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":"23-1158: TRIS PHARMA, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"y3E4iXqQec\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-14-2022-23-1158-tris-pharma-inc-v-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-order-23-1158-order-12-14-2022_2048025\/\">23-1158: TRIS PHARMA, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-14-2022-23-1158-tris-pharma-inc-v-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-order-23-1158-order-12-14-2022_2048025\/embed\/#?secret=y3E4iXqQec\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-1158: TRIS PHARMA, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"y3E4iXqQec\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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":"ORDER Posted: TRIS PHARMA, INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-1158 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
46630.

#### LANE v. TITUS.

(379 SE2d 521)

Decided June 1, 1989.

*Thomas, Settle & Parker, W. Vincent Settle III,*for appellant.

*Hackel & Hackel, Thomas M. Hackel,*for appellee.

Hunt, Justice.

In this modification of the 1983 divorce decree between Liliiyan Lane and David Titus, the trial court permitted the jury to modify Titus’ obligations with respect to life insurance for the benefit of Lane and their minor child and with respect to the payment of the child’s college expenses. Both obligations were assumed by Titus voluntarily, by contract, and along with the remaining contractual obligations were incorporated in the 1983 decree. Neither obligation could have otherwise been imposed on Titus. *Clavin v. Clavin,*238 Ga. 421 (233 SE2d 151) (1977); *McClain v. McClain,*235 Ga. 659 (221 SE2d 565) (1975).

The issue whether this modification was error is controlled by *Jones v. Jones,*244 Ga. 32 (257 SE2d 537) (1979), in which this court held that the modification powers of a trial court are no greater than its powers during the original proceedings. Thus since the trial court could not, absent Titus’ consent by contract, impose the obligations referred to, neither can it modify them.1 Consequently, it was error to submit these issues to the jury and the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 In *Katz v. Katz,*258 Ga. 184 (366 SE2d 766) (1988), we permitted such a modification where the parties expressly provided for the right to modify their *contractual*obligations. Here, the contract provides only: “. . . neither of the parties hereto waives any legal rights they may have to bring any type of modification procedure *as provided by law.”*(Emphasis supplied.)
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Making a difference [electronicresource] : NINR research results**
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3002:D 56/9

Item Number:0507 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000880644
 
Parts: 0102
 
May 5, 2020
No. 11-8838.

#### Nelson v. United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 22.601 Existing microwave stations licensed under this part. Existing microwave stations (2110-2130 and 2160-2180 MHz) licensed under this part (pursuant to former rules) are subject to the transition rules in § 22.602. No new microwave systems will be authorized under this part. ( a ) *Coordination required.* Before filing applications for authority to modify existing stations on these channels or major amendments to such applications, carriers must coordinate the planned channel usage, using the procedure outlined in § 22.150, with affected parties in this radio service and the Point-to-Point Microwave Service and the Multipoint Distribution Service. Affected parties are licensees and other applicants with previously filed pending applications whose stations could affect or be affected by the proposed modification of the existing station in terms of interference.
( b ) *System parameters.* In designing a system modification, the applicant must select sites, equipment and channels that will avoid harmful interference to other users. All parties must cooperate fully and make reasonable efforts to resolve technical problems and conflicts that may inhibit the most effective and efficient use of the radio spectrum; however, a party receiving notification is not obligated to suggest changes or re-design a proposal in cases involving conflicts. The applicant must identify in the application all parties with which the technical proposal was coordinated. In the event that technical problems are not resolved or if an affected party does not respond to coordination efforts within 30 days after notification, an explanation must be contained in the application. Where technical conflicts are resolved by an agreement between the parties that requires special procedures to reduce the likelihood of harmful interference (such as the use of artificial site shielding), or would result in a reduction of quality or capacity of either system, the details thereof must be contained in the application.
( c ) *Bandwidth.* Applicants must request the minimum emission bandwidth necessary. The FCC does not authorize bandwidths larger than 800 kHz under this part.
[59 FR 59507, Nov. 17, 1994, as amended at 70 FR 19309, Apr. 13, 2005]
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.30


AMENDMENT NO. 5
TO THE PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY
EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
(Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009)


Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11.4 thereof, the Pioneer Natural Resources Company Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009, and as further amended to date) is hereby amended to restate the first paragraph of Section 6.1 in its entirety as follows: 
Section 6.1  Payment Elections.   A Member shall make a Payment Election with respect to each Member Deferral Election made under the Plan. The Payment Election shall be made at the same time and in the same manner as the Member Deferral Election as provided in Section 4.2 and shall apply to the amounts credited to a Member’s Accounts that are attributable to the related Member Deferral Election (Member Deferrals, Make-Up Deferrals and related Matching Credits and Make-Up Matching Credits, as adjusted for the allocation of net income (or net loss) in accordance with Section 5.4), as determined in accordance with this Section.  Any such Payment Election shall be irrevocable, except as provided in Section 6.1(c) below.  If a Member Deferral Election remains in force for a subsequent Plan Year as provided in Section 4.2(d), the Payment Election with respect to that Member Deferral Election also will remain in force.   If a Member fails to make a Payment Election with respect to a Member Deferral Election and a former Member Deferral Election does not remain in force, amounts credited to the Member’s Accounts that are attributable to Member Deferral Election shall be made in a lump sum cash payment on the date of the Member’s Separation from Service. A Member is not allowed to make a Payment Election with respect to amounts credited to his or her Company Account under Section 4.3(b).  The time and form of payment for vested amounts credited to such Company Account will be specified in the Company Credit Agreement, or, if not so specified, payment of such Account shall be made in a lump sum cash payment on the date of the Member’s Separation from Service.  Payment Elections made by Members prior to January 1, 2009, shall continue to apply. A Member’s Payment Elections shall specify a time of payment and a form of payment in accordance with Section 6.1(a) and (b) below; provided, however, that notwithstanding anything to the contrary within this Section 6.1 or within the Payment Election, if a Member has elected to receive installment payments for an Account or subaccount, any provision of a Payment Election requiring installment payments of an Account or subaccount that has a balance of less than $10,000 shall not apply, and that Account or subaccount shall instead be paid to the Member in the form of a lump sum cash payment.  
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of the 15th day of November, 2016. 
	
					
	 
	 
	PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:
	 
	/s/ Teresa A. Fairbrook

	 
	 
	 
	 
	Teresa A. Fairbrook,
Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer
{"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":"Attorney Information - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"yswkyrzWX9\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/information-for\/attorney-information\/\">Attorney Information<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/information-for\/attorney-information\/embed\/#?secret=yswkyrzWX9\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Attorney Information” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"yswkyrzWX9\" 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":"This page provides information about joining the Federal Circuit bar and for other bar-related attorney services.  Counsel in existing cases should refer to other sections of the website for case-related information and resources. Attorney Admission Information Federal Circuit Rule 46 governs the admission requirements and procedures for attorneys interested in becoming members of the bar of [...]"}
#### § 302-15.1 What are property management services?

“Property management services” are programs provided by private companies for a fee, which help an employee to manage the employee's residence at the old official station as a rental property. These services typically include, but are not limited to, obtaining a tenant, negotiating the lease, inspecting the property regularly, managing repairs and maintenance, enforcing lease terms, collecting the rent, paying the mortgage and other carrying expenses from rental proceeds and/or funds of the employee, and accounting for the transactions and providing periodic reports to the employee.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12256, Feb. 16, 2024]
{"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":"RSS Feeds - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"xBYq3gpGqW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/rss-feeds\/\">RSS Feeds<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/rss-feeds\/embed\/#?secret=xBYq3gpGqW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“RSS Feeds” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"xBYq3gpGqW\" 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":"RSS feeds are provided below with links to specific categories of announcements. General Notices & Announcements Notification of all public notices and website announcements Operating Status Notification of changes to the Federal Circuit\u2019s operating status Oral Argument Postings Notification of the release of oral argument recordings Opinion & Order Postings Notification of the release of […]"}
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4286

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs to provide a case suitable for displaying the flag furnished with

respect to deceased veterans.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 21, 1994

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a case suitable

for displaying the flag furnished with respect to deceased

veterans.

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

3 SECTION 1. CASE SUITABLE FOR DISPLAYING FLAG FUR4 NISHED WITH RESPECT TO DECEASED VET5 ERANS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2301 of title 38, United

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the

8 following:
2

•HR 4286 IH

1 ‘‘(f) Upon request of the person to whom the Sec2 retary gives a flag under this section, the Secretary shall

3 give a case suitable for displaying the flag when folded

4 in a triangular shape.’’.

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

6 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to deaths occurring

7 on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0002852

30-JUN-2015

08:44 AM
46744.

#### HOGAN v. TILLMAN et al.

(380 SE2d 53)

Smith, Justice.

This case involves a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a superior court judge and the clerk of the superior court to act in such *89a way as to not deny the applicant “his rights to due process; procedural due process rights, and equal protection of the law.” He also seeks an award of damages from the judge and clerk.

Decided March 15, 1989.

Ricky Lamar Hogan, *pro se.*

*Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney,*for appellees.

In view of the fact that this is a direct application to this Court for a writ of mandamus, this case is controlled by *Brown v.*Johnson, 251 Ga. 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983), and the petition is therefore dismissed.

*Petition for writ dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Serves: 1.8 million customers across 136,000 sq. miles in six Western states (Oregon, Washington, California, Utah, Wyoming and Idaho) Employees: 6,000 Headquarters: Portland, Oregon

Generation capacity: 10,595 megawatts

Transmission: Over 16,300 miles of transmission lines Over 62,930 miles of distribution lines
PacifiCorp is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy and regulated by the public services
commissions in the six states it serves.

Serves: 1.1 million customers Employees: 2,700 Headquarters: Bellevue, Wash

Generation capacity: 3,000 megawatts

Transmission: 13,000 miles of transmission and
distribution lines
PSE is a subsidary of Puget Energy and is regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation

Commission. 

# EIM Participants (active & pending)

California Independent System Operator | www.caiso.com | 250 Outcropping Way, Folsom, CA 95630 | 916.351.4400

CommPR/SG/05.2015 Serves: 1.3 million customers (40 million tourists annually) Employees: 3,000 Headquarters: Las Vegas, NV

Generation capacity: 6,100 megawatts

Transmission: controls over 3,800 miles of
transmission lines
NV Energy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy and regulated by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.

Serves: 1.2 million customers across 11 of 15 Arizona counties) Employees: 6,366 Headquarters: Phoenix, AZ

Generation capacity: 6,500 megawatts

Transmission: About 5,900 miles of transmission lines About 29,000 miles of distribution lines
Arizona Public Service is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and regulated by Arizona Corporation Commission. Serves: over 30 million consumers in California and small portion of Nevada, plus the populations of the voluntary Energy Imbalance Market. Employees: 580 Headquarters: Folsom, California

Generation capacity: 65,000 megawatts

Transmission: controls over 26,000 miles of high voltage transmission lines
The ISO is a non-profit, public benefit corporation with an independent Board of Governors and regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

# — Market Operator 

# compan y profiles
#### § 51-11.12 Procedure when a decision is not made prior to the time a response is required.

If a response to a demand or request is required before the General Counsel can make the determination previously referred to, the General Counsel when necessary, will provide the court or other competent authority with a copy of this part, inform the court or other competent authority that the demand or request is being reviewed, and seek a stay of the demand or request pending a final determination.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



In connection with Bancshares of Florida, Inc.s (Company)
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (Report), I certify that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for the period ended
June 30, 2005.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 3, 2005



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ DAVID G. WALLACE                    
|David G. Wallace Chief Financial Officer



41
No. 11-9256.

#### Blakely *v.*United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.