------------------------
                                            Sara Preston, Chief Executive
                                            and Principal Financial Officer
#### Mark A. PATTERSON, Claimant/Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Employer/Respondent.

No. 62613.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 18, 1993.

James J. Logan, McMichael & Logan, Chesterfield, for claimant, appellant.

Richard J. Fitzgerald, Luke & Cunliff, P.C., St. Louis, for employer, respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals from an order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) affirming the dismissal, for failure to prosecute, of his workers’ compensation claim. We affirm. The Commission’s award is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20256 

Conference Calendar

__________________

BARBARA S. YOUNGS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RANDOLPH F. WHELESS, in his 

individual capacity; UNNAMED

OTHERS

 Defendants,

and

JOHN HUTCHISON,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-94-4244

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 19, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that Barbara S. Youngs's motion for leave to

appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED. The appeal lacks

arguable merit and is, therefore, frivolous. Howard v. King, 707
No. 95-20256

-2-

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is

frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.

Federal district courts have no authority to review final

state-court judgments. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). This principle also applies

to actions in which the constitutional claims presented in

federal court are inextricably intertwined with the validity of

the state court's grant or denial of relief. Hale v. Harney, 786

F.2d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1986). 

Youngs has also filed a pleading styled "Motion for

Extension of Time to filed Appellant's Brief and, Alternatively,

Motion For Point of Order." This motion is DENIED as moot. 

Youngs previously has been warned by this court that she may

be sanctioned for filing further frivolous pleadings. 

Accordingly, Youngs is barred from filing any civil appeal in

this court, or any initial pleading in any court which is subject

to this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written

permission of a judge of the forum court or of this court; the

clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts

in this Circuit are directed to return to Youngs, unfiled, any

attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.