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":"17-2467: UVA PATENT FOUNDATION v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pqPjpJEjXJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2018-17-2467-uva-patent-foundation-v-general-electric-company-rule-36-judgment-17-2467-rule_36_judgment-12-10-2018-1\/\">17-2467: UVA PATENT FOUNDATION v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2018-17-2467-uva-patent-foundation-v-general-electric-company-rule-36-judgment-17-2467-rule_36_judgment-12-10-2018-1\/embed\/#?secret=pqPjpJEjXJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-2467: UVA PATENT FOUNDATION v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"pqPjpJEjXJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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: UVA PATENT FOUNDATION v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-2467 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 15.119 [Reserved]
No. 11-674.

#### Skilling *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 10-11140.

#### Johnson *v.*Lafler, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) COHR
INC., FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 3/31/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,026
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,946
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,232
<INVENTORY>                                      6,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,970
<PP&E>                                           6,804
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,416
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,780
<BONDS>                                            498
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           887
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,283
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,584
<SALES>                                        102,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,144
<CGS>                                           79,868
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,440
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,614
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,057)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,719)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (27,338)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,338)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.25)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.25)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
{"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":"Announcement of Chief Judge Transition at the Federal Circuit - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ZGWyQiXGh7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/announcement-of-chief-judge-transition-at-the-federal-circuit\/\">Announcement of Chief Judge Transition at the Federal Circuit<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/announcement-of-chief-judge-transition-at-the-federal-circuit\/embed\/#?secret=ZGWyQiXGh7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Announcement of Chief Judge Transition at the Federal Circuit” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"ZGWyQiXGh7\" 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 Honorable Kimberly A. Moore will become Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 22, 2021.\u00a0 She will succeed the Honorable Sharon Prost who has served as Chief Judge since May 31, 2014.\u00a0 The full announcement is available on the court’s\u00a0website (pdf)."}
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 1947** 

ROMAN TIFFER ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

WORKER’ S COMPENSATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION; ABACUS CORPORATION; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv
- 02076

- WDQ )

Submitted : August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Roman Tiffer , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Roman Tiffer appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil action seeking reversal of a state court
judgment

. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Tiffer’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the
district court’s disposition, Tiffer has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgment. We dispense with ora l argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
69–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–54

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 820, THE

COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

MARCH 16, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 113]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 113, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 820, the

‘‘Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999,’’ under an open rule. The

rule provides one hour of general debate divided equally between

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes in order the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure amendment in

the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of

amendment, which shall be open for amendment at any point.

Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration will be given priority in

recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with

House rules. The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee

of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and

to reduce voting time to five minutes on a postponed question if the

vote follows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one

motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Æ
EXHIBIT 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

American Express National Bank

American Express Credit Account Master Trust

Reporting Period January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of American Express National Bank (AENB), a wholly owned subsidiary of American Express Travel Related
Services Company, Inc. (TRS), pursuant to the Third Amended and Restated Supplemental Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2018 (as so amended and restated and as otherwise amended from time to time, the Agreement),
among TRS, AENB and American Express Receivables Financing Corporation III LLC, does hereby certify that:



|1. | AENB performs certain servicing procedures on behalf of TRS under the Agreement.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Certificate.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | A review of AENBs activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the Agreement has
been made under my supervision.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, AENB has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
Certificate this 25th day of March, 2020.



|                               |  |                   
|------------------------------ |  | ------------------
|AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK
|                               | 
|By:                            |  | /s/ David L. Yowan
|Name:                          |  | David L. Yowan    
|Title:                         |  | Treasurer
17 March 2016

127P09-2

#### James E. Fulford Jr., Executor for the Estate of Mary Fulford v. Antonio Javon Jenkins; County of Duplin; Duplin County Department of Social Services; Millie I. Brown, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Director of Duplin County Department of Social Services; De Wana Kenan, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Social Worker with the Duplin County Department of Social Services; Sherita Wright, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Social Worker with the Duplin County Department of Social Services; Nanette Smith, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Social Worker with the Duplin County Department of Social Services; and Elva Quinn, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Social Worker with the Duplin County Department of Social Services

Pit’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COA15-296)

Denied
15 December 2015

349P15

#### Timothy W. Holliday, Employee v. Tropical Nut & Fruit Co., Employer; Farmington Casualty Co., Carrier

Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-1030)

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.                  

###### United States Institute of Peace

# AGENCY:

United States Institute of Peace.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Agency announces its Upcoming Fall Unsolicited Grant Deadline, which offers support for research, education and training, and the dissemination of information on international peace and conflict resolution.

*Deadline:*                         October 1, 2000.                    

# DATES:

Application Material Available on Request. Receipt Date for Return of Application: October 1, 2000. Notification of Awards: February 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

 For Application Package: United States Institute of Peace, Grant Program, Unsolicited Grants, 1200 17th Street, NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036-3011, (202) 429-3842 (phone), (202) 429-6063 (fax), (202) 457-1719 (TTY), Email: grant_program@usip.org.

Applications also available on-line at our web site: www.usip.org.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 The Grant Program, Phone (202)-429-3842.

Dated: June 22, 2000.

Bernice J. Carney, 

Director, Office of Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-16317 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-AR-M
#### Lloyd R. HOLMES, Appellant, v. Elaine CHAO, Secretary of Labor, Appellee.

No. 03-2621.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 4, 2004.

Decided March 17, 2004.

Lloyd R. Holmes, Fenton, MO, pro se.

Wesley Dennis Wedemeyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

*189PER CURIAM.

Lloyd Holmes appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing his 5 U.S.C. § 552, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action. For reversal Holmes argues, among other things, that the district court should have considered his “Motion for Trial by Jury” before entering judgment against him; he explains that the motion was filed several days after entry of judgment because initially he sent it to the wrong address. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we find that the district court properly dismissed Holmes’s FOIA action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, *see Brumley v. United States Dep’t of Labor,*767 F.2d 444, 445 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam), as defendant’s unrebutted evidence showed that Holmes failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. As to the postjudgment “Motion for Trial by Jury,” the district court clearly considered and denied the motion, and nothing in or attached to the motion casts doubt on the propriety of the district court’s dismissal of Holmes’s FOIA action as unexhausted.

We have considered and find meritless Holmes’s remaining arguments. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                                   COHR INC.
 
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT EARNINGS PER SHARE)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                              ---------------------------------
                                                                  1997          1996      1995
                                                              -------------    ------    ------
                                                              (AS RESTATED,
                                                              SEE NOTE 15)
<S>                                                           <C>              <C>       <C>
NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCK.....................     $2,326        $2,142    $1,368
                                                                 ======        ======    ======
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:
  Weighted average number of common shares outstanding......      5,165         2,391     2,112
  Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants after
     application of treasury stock method...................        333            11
                                                                 ------        ------    ------
  Number of shares used to compute primary earnings per
     share..................................................      5,498         2,402     2,112
                                                                 ======        ======    ======
  Primary and fully diluted earnings per share..............     $ 0.42        $ 0.89    $ 0.65
                                                                 ======        ======    ======
</TABLE>
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2008-0288 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2006-SW-25-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date