alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Administrative Order No. 2021-03 

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

O R D E R 

By order of the Chief Judge, the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will be closed on

Wednesday, January 20, 2021, in observance of Inauguration Day, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 6103(c). 

For purposes of computation of time and motions to 

enlarge time under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

26 and Federal Circuit Rule 26, January 20, 2021, will be

considered a “legal holiday.”

FOR THE COURT

January 12, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

CERTIFIED COPY

I HEREBY CERTIFY THIS DOCUMENT IS A 

TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE 

ORIGINAL ON FILE. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

PETER R. MARKSTEINER, CLERK OF COURT By Deputy Clerk: Date: Patrick B. Chesnut January 12, 2021
No. 10-11206.

#### Holley *v.*Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.50002 Covered List. ( a ) *Publication of the Covered List.* The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau shall publish the Covered List on the Commission's website and shall maintain and update the Covered List in accordance with § 1.50003.
( b ) *Inclusion on the Covered List.* The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau shall place on the Covered List any communications equipment or service that: ( 1 ) Is produced or provided by any entity if, based exclusively on the following determinations, such equipment or service poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons: ( i ) A specific determination made by any executive branch interagency body with appropriate national security expertise, including the Federal Acquisition Security Council established under section 1222(a) of title 41, United States Code;
( ii ) A specific determination made by the Department of Commerce pursuant to Executive Order No. 13873 (3 CFR, 2019 Comp., p 317); relating to securing the information and communications technology and services supply chain);
( iii ) Equipment or service being covered telecommunications equipment or services, as defined in section 889(f)(3) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232; 132 Stat. 1918); or
( iv ) A specific determination made by an appropriate national security agency;
( 2 ) And is capable of: ( i ) Routing or redirecting user data traffic or permitting visibility into any user data or packets that such equipment or service transmits or otherwise handles;
( ii ) Causing the networks of a provider of advanced communications services to be disrupted remotely; or
( iii ) Otherwise posing an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

I, James R. Lavelle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge,
Cotelligent, Inc.'s amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2001 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.

Date: December 5, 2002                    By: /s/ James R. Lavelle
                                          -------------------------------
                                          James R. Lavelle
                                          Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                            Executive Officer
ROBERT F. POOLE,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 6

- 3747

Opinion filed June 5, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

-- Original Jurisdiction

Robert F. Poole , pro se, Petitioner

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed.

WETHERELL, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 27, 2000, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), National Starch & Chemical Company has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) The identifies of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are National Starch & Chemical Company, Bridgewater, NJ; and International Business Machines, Yorktown Heights, NY. The nature and objectives of the venture are to develop novel, wafer level, high performance underfill technology.                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-16477 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.772 Application for special tariff permission.

Applications under section 203 of the Communications Act for special tariff permission shall be made in the form and manner, with the number of copies set out in part 61 of this chapter.

[52 FR 5289, Feb. 20, 1987]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1802 Applications.

This part applies to all programs or activities conducted by the Federal Communications Commission. The programs or activities of entities that are licensed or certified by the Federal Communications Commission are not covered by these regulations.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ARVIN SAENZ,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00341

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20080C11300)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,698
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,281
<INVENTORY>                                    105,653
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,266
<PP&E>                                          13,028
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 256,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          498,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,643
<OTHER-SE>                                     233,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (256,559)
<SALES>                                         36,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,682
<CGS>                                           23,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               994,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (994,476)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (994,476)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (994,476)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)


</TABLE>
{"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":"2022-1525: Posco v. US - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WZQVTBXQHc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2022-1525-posco-v-us-audio-uploaded\/\">2022-1525: Posco v. US<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2022-1525-posco-v-us-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=WZQVTBXQHc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2022-1525: Posco v. US” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"WZQVTBXQHc\" 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":"Oral argument audio posted: Posco v. US (mp3) Appeal Number: 2022-1525 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
No. 11-25.

#### Lillo, Personal Representative of the Estate of Lillo *v.*Bruhn et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Under the provisions of Public Law 97-451, a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease NMNM 101077 for lands in Eddy County, New Mexico, was timely filed and was accompanied by all required rentals and royalties accruing from September 1, 1999, the date of termination.                    Start Printed Page 3733

                    No valid lease has been issued affecting the lands. The lessee has agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and has reimbursed the Bureau of Land Management for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The Lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate the lease effective September 1, 1999, subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                

For further information contact: Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico State Office, (505) 438-7586.

Dated: December 29, 1999.

Lourdes B. Ortiz,

Land Law Examiner.

[FR Doc. 00-1606 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
§ 128-1.5002-5 Personal property. Property of any kind or interest therein, except real and related property (as defined in FPMR 41 CFR 101-43.104-15), records of the Federal Government, and naval vessels, cruisers, aircraft-carriers, destroyers, and submarines (FPMR 41 CFR 101-43.104-13). For management and accounting control, personal property is categorized as follows: ( a ) “Expendable personal property” is that which, by its nature or function, is consumed in use; is used as repair parts or components of an end product considered nonexpendable; or has an expected service life of less than one year.
( b ) “Non-expendable personal property” is that which is complete within itself, does not lose its identity or become a component part of another article when put into use, and is of a durable nature with an expected service life one or more years.
( c ) “Controlled personal property” is that personal property for which good management practice dictates that it would be in the interest of the Government to assign and record accountability to assure the proper use, maintenance, protection and disposal of property for which the Government is responsible. Includes, but is not restricted to property which: ( 1 ) Is leased by, in the custody of, or is loaned to or from the Department.
( 2 ) Due to inherent attractiveness and/or portability is subject to a high probability of theft or misuse.
( 3 ) Is warranted, requires knowledge of age and/or previous repair data when determining whether repair or replacement is appropriate.
§ 302-16.203 What are examples of types of costs not covered by the MEA? Examples of costs which are not reimbursable from this allowance are: ( a ) Losses in selling or buying real and personal property and cost related to such transactions;
( b ) Cost of additional insurance on household goods while in transit to the new official station or cost of loss or damage to such property;
( c ) Additional costs of moving household goods caused by exceeding the maximum weight limitation;
( d ) Costs of newly acquired items, such as the purchase or installation cost of new rugs or draperies;
( e ) Higher income, real estate, sales, or other taxes as the result of establishing residence in the new locality;
( f ) Fines imposed for traffic infractions while en route to the new official station locality;
( g ) Accident insurance premiums or liability costs incurred in connection with travel to the new official station locality, or any other liability imposed upon the employee for uninsured damages caused by accidents for which the employee or a member of the employee's immediate family is held responsible;
( h ) Losses as the result of sale or disposal of items of personal property not considered convenient or practicable to move;
( i ) Damage or loss of clothing, luggage, or other personal effects while traveling to the new official station locality;
( j ) Subsistence, transportation, or mileage expenses in excess of the amounts reimbursed as per diem or other allowances under this regulation;
( k ) Medical expenses due to illness or injuries while en route to the new official station or while living in temporary quarters at Government expense under the provisions of this chapter; or
( l ) Costs incurred in connections with structural alterations (remodeling or modernizing of living quarters, garages or other buildings to accommodate privately-owned automobiles, appliances or equipment; or the cost of replacing or repairing worn-out or defective appliances, or equipment shipped to the new location).
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12256, Feb. 16, 2024]
#### § 302-3.406 How long must my assignment be for me to qualify for a TCS?

To qualify for a TCS, your assignment must be not less than 6 months, nor more than 30 months.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.10018 May I amend my application? ( a ) If the service rules allow, you may amend pending applications.
( b ) If an electronic version of an amendment application is available in ICFS, you may file your amendment electronically through ICFS.
[69 FR 29895, May 26, 2004, as amended at 88 FR 21438, Apr. 10, 2023]
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 801

To modify retroactively the residence requirement for transmission of citizenship to certain individuals born abroad before 1953 to one citizen parent

and one alien parent.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To modify retroactively the residence requirement for transmission of citizenship to certain individuals born abroad

before 1953 to one citizen parent and one alien parent.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT

4 FOR TRANSMISSION OF CITIZENSHIP.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 201(g)

6 of the Nationality Act of 1940 (providing for citizenship

7 for a person born outside the geographical limits of the

8 United States and its outlying possessions of parents one

9 of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United
2

•HR 801 IH

1 States who, prior to the birth of such person, resided in

2 the United States or its outlying possessions for a period

3 or periods totaling not less than 10 years, at least 5 of

4 which were after attaining the age of 16 years), the resi5 dence requirement in such section shall be considered to

6 be satisfied by a citizen who otherwise satisfies the re7 quirement, but who, after attaining the age of 16 years,

8 resided in the United States or its outlying possessions

9 only for a period or periods totaling 3 years (or more).

10 (b) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—The immigration

11 and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied

12 to persons born before the date of the enactment of this

13 Act as though subsection (a) had been in effect as of the

14 date of their birth.

Æ
§ 303-70.503 What relocation expenses must we authorize for the immediate family under §§ 303-70.501 and 303-70.502? When the immediate family chooses to continue the relocation, the following expenses must be authorized: ( a ) Travel to the new duty station or alternate destination as approved by the agency.
( b ) Shipment of household goods not to exceed 18,000 pounds net weight to the new duty station, or to an alternate destination selected by the immediate family and approved by the agency.
( c ) Storage of household goods not to exceed 60 days with a additional 90 days extension, if approved by the agency, not to exceed a total of 150 days.
( d ) Reimbursement of real estate expenses incident to the relocation, unless relocation is to the former actual residence.
( e ) Temporary quarters subsistence expense (TQSE) not to exceed 60 days, to be paid at the per diem rate for an unaccompanied spouse or domestic partner, and immediate family, if the TQSE was originally authorized in the relocation travel orders.
( f ) Shipment of one POV to the new duty station, or to an alternate destination selected by the immediate family and approved by the agency, if the POV shipment was originally authorized in the relocation travel orders.
#### § 302-5.2 What is the purpose of the househunting trip expenses allowance?

The allowance for househunting trip expenses is intended to facilitate and expedite the employee's move from your old official station to your new official station and to lower the Government's overall cost for the employee's relocation by reducing the amount of time an employee must occupy temporary quarters. The allowance for househunting trip expenses provides the employee and/or spouse a period of time to concentrate on finding a suitable permanent residence at the new official station and thereby expedites the employee's relocation.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

UNDER SEAL (NON-PUBLIC ORDER)

__________________________ 

IN RE COMPLAINT NO. 23-90015

__________________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

ORDER 

By order of March 24, 2023, a special committee 

composed of Chief Judge Moore, Judge Prost, and Judge 

Taranto (the Committee) was appointed to investigate and 

report its findings and recommendations with respect to a 

complaint identified against Judge Newman raising, inter 

alia, a concern that she has a mental or physical disability 

that renders her unable to discharge the duties of her 

office. 

Based on its investigation and direct observations of 

Judge Newman’s behavior, the Committee has determined 

that there is a reasonable basis to conclude she might 

suffer a disability that interferes with her ability to 

perform the responsibilities of her office. The Committee 

has retained to assist the 

Committee in this matter. He has recommended that 

Judge Newman undergo a neurological examination and a 

complete neuro-psychological battery of tests to determine 

whether she suffers from a disability, and if so, its nature 

and extent. The Committee finds such examination is 

IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015

constitutes misconduct under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Rules for 

Judicial Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. 

Failure to respond to this order by 3:00 pm on April 11, 

2023 will be deemed failure to comply.