alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 11.2 Definitions. The definitions of terms used in part 11 are: ( a ) *National Emergency Message (EAN).* The National Emergency Message (formerly called the Emergency Action Notification or Presidential alert message) is the notice to all EAS Participants and to the general public that the EAS has been activated for a national emergency. EAN messages that are formatted in the EAS Protocol (specified in § 11.31) are sent from a government origination point to broadcast stations and other entities participating in the National Public Warning System, and are subsequently disseminated via EAS Participants. Dissemination arrangements for EAN messages that are formatted in the EAS Protocol (specified in § 11.31) at the State and local levels are specified in the State and Local Area plans (defined at § 11.21). A national activation of the EAS for a Presidential National Emergency Message with the Event code EAN as specified in § 11.31 must take priority over any other message and preempt it if it is in progress.
( b ) *EAS Participants.* Entities required under the Commission's rules to comply with EAS rules, e.g., analog radio and television stations, and wired and wireless cable television systems, DBS, DTV, SDARS, digital cable and DAB, and wireline video systems.
( c ) *Wireline Video System.* The system of a wireline common carrier used to provide video programming service.
( d ) *Intermediary Device.* An intermediary device is a stand-alone device that carries out the functions of monitoring for, receiving and/or acquiring, and decoding EAS messages formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) in accordance with § 11.56, and converting such messages into a format that can be inputted into a separate EAS decoder, EAS encoder, or unit combining such decoder and encoder functions, so that the EAS message outputted by such separate EAS decoder, EAS encoder, or unit combining such decoder and encoder functions, and all other functions attendant to processing such EAS message, comply with the requirements in this part.
[77 FR 16698, Mar. 22, 2012, as amended at 83 FR 37759, Aug. 2, 2018; 87 FR 67823, Nov. 10, 2022]
§ 302-4.2 Am I eligible for subsistence and transportation allowances for PCS travel under this part? Yes, you are eligible for subsistence and transportation allowances for PCS travel if your agency specifically authorizes relocation expenses under this part and are: ( a ) Transferred employees (within or outside CONUS);
( b ) New appointees (within or outside CONUS); and
( c ) An employee(s) assigned to posts of duty outside CONUS in connection with either overseas tour renewal agreement travel or return travel to places of residence for separation.
Note to § 302-4.2 :
Also see tables at §§ 302-3.2 and 302-3.101.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439

PETER R. MARKSTEINER

CLERK OF COURT

CLERK’S OFFICE

202-275-8000

January 14, 2021

Accessibility Accommodations During Court Sessions

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has designated John C. 

Paul and Jarrett B. Perlow as the Court’s Access Coordinators, pursuant to The 

Guide for Judiciary Policy, vol. 5, § 255.40.

Communication-Based Disabilities

The Access Coordinators are responsible for coordinating sign language interpreters 

or other appropriate auxiliary aids and services to participants in federal court 

proceedings who are deaf, hearing-impaired, or have other communications 

disabilities.

Counsel of record and parties participating in federal court proceedings who require 

the assistance of a qualified sign language interpreter or other similar auxiliary 

aides and services must submit requests for services at least two weeks before the 

court proceeding. The Clerk’s Office may not be able to accommodate requests 

received on shorter notice and, absent good cause shown, may require 

reimbursement of any expedited charges incurred.

Assistive auditory devices (“hearing loop”) are available in each courtroom for 

participants and spectators during argument and do not require notice. 

Mobility-Based Disabilities

While not required, case participants with mobility disabilities may wish to contact 

the Clerk’s Office to coordinate access and any adjustment of court furniture, as 

needed, before the day of argument.

Service Requests and Additional Information

Please direct all requests for services or for additional information to the Clerk’s 

Office

• by mail to 717 Madison Place, NW, Room 401, Washington, DC 20439; 

• by telephone at 202-275-8035; or 

• by email to chiefdeputyclerk@cafc.uscourts.gov.
#### ALEXANDER STEWART, Respondent, *v.*EDMUND C. BRAMHALL, Appellant.

*Usury*— accommodation *indorser of corpoo'ation*note— *cannot plead.*

One who becomes the accommodation indorser of a note, made by a corporation to enable the corporation to raise money, which is subsequently discounted at a usurious rate of interest, cannot interpose the defense of usury in the action brought against him thereon.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered on the report of a referee.

*Wm. F. Shejpa/rd,*for the appellant.

*A. B. GwpweTl,*for the respondent.

*140Brady, J.:

The New York and Silver Peak Mining Company determined by a resolution to raise money by their notes, which were to be sold at a discount not exceeding twelve and a half per cent. The defendant and one Roswell S. Burrows were trustees of the company, and the former was a member of the finance committee authorized to borrow money in the manner stated. He participated in the proceedings which resulted in adopting the method mentioned of raising the money required. Mr. Burrows took some of the notes and agreed with the defendant to discount the note in suit, if the latter would indorse it for the benefit of the company. The indorsement and discount were made and the proceeds paid to the company'. The defendant thus became a surety for the payment of the sum for which the note was paid. It was upon the strength of his indorsement that Mr. Burrows discounted the note. The rate of discount was in accordance with the resolution. There is no distinction in principle between this case and the ease of *Rosa*v. *Butterfield*(33 N. Y., 665). The note herein was discounted for the company at their rate, but not upon their responsibility alone. The note, though thus discounted, was a valid obligation against the company, and it was not affected in any way by the agreement between Mr. Burrows and the defendant. It was a binding instrument, and a guarantor of its payment would be bound (33 N. Y., supra;) or an indorser. *(Union Bank, of Pittsburgh*v. Wheeler, 60 N. Y., 612.) Under these authorities neither the company nor the indorser could make the defense of usury available.

The judgment should, for these reasons, be affirmed, with costs.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
§ 0.553 New uses of information. Before establishing a new routine use of a system of records, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register of its intention to do so, and will provide at least 30 days for public comment on such use. The notice will contain: ( a ) The name of the system of records for which the new routine use is to be established;
( b ) The authority for the system;
( c ) The categories of records maintained;
( d ) The proposed routine use(s); and
( e ) The categories of recipients for each proposed routine use.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41122-41123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16768]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3353]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Queen Victoria and Thomas Sully''

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of

[[Page 41123]]

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs 
Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.), 
Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of 
Authority of October 19, 1999, I hereby determine that the objects to 
be included in the exhibition ``Queen Victoria and Thomas Sully,`` 
imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within 
the United States, are of cultural significance. These objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with foreign lenders. I also 
determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The 
Metropolitan Museum, New York, NY from September 18 to December 31, 
2000 is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations 
is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of exhibit objects, contact Jacqueline Caldwell, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/
619-6982). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44; 301-4th 
Street, SW, Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: June 19, 2000.
William B. Bader,
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 00-16768 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-U
{"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":"22-1098: ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC [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=\"dG50of6KBW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-23-2023-22-1098-ultravision-technologies-llc-v-govision-llc-opinion-22-1098-opinion-2-23-2023_2085032\/\">22-1098: ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-23-2023-22-1098-ultravision-technologies-llc-v-govision-llc-opinion-22-1098-opinion-2-23-2023_2085032\/embed\/#?secret=dG50of6KBW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1098: ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"dG50of6KBW\" 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":"OPINION Posted: ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1098 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 302-6.15 May I and/or my immediate family occupy temporary quarters longer than the period for which I am authorized to claim TQSE reimbursement?

Yes, but you will not be reimbursed for any of the expenses you incur during the unauthorized period.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements of Lumenis Ltd. (formerly ESC Medical
Systems Ltd.) on Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-6610, 333-8056 and 333-9256) and on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-6774, 333-40600 and 333-65696) of our report dated March
26, 2002 relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in
this Form 10-K.

/s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.

Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
March 26, 2002
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00373

- CR

IN RE JUSTIN L. VENE GAS

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Justin L. Venegas filed an application for writ of mandamus or of prohibition

against certain members of the State of Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. We have

no jurisdiction over any member of the Board of Pardons and Paroles; and we see

nothing in Ve negas’s application which would require us to issue a writ to enforce our

jurisdiction. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221 (West 2004).

Accordingly, we dismiss the application.

TOM GRAY

Chief JusticeIn re Venegas Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice D avis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed January 8, 2015

Do not publish

[OT06]
FORM 20. Application for Fees and Other Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act Form 20

June 2021 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

APPLICATION FOR FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES UNDER THE EQUAL 

ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

Title 28 U.S.C. §2412(d), Title II of Public Law 96-481, 994 STAT 2325

1. Name of Applicant:

2. Date Filed: 3. Docket Number:

4. Government Agency Involved in Claim:

5. Nature of the Application:

☐ A. Original application under 28 U.S.C § 2412(d)(1)(A) after judgment in civil

action against U.S.

☐ B. Appeal of fees and expenses awarded by lower court. (If item is checked go to

item 6).

☐ C. Original application under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(3) after review of agency

decision.

☐ D. Petition for leave to appeal in administrative agency fee determination

under 5 U.S.C. §504(c)(2).

6. Appeal From: ☐ District Court

☐ Bankruptcy Court

☐ Other:

6A. Date Filed: 6B. Docket Number:

7. Administrative Agency Docket Number:

7A. Date Filed:

8. Showing “Prevailing Party” Status (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B)):

Is Agency Order, Court Order, or Other Relevant Document Attached?

☐ Yes ☐ No

9. Showing of Eligibility (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B)):

Is Net Worth Information Attached?

☐ Yes ☐ No
FORM 20. Application for Fees and Other Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act Form 20

June 2021 

10. Enter Allegation That Government Position Was Not Substantially

Justified (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(i)(B)):

11. For Each Amount Claimed, Please Attach Itemization Indicating

Service Provided, Date, Hours, and Rate (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(i)(B)):

Amount Claimed:

A. Attorney Fees: $ 

B. Study: $ 

C. Analysis: $ 

D. Engineering Report: $ 

E. Test: $ 

F. Project: $ 

G. Expert Witness Fees: $ 

H. Other Fees and Expenses – Specify: $ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

$ $ 

I. Total Fees and Expenses: $ 

Note: This Form Should Accompany Your Claim When Filed with the Clerk of the Court

Date: _________________ Signature:

Name:
{"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":"22-2280: ROSARIO-FABREGAS v. ARMY [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=\"YTUBofDEde\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/05-30-2023-22-2280-rosario-fabregas-v-army-opinion-22-2280-opinion-5-30-2023_2134021\/\">22-2280: ROSARIO-FABREGAS v. ARMY [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/05-30-2023-22-2280-rosario-fabregas-v-army-opinion-22-2280-opinion-5-30-2023_2134021\/embed\/#?secret=YTUBofDEde\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-2280: ROSARIO-FABREGAS v. ARMY [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"YTUBofDEde\" 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":"OPINION Posted: ROSARIO-FABREGAS v. ARMY [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-2280 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 105-68.635 May the General Services Administration settle a debarment or suspension action?

Yes, we may settle a debarment or suspension action at any time if it is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
#### § 11.15 EAS Operating Handbook.

The EAS Operating Handbook states in summary form the actions to be taken by personnel at EAS Participant facilities upon receipt of an EAN, an EAT, tests, or State and Local Area alerts. It is issued by the FCC and contains instructions for the above situations. A copy of the Handbook must be located at normal duty positions or EAS equipment locations when an operator is required to be on duty and be immediately available to staff responsible for authenticating messages and initiating actions.

[70 FR 71033, Nov. 25, 2005]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-24022-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

XYZ CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS,

AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Certain 

Defendants Only, ECF No. [31] (“Notice”), filed on January 23, 2023. The Court has carefully 

reviewed the Notice, the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Notice, ECF No. [31] is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The above-styled case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendant No. 49

on Schedule “A” to the Complaint, MilesRetail.

3. The case shall proceed against all remaining Defendants.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 23, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:22-cv-24022-BB Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-21022 Summary Calendar

_____________________

GLEN A. BANKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VICTOR RODRIQUEZ; KRIS IMSAOGIE; RONNIE LOPEZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-95-4728

_________________________________________________________________
July 5, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Glen A. Banks appeals the district court's dismissal of his pro se

and i n forma pauperis (IFP) civil rights suit as duplicativ e

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). This appeal is without arguable

merit and thus frivolous. H oward v. King

, 707 F.2d 215, 219-201 Banks's motion for contempt, order to compel, second motion

for contempt, and order of protection from retaliation are DENIED.

-2- (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.

5th Cir. R. 42.2. Banks is warned that any future frivolous filing

will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Banks

should review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 1
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.255 Order of procedure. ( a ) At hearings on a formal complaint or petition or in a proceeding for any instrument of authorization which the Commission is empowered to issue, the complainant, petitioner, or applicant, as the case may be, shall, unless the Commission otherwise orders, open and close. At hearings on protests, the protestant opens and closes the proceedings in case the issues are not specifically adopted by the Commission; otherwise the grantee does so. At hearings on orders to show cause, to cease and desist, to revoke or modify a station license under sections 312 and 316 of the Communications Act, or other like proceedings instituted by the Commission, the Commission shall open and close.
( b ) At all hearings under Title II of the Communications Act, other than hearings on formal complaints, petitions, or applications, the respondent shall open and close unless otherwise specified by the Commission.
( c ) In all other cases, the Commission or presiding officer shall designate the order of presentation. Intervenors shall follow the party in whose behalf intervention is made, and in all cases where the intervention is not in support of an original party, the Commission or presiding officer shall designate at what stage such intervenors shall be heard.
[28 FR 12425, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 33 FR 463, Jan. 12, 1968]