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":"2021-2282: Scepter Canada, Inc. v. No Spill, LLC - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"x6JE9Od4eZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2022-2021-2282-scepter-canada-inc-v-no-spill-llc-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-2282: Scepter Canada, Inc. v. No Spill, LLC<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2022-2021-2282-scepter-canada-inc-v-no-spill-llc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=x6JE9Od4eZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-2282: Scepter Canada, Inc. v. No Spill, LLC” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"x6JE9Od4eZ\" 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: Scepter Canada, Inc. v. No Spill, LLC (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-2282 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
§ 212.3 Responsibilities. ( a ) Executive departments and agencies of the United States, whether or not components of the National Communications System, (NCS), shall, to the extent permissible by law and consistent with national security, submit their international emergency telecommunications requirements to the Executive Agent, NCS, for coordination and consolidation of mobilization requirements.
( b ) The Department of Defense shall coordinate NATO requirements in consonance with approved NATO/U.S. procedures for subsequent processing by the Executive Agent, NCS.
( c ) The Department of State shall coordinate and approve foreign government telecommunications requirements and forward them to the Executive Agent, NCS, for further processing.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4447

To amend title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

of 1972 to clarify what constitutes an alternative system for the management of sewage sludge and industrial waste for purposes of section

104B of that title, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 18, 1994

Mr. MANTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To amend title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to clarify what constitutes an

alternative system for the management of sewage sludge

and industrial waste for purposes of section 104B of

that title, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF ALTER4 NATIVE SYSTEM.

5 (a) DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.—Section

6 104B(k)(1) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanc-
2

HR 4447 IH

1 tuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1414B(k)(1)) is amended

2 to read as follows:

3 ‘‘(1) the term ‘alternative system’—

4 ‘‘(A) means any method for the manage5 ment of sewage sludge or industrial waste

6 which does not require a permit under this Act;

7 and

8 ‘‘(B) includes any method described in

9 subparagraph (A) to be implemented under a

10 contract that shall not be required to be effec11 tive for more than 5 years.’’.

12 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 104B of

13 the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of

14 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1414b) is amended—

15 (1) in subsection (c)(3)(A) by striking ‘‘de16 signed, construction, and’’; and

17 (2) in subsection (c)(4) in the matter preceding

18 subparagraph (A) by inserting ‘‘, as applicable’’

19 after ‘‘shall establish deadlines for’’.

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

21 subsections (a) and (b) shall be effective on and after Au22 gust 1, 1994.

23 (d) EXISTING ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENTS.—

24 (1) INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS NOT EFFEC25 TIVE.—Any provision in an enforcement agreement
3

HR 4447 IH

1 in effect under section 104B(c) of the Marine Pro2 tection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33

3 U.S.C. 1414b(c)) that is inconsistent with the

4 amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) of this

5 section shall not be effective after the date specified

6 in subsection (c) of this section.

7 (2) AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENTS.—The Ad8 ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

9 shall seek to amend enforcement agreements in ef10 fect under section 104B(c) of the Marine Protection,

11 Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C.

12 1414b(c)) to reflect the amendments made by sub13 sections (a) and (b) of this section, by not later than

14 the date specified in subsection (c) of this section.

15 (e) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this Act, ‘‘en16 forcement agreement’’ has the same meaning as in section

17 104B(c)(3) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanc18 tuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1414b(c)(3)).

Æ
{"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 New Federal Circuit Rules, Court Forms, Guides, and Filing Resources - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3MtJFdo10u\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-new-federal-circuit-rules-court-forms-guides-and-filing-resources\/\">Notice of New Federal Circuit Rules, Court Forms, Guides, and Filing Resources<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-new-federal-circuit-rules-court-forms-guides-and-filing-resources\/embed\/#?secret=3MtJFdo10u\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of New Federal Circuit Rules, Court Forms, Guides, and Filing Resources” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"3MtJFdo10u\" 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":"The March 1, 2023 amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules go into effect today.\u00a0 The final version of the\u00a0Federal Circuit Rules (pdf)\u00a0is available on the court\u2019s website and will apply to all cases filed or pending on or after March 1, 2023, to the extent practicable.\u00a0 The court has also adopted changes to many of […]"}
{"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":"2022-1758: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"oCNzFMWckS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2022-1758-in-re-universal-electronics-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2022-1758: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2022-1758-in-re-universal-electronics-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=oCNzFMWckS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2022-1758: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"oCNzFMWckS\" 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: In Re Universal Electronics, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2022-1758 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
No. 11-5334.

#### Rodriguez *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.
V

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4500

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

trade for the vessel CHRISSY.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 1994

Mr. TORKILDSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

CHRISSY.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46,

6 United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may

7 issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate en8 dorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the
2

•HR 4500 IH

1 vessel CHRISSY (State of Maine registration number

2 4778B).

Æ
No. 11-7804.

#### Oakley *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Due to the nature of the sciptint found on the "Making Health Easier: Healthy Changes Start in Preschool" webpage the embedded video player did not load. The videos can be found in: ~\gpo29184\www.cdc.gov\CDCTV\ChildObese\Videos.
{"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":"2018-2382: Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corporation - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OEAUa1WysC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2382-apple-inc-v-andrea-electronics-corporation-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-2382: Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corporation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-2018-2382-apple-inc-v-andrea-electronics-corporation-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=OEAUa1WysC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-2382: Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corporation” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"OEAUa1WysC\" 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: Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corporation (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-2382 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

           I, Richard W. Lucas, as Chief Financial Officer of KSW, Inc., (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

           (1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

           (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  March 29, 2004

                                                /s/ Richard W. Lucas
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Richard W. Lucas
                                                Chief Financial Officer
§ 15.605 Cross reference. ( a ) The provisions of subparts A and B of this part apply to Access BPL devices, except where specifically noted. The provisions of subparts C through F of this part do not apply to Access BPL devices except where specifically noted.
( b ) The requirements of this subpart apply only to the radio circuitry that is used to provide carrier current operation for the Access BPL device. Other aspects of the operation of an Access BPL device may be subject to requirements contained elsewhere in this chapter. In particular, an Access BPL device that includes digital circuitry that is not used solely to enable the operation of the radio frequency circuitry used to provide carrier current operation also is subject to the requirements for unintentional radiators in subpart B of this part.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section
1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other purpose.



The undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officers, respectively, of SciQuest, Inc. (the
Company), hereby each certify as follows:



The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the Report), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated this 12th day of August, 2003



/s/    Stephen J.
WieheStephen J. Wiehe, Chief Executive Officer/s/    James J.
ScheuerJames J. Scheuer, Chief Financial Officer
#### Michael O. DEVAUGHN, a/k/a Michael DeVaughn, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. Isaac JOHNSON, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney; J. Wesley Holbrook, Assistant United States Attorney, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-7943.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Michael O. DeVaughn, Appellant pro se.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Michael O. DeVaughn appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find that DeVaughn failed to establish ground for relief under the Rule. *See*Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b). Thus, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. *United States v. Holland,*214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir.2000). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Jarrett Perlow","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/perlowj\/","title":"Notice of Revised Protocols for In-Person Argument - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"6pCj80fxcW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-revised-protocols-for-in-person-argument-2\/\">Notice of Revised Protocols for In-Person Argument<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-revised-protocols-for-in-person-argument-2\/embed\/#?secret=6pCj80fxcW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of Revised Protocols for In-Person Argument” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"6pCj80fxcW\" 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":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued new Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments (pdf) effective immediately.  These revisions increase the number of permitted attendees at argument to allow counsel to bring up to two attendees into the courthouse. All attendees must continue to comply with requirements for testing or medical documentation, masking, [...]"}