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":"2018-1039: Max Sound Corporation v. Google LLC - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"n9RrYEO7p4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1039-max-sound-corporation-v-google-llc-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1039: Max Sound Corporation v. Google LLC<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1039-max-sound-corporation-v-google-llc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=n9RrYEO7p4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1039: Max Sound Corporation v. Google LLC” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"n9RrYEO7p4\" 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: Max Sound Corporation v. Google LLC (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1039 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16243]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4557-N-26]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clifford Taffet, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 
20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-
7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: June 22, 2000.
Fred Karnas, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs Assistance Programs.
[FR Doc. 00-16243 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
No. 11-1167.

#### City of Syracuse, New York *v.*Lee.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08437**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 08437\08437_Checklist.xlsx EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08437\08437_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 08437\08437_Email Follow Up questions.docx Draft Questions for Follow Up

08437\08437_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08437\08437_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08437\08437_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08437\08437_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08437\08437_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08437\08437_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08437\08437_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08437\08437_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08437\08437_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08437\Supplemental Documents\08437_7790 1-1 pond drawing.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08437\Supplemental Documents\08437_7790 1-1 SFC 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 08437\Supplemental Documents\08437_7790 1-1 SFC 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08437\Supplemental Documents\08437_Deseret Power 7790 1-1 WaterBalance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08437\Supplemental Documents\Certification Statement Plant ID 08437.pdf Plant certification statement x 08437\Supplemental Documents\Dewatering Bin cost breakout\08437_PartC 3.3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08437\Supplemental Documents\Dewatering Bin cost breakout\08437_PartC 3.4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08437\Supplemental Documents\Follow up documentation\08437_20090623-3B BONANZA PLANT SITE.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08437\Supplemental Documents\Follow up documentation\08437_Email Follow Up questions.docx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08437\Supplemental Documents\Follow up documentation\08437_Part D Copy 2 7790.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08437\Supplemental Documents\Follow up documentation\08437_Part F Copy 2 7790.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.10017 How can I submit additional information?

In response to an official request for information from the Space Bureau and Office of International Affairs, you can submit additional information electronically directly to the requestor, or by mail to the Office of the Secretary, Attention: Space Bureau, or Office of International Affairs, as appropriate.

[88 FR 21438, Apr. 10, 2023]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

                    CERTIFICATION OF 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, Lauri Hanover, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of NICE-Systems Ltd. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002
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 Annual Report on
Form 20-F fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of NICE-Systems Ltd.


June 26, 2003


                                      By:     /s/
                                      Name: Lauri Hanover
                                      Title: Corporate Vice President and
                                             Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-9772.

#### Smith *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 15.1

Valuation and Qualifying Accounts(1)



|                                  |  |                 |  |                   |  |                       |  |                
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ----------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ---------------
|Valuation and Qualifying Accounts |  | Opening Balance |  | Charged toExpense |  | Charged AgainstIncome |  | Closing Balance
|Deferred tax valuation allowance  |  |                 |  |                   |  |                       |  |                
|December 31, 2007                 |  |                |  |                  |  |                      |  |               
|December 31, 2006                 |  | 5,923           |  |                  |  | 5,923                 |  |               
|December 31, 2005                 |  | 6,028           |  |                  |  | 105                   |  | 5,923          



|(1) | In thousands of U.S.$ as of December 31, 2007.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1902 Exceptions. ( a ) Claims arising from the audit of transportation accounts pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3726 shall be determined, collected, compromised, terminated or settled in accordance with regulations published under the authority of 31 U.S.C. 3726 (see 41 CFR part 102-118).
( b ) Claims arising out of acquisition contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) shall be determined, collected, compromised, terminated, or settled in accordance with those regulations. (See 48 CFR part 32). If not otherwise provided for in the FAR, contract claims that have been the subject of a contracting officer's final decision in accordance with section 6(a) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 7103), may be determined, collected, compromised, terminated or settled under the provisions of this regulation, except that no additional review of the debt shall be granted beyond that provided by the contracting officer in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 7103), and the amount of any interest, administrative charge, or penalty charge shall be subject to the limitations, if any, contained in the contract out of which the claim arose.
( c ) Claims based in whole or in part on conduct in violation of the antitrust laws, or in regard to which there is an indication of fraud, the presentation of a false claim, or a misrepresentation on the part of the debtor or any other party having an interest in the claim, shall be referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) as only the DOJ has authority to compromise, suspend, or terminate collection action on such claims. The standards in the FCCS relating to the administrative collection of claims do apply, but only to the extent authorized by the DOJ in a particular case. Upon identification of a claim based in whole or in part on conduct in violation of the antitrust laws or any claim involving fraud, the presentation of a false claim, or misrepresentation on the part of the debtor or any party having an interest in the claim, the Commission shall promptly refer the case to the Department of Justice for action. At its discretion, the DOJ may return the claim to the forwarding agency for further handling in accordance with the standards in the FCCS.
( d ) Tax claims are excluded from the coverage of this regulation.
( e ) The Commission will attempt to resolve interagency claims by negotiation in accordance with Executive Order 12146 (3 CFR 1980 Comp., pp. 409-412).
( f ) Nothing in this subpart shall supersede or invalidate other Commission rules, such as the part 1 general competitive bidding rules (47 CFR part 1, subparts Q and AA) or the service specific competitive bidding rules, as may be amended, regarding the Commission's rights, including but not limited to the Commission's right to cancel a license or authorization, obtain judgment, or collect interest, penalties, and administrative costs.
[69 FR 27848, May 17, 2004, as amended at 76 FR 70909, Nov. 16, 2011; 85 FR 75814, Nov. 25, 2020]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Patrick Chesnut","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/chesnutp\/","title":"Notice of Modification to the Internal Operating Procedures - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4070FdXbk9\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/169670-2\/\">Notice of Modification to the Internal Operating Procedures<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/169670-2\/embed\/#?secret=4070FdXbk9\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of Modification to the Internal Operating Procedures” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"4070FdXbk9\" 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":"Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47(c), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has made a minor stylistic alteration to Internal Operating Procedure #14(2)(e), effective immediately.\u00a0\u00a0The updated\u00a0version of the Internal Operating Procedures is available on the court\u2019s website.\u00a0"}
T.C. Memo. 2007-37

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

GRAEME C. REVELL AND BRENDA S. REVELL, Petitioners v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 1636-04. Filed February 20, 2007.

Warren N. Nemiroff , for petitioners. Jack H. Klinghoffer , for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
LARO, Judge : On March 20, 2006, the parties filed with the Court a stipulation of settled issues (settlement stipulation) that included this case and five other cases that had been consolidated therewith. Respondent now moves the Court to enter a decision in this case that is consistent with the settlement stipulation and has attached to his motion the computations-2-

1 The parties agree on the decision to be entered in each of the other five referenced cases. underlying his requested decision. 1 Petitioners object to respondent’s motion, asserting, as we understand it, that the decision to be entered in this case should be based not on the settlement stipulation but on figures computed by respondent during settlement negotiations. Respondent has filed with the Court a reply to petitioners’ opposition. For the reasons stated herein, we shall grant respondent’s motion. A controversy before this Court may be settled by the parties through stipulation. See Dorchester Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner , 108 T.C. 320, 329 (1997), affd. without published opinion 208 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2000). In that a stipulation is essentially a contract, see Stamos v. Commissioner , 87 T.C. 1451, 1455 (1986), general principles of contract law determine whether a settlement has been reached and, if so, whether the stipulation is binding and enforceable, see Dorchester Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner , supraat 330. Under such principles, we enforce a stipulation of settlement that has led to the cancellation of the trial, absent a showing of lack of formal consent, fraud, mutual mistake, or some similar ground; a mistake by just one party to a stipulation of settlement is not a sufficient ground to disregard the stipulation. See Dorchester Indus. Inc. v. Commissioner ,-3-

supra ; Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner , 90 T.C. 315, 320-321 (1988). Petitioners claim that the Court should disregard the settlement stipulation signed by them because the decision flowing from the stipulation does not reflect their understanding of the settlement. We disagree that we should disregard the settlement stipulation for the reason that petitioners state. Even if petitioners had mistakenly signed the document, such a unilateral mistake is not a sufficient ground to set aside an otherwise enforceable settlement stipulation. Such is especially so given that petitioners are represented by counsel and that their signing of the settlement stipulation was on the eve of their trial. See Stamm Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner , supraat 321-322. We hold that petitioners are bound by the amounts shown in the settlement stipulation and the decision that flows therefrom. We have considered all arguments made by petitioners for a contrary holding and consider those arguments not discussed herein to be without merit. To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order and decision will be entered
.
015P16

#### State v. Jose Luis Dominguez

1. Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Notice of Appeal (COAP15-933)

1. Dismissed *ex mero motu*

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR

2. Dismissed

3. Defs *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA

3. Dismissed

4. Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Subpoena *Duces Tecum*

4. Dismissed as moot

Jackson, J.,

recused
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41511-41512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16800]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

[[Page 41512]]


ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before August 4, 2000. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Statement of Personal History.
    No: 912.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Applicants for loan and other forms of 
SBA assistance.
    Annual Responses: 55,000.
    Annual Burden: 13,750.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 00-16800 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
#### § 60-50.3 Accommodations to religious observance and practice.

An employer must accommodate to the religious observances and practices of an employee or prospective employee unless the employer demonstrates that it is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business. As part of this obligation, an employer must make reasonable accommodations to the religious observances and practices of an employee or prospective employee who regularly observes Friday evening and Saturday, or some other day of the week, as his Sabbath and/or who observes certain religious holidays during the year and who is conscientiously opposed to performing work or engaging in similar activity on such days, when such accommodations can be made without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business. In determining the extent of an employer's obligations under this section, at least the following factors shall be considered: (a) Business necessity, (b) financial costs and expenses, and (c) resulting personnel problems.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.10010 Do I need to send paper copies with my electronic applications?

When you file electronically through ICFS, the electronic record is the official record. You do not need to submit paper copies of your application.

[88 FR 21437, Apr. 10, 2023]