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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel; Chemical Senses.                     

*Date:*                         October 8, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 3 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Susan Sullivan, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review                               ( print page 53439)                            Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCD, NIH, 6120 Executive Blvd., Suite 400C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8683,                         *sullivas@mail.nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 9, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-21501 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
25

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of outstanding real estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1992...... 44 7 11 16 10 .232 .038 .058 .079 .049

1993...... 24 2 4 7 11 .121 .010 .018 .035 .054

1994...... 10 1 1 3 6 .048 .003 .003 .013 .026

1995...... 12 0 3 6 4 .055 -.001 .011 .027 .016

1996...... 7 0 1 2 4 .031 .000 .003 .009 .017

1997...... 16 -1 0 3 14 .064 -.003 -.001 .010 .054

1998...... 6 -1 3 0 5 .022 -.004 .009 .000 .016

1999...... 15 0 3 5 7 .051 -.001 .011 .015 .022

2000...... 12 -12 3 8 14 .037 -.037 .009 .022 .040

2001...... 42 10 9 5 17 .123 .030 .027 .014 .049

2002...... 35 8 6 5 16 .097 .022 .017 .014 .041

2003...... n.a. 4 6 n.a. n.a. n.a. .010 .015 n.a. n.a.

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-52-01-SM

Matthias B. Morgan

O R D E R

Defendant Morgan’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 12). Trial has been rescheduled for the October 2005

trial period. Defendant Morgan shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than September 7, 2005. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: September 22, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.

Jury Selection: October 4, 2005 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00052-SM Document 13 Filed 08/26/05 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

August 26, 2005

cc: Richard Foley, Esq.

Debra Walsh, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00052-SM Document 13 Filed 08/26/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1593 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1593

   For the relief of Bruce Watson Pairman and Daniele Paule Pairman.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2001

Mrs. Tauscher introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   For the relief of Bruce Watson Pairman and Daniele Paule Pairman.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR BRUCE WATSON PAIRMAN AND 
              DANIELE PAULE PAIRMAN.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Bruce Watson Pairman and 
Daniele Paule Pairman shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant 
visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 
for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Bruce Watson Pairman or Daniele Paule 
Pairman enters the United States before the filing deadline specified 
in subsection (c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and 
remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for 
adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Bruce Watson Pairman and 
Daniele Paule Pairman, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal 
year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
natives of the country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Bruce Watson 
Pairman and Daniele Paule Pairman shall not, by virtue of such 
relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
1Leasha is named as a plaintiff in this case. Leasha is the

deceased dog of David Veale. Because a deceased dog cannot be a

plaintiff in a federal civil action, the complaint will be

considered to have been filed only by David Veale for all

purposes.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

David T. Veale

Leasha Veale

v. Civil No. 06-cv-419-PB

Robert T. Furness, DVM

Apple Tree Animal Hospital

O R D E R

Before the Court is David Veale’s complaint against

veterinarian Robert Furness and the Apple Tree Animal Hospital,

alleging state and federal constitutional violations, as well as

state tort claims, arising out of the death of Veale’s dog,

Leasha.1 As Veale is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

the matter is before the Court for preliminary review to

determine whether, among other things, it states any claim upon

which relief might be granted and whether it properly invokes the

subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. See United States

Case 1:06-cv-00419-PB Document 7 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 3
2

District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(1)(B). 

As fully explained in the Report and Recommendation issued

this date, and without comment on the merits of the claims raised

in the complaint, I direct that the state tort claims, brought

pursuant to this Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1331, be served on the defendants to this action. I have

recommended that all of the claims alleging state or federal

constitutional violations be dismissed as this Court does not

have subject matter jurisdiction over those claims.

My review of the file indicates that plaintiff has completed

the necessary summons forms. The Clerk’s office is directed to

issue the summonses against the defendants and forward to the

United States Marshal for the District of New Hampshire (the

“U.S. Marshal’s office”) the summonses and copies of the

complaint (document no. 3), the Report and Recommendation issued

this date, and this Order. Upon receipt of the necessary

documentation, the U.S. Marshal’s office shall effect service

upon defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). 

Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within twenty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Case 1:06-cv-00419-PB Document 7 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 3
3

The plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings,

written motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served

directly on the Defendants by delivering or mailing the materials

to them or their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 5, 2007

cc: David T. Veale, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00419-PB Document 7 Filed 01/05/07 Page 3 of 3
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 20

- 3156

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

John Thomas White

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________

Submitted: April 7, 2021

Filed: April 15, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and STRAS, Circ uit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

John White received a 168

- month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). White’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and, in an
Anders brief, suggests that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm.-2- We conclude that White’s s entence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. McKanry , 628 F.3d 1010, 1022 (8th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that “it is nearly inconceivable” that once a district court has varied downward, it “abuse[s] its discretion in not varying downward [even ] further” (quotation marks omitted)). The
record establishes that the district court 1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that no
other non

- frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Presidential Documents

54925 

Federal Register 

Vol. 73, No. 185 

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8292 

Family Day, 2008 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Strong families are essential to the well-being of our Nation. On Family 

Day, we celebrate the relationship between parents and their children, and 

we recognize the importance of families spending time together. 

As a source of hope, guidance, stability, and love for every generation, 

families both teach and exemplify the values and virtues needed in today’s 

changing world. As parents and as role models to America’s children, we 

can help prepare our children for a bright future by offering steadfast support 

and unconditional love. 

The character of a child is formed in his or her earliest years by the 

love and guidance of family members and other caring individuals. Since 

2001, my Administration has worked to strengthen the American family, 

and we have worked with faith-based and community organizations to promote healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood. By striving to ensure 

that children remain connected to their families, communities, places of 

worship, and schools, we are helping them make good choices and build 

lives of purpose. 

Parents are the primary teachers of our Nation’s youth, and they are the 

first ones to educate them about the differences between right and wrong. 

By being proactive and involved in a child’s life, families pass along the 

traditions and principles that help make America a compassionate, decent, 

and hopeful society. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with FRD1
54926 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Presidential Documents 

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 September 22, 2008, 

as Family Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe 

this day by engaging in activities that strengthen the bonds between children 

and parents. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day 

of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the 

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

[FR Doc. E8–22511 

Filed 9–22–08; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with FRD1GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
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 Quarterly Report of Autobytel Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the
Report), we, Richard A. Post, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael F. Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/    RICHARD A.
POST                              
|Richard A. Post Chief Executive Officer May 31, 2005



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL F.
SCHMIDT                                                            
|Michael F. Schmidt Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) May 31, 2005



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
Autobytel Inc. and will be retained by Autobytel Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2303

___________

Chester Allen Bettis, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

State of Missouri; James Anthony * District Court for the

Gammon; Michael Shortridge; Howell * Western District of Missouri.

County, Missouri; John Wiles; *

Missouri Board of Probation and * [UNPUBLISHED]

Parole; Cranston Mitchell; Donnie *

Acklin; John C. Holstein, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 7, 1998

 Filed: August 14, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Chester Allen Bettis appeals the district court&s order dismissing 1

with prejudice his civil rights complaint on the ground that Bettis knowingly
-2-

misrepresented his litigation history on his application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties& briefs, we conclude the district

court did not abuse its discretion. See Romesburg v. Trickey, 908 F.2d 258, 260 (8th

Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R.

47B. We deny as moot Bettis&s motion on appeal.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
214 La. 279

#### MELERINE v. MELERINE.

No. 39144.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 8, 1948.

Raymond H. Kierr, of New Orleans, for relator.

Chalin O. Perez, of New Orleans, for respondent.

MOISE, Justice.

We issued a writ of certiorari in this case in order to review the judgment of the district court rendered herein.

Plaintiff brought suit against her husband for separation from bed and board, and prayed that “a writ of injunction issue” restraining and prohibiting the defendant from disposing of the community property, and for judgment “perpetuating the said injunction”. Attached to the petition was an order prepared for the court’s signature, providing for a temporary restraining order and a rule to show cause why a permanent injunction should not issue. This order was signed by the court. At the hearing on 'the rule, the defendant filed an exception urging that the petition disclosed no right or cause of action for the reason that it failed to apply for a prelimi*601nary injunction, as required by Sec. 2 of Act No. 29 of 1924. Plaintiff thereupon sought to amend the prayer of her petition so as to ask that she be granted a preliminary injunction. The district court sustained the exception of no right or cause of action and refused to allow the amendment. The district court then recalled the temporary restraining order and dismissed the rule for a permanent injunction.

The authorities cited by respondent are inapplicable to the facts as disclosed by the record. We therefore refrain from making any comment.

It is obvious that the sustained exception is not directed to the petition for a separation from bed and board nor to the prayer for relief in the petition, but against the order itself. The responsibility for that order is with the court, and the ends of justice require that the order be made to conform to the law so that a judgment may be rendered. We believe the amendment requested should have been granted because it does not change the matter nor the substance of the demand. Its denial, as a matter of fact, has made the right for injunctive relief to the wife a mere abstraction affording no real protection.

Article 149 of the Revised Civil Code grants to the wife an injunction to preserve her community property during the pendency of the suit. The court cannot refuse such an injunction when there is the factor of community property and the wife has filed a suit for separation from bed and board. When these facts are present, the injunction becomes a matter of right and the court has no discretion. Article 298 of the Code of Practice gives the wife a similar right in mandatory language.

For the reasons assigned, the writ heretofore issued by us in this case is perpetuated and made absolute, the judgment dismissing plaintiff’s application for injunction is recalled and set aside and the case is remanded to the lower court to be proceeded with according to law and consistent with the views herein expressed; all costs of this court to be paid by defendant and all other costs to await the final determination of this litigation.
EXHIBIT A

Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-00039-SM Document 262-2 Filed 11/18/11 Page 18 of 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-219-PB

Levi Blake

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

June 3, 2008 trial in the above case to allow additional time to

complete discovery and engage in plea negotiations or prepare for

trial. The government does not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from June 3, 2008 to August 19, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial

Case 1:07-cr-00219-PB Document 15 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The May 21, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

July 30, 2008 at 3:15 p.m.

No further continuances. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 20, 2008

cc: Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00219-PB Document 15 Filed 05/20/08 Page 2 of 2