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":"2017-2218: Vivint, Inc. v. Alarm.com Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"gLUaTiaJqw\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-03-2018-2017-2218-vivint-inc-v-alarmcom-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2017-2218: Vivint, Inc. v. Alarm.com Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-03-2018-2017-2218-vivint-inc-v-alarmcom-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=gLUaTiaJqw\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2017-2218: Vivint, Inc. v. Alarm.com Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"gLUaTiaJqw\" 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: Vivint, Inc. v. Alarm.com Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2017-2218 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
4480 LAKE FOREST DRIVE SUITE 312**~-...** RLUE ASH, OHIO45242 

## RECEIVED**.~** 

## OPPT CBIC 

# NEASE PERFORMANCE 

## 20II DEC I 3 AM 

## 10: 17 CHEMICALS

December 1, 2011
Document Control Office (7407 M) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW. Washington, DC 20460-0001 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 40120000032 

### Attention: 

### 40 CFR 

### 799.5089 Docket 10 Number EPA-HQ-OPPT

### -2009-0112 ToWhom It May Concern: 

### RE: Testing ofCertain High ProductionVolume Chemicals; Third GroupofChemicals. Federal Register 

### 76 (204), 65385-65410, October 

### 21,2011. Benzenesulfonic acid. dimethyl (CASRN No. 

### 25321-41-9) Nease Corporation submits this letter of intent to comply with the subject test rule for Benzenesulfonic acid, dimethyl (CASRN No. 25321-41-9). Nease Corporation will conduct the following studies in compliance with the test rule and according to current OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines except Vapor Pressure which will be tested using ASTM D 2879-10. The method forvapor pressure listed in the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines (ASTM E 1782-08 thermal analysis) uses equipment that is obsolete as determined by the outside laboratory (Impact Analytical, Midland, Michigan 48640, PH:989-832-5555) contracted forthe testing. The outside laboratory recommend the use ofASTM D 2879-10 (Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope) as a suitable replacement. 1. Boiling point: ASTM E 1719-05 2. Vapor Pressure: ASTM D 2879-10 3. N-Octanollwater partition coefficient (log 10 basis) or 10gKow by Method B, ASTM E 1147-92 (reapproved 2005) (liquid chromatography).4480 tAKE FOREST DRIVE SUITE 312 RLUE ASH, OHIO 45242 

# NEASE PERFORMANCE CHEMICALS

Forfurther information concerning Nease's' plans to satisfy the requirements ofthe subject test rule, please contact the undersigned directly at 513-587-2804.

Philip Benes Director ofTechnology 

### &Product Development::r' ::t: 'i::1 U1 

# i**~** ('I) >< U1 ::r'**~.** (') o 

# t

(') ::r' p.') 

### o cro 

## ? ('I)

# ~ ...­ 

# _.
. .,;) 0­ Il

...... N \0 

## < 0\ N 

## < w \0
00 w w**~** 0\

N



### ...... 

# -­ N N 

### ---­ o

### ~ '<l> Fro" ,;Z ,(I) :::; ,(J) :::r**~'** 1 3 <1) g

# ~ '0. 

# i !5

!C1> I::; iUf PHIL BENES 

### 0.0 LBS LTR 1 OF 1 513-587-2804 NEASE CORPORATION 4480 l.A.KE FOREST DR CINCINNATI OH 45242 SHIP TO: 40 CPR 799.5089 513-587-2801 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECfION AGENCY DOCUMENT CONTROL OFFICE (7407M) OFFICE OF POLLUTION PREVENTION 1200 PENNSYLVANIA NW 

## WASHINGTON DC 20460 

# MD 201 9-80 1111111111111 lUPS 

# NEXT DAY AIR SAVER 

# 1 P

,TRACKlNG #: 1Z 9V1 62V 13 91183346

Blli.ING: PIP

Trx RefNo.: Doc ID # EPA-HQ-OPPT 20090112
XOL 1}'07

..27 

## • 1m NV45 .;!l./JA 10/2011 

## ?: ''''"I 

### '[

...­ N \0 

## <

...... 0\ N 

## < w \0

.......

....... 00 w w**~** 0\

'"t? p.') cro ('I)

.......



### .....
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CARLOS SANCHEZ-RAMIREZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73040 

Agency No. A087-054-679 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Juan Carlos Sanchez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status. We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73040 

agency’s findings of fact. Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1308 (9th Cir. 

2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of adjustment of status, 

where Sanchez-Ramirez’s testimony established that he made a false claim of 

United States citizenship to the California Department of Motor Vehicles to 

procure a driver’s license and is therefore inadmissible. See 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii), 1255(i), 1229a(c)(2)(A); Valadez-Munoz, 623 F.3d at 1308-

09 (use of United States birth certificate to erroneously obtain a benefit constitutes 

a false claim of United States citizenship); Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 168

(9th Cir. 2007) (“so long as there is a basis in the evidence for a challenged 

inference, we do not question whether a different inference was available or more 

likely.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 11-9277.

#### Bastien *v.*Holt, Warden.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 426

To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a program to educate

the public on prostate cancer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mrs. VUCANOVICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a

program to educate the public on prostate cancer.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prostate Cancer Public

5 Awareness Act of 1991’’.

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC EDU7 CATION ON PROSTATE CANCER.

8 Section 413(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42

9 U.S.C. 285a–2(a)) is amended by adding at the end the

10 following new paragraph:
2

HR 426 IH

1 ‘‘(3) In providing public and patient information and

2 education programs under paragraph (2)(A), the Director

3 of the Institute shall carry out such a program on prostate

4 cancer, and through the program shall conduct or support

5 activities—

6 ‘‘(A) to educate men who are 40 years of age

7 or older on the need for periodically undergoing

8 physical examinations for such cancer, including

9 education on the frequency and type of such exami10 nations that are appropriate for various age groups

11 of such men; and

12 ‘‘(B) in the case of such men who are at par13 ticular risk of the cancer, to educate the men on the

14 availability and appropriateness of procedures for

15 detecting the cancer in the earlier stages of the can16 cer, including the procedure known as prostate

17 ultrasound.’’.

18 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

19 The amendment made by section 2 shall take effect

20 October 1, 1993, or upon the date of the enactment of

21 this Act, whichever occurs later.

Æ
### 5/25/15, 4:40 PM No FLY Zones | DJI

Page 1 of 2 http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc (Http://Www.dji.com/) STORE (HTTP://STORE.DJI.COM/) PRODUCTS (HTTP://WWW.DJI.COM/PRODUCTS) ∠ DJI EVENTS (Http://Event.dji.com) ∠ SUPPORT(HTTP://WWW.DJI.COM/SUPPORT) COMMUNITY ∠ DEVELOPER (Http://Dev.dji.com) 

## " United States (English) 

### (/Select-Country) Home (http://www.dji.com/) / Fly Safe (http://fl ysafe.dji.com/) 

# No FLY Zones All unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operators should abide by all regulations from such organizations as the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) and their own national airspace regulations. In order to increase fl ight safety and prevent accidental fl ights in restricted areas, DJI introduces a No Fly Zones feature to help users use this product safely and legally. These zones include airports worldwide and have been divided into two types, A and B. For a full explanation of the di fference between the categories, see the following video. You can also view a full list of places included in each category in the list below.

# WATCH THE INTRODUCTION VIDEO (//www.youtube.com/embed/YoXAMRQoIAA) (//www.youtube.com/embed/YoXAMRQoIAA)

Map data ©2015 Google Report a map error(https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1683,-118.605,10z/data=!10m1!1e1!12b1?source=apiv3&rapsrc=apiv3) (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.1683,-118.605&z=10&t=m&hl=en-US&gl=US&mapclient=apiv3) Category A Category B Search dji.com... 

### $

### 5/25/15, 4:40 PM No FLY Zones | DJI

Page 2 of 2 http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc



## No FLY Zones List

If you have any questions or suggestions about this function or the No FLY Zones list, feel free to send us an email (mailto: fl ysafe@dji.com) Category Category Zone City City Airport Airport Category A United States Los Angeles Los Angeles International Airport Category A United States Memphis Memphis International Airport Category A United States Miami Miami International Airport Category A United States Millbrae San Francisco International Airport Category A United States Newark Newark Liberty International Airport Category A United States Orlando Orlando International Airport Category A United States Philadelphia Philadelphia International Airport Category A United States Phoenix Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Category A United States Queens John F. Kennedy International Airport Category A United States Queens LaGuardia Airport Category A United States Romulus Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport Search:

About DJI (http://www.dji.com/company) Contact DJI (http://www.dji.com/contact) News (http://www.dji.com/info) Media Coverage (http://www.dji.com/info/media-coverage)

Showcase (http://www.dji.com/showcase) DJI University(http://edu.dji.com/) Careers(http://we.dji.com/en.html) DJI Wiki (http://wiki.dji.com/en) After-sales Service Policies (http://www.dji.com/service) Website Feedback(/support/website-feedback) DJI Developer(http://dev.dji.com) (http://www.dji.com/) Copyright © 2015 DJI All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy (http://www.dji.com/policy) Terms of Use (http://www.dji.com/terms)
#### § 24.241 Administration of the Cost-Sharing Plan.

The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, under delegated authority, will select an entity to operate as a neutral, not-for-profit clearinghouse. This clearinghouse will administer the cost-sharing plan by, *inter alia*, maintaining all of the cost and payment records related to the relocation of each link and determining the cost-sharing obligation of subsequent PCS entities. The cost-sharing rules will not take effect until an administrator is selected.

[61 FR 29691, June 12, 1996]
#### § 27.1160 Cost-sharing requirements for AWS.

Frequencies in the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands listed in § 101.147 of this chapter have been reallocated from Fixed Microwave Services (FMS) to use by AWS (as reflected in § 2.106 of this chapter). In accordance with procedures specified in § 22.602 and §§ 101.69 through 101.82 of this chapter, AWS entities are required to relocate the existing microwave licensees in these bands if interference to the existing microwave licensee would occur. All AWS entities that benefit from the clearance of this spectrum by other AWS entities or by a voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent must contribute to such relocation costs. AWS entities may satisfy their reimbursement requirement by entering into private cost-sharing agreements or agreeing to terms other than those specified in § 27.1164. However, AWS entities are required to reimburse other AWS entities or voluntarily relocating microwave incumbents that incur relocation costs and are not parties to the alternative agreement. In addition, parties to a private cost-sharing agreement may seek reimbursement through the clearinghouse (as discussed in § 27.1162) from AWS entities or other Emerging Technologies (ET) entities, including Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operators (for Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) base stations), that are not parties to the agreement. The cost-sharing plan is in effect during all phases of microwave relocation specified in §§ 22.602 and 101.69 of this chapter. If an AWS licensee enters into a spectrum leasing arrangement (as set forth in part 1, subpart X of this chapter) and the spectrum lessee triggers a cost-sharing obligation, the licensee is the AWS entity responsible for satisfying the cost-sharing obligations under §§ 27.1160-27.1174.

[71 FR 29835, May 24, 2006, as amended at 78 FR 8270, Feb. 5, 2013]
46653.

#### WARD v. MOON et al.

(380 SE2d 263)

Hunt, Justice.

This appeal presents the question whether OCGA § 53-2-45 (a) bars a witness to a will, who is also a beneficiary under the will, from receiving his devise where there are at least two competent non-beneficiary witnesses to the will. Claude Moon’s will was witnessed by four persons, two of whom were also beneficiaries under the will. The two non-beneficiary witnesses swore to the execution of the will. The pro*294bate court, citing OCGA § 53-2-45, agreed with the caveators, three of the testator’s children, that the two witness-beneficiaries are not eligible to receive any property under the will. The propounder of the will, Sue Ward, appeals and we affirm.

Decided June 22, 1989.

*Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, Roy E. Barnes,*for appellant.

*Edwards, Friedwald & Grayson, Robert J. Grayson,*for appellees.

OCGA § 53-2-45 (a) provides: “If a subscribing witness is also a legatee or a devisee under the will, the witness shall be competent; but the legacy or devise to him shall be void.” A number of states have similar statutes, but the vast majority of these statutes make an exception where there are enough disinterested witnesses to attest the will. However, the Georgia statute, like those of several other states, and like the rule at common law, has no such exception. *Rees, American Wills Statutes,*46 Va. Law Rev. 613, 631-632 (1960). See also *Redfearn, Wills and Administration in Georgia,*Section 82, n. 3 (5th ed. 1988). Our statute, designed to eliminate the possibility of fraud by a witness who might perjure himself to establish a will under which he benefits, has been criticized as failing to provide any real protection against fraud, and as being against the modern trend. *Chaffin, Execution, Revocation and Revalidation of Wills: A Critique of Existing Statutory Formalities,*11 Ga. Law Rev. 297, 315-316. Modification or revision of the statute is, however, a legislative function and we decline appellant’s request that we provide an exception to the statute in this case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Marshall, C. J., and Clarke, P. J., who dissent, and Smith, J., not participating.*

Clarke, Presiding Justice,

dissenting.

The law of this state seeks to effect the intent of the testator in will cases. *American Cancer Society v. Estate of Ben J. Massell,*258 Ga. 717 (373 SE2d 741) (1989). The majority opinion invalidates a bequest because a beneficiary attested the will as a witness along with two other witnesses. The absence of the beneficiary’s attestation would not have invalidated the will. I would hold that his attestation is a mere surplusage. Such a holding would attach more importance to the intent of the testator than to the technical niceties of execution of the will. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4194

To designate the United States post office located in the Tutu Park Mall

in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, as the ‘‘Earle B. Ottley United States

Post Office’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 13, 1994

Mr. DE LUGO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To designate the United States post office located in the

Tutu Park Mall in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, as

the ‘‘Earle B. Ottley United States Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States post office located in the Tutu

5 Park Mall in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, shall be

6 known and designated as the ‘‘Earle B. Ottley United

7 States Post Office’’.
2

•HR 4194 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the post

4 office referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a ref5 erence to the ‘‘Earle B. Ottley United States Post Office’’.

Æ
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 7, 2000. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713: 

1. Birthright, Incorporated, Montgomery, Alabama; to engage de novo through its subsidiary, Jackson, Shanklin, & Sonia Securities, LLC, New Orleans, Louisiana, in securities brokerage activities, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(7)(i) of Regulation Y. 

B. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Maria Villanueva, Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579: 

1. Wells Fargo & Company, San Francisco, California; to acquire Ragen MacKenzie Group Incorporated, Seattle, Washington, and thereby engage in providing financial and investment advisory services, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(6) of Regulation Y; providing securities brokerage, riskless principal, private placement, and other agency transactional services, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(7) of Regulation Y; underwriting and dealing in government obligations and money market instruments in which state member banks may underwrite and deal under 12 U.S.C. 335 and 24; and investing and trading activities other than in bank ineligible securities, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(8) of Regulation Y; and in underwriting and dealing in all types of debt and equity securities, other than interests in open-end investment companies, see J.P. Morgan & Co., Inc., et al., 75 Fed. Res. Bull. 192 (1989). 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 19, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-1696 Filed 1-24-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 416

AN ACT

To extend the period during which chapter 12 of

fect; and for other purposes.title 11 of the United States Code remains in ef-
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 416

AN ACT

To extend the period during which chapter 12 of title 11

of the United States Code remains in effect; 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. EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD.

4 The first sentence of section 302(f) of the Bank5 ruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farm6 er Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (Public Law 99–554; 100

7 Stat. 3124) is amended by striking ‘‘1993’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘1998’’.
2

•HR 416 EH

1 SEC. 2. FILING OF PLAN.

2 Section 1221 of title 11, United States Code, is

3 amended by striking ‘‘an extension is substantially justi4 fied’’ and inserting ‘‘the need for an extension is attrib5 utable to circumstances for which the debtor should not

6 justly be held accountable’’.

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT

8 MADE BY SECTION 2.

9 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub10 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this

11 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this

12 Act.

13 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT MADE BY SEC14 TION 2.—The amendment made by section 2 shall not

15 apply with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of

16 the United States Code before the date of the enactment

17 of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives March 16,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
# Comments on: 22-1154: DAVIS v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential