alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"21-1962: VAS REALTY, LLC v. US [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Ps6riEQ7nt\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-18-2022-21-1962-vas-realty-llc-v-us-opinion-21-1962-opinion-2-18-2022_1910766\/\">21-1962: VAS REALTY, LLC v. US [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-18-2022-21-1962-vas-realty-llc-v-us-opinion-21-1962-opinion-2-18-2022_1910766\/embed\/#?secret=Ps6riEQ7nt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1962: VAS REALTY, LLC v. US [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"Ps6riEQ7nt\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: VAS REALTY, LLC v. US [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1962 Origin: CFC Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Know the Lei of the Land:

How To Make Sure Your Leis Can Come Back to the 

U.S. Mainland

If you want to bring Hawaiian leis back to the 

U.S. mainland, you’ll want to make sure the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will 

allow them to depart with you. Fortunately, 

that’s not too hard to do. When you buy a lei, 

simply ask the seller to confirm that it’s free 

of the following prohibited items: any citrus 

or citrus-related flowers, leaves, or other 

plant parts, as well as jade vine or Mauna 

Loa. Please be aware that citrus-related plant 

parts include mock orange flowers and leaves, 

which are sometimes used in making leis. See 

figures 1 and 2 for examples of mock orange 

used in leis.

This question is a very important one for you 

to ask the seller. USDA has established a Federal domestic quarantine to prevent the spread 

of the Asian citrus psyllid, a gnat-sized insect 

capable of transmitting one of the world’s 

most serious citrus diseases—citrus greening 

disease. This harmful pest feeds on all citrus 

and closely related plants in the botanical 

family Rutaceae. Some kukui-nut and other 

types of leis often contain citrus or citrusrelated leaves. Agricultural inspectors will 

examine your leis for prohibited items and any 

signs of plant infestation or infection. Help 

protect America’s citrus and other agricultural 

industries. Before you buy a lei to take back 

to the U.S. mainland, ask the seller to confirm 

that it’s free of prohibited materials. 

For More Information

Learn more about what you can bring to the 

U.S. mainland from Hawaii on USDA’s “Agricultural Information for International Travelers” Web page at www.aphis.usda.gov/travel.

For questions or for more information, call the 

USDA office in Hawaii at (808) 834-3240 or 

(808) 834-3241.

USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and 

employer.

Program Aid No. 2105 

Issued January 2012

Slightly revised June 2012

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service

Plant Protection and 

Quarantine

Figure 1. Leis containing mock orange leaves 

(Murraya paniculata)

Figure 2. Leis made of mock orange leaves and sea 

grape fruits*

* Most fresh fruits and vegetables from Hawaii are not allowed to enter the continental United States due to the 

risk of introducing certain invasive plant pests and diseases. However, fresh pineapple and coconut are permitted after inspection. Fresh papaya, abiu, atemoya, banana, curry leaf, dragon fruit, longan, lychee, mangosteen, rambutan, starfruit, and sweet potato are permitted, but must be treated at a USDA-approved facility and 

packed in boxes that are properly marked and stamped.

Plant Protection and Quarantine TRAVEL
§ 105-60.200 Making a request. ( a ) To make a request for GSA records, a requester shall file their request to the GSA FOIA Requester Service Center via one of the following, via the FOIAonline website: (*https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home*). From FOIAonline you can submit FOIA requests to GSA and other participating FOIAonline agencies, track the status of requests, search for requests submitted by others, access previously released records, and generate agency-specific FOIA processing reports.
( b ) If it is not reasonably possible for a requester to submit an electronic request via FOIAonline, the requester shall submit their request via U.S. Mail to the following address: GSA FOIA Requester Service Center (H3), Room 7308, 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405. Fax: 202-501-2727. Alternatively, a FOIA requester may email its FOIA request to *gsa.foia@gsa.gov* (Subject: FOIA Request via Email).
( c ) FOIA request description *requirements:* ( 1 ) The requester shall provide the following items of contact information when submitting a request to GSA: ( i ) Full name with honorific (Mr., Ms., Mrs., Dr., etc.);
( ii ) Complete mailing address; and
( iii ) Telephone number.
( 2 ) This requirement is applicable to both FOIA requests submitted electronically and via U.S. mail, respectively.
( 3 ) Although it is not a mandatory requirement, GSA also recommends the requester provide a personal/business email address for remittance as well.
( d ) A requester who is making a request for records about himself or herself shall comply with the verification of identity requirements as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
( e ) Where a request for records pertains to another individual, a requester may receive access to the requested records by submitting: Either a notarized authorization signed by the individual permitting that he or she explicitly grants access to the requested records pursuant to the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 or by submitting proof that the individual is deceased (*e.g.,* a copy of a death certificate or an obituary). As an exercise of administrative discretion, GSA can require a requester to supply additional information such as a Certification of Identity Form in order to sufficiently verify the individual submitting the request and/or also verify that a particular individual has consented to disclosure.
§ 50-201.201 Breach of stipulations. ( a ) Whenever the Department of Labor notifies the head of a contracting agency that a contractor is liable for liquidated damages by reason of a breach of stipulations as provided in section 2 of the act, there shall be withheld from any balance due under the contract such amount as may be necessary to satisfy such liability pending final disposition of the case.
( b ) Whenever a final determination of a breach of stipulations is made, the Secretary of Labor will furnish to the contracting agency a copy of the findings and decision with such recommendations as will assist the contracting agency in determining whether or not the contract should be canceled for such breach.
[Regs. 504, 1 FR 1627, Sept. 19, 1936. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.7009 Enforcement. ( a ) It shall be unlawful for an entity or individual to willfully and knowingly, or recklessly, submit information or data as part of the Broadband Data Collection that is materially inaccurate or incomplete with respect to the availability or the quality of broadband internet access service. Such action may lead to enforcement action and/or penalties as set forth in the Communications Act and other applicable laws.
( b ) Failure to make the Broadband Data Collection filing in accordance with the Commission's rules and the instructions to the Broadband Data Collection may lead to enforcement action pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and any other applicable law.
( c ) For purposes of this section, “materially inaccurate or incomplete” means a submission that contains omissions or incomplete or inaccurate information that the Commission finds has a substantial impact on its collection and use of the data collected in order to comply with the requirements of 47 U.S.C. 641-646.
( d ) Providers must file corrected data when they discover inaccuracy, omission, or significant reporting error in the original data that they submitted, whether through self-discovery, the crowdsource process, the challenge process, the Commission verification process, or otherwise. ( 1 ) Providers must file corrections within 30 days of their discovery of incorrect or incomplete data; and
( 2 ) The corrected filings must be accompanied by the same types of certifications that accompany the original filings.
[86 FR 18162, Apr. 7, 2021, as amended at 89 FR 66268, Aug. 15, 2024]
No. 10-11229.

#### Perkins *v.*McKee, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 60-742.8 Definitions.

As used in this part, the term:

*ADA* refers to title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 *et seq.*).

*Affirmative action requirements* refers to affirmative action requirements required by DOL pursuant to section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that go beyond the nondiscrimination requirements imposed by the ADA.

*Chairman of the EEOC* refers to the Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or his or her designee.

*Complaint/Charge* means a section 503 complaint/ADA charge. The terms are used interchangeably.

*Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs* refers to that individual or his or her designee.

*DOL* means the U.S. Department of Labor, and where appropriate, any of its headquarters or regional offices.

*EEOC* means the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and where appropriate, any of its headquarters, district, area, local, or field offices.

*Government* means the government of the United States of America.

*Priority List* refers to a document listing a limited number of controversial topics under the ADA on which there is not yet definitive guidance setting forth EEOC's position. The Priority List will be jointly developed and periodically reviewed by EEOC and DOL. Any policy documents involving Priority List issues will be coordinated between DOL and EEOC pursuant to Executive Order 12067 (3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 206) prior to final approval by EEOC.

*OFCCP* means the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and where appropriate, any of its regional or district offices.

*Section 503* refers to section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 793).

*Section 503 complaint/ADA charge* refers to a complaint that has been filed with OFCCP under section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, and has been deemed to be simultaneously dual filed with EEOC under the ADA.
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1

  

 

615 West Carmel Drive, Suite 100

Carmel, Indiana 46032

 

November 7, 2016

  

Mr. Patrick Stakenas

Determine, Inc.

615 West Carmel Drive, Suite 100

Carmel, Indiana 46032

 

Dear Patrick: 

 

Reference is made to your Severance Agreement (the “Severance Agreement”) dated June 3, 2015 with Determine, Inc. This letter hereby amends the Severance Agreement as follows:

 

1. Section 2 (Equity Acceleration) shall be amended and replaced with the following:  

 

2. EQUITY ACCELERATION. 

 

If the Company is subject to a Change in Control before the Employee’s employment terminates, then all equity awards held by the Employee shall become fully and unconditionally vested, fully exercisable and fully transferable (except for transfer restrictions imposed by law). For purposes of this Section 2, the Employee’s “equity awards” shall consist of (a) shares of the capital stock of the Company (“Stock”), (b) stock units, performance units or phantom shares whose value is measured by the value of shares of Stock and (c) stock appreciation rights whose value is measured by increases in the value of shares of Stock. 

 

All other terms of the Agreement shall remain the same. Please indicate your agreement with these terms by countersigning below. 

 

 

	
 
	
Very truly yours,
	
 

	 	 	 
	 	DETERMINE, INC.	 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ 
	
 

	
 
	
Name:
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Title: 
	
 
	
 



 

 

I have read and accept this agreement:  

	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  
	
PATRICK STAKENAS



 

 


 

 




 


 

 

 

615 West Carmel Drive, Suite 100

Carmel, Indiana 46032

 

November 7, 2016

  

Mr. John Nolan

Determine, Inc.

615 West Carmel Drive, Suite 100

Carmel, Indiana 46032

 

Dear John: 

 

Reference is made to your Severance Agreement (the “Severance Agreement”) dated October 7, 2015 with Determine, Inc. This letter hereby amends the Severance Agreement as follows:

 

1. Section 2 (Equity Acceleration) shall be amended and replaced with the following:  

 

2. EQUITY ACCELERATION. 

 

If the Company is subject to a Change in Control before the Employee’s employment terminates, then all equity awards held by the Employee shall become fully and unconditionally vested, fully exercisable and fully transferable (except for transfer restrictions imposed by law). For purposes of this Section 2, the Employee’s “equity awards” shall consist of (a) shares of the capital stock of the Company (“Stock”), (b) stock units, performance units or phantom shares whose value is measured by the value of shares of Stock and (c) stock appreciation rights whose value is measured by increases in the value of shares of Stock. 

 

All other terms of the Agreement shall remain the same. Please indicate your agreement with these terms by countersigning below. 

 

 

	
 
	
Very truly yours,
	
 

	 	 	 
	 	DETERMINE, INC.	 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ 
	
 

	
 
	
Name:
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Title:
	
 
	
 



 

 

I have read and accept this agreement:  

	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	  
	
JOHN NOLAN
March 15, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THEODORE CHARLES SCHMIDT, Appellant

NO. 14-10-00713-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED, that the appellant pay all costs expended in this 

appeal, and that this decision be certified below for observance.
46849.

#### SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. GOODMAN.

(380 SE2d 460)

Gregory, Justice.

Appellee Thomas W. Goodman, a Florida resident, sued appellant Southern Railway under 45 USC § 51 et seq., known as the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), to recover for personal injuries he sustained in an accident that occurred in North Carolina while he was employed by the railroad.

The trial court denied the railroad’s motion to dismiss Goodman’s complaint on the ground of *forum non conveniens*but certified its decision for immediate review. Because the railroad did business in Georgia, it did not argue that the Georgia court lacked personal jurisdiction. Instead, the railroad argued that the Georgia court should decline to exercise jurisdiction because the case could be more conveniently tried in North Carolina where the events occurred and virtually all the witnesses were located. The Court of Appeals denied the railroad’s application for interlocutory appeal. On February 21, 1989 we granted the railroad’s petition for certiorari.

The railroad has pointed out that in another case arising from the same accident another Georgia trial court applied the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*and granted the railroad’s motion to dismiss. Because that other case is not before us on appeal, we need not decide whether that trial court erred. The only issue before us in the present case is: Did the trial court lack discretion to dismiss Goodman’s complaint on the ground of *forum non*conveniens?

The Court in *Brown v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co.,*229 Ga. 481 (192 SE2d 382) (1972), explains why a trial judge lacks discretion to dismiss a FELA action on the ground of *forum non conveniens.*Under the statute now known as OCGA § 1-2-6 (a) (6), citizens of Georgia have the right “to appeal to the courts.” 229 Ga. at 482.

The Court in *Brown*then writes that under the statute now known as OCGA § 1-2-3, which provides that “Until citizenship is acquired elsewhere, a citizen of this state continues to be a citizen of this state. ... .,” *all*Georgia citizens, whether resident or nonresident, *340have the right “to appeal to the courts.” 229 Ga. at 482.

Decided June 22, 1989

Reconsideration denied July 13, 1989.

*Neely & Player, Edgar A. Neely, William C. Thompson,*for appellant.

*Kerry R. McDonald, J. Sherrod Taylor,*for appellee.

The Court in *Brown*concludes that the privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution prohibits Georgia courts from applying the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*to citizens of other states who are nonresidents of Georgia. Under *Southern Railway Co. v. Mayfield,*340 U. S. 1 (71 SC 1, 95 LE 3) (1950), it would be unconstitutional to deny the noncitizen of Georgia the absolute right to appeal to Georgia courts granted to nonresident citizens of Georgia under OCGA §§ 1-2-6 and 1-2-3.

Because under *Brown,*a trial court lacks discretion to dismiss a FELA case on the ground of *forum non conveniens,*we hold that the trial court correctly denied the railroad’s motion to dismiss the present case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., not participating.*
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

                          [HAUSSER + TAYLOR LETTERHEAD]


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT
                          ----------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
under the Securities Act of 1933, on Form S-8 (file number 333-33214) and on
Form S-8 (file number 333-47824), of our report dated February 5, 2002 relating
to the balance sheets of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. as of December 31, 2001 and
2000, and the related statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for the years then ended, which report appears in the report on Form 10-KSB of
Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.

                                                        /s/ HAUSSER + TAYLOR LLP

                                                            HAUSSER + TAYLOR LLP
Columbus, Ohio
March 19, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4205 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4205

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 1994

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title 11, D.C. Code, to clarify that blind individuals are 
 eligible to serve as jurors in the Superior Court of the District of 
                               Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF BLIND INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE 
              AS JURORS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    Section 11-1906(b), D.C. Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new paragraph:
    ``(4) An individual who is blind may not be disqualified from 
serving as a juror solely on the basis of blindness, but may be 
disqualified from serving as a juror in a particular case if the 
individual's blindness makes the individual incapable of rendering 
satisfactory jury service in that case.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 25, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Anaren, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence A. Sala,
President and 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
      Company.

/s/ Lawrence A. Sala
--------------------
Lawrence A. Sala
President and Chief Executive Officer

January 28, 2003