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":"18-1479: CAREY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5jEwdihFd8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-18-1479-carey-v-department-of-agriculture-rule-36-judgment-18-1479-rule_36_judgment-11-7-2018-1\/\">18-1479: CAREY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-18-1479-carey-v-department-of-agriculture-rule-36-judgment-18-1479-rule_36_judgment-11-7-2018-1\/embed\/#?secret=5jEwdihFd8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1479: CAREY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"5jEwdihFd8\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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":"Opinions\/Orders posted: CAREY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1479 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16856]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33889]


State of Texas (Acting by and Through the Texas Department of 
Transportation)--Acquisition Exemption--West Texas & Lubbock Railroad 
Company, Inc.

    The State of Texas (acting by and through the Texas Department of 
Transportation), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption 
under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire the right-of-way underlying a rail line 
(the line) from West Texas & Lubbock Railroad Company, Inc. (WTLR). The 
line is located between milepost 7.2 and milepost 1.1, in Lubbock, TX, 
a distance of approximately 6.1 miles.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The State of Texas will not provide rail freight service on 
the line. WTLR will retain ownership of the rail, ties and other 
track materials and will retain the permanent, irrevocable, 
exclusive rail freight easement to provide service over the line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or shortly after 
June 27, 2000.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The transaction could be consummated no sooner than the June 
23, 2000 effective date of the exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio.\3\ Petitions to reopen the proceeding to 
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. 
The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the 
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ According to the State of Texas, a motion to dismiss will be 
filed in the near future in this proceeding on the grounds that the 
Board does not have jurisdiction over this transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33889, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Charles W. Heald, Executive Director, Texas Department of 
Transportation, 125 E. 11th Street, Austin, TX 78701-2483.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: June 27, 2000.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16856 Filed 7-03-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-M
{"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":"2020-1201: Valeant Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis Laboratories FL., Inc - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"PbtFii2ETG\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-09-2020-2020-1201-valeant-pharmaceuticals-v-actavis-laboratories-fl-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2020-1201: Valeant Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis Laboratories FL., Inc<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-09-2020-2020-1201-valeant-pharmaceuticals-v-actavis-laboratories-fl-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=PbtFii2ETG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2020-1201: Valeant Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis Laboratories FL., Inc” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"PbtFii2ETG\" 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: Valeant Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis Laboratories FL., Inc (mp3) Appeal Number: 2020-1201 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4191 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4191

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 9630 
   Estate Thomas in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, as the ``Aubrey C. 
                         Ottley Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office building located at 9630 Estate 
Thomas in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Aubrey C. Ottley Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the Aubrey C. Ottley Post Office.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.

  
  
  






103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4191

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 9630 
   Estate Thomas in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, as the ``Aubrey C. 
                         Ottley Post Office''.`
| 1.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and 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      as of and for the period covered by theReport. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date:  May      12, 2008 | /s/ DOULGAS J. ANDREA                                                                                             |
|--------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                               | Douglas      J. AndreaChairman      of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer and Corporate      Secretary |
|   |                               |                                                                                                              |
|   |                               | /s/ CORISA L. GUIFFRE                                                                                             |
|   |                               | Corisa      L. GuiffreVice      President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Corporate      Secretary         |
(1829) 

III. PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS HEARING— 

AUGUST 4, 2010 
1830 
1831
Argued and submitted October 13, reversed in part;

affirmed in part November 2,

petition for review denied December 27,1994 (320 Or 493)

#### In the Matter of the Guardianship/Conservatorship for William C. Rochat, an Incapacitated/Protected Person. William C. ROCHAT, *Appellant, v.*Mary Ellen ROCHAT and Anna L. Carlson, *Respondents.*

(9305-90736; CA A82273)

883 P2d 1338

William Carl Rochat argued the cause and filed the brief *pro se.*

James R. Cartwright argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*262PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from two orders of the Mult-nomah County Circuit Court, one appointing guardians for petitioner and the other appointing conservators. We reject petitioner’s arguments concerning the guardianship. The respondents concede that they did not request a conservator-ship and that the trial court, under the pleadings, should not have appointed conservators.

Order appointing conservators reversed; order appointing guardians affirmed.
No. 10-11112.

#### Quinones-Figueroa *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Consistent with Departmental policy, 28 C.F.R. § 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in                     *United States*                     v.                     *Robert Odabashian, et al.*                     was lodged with the United States District Court for the Western district of Tennessee on December 17, 1999 (95-2361 G/Bre). The United States filed a First Amended Complaint pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), as amended, against five defendants, including Chevron Chemical Company, LLC (“Chevron”). The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants are liable under Section 107 of CERCLA for costs incurred by the United States Environmental Protection Agency during a cleanup of the Pulvair Corporation Superfund Site in Millington, Tennessee. The proposed Consent Decree settles the liability of Chevron. Under the Consent Decree, Chevron agrees to reimburse the United States in the amount of $100,000.                

                    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044; and refer to                     *United States*                     v.                     *Robert Odabashian, et al.,*                     DOJ Ref. #90-11-3-1474.                

                    The proposed settlement agreement may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Suite 410, 200 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, TN 38103, and at the office of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044. In requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $4.25 (25 cents                     Start Printed Page 3740                    per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.                

Walker Smith, 

Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 00-1644 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Merrimack

No. 80-173

#### Horizon House Real Estate, Inc. v. Arthur W. Bixby *& a.*

March 6, 1981

*Rita G. Bixby,*of Haverhill, by brief and orally, pro se.

*Hall, Morse, Gallagher & Anderson,*of Concord *(Charles T. Gallagher*orally), for the defendants Donald J. Hodgdon and Jenny J. Hodgdon.

Per curiam.

The question in this interpleader action is whether the evidence supports a determination that the seller could retain a deposit on the purchase of real property. We uphold the trial court.

On May 15-, 1978, Arthur W. and Rita G. Bixby signed a contract in which they agreed to purchase certain real estate owned by Donald J. and Jenny J. Hodgdon. The contract provided that the buyer's would forfeit a $3,000 deposit as liquidated damages if they failed to complete the sale by September 1, 1978. The master found that a subsequent agreement provided that the buyers were to occupy the premises and pay a rental of $225 a month until the sale was closed.

The sale was not completed. The plaintiff, the real estate brokerage firm handling the sale, filed a bill of interpleader seeking a judicial determination of which of the parties was entitled to the deposit held by it. The matter was referred to a Master *{Robert A. Carignan,*Esq.), and the deposit, less the plaintiffs expenses, was *113paid into court. The master found that the Hodgdons were entitled to the deposit and the Superior Court *(Cann,*J.) approved his report. The Bixbys appealed.

The Bixbys claim that the supplemental written agreement under which they were to occupy the premises contained a provision that the deposit would not be forfeited, but that the Hodgdons struck the clause after the Bixbys had executed the agreement. The master found, however, that the Hodgdons refused to accept this provision and that it was stricken before the agreement was signed by either the buyers or the sellers. This finding is supported by the evidence and must therefore stand. *Duby v. Osgood,*120 N.H. 356, 415 A.2d 326 (1980). Because such a finding leaves in effect the provision of the May 15, 1978, agreement that the Bixbys would forfeit the deposit if they failed to perform, the decision of the trial court was proper. Furthermore, even assuming that the provision was stricken after the Bixbys had signed but before the Hodgdons had signed, this would have the effect only of nullifying the entire supplemental agreement and would leave in effect the previous agreement which called for a forfeiture of the deposit.

It is difficult to follow the Bixbys’ argument that there was no consideration for the agreement that the deposit be forfeited. Nevertheless, it is clear that the purchase-and-sale agreement which contained the forfeiture clause was supported by adequate consideration. The sellers, in reliance upon the contract of sale, took the property off the market in order to give the buyers until September to perform. Because this is a detriment to the promisee, it is sufficient consideration. *See Corning Glass Works v. Max Dichter Co.,*102 N.H. 505, 512, 161 A.2d 569, 575 (1960).

*Affirmed.*
No. 11-5207.

#### McClellan *v.*Marshall et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16865]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education (CHGME) Program 
Conference

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    In notice document 00-15901 appearing on page 39151 in the issue of 
Friday, June 23, 2000, make the following correction:
    On page 39151, in the first column, in the first paragraph, 
fourteen lines down, the second to last sentence should read as 
follows:
    ``To do so, dial: 800-545-4387, then enter the access code ID # 
M31053, or 700-991-1738 (for Federal Government employees), then enter 
the access code ID # 28353.''

    Dated: June 29, 2000.
Jane M. Harrison,
Director of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. 00-16865 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. PR00-18-000]

Take notice that on June 19, 2000, Great Lakes Energy Partners, L.L.C. (GLEP) filed, pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's Regulations, a petition for rate approval requesting that the Commission approve a system-wide maximum rate of 71.4¢ per MMBtu applicable to interruptible transportation service rendered on its system in the State of Pennsylvania. GLEP states that this rate will be applicable to the transportation of natural gas under Section 311(a)(2) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).

Pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2)(ii), if the Commission does not act within 150 days of this filing the rates will be deemed to be fair and equitable and not to excess of an amount which interstate pipelines would be permitted to charge for similar transportation service. The Commission may within such 150 day period extend the time for action or institute a proceeding in which all interested parties will be afforded an opportunity for written comments and the oral presentation of views, data and arguments. 

                    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All motions must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission on or before July 5, 2000. This petition for rate approval is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web                           ( print page 39609)                        at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-16141  Filed 6-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 E-LOAN, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Christian
A. Larsen, as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company,
hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable 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/ Christian A. Larsen Christian A. Larsen
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman

August 9, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to E-LOAN, Inc. and will be retained by E-LOAN, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---