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":"21-1460: POTTER v. DVA [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"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=\"AVuaUtxoT4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-25-2021-21-1460-potter-v-dva-opinion-21-1460-opinion-10-25-2021_1854326\/\">21-1460: POTTER v. DVA [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-25-2021-21-1460-potter-v-dva-opinion-21-1460-opinion-10-25-2021_1854326\/embed\/#?secret=AVuaUtxoT4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1460: POTTER v. DVA [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"AVuaUtxoT4\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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: POTTER v. DVA [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1460 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-5359.

#### Andrews *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Community Bank Corporation of America (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Kenneth P. Cherven, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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. | To my knowledge, 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 covered by the Report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                                         
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 15, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth P. Cherven                                  
|                        |  |     |  | Kenneth P. Cherven, President andChief Executive Officer
791 A.2d 218

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL MERCADO, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

January 24, 2002.

Petition for certification is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration in the light of *State v. Baylass,*114 *N.J.*169, 178, 553 A.2d 326 (1989).
June 10, 2015

Mr. Bert Reed

2745 Powell Court Monroe, GA 30656

Dear Mr. Reed:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 11, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1299), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Opinion issued July 29, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00754-CV

———————————

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, 

NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY, VALIANT INSURANCE 

COMPANY, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, NEW YORK 

MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND NATIONAL 

LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants

V.

HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2012-08257-A
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellants have filed an “agreed” motion to dismiss this appeal, 

representing that the parties have reached a settlement of the matter and requesting 

that we dismiss the appeal with each party bearing its own costs. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). No opinion has issued. See id. 42.1(c). 

Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss the appeal, with costs taxed 

against the party incurring same. See id. 42.1(a)(1), (d). We dismiss all other 

pending motions as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle.
#### § 27.1190 Termination of cost-sharing obligations.

The plan for cost-sharing in connection with BRS relocation will sunset for all AWS entities fifteen years after the relocation sunset period for BRS relocation commences, *i.e.*, fifteen years after the first AWS licenses are issued in any part of the 2150-2162 MHz band. AWS entrants that trigger a cost-sharing obligation prior to the sunset date must satisfy their payment obligation in full.
§ 25.129 Equipment authorization for portable earth-station transceivers. ( a ) Except as expressly permitted by § 2.803 or § 2.1204 of this chapter, prior authorization must be obtained pursuant to the equipment certification procedure in part 2, subpart J of this chapter for importation, sale or lease in the United States, or offer, shipment, or distribution for sale or lease in the United States of portable earth-station transceivers subject to regulation under part 25. This requirement does not apply, however, to devices imported, sold, leased, or offered, shipped, or distributed for sale or lease before November 20, 2004.
( b ) For purposes of this section, an earth-station transceiver is portable if it is a “portable device” as defined in § 2.1093(b) of this chapter, *i.e.,* if its radiating structure(s) would be within 20 centimeters of the operator's body when the transceiver is in operation.
( c ) In addition to the information required by § 2.1033(c) of this chapter, applicants for certification required by this section shall submit any additional equipment test data necessary to demonstrate compliance with pertinent standards for transmitter performance prescribed in §§ 25.138, 25.202(f), 25.204, 25.209, and 25.216, must demonstrate compliance with the labeling requirement in § 25.285(b), and shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. An Environmental Assessment may be required if RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
( d ) Applicants for certification required by this section must submit evidence that the devices in question are designed for use with a satellite system that may lawfully provide service to users in the United States pursuant to an FCC license or order reserving spectrum.
[69 FR 5709, Feb. 6, 2004, as amended at 79 FR 8317, Feb. 12, 2014; 81 FR 55330, Aug. 18, 2016; 84 FR 53654, Oct. 8, 2019; 85 FR 18150, Apr. 1, 2020]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.902 Scope.

In case of any conflict between the rules set forth in this subpart and the rules set forth in parts 13, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of this chapter, the rules in this subpart shall govern.

[89 FR 63314, Aug. 5, 2024]
§ 14.30 Generally. ( a ) The rules in this subpart regarding recordkeeping and enforcement are applicable to all manufacturers and service providers that are subject to the requirements of sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Act and parts 6, 7 and 14 of this chapter.
( b ) The requirements set forth in § 14.31 of this subpart shall be effective January 30, 2013.
( c ) The requirements set forth in §§ 14.32 through 14.37 of this subpart shall be effective on October 8, 2013.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November

17 , 2011
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 1 1
- 00 971
- C R NO. 14
- 11
- 00972
- CR

____________ IN RE ROBERT MORENO, JR. , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 263rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 0 807407 & 0 807408



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On November 7 , 2011 , relator Robert Moreno, Jr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. R elator complains that respondent, the Honorable Jim Wallace , presiding judge of the 263rd District Court of Harris County, has not ruled on his motion for post

- conviction forensic DNA testing. See Tex. Co de Crim. Proc. art. 64.01

— 64.05

. To be entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal case , a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleg ed harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v.2

Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Consideration of a motion that is properly filed and before the court is a ministerial act. State ex rel. Curry v. Gray , 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig. proceeding). A relator must establish the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so. In re Keeter , 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal , 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding) (relator must show that trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on motion).
Relator has not provided this court with any evidence that his motion for DNA testing was properly filed with the trial court and presented to the judge for a ruling. It is relator’s burden to provide this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a).
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4543 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4543

  To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed at 907 
Richland Street in Columbia, South Carolina, as the ``Matthew J. Perry, 
                    Jr. United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 1994

 Mr. Clyburn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse to be constructed at 907 
Richland Street in Columbia, South Carolina, as the ``Matthew J. Perry, 
                    Jr. United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse to be constructed at 907 Richland 
Street in Columbia, South Carolina, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Matthew J. Perry, Jr. United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Matthew J. 
Perry, Jr. United States Courthouse''.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



Amendment No. 1
to
Employment Agreement 


This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”), dated as of February 10, 2017 between James Reid-Anderson and Six Flags Entertainment Corporation amends that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of February 18, 2016 (the “Agreement”) between James Reid-Anderson and Six Flags Entertainment Corporation.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement. 


1.    Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 3 Compensation of the Agreement are hereby amended in their entirety to read as follows: 


“(a)    Base Salary.  During the Term, Executive shall receive a base salary (as applicable, the “Base Salary”) at an annual rate of no less than $1,000,000.  Base Salary shall be paid at such times and in such manner as the Company customarily pays the base salaries of its employees.  In the event that Executive’s Base Salary is increased by the Board in its discretion at any time during the Term, such increased amount shall thereafter constitute the Base Salary.


(b)    Annual Bonus.  During the Term, Executive shall have a target bonus opportunity (“Target Bonus”) of 100% of Base Salary.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, for the 2016 performance year, Executive’s Target Bonus percentage shall be pro rated with 100% of Base Salary as the Target Bonus percentage for the portion of the 2016 fiscal year this Agreement is in effect and 120% of Base Salary as the Target Bonus percentage for the portion of the 2016 fiscal year before this Agreement is in effect.  Any annual bonus payable to Executive shall be paid during the calendar year following the calendar year performance year and no later than five days following the filing of the Company’s Form 10-K for the performance year (or, if the Company is not required to or does not file a Form 10-K, no later than five days following the completion of the audit of the applicable performance year).  The Executive’s bonus shall be paid at the same time as the bonuses paid to other executive officers.  The bonus for the 2017 performance year shall be paid in shares of the Company’s common stock.  Executive’s bonus for 2017 shall be paid to Executive even if the Term has expired or Executive’s employment with the Company ceased after December 31, 2017.  Executive shall have a pro rated Target Bonus for 2018 which shall be paid to Executive even if the Term has expired or Executive’s employment with the Company ceased after the end of the Term.”
2.    Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned execute this Amendment as of the date set forth above. 
	
							
	SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION
 

	

By:  /s/ Lance C. Balk                                            
	 
	 Date:  February 10, 2017

	Name:  Lance C. Balk
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Title:  General Counsel
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 /s/ James Reid-Anderson                                       
James Reid-Anderson
	 
	

Date:  February 10, 2017
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.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# Time and Date:

Wednesday, February 1, 2006; 10 a.m.

# Place:

Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# Status:

Open to the public.

# Matters to be Considered:

Final Rule for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets.

The Commission will be briefed by the Commission staff and consider the Commission staff recommendations regarding the final draft standard for mattress flammability (open flame), additional research, updated supporting materials, and responses to major public comments on the CPSC's January 13, 2005, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-7923.

Dated: January 18, 2006.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 06-672 Filed 1-19-06; 2:28 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
§ 22.221 Eligibility for partitioned licenses. If partitioned licenses are being applied for in conjunction with a license(s) to be awarded through competitive bidding procedures— ( a ) The applicable procedures for filing short-form applications and for submitting upfront payments and down payments contained in this chapter shall be followed by the applicant, who must disclose as part of its short-form application all parties to agreement(s) with or among other entities to partition the license pursuant to this section, if won at auction (*see* 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(viii));
( b ) Each party to an agreement to partition the authorization must file a long-form application (FCC Form 601) for its respective, mutually agreed-upon geographic area together with the application for the remainder of the MEA or EA filed by the auction winner.
( c ) If the partitioned authorization is being applied for as a partial assignment of the MEA or EA authorization following grant of the initial authorization, request for authorization for partial assignment of an authorization shall be made pursuant to § 1.948 of this part.
[59 FR 59507, Nov. 17, 1994, as amended at 64 FR 33781, June 24, 1999]