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":"19-2198: REALTIME DATA LLC v. REDUXIO SYSTEMS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"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=\"03mN8T3IKR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-23-2020-19-2198-realtime-data-llc-v-reduxio-systems-inc-opinion-19-2198-opinion-10-23-2020_1674408\/\">19-2198: REALTIME DATA LLC v. REDUXIO SYSTEMS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-23-2020-19-2198-realtime-data-llc-v-reduxio-systems-inc-opinion-19-2198-opinion-10-23-2020_1674408\/embed\/#?secret=03mN8T3IKR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“19-2198: REALTIME DATA LLC v. REDUXIO SYSTEMS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"03mN8T3IKR\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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: REALTIME DATA LLC v. REDUXIO SYSTEMS, INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 19-2198 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50278

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ANTONIO MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CR-2-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Antonio Martinez-Rodriguez has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Martinez-Rodriguez has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 15, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. D-2665.

#### In re Discipline of Fitzgerald.

William P. Fitzgerald, of Sayville, N. Y., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel Comparative Medicine.                    

*Date:*                         July 11, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         7:30 p.m. to Adjournment.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Ritz-Carlton San Juna Hotel, 6961 Avenue of the Governors, Isla Verde, PR 00979.                    

*Contact Person:*                         William C. Angus, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Review, National Center for Research Resources, 6705 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7965, Room 6018, Bethesda, MD 20892-7965, 301-435-0812.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine, 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333; 93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 23, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-16620  Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2013 - 0470 Directorate ID : 2013 - SW - 008 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 214B, 214B - 1, and 214ST Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 26 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent loss of tail rotor hanger bearing grease, failure of the bearing, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 1,372 replacement per bearing Labor per Helicopter ( 2.5 work - hour x $ 8 5 /work - hour for an inspection) (3 work - hour x $85/work hour for replacement) $ 213 $255 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 213 for an inspection $1,627 for a bearing replacement Total US Fleet Cost $5,538 per inspection cycle Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibil ity

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : James Bly n
No. 11-9460.

#### Pichardo-Sanchez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 101.201 Station inspection.

The licensee of each station authorized in the radio services included in this part must make the station available for inspection by representatives of the Commission at any reasonable hour.
No. 11-9074.

#### Roberson *v.*Rudek, Warden.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
National Advisory Council for

Environmental Policy & Technology 

Final Agenda 

November 14-15, 2011 

EPA Potomac Yard Conference Center 

One Potomac Yard 

2777 S. Crystal Dr. 

Arlington, VA 22202 

Tel: 703-347-8930 

Monday, November 14, 2011

EPA Potomac Yard South Building, Ground Floor Conference Room

8:00 am Registration 

8:30 am Welcome and Introductions 

Mark Joyce 

Associate Director and NACEPT Acting Designated Federal Officer 

 EPA Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr. 

 NACEPT Chair 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

Acting Director

EPA Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

9:00 am Opening Remarks

Bob Perciasepe 

EPA Deputy Administrator 

9:30 am Overview of National Research Council Report on 

 “Sustainability and the U.S. EPA” 

Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein 

Chair

Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
2 

10:00 am Sustainability from the Perspective of Other Organizations

Linda J. Fisher 

Chief Sustainability Officer 

DuPont 

Dr. Terry F. Yosie 

President and CEO 

World Environment Center 

10:45 am Break 

11:00 am Incorporating Sustainability in the U.S. EPA 

Dr. Paul T. Anastas 

Science Advisor and Assistant Administrator 

EPA Office of Research and Development 

Nancy K. Stoner 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

EPA Office of Water 

Ira Leighton 

Deputy Regional Administrator 

EPA Region 1 (New England) 

12:30 pm Public Comments 

1:00 pm Lunch 

2:00 pm Overview of NACEPT’s Draft Advice Letters on EPA Workforce Planning: 

Ensuring Diversity and Attracting and Retaining Superior Executive Leadership 

Talent and Discussion on NACEPT’s Final Overarching Workforce Planning 

Letter 

Presenters

Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr. 

NACEPT Chair 

 Effenus Henderson Sara Kendall

 NACEPT Diversity Sub-team NACEPT Leadership Sub-team 

 

 
3 

 Discussants

 

Craig E. Hooks 

Assistant Administrator 

EPA Office of Administration 

and Resources Management 

Lek Kadeli 

Deputy Assistant Administrator 

for Management 

EPA Office of Research and 

Development 

 

A. Stanley Meiburg 

 Deputy Regional Administrator 

 EPA Region 4 (Southeast) 

Raul Soto Jr. 

Associate Assistant Administrator 

for Outreach, Diversity and Collaboration 

EPA Office of Administration and 

Resources Management 

Rafael DeLeon 

Director 

EPA Office of Civil Rights 

3:30 pm Break 

3:45 pm Workforce Issues and Vulnerable Populations Workgroups meet in separate, 

concurrent sessions. 

5:30 pm ADJOURN 

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

EPA Potomac Yard South Building, Ground Floor Conference Room 

8:30 am Sustainability and Vulnerable Populations Workgroups meet in separate, 

concurrent sessions. 

11:15 am Break 

11:30 am Workgroup Report-Outs 

12:30 pm Public Comments 

1:00 pm Chair’s Summary, Action Items, and 2012 Meeting Dates

 

2:00 pm ADJOURN
040P16

#### State v. Kadeem Kirk

1. Def’s PDR under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-83)

1. Denied

2. State’s Conditional PDR under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Dismissed as moot
Order entered December 3 , 2020

In t he 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 19
- 01436
- CR SHAWN RYAN BLANKINSHIP, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the C ounty Court at Law No. 1

Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR17
- 0584

ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 2, 2020 fourth motion for an
extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief due on Januar y 14, 202 1

. The failure to file a brief by that date may result in the appeal being abated for a hearing. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(3).

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
#### § 101-39.4900 Scope of subpart.

This subpart provides the means for obtaining forms prescribed or available for use in connection with subject matter covered in part 101-39.

[56 FR 59892, Nov. 26, 1991]
§ 50-204.22 Exposure to airborne radioactive material. ( a ) No employer shall possess, use or transport radioactive material in such a manner as to cause any employee, within a restricted area, to be exposed to airborne radioactive material in an average concentration in excess of the limits specified in Table I of appendix B to 10 CFR part 20. The limits given in Table I are for exposure to the concentrations specified for 40 hours in any workweek of 7 consecutive days. In any such period where the number of hours of exposure is less than 40, the limits specified in the table may be increased proportionately. In any such period where the number of hours of exposure is greater than 40, the limits specified in the table shall be decreased proportionately.
( b ) No employer shall possess, use, or transfer radioactive material in such a manner as to cause any individual within a restricted area, who is under 18 years of age to be exposed to airborne radioactive material in an average concentration in excess of the limits specified in Table II of Appendix B to 10 CFR part 20. For purposes of this paragraph, concentrations may be averaged over periods not greater than 1 week.
( c ) *Exposed* as used in this section means that the individual is present in an airborne concentration. No allowance shall be made for the use of protective clothing or equipment, or particle size, except as authorized by the Director, Bureau of Labor Standards.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

May 07, 2010

Mr. Gerard Fazio

Owen & Fazio, P.C.

10440 North Central Expressway, Suite 1450

Dallas, TX 75231

Honorable Carlos Villa

County Court at Law #5

El Paso County Court House

500 East San Antonio #806

El Paso, TX 79901

Mr. Joseph Gabriel Isaac

Scherr & Legate, PLLC

One Texas Tower

109 N. Oregon Street, 12th Floor

El Paso, TX 79901

RE:Case Number:  09-0786

Court of Appeals Number:  08-09-00174-CV

Trial Court Number:  2009-980

Style:IN RE  ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE, INC. AND GEORGE PORTILLO

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  The stay order issued October 9, 2009 is lifted. 

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 09-0786Page 2**
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.6 Availability of station logs and records for Commission inspection. ( a ) Station records and logs shall be made available for inspection or duplication at the request of the Commission or its representative. Such logs or records may be removed from the licensee's possession by a Commission representative or, upon request, shall be mailed by the licensee to the Commission by either registered mail, return receipt requested, or certified mail, return receipt requested. The return receipt shall be retained by the licensee as part of the station records until such records or logs are returned to the licensee. A receipt shall be furnished when the logs or records are removed from the licensee's possession by a Commission representative and this receipt shall be retained by the licensee as part of the station records until such records or logs are returned to the licensee. When the Commission has no further need for such records or logs, they shall be returned to the licensee. The provisions of this rule shall apply solely to those station logs and records which are required to be maintained by the provisions of this chapter.
( b ) Where records or logs are maintained as the official records of a recognized law enforcement agency and the removal of the records from the possession of the law enforcement agency will hinder its law enforcement activities, such records will not be removed pursuant to this section if the chief of the law enforcement agency promptly certifies in writing to the Federal Communications Commission that removal of the logs or records will hinder law enforcement activities of the agency, stating insofar as feasible the basis for his decision and the date when it can reasonably be expected that such records will be released to the Federal Communications Commission.
#### Daniel Lamar HATCHER v. STATE

CR-14-0141

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

03/06/2015

Affirmed
Exhibit










 Exhibit 10.11 


Summary of Compensation of Named Executive Officers
	
				
	Name
	Base Salary

	Thomas E. Gottwald
Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer
	$
	1,022,000
	


	Robert A. Shama
President, Afton Chemical Corporation
	$
	573,000
	


	Bruce R. Hazelgrove, III
Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
	$
	451,000
	


	M. Rudolph West
Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary
	$
	376,000
	


	Brian D. Paliotti
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
	$
	362,200
### Finamore , Rober t(OST ) From : Colo n Mille r[Colon@volga-clnepr.us ] Sent : Tuesday , Septembe r21 , 201 0 11:1 0 A M To : Finamore , Robert(OST ) Cc : Wellington , Georg e (OST) ; Hatley , Steve n (OST) ; Brown , Catherin e (OST) ; Kruger , Brett (OST ) Subject : CLARIFICATIO N O F CABOTAG E APPLICATIO N (DOCKE T# DOT-OST-2010-0237 ) Importance : Hig h
Al l Concerned ; Applicatio n o f Volga-Dnep r J.S . Carg o Airline , assigne d docket numbe r DOT-OST-2010-023 7 ha s th e followin g breakdow n o f helicopte r deliverie s i n th e followin g locations ; Flight # 1 (25-2 6 Sep ) - 5 UH-6 0 Helicopter s fro mF t Dru m/ Wheele r Sac k AA F (KGTB ) delivere d t o Hickha mAF B (PHIK ) Fligh t # 2 (2 8 Se p - 0 1 Oct ) - 5 UH-6 0 Helicopter s fro mF t Dru m/ Wheele r Sac k AA F (KGTB ) o f whic h2 ou t o f 5 wil l b e offloade d a t Osa n A B Kore a (RKSO) , an d a n additiona l 2 onloade d fo r swapou t a t OSAN . Totalin g 5 UH-60 s t o b e delivere d t o Hickha mAF B ( 3 fro m KGT B & 2 fro mRKSO) .
Best regards , Colo n 

# m Colo n Mille r Militar yOperation s &Ke yAccoun tManage rr.' 5 Volga-Dnep rUniqu e Ai rCargo , Inc
. o r^T? ^ Tel
. 83 2 58 5 861 1 ~ .-^^. m 

### z o _-i'
. 

### Fa x83 2 58 5 861 8 X 3 >^§= < Cel l 71 3 298-772 4 ^ 3^ ^ colo n @ volaa-dnepr
. u s o ~



### Thi s emai lha s bee nscanne db yth eMessageLab s Emai lSecuritySystem
. For moreinformatio npleas evisi t http://www.messagelabs.com/cmai l
#### § 70.01-5 Penalty.

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be subject to a fine not exceeding the sum of $500 for each offense, and each day during which such violation shall continue shall be considered a new offense.

[CGFR 52-15, 18 FR 12, Jan. 1, 1953]
No. 11-7811.

#### Garthus *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 51-9.302 Times, places and requirements for access requests.

Records will be available for authorized access during normal business hours at the offices where the records are located. A requester should be prepared to identify himself through production of a driver's license, student or employee identification card, or other identification acceptable to the Executive Director. When the disclosure of records to the wrong individual would result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to the subject individual, the Executive Director may require a notarized statement of identity. The Executive Director shall ensure that such times, places, and requirements for identification are not excessive and do not restrict individual access unduly.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SPITZ TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

NOBEL BIOCARE USA, LLC,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant

______________________

2018-2345, 2018-2346

______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 8:17-cv-00660-JVSJCG, Judge James V. Selna.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & 

Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by SANFORD IAN WEISBURST; FELIPE 

CORREDOR, San Francisco, CA. 

 SHEILA N. SWAROOP, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, 

LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for defendant-cross-appellant. 

Also represented by JOHN B. SGANGA, JR., BARAA KAHF. 

______________________
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, LINN and HUGHES,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 July 15, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 4, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-2130 Lower Tribunal No. 18-18208

________________ 

### Nayeli Hernandez, Appellant,

vs. 

### Jovan Hernandez, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcia Del Rey, Judge. Abramowitz and Associates, and Evan L. Abramowitz, for appellant. Davis Smith & Jean, LLC, Laura Davis Smith and Sonja A. Jean, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. Apesteguy v. Keglevich, 319 So. 3d 150, 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“The standard of review for a child support award is abuse of discretion.”) (quoting Castillo v. Castillo, 59 So. 3d 221, 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)); Waton v. Waton, 887 So. 2d 419, 422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (The “findings of the trial court come to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed absent a showing that there was no competent evidence to sustain them.” (quoting Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981))); Saario v. Tiller, 333 So. 3d 315, 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022) (“A trial court’s decision on whether to impute income is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, while its determination of the amount of income to impute will be affirmed if supported by competent substantial evidence.”) (emphasis in original); Viscito v. Viscito, 214 So. 3d 736, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The standard of review of a trial court’s determination of equitable distribution is abuse of discretion.” (quoting Bardowell v. Bardowell, 975 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008))); Taylor v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 934 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“The standard of review for the denial of a motion for continuance is abuse of discretion. An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge’s discretion unless abuse is clearly shown.”) (internal citation omitted).