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":"20-1709: NORTH 61 LLC v. SJOKLAEDAGERDIN HF. [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"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=\"X7eA7BpWWy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-13-2021-20-1709-north-61-llc-v-sjoklaedagerdin-hf-opinion-20-1709-opinion-1-13-2021_1716883\/\">20-1709: NORTH 61 LLC v. SJOKLAEDAGERDIN HF. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-13-2021-20-1709-north-61-llc-v-sjoklaedagerdin-hf-opinion-20-1709-opinion-1-13-2021_1716883\/embed\/#?secret=X7eA7BpWWy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1709: NORTH 61 LLC v. SJOKLAEDAGERDIN HF. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"X7eA7BpWWy\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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: NORTH 61 LLC v. SJOKLAEDAGERDIN HF. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1709 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
§ 101.1009 System operations. ( a ) The licensee may construct and operate any number of fixed stations anywhere within the area authorized by the license without prior authorization, except as follows: ( 1 ) A station would be required to be individually licensed if: ( i ) International agreements require coordination;
( ii ) Submission of an Environmental Assessment is required under § 1.1307 of this chapter.
( iii ) The station would affect areas identified in § 1.924 of this chapter.
( 2 ) Any antenna structure that requires notification to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must be registered with the Commission prior to construction under § 17.4 of this chapter.
( b ) Whenever a licensee constructs or makes system changes as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the licensee is required to notify the Commission within 30 days of the change under § 1.947 of this chapter and include a statement of the technical parameters of the changed station.
[62 FR 23168, Apr. 29, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 68984, Dec. 14, 1998; 69 FR 17959, Apr. 6, 2004]
§ 101.1401 Service areas. Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) is licensed on the basis of Designated Market Areas (DMAs). The 214 DMA service areas are based on the 210 Designated Market Areas delineated by Nielsen Media Research and published in its publication entitled U.S. Television Household Estimates, September 2002, plus four FCC-defined DMA-like service areas. ( a ) Alaska—Balance of State (all geographic areas of Alaska not included in Nielsen's three DMAs for the state: Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau);
( b ) Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands;
( c ) Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands; and
( d ) American Samoa.
46163.

#### RIDGEVIEW INSTITUTE, INC. et al. v. BRANDVAIN.

(382 SE2d 597)

Per curiam.

We granted certiorari to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals in *Brandvain v. Ridgeview Institute,*188 Ga. App. 106 (372 SE2d 265) (1988). After careful review, we find that the situation in this case is governed by the usual principles of ordinary care and proximate cause, together with other settled principles of law.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hunt, J., not participating.*

*377Decided July 13, 1989

Reconsideration denied July 27, 1989.

*Hart & Sullivan, Rush S. Smith, Jr., Brynda S. Rodriquez, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, H. Carol Saul, Rutledge Q. Hutson,*for appellants.

*Robert C. Lamar, David W. Davenport,*for appellee.

*Alston & Bird, Jack S. Schroder, Jr.,*amicus curiae.
Order entered March 31, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00045-CV

IRA W. BREWER, EUGENIA BREWER AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellants

V.

U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE BEAR 

STERNS ARM TRUST, ET AL., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 005-01529-2013

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ March 24, 2014 unopposed motion to extend time to file 

brief. Appellants seek an extension to April 4, 2014. Our records reflect that on March 24, 

2014, we granted appellants’ March 21, 2014 extension motion and extended the deadline to file 

the brief to April 4, 2014 as appellants requested. Because the relief appellants are seeking in 

their current motion has been previously granted, we DENY the motion as moot. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4337 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4337

  To repeal the Displaced Workers Protection Act of 1994 (District of 
                         Columbia Act 10-193).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 1994

   Mr. Ballenger (for himself, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. 
   Saxton) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                 Committee on the District of Columbia

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the Displaced Workers Protection Act of 1994 (District of 
                         Columbia Act 10-193).

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DISPLACED WORKERS PROTECTION ACT OF 1994.

    Effective April 25, 1994, the Displaced Workers Protection Act of 
1994 (District of Columbia Act 10-193, approved by the District of 
Columbia Council on February 17, 1994) is hereby repealed.

                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.360 Proof of lack of record.

The absence of an official record or entry of a specified tenor in an official record may be evidenced by a written statement signed by an officer, or by his deputy, who would have custody of the official record, if it existed, that after diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a certificate as provided in § 1.359. Such statement and certificate are admissible as evidence that the records of his office contain no such record or entry.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ANACOMP,

INC.'S DECEMBER 31, 1995 FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS

ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       

<S>                                    <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    SEP-30-1996

<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1995

<CASH>                                                    27,209

<SECURITIES>                                                   0

<RECEIVABLES>                                             78,102

<ALLOWANCES>                                               7,331

<INVENTORY>                                               46,765

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         164,430

<PP&E>                                                   126,819

<DEPRECIATION>                                            88,100

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           398,119

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    180,228

<BONDS>                                                  376,371

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0

<PREFERRED>                                               23,897

<OTHER-SE>                                              (187,825)

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             398,119

<SALES>                                                   79,337

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         130,265

<CGS>                                                     61,761

<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            114,046

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          (4,320)

<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        18,286

<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            2,253

<INCOME-TAX>                                               1,200

<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        1,053

<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0

<CHANGES>                                                      0

<NET-INCOME>                                                 513

<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                .01

<EPS-DILUTED>                                                .01

        


</TABLE>
```

[112th Congress Public Law 173]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 1310]]

Public Law 112-173
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To prevent harm to the national security or endangering the military 
officers and civilian employees to whom internet publication of certain 
     information applies, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Aug. 16, 
                          2012 -  [S. 3510]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE DELAY.

    The STOCK Act (Public Law 112-105) is amended--
            (1) in section 8(a)(1), <<NOTE: 5 USC app. 105 note.>>  by 
        striking ``August 31, 2012'' and inserting ``September 30, 
        2012''; and
            (2) in section 11(a)(1), <<NOTE: 5 USC app. 105 note.>>  by 
        striking ``August 31, 2012'' and inserting ``September 30, 
        2012''.
SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF PTR REQUIREMENTS UNDER STOCK ACT.

    Effective September 30, 2012, <<NOTE: Effective 
date. Reports. Applicability. 5 USC app. 103 note.>>  for purposes of 
implementing subsection (l) of section 103 of the Ethics in Government 
Act of 1978 (as added by section 6 of the STOCK Act, Public Law 112-105) 
for reporting individuals whose reports under section 101 of such Act (5 
U.S.C. App. 101) are required to be filed with the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives, section 102(e) of such Act (5 U.S.C. App. 102(e)) shall 
apply as if the report under such subsection (l) were a report under 
such section 101 but only with respect to the transaction information 
required under such subsection (l).

    Approved August 16, 2012.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 3510:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012):
            Aug. 2, considered and passed Senate and House.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 11.46 EAS public service announcements.

EAS Participants may use the EAS Attention Signal and a simulation of the EAS codes as provided by FEMA in EAS Public Service Announcements (PSAs) (including commercially-sponsored announcements, infomercials, or programs) provided by federal, state, and local government entities, or non-governmental organizations, to raise public awareness about emergency alerting. This usage is only permitted if the PSA is presented in a non-misleading and technically harmless manner, including with the explicit statement that the Attention Signal and EAS code simulation are being used in the context of a PSA for the purpose of educating the viewing or listening public about emergency alerting.

[83 FR 39621, Aug. 10, 2018]
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

**MOSSIMO, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Vicken Festekjian, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant,certify that:

1.                 I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 10-K of Mossimo, Inc.;

2.                 Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report.

3.                 Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to usby others, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrols over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

(a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
| /s/ VICKEN FESTEKJIAN                                           |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Vicken Festekjian*Chief Financial Officer*  March 31, 2006 |

 

----
#### § 60-30.25 Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Within 20 days after receipt of the transcript of the testimony, each party and amicus may file a brief. Such briefs shall be served simultaneously on all parties and amici, and a certificate of service shall be furnished to the Administrative Law Judge. Requests for additional time in which to file a brief shall be made in writing, and copies shall be served simultaneously on the other parties. Requests for extensions shall be received not later than 3 days before the date such briefs are due. No reply brief may be filed except by special permission of the Administrative Law Judge.
5241 

5242 

5243 

5244 

5245 

5246 

5247 

5248 

5249 

5250 

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2010-12-23T16:23:50-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 11-5168.

#### Fernandez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (00-074)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of prospective patent license. 

# SUMMARY:

NASA hereby gives notice that AVIR, LLC, of Charlottesville, VA 22906, has applied for a partially exclusive license [limited to the field of use defined as “remote sensing, including remote imaging, of the production, stockpiling, use or any other existence of narcotic drugs, their precursors and decay products, whether the drugs are legal or illegal,” to practice the inventions described and claimed in: U.S. Patent No. 5,128,797 entitled “NON-MECHANICAL OPTICAL PATH SWITCHING AND ITS APPLICATION TO DUAL BEAM SPECTROSCOPY INCLUDING GAS FILTER CORRELATION RADIOMETRY,” U.S. Patent No. 6,008,928 entitled “MULTI-GAS SENSOR,” U.S. Patent No. 6,057,923 entitled “OPTICAL PATH SWITCHING BASED DIFFERENTIAL ABSORPTION RADIOMETRY FOR SUBSTANCE DETECTION,” NASA Case No. LAR 15361-2 entitled “GAS SENSOR DETECTOR BALANCING,” and NASA Case No. LAR 15818-2 entitled “OPTICAL PATH SWITCHING BASED DIFFERENTIAL ABSORPTION RADIOMETRY FOR SUBSTANCE DETECTION,” for which United States Patent Application(s) was/were filed by the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to Langley Research Center. 

# DATE:

Responses to this notice must be received by September 5, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robin W. Edwards, Patent Attorney, Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 212, Hampton, VA 23681-2199; Telephone 757-864-3230; Fax 757-864-9190. 

Dated: June 27, 2000. 

Edward A. Frankle, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 00-16901 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
{"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":"2021-1045: Smith Montanez v. McDonough - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"CqpF6ygLze\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-14-2022-2021-1045-smith-montanez-v-mcdonough-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-1045: Smith Montanez v. McDonough<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-14-2022-2021-1045-smith-montanez-v-mcdonough-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=CqpF6ygLze\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-1045: Smith Montanez v. McDonough” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"CqpF6ygLze\" 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: Smith Montanez v. McDonough (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-1045 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}