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":"21-2080: FLEMING v. MSPB [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"MQyBtDkvjj\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-15-2022-21-2080-fleming-v-mspb-opinion-21-2080-opinion-2-15-2022_1908298\/\">21-2080: FLEMING v. MSPB [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-15-2022-21-2080-fleming-v-mspb-opinion-21-2080-opinion-2-15-2022_1908298\/embed\/#?secret=MQyBtDkvjj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-2080: FLEMING v. MSPB [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"MQyBtDkvjj\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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: FLEMING v. MSPB [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-2080 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
# Comments on: 22-1955: HARTMAN v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential
§ 102-75.295 What is the policy on extending credit in connection with the disposal of surplus property? The disposal agency— ( a ) May extend credit in connection with any disposal of surplus property when it determines that credit terms are necessary to avoid reducing the salability of the property and potential obtainable price and, when below market rates are extended, confer with the Office of Management and Budget to determine if the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 is applicable to the transaction;
( b ) Must administer and manage the credit disposal and any related security;
( c ) May enforce, adjust, or settle any right of the Government with respect to extending credit in a manner and with terms that are in the best interests of the Government; and
( d ) Must include provisions in the conveyance documents that obligate the purchaser, where a sale is made upon credit, to obtain the disposal agency's prior written approval before reselling or leasing the property. The purchaser's credit obligations to the United States must be fulfilled before the disposal agency may approve the resale of the property.
### The HONORABLE RICHARD H. BATTEY, Chief Judge, United States 1 

### District Court for the District of South Dakota. ___________ No. 96-2371

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Joseph Moses, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 8, 1996 Filed: November 15, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. JosephMoses appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed by th e district court following his guilty plea to distributing methamphetamine, 1 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The sentence reflected a substantial-assistance downward departure from the Guidelines range. We have c arefully reviewed the record and conclude Moses knowingly an d voluntarilywaived his right to appeal under these circumstances. Se e United States v. Rutan , 956 F.2d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Albers , 961 F.2d 710, 712 (8th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Moses's motion to supplement the record with the transcript of a co-defendant is denied.

### -2- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4368 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4368

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel SUNRISE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 1994

 Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                coastwise trade for the vessel SUNRISE.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel SUNRISE (United States 
official number 950381).

                                 <all>
```
DA 20-0321

JULIE A. AND SCOTT R. ILLINGHAM,

DVID B AND GEORGINE L.

FORGATCH, AND CHET WENZEL,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

INTERMOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL, INC.,

a Montana Corporation,

 Defendant and Appellee.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly and 

timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Matthew B. Hayhurst, P.O. Box 9199, Missoula, MT 59807-

9199, (406)543-6646; mhayhurst@boonekarlberg.com, whose name appears next on the list

of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is 

maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation 

process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall 

run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the 

parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this July 7, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Nicole Lynn Siefert, Quentin M. Rhoades, 430 Ryman Street, Missoula, MT

59802, (406)721-9700, gmr@montanalawyer.com

& erickson@montanalawyer.com

Peter Francis Lacny, Joseph Ray Casillas, , 201 West Main Street, Suite 201, Missoula, 

MT 59802, (406)728-0810, jrcasillas@dmllaw.com, & placny@dmllaw.com

Elizabeth L. Griffing, P.O. Box 157, Helena, MT 59604, (406)545-0499,

bgriffin@axilonlaw.com

I

A

07/07/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0321
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

VELLIYUR NOTT MALLIKARJU RAO, ALLEN 

CAPRON SIEVERT,

Appellants

v.

JOHN W. SMITH, CLAIRE MCGUINESS, ANDREW 

P. SHARRATT,

Appellees

______________________

2020-1411

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 106,099.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

DIPU A. DOSHI, Blank Rome LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by MEGAN R. WOOD; 

JAY PHILIP LESSLER, New York, NY. 

 BLAIR A. SILVER, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Washington, 

DC, argued for appellees. Also represented by JOSEPH J.

BERGHAMMER, KEVIN DAM, ERIC J. HAMP, MICHAEL L.

KRASHIN, Chicago, IL. 

 ______________________

Case: 20-1411 Document: 68 Page: 1 Filed: 01/12/2021
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and 

DYK, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

January 12, 2021 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1411 Document: 68 Page: 2 Filed: 01/12/2021
#### § 128-1.100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart introduces the Department of Justice Property Management Regulations (JPMR) as part of the Federal Property Management Regulations System (FPMR) (41 CFR part 101); states its relationship to the FPMR; and provides instructions for the issuance and use of these property management policies and procedures of the Department of Justice.
031P16

#### Shapemasters, Inc. v. Angelo Accetturo, Wilderness Trail Development Corporation, and Wilderness Trail Holdings, LLC.

Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-741)

Denied
### August 12, 2014
NYSERDA 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for launching the Renewable Heat NY Program; it will certainly raise interest in renewable energy technologies within your state. Attached please find the information required for consideration for pre-qualification of wood pellet boiler technology for inclusion in your programs. This information includes test results for three boiler sizes of ÖkoFEN/MESys boilers from Francisco Josephinum laboratories in Wieselburg, Austria. These tests were conducted based on EN 303-5 standards. Following is a table of required efficiency and emissions characteristics of the three models of ÖkoFEN/MESys boilers available to the New York marketplace:

All testing was accomplished by Francisco Josephinum Laboratory in Wieselburg, Austria, using EN 303-5 standards. Efficiency and emissions figures have been appropriately modified. Also included is a copy of the Maine Energy Systems warrantee covering the equipment being submitted for consideration. Thank you for your consideration. We’ll look forward to your response to our request.
Respectfully,

Harry “Dutch” Dresser, Managing Director dutch@maineenergysystems.com



# CHEAPER. CLEANER. CLOSER. PO Box 547 Bethel, Maine 04217 (207) 824-NRGY (6749) MaineEnergySystems.com

Boiler KW BTU/hr Efficiency HHV (%)PM 2.5 (lb/MMBTU)CO @ 7% O2 (ppm) Requirements >=85 <0.080 <270
ÖkoFEN PE16 16 55,000 86 0.023 140 ÖkoFEN PE32 32 110,000 85 0.019 41 ÖkoFEN PE64 64 220,000 87 0.021 80
§ 60-300.45 Benchmarks for hiring. The benchmark is not a rigid and inflexible quota which must be met, nor is it to be considered either a ceiling or a floor for the employment of particular groups. Quotas are expressly forbidden. ( a ) *Purpose:* The purpose of establishing benchmarks is to create a quantifiable method by which the contractor can measure its progress toward achieving equal employment opportunity for protected veterans.
( b ) Hiring benchmarks shall be set by the contractor on an annual basis. Benchmarks shall be set using one of the two mechanisms described below: ( 1 ) Establish a benchmark equaling the national percentage of veterans in the civilian labor force, which will be published and updated annually on the OFCCP Web site; or
( 2 ) Establish a benchmark by taking into account: ( i ) The average percentage of veterans in the civilian labor force in the State(s) where the contractor is located over the preceding three years, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and published on the OFCCP Web site;
( ii ) The number of veterans, over the previous four quarters, who were participants in the employment service delivery system in the State where the contractor is located, as tabulated by the Veterans' Employment and Training Service and published on the OFCCP Web site;
( iii ) The applicant ratio and hiring ratio for the previous year, based on the data collected pursuant to § 60-300.44(k);
( iv ) The contractor's recent assessments of the effectiveness of its external outreach and recruitment efforts, as set forth in § 60-300.44(f)(3); and
( v ) Any other factors, including but not limited to the nature of the contractor's job openings and/or its location, which would tend to affect the availability of qualified protected veterans.
( c ) The contractor shall document the hiring benchmark it has established each year. If the contractor sets its benchmark using the procedure in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, it shall document each of the factors that it considered in establishing the hiring benchmark and the relative significance of each of these factors. The contractor shall retain these records for a period of three (3) years.
Exhibit 31



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gary E. Davis, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Atlas Minerals Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

[Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986];

c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 18, 2003



/s/ Gary E. Davis

Gary E. Davis

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 10.23**

 

John Gerard Cantillon 

Chief Operating Officer 

Vsource (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd 

 

January 1st 2003 

 

Dear Jack, 

 

*Ref: Adjustments to Cash Compensation*

 

This letter is to document your Compensation package in relation to the above.

 

Nowithstanding the compensation arrangements set forth in youremployment contract dated January 1, 2003 with Vsource (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, for the pay period January 1st 2003 toAugust 31st 2003, you agreed to reduce your cash compensation to MR350,360 per annum, although for purposes ofdetermining your target incentive bonus, your base compensation will be deemed to be MR467,400 per annum. 

 

From 1st September 2003, unless otherwise agreed by you, your cashcompensation will increase to MR467,400 per annum, and your base compensation for determining your target incentive bonus will also be MR467,400 per annum. 

 

Yours Sincerely 

 

/s/    Asok Nair 

 

Asok Nair 

Vice President, Human Resource

Vsource 

 

CC:
  
Dennis Smith—Chief Financial Officer, Vsource
   
Timothy Hui—General Counsel, Vsource
#### § 0.405 Statutory provisions.

The following statutory provisions, among others, will be of interest to persons having business with the Commission:

(a) The Federal Communications Commission was created by the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, June 19, 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-609.

(b) The Commission exercises authority under the Submarine Cable Landing Act, 42 Stat. 8, May 27, 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34-39. See section 5 of Executive Order 10530, 19 FR 2709, May 10, 1954, as amended, 3 CFR, 1965 ed., p. 463.

(c) The Commission exercises authority under the Communications Satellite Act of 1962, 76 Stat. 419, August 31, 1962, 47 U.S.C. 701-744.

(d) The Commission operates under the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 237, June 11, 1946, as amended, originally codified as 5 U.S.C. 1001-1011. Pursuant to Pub. L. 89-554, September 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act now appear as follows in the Code:

| Administrative Procedure Act | 5 U.S.C. |
| --- | --- |
| Sec. 2-9 | 551-558 |
| Sec. 10 | 701-706 |
| Sec. 11 | 3105, 7521, 5362, 1305 |
| Sec. 12 | 559 |

[32 FR 10570, July 19, 1967]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-14765-HH

________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEXTER DAVIS, 

a.k.a. Stump,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

Before: WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and JORDAN Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal 

waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert, 

997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced 

if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Grinard-Henry, 399 

F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of 

the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error).

Case: 17-14765 Date Filed: 07/24/2018 Page: 1 of 2 
2

JORDAN, Circuit Judge, concurring:

There is an ambiguity in Mr. Davis’ appeal waiver because it is unclear who 

is the arbiter concerning the applicable “advisory guideline range.” Here, 

however, the ambiguity does not help Mr. Davis because even under his theory, the 

guideline range was 151-188 months, and he received a sentence of 144 months. 

In other words, Mr. Davis did not receive a sentence that “exceeds the advisory 

guidelines range,” no matter how that range is calculated.

Case: 17-14765 Date Filed: 07/24/2018 Page: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4403 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4403

 To rescind the fee required for the use of public recreation areas at 
   lakes and reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of 
                   Engineers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 1994

 Mr. Emerson (for himself, Mr. Whitten, Mr. Brewster, Mr. McCrery, and 
 Mr. Skelton) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To rescind the fee required for the use of public recreation areas at 
   lakes and reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of 
                   Engineers, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RESCISSION OF RECREATIONAL USER FEES.

    Section 210(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 460d-
3(b)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) User Fees.--User fees at the lakes and reservoirs referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be collected by officers and employees of the 
United States only from users of highly developed facilities requiring 
continuous presence of personnel for maintenance and supervision of the 
facilities and shall not be collected for access to or use of water 
areas, undeveloped or lightly developed shoreland, picnic grounds, 
overlook sites, scenic drives, or boat launching ramps where no 
mechanical or hydraulic equipment is provided.''.

                                 <all>
```
S8900274.

#### GREENHILL v. CLERK, GWINNETT COUNTY.

(385 SE2d 290)

Decided September 6, 1989.

Roy E. Greenhill, *pro se.*

*Thomas C. Lawler III, District Attorney,*for appellee.

Hunt, Justice.

This petition for original mandamus must be, and hereby is, dismissed under *Brown v. Johnson,*251 Ga. 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983).

*Petition dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*