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":"23-1051: SHIBUMI SHADE, INC. v. BEACH SHADE LLC [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"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=\"b9AUZrT0pZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-14-2022-23-1051-shibumi-shade-inc-v-beach-shade-llc-order-23-1051-order-12-14-2022_2047823\/\">23-1051: SHIBUMI SHADE, INC. v. BEACH SHADE LLC [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-14-2022-23-1051-shibumi-shade-inc-v-beach-shade-llc-order-23-1051-order-12-14-2022_2047823\/embed\/#?secret=b9AUZrT0pZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-1051: SHIBUMI SHADE, INC. v. BEACH SHADE LLC [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"b9AUZrT0pZ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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: SHIBUMI SHADE, INC. v. BEACH SHADE LLC [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-1051 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-5111.

#### Diaz *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari 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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-37,616]

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on April 24, 2000, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Chavez Signs, Incorporated, El Paso, Texas.

The company official submitting the petition has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 13th day of June, 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-16498  Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                SUBSIDIARIES OF PACIFIC GATEWAY EXCHANGE, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name                                                                  Jurisdiction of Organization
<S>                                                                   <C>
Pacific Gateway Exchange (U.K.) Limited.............................. United Kingdom
Pacific Gateway Exchange (Cyprus) Limited............................ Republic of Cyprus
Pacific Gateway Exchange New Zealand Limited......................... New Zealand
Pacific Gateway Exchange (New Zealand) Partnership................... New Zealand
Pacific Gateway Exchange (Bermuda) Limited........................... Islands of Bermuda
PGE Japan, Ltd....................................................... Japan
Pacific Gateway Exchange (Japan) Inc................................. Delaware
International Exchange Communications, Inc........................... Delaware
Rustelnet, a Closed Joint Stock Company.............................. Russian Federation
</TABLE>
Subject:

From: 

# Memorandum U.S.Department of Transportation Off1ce ofthe Secretory ofTransportatiOn
Essential Air Service at Ironwood, Michigan!Ashland, Wisconsin (Docket DOT-OST-1996-1266), Manistee/Ludington, Michigan (Docket DOT-OST-1996- 1711), and Rhinelander, Wisconstn (Docket DOT-OST2;JY7109). ' /) 

# KJ'**~**

# ~~J.&(**~--~-** EAS & Domestic Analysis Division, X-53 Date: November 18, 2011

Reply to Brian Swanson, Attn. of: X-53 Ext. 65392
To: Dockets Operations, M-30
By Order 2011-10-15, October 20, 2011, proposals for Essential Air Service (EAS) at any or all ofthe three communities identified above were due on November 18, 2011. American Airlines, with the support ofRhinelander, requested an extension to file a proposal. During our efforts to obtain approval ofAmerican Airlines' request from the two remaining communities included in Order 2011-10-15, Manistee/Ludington requested that the due date for proposals be extended further to December 5, 2011. Ironwood/ Ashland did not object to a December 5 due date. This is to advise all parties that we have decided to grant the requested extension to file EAS proposals at any or all three communities. Proposals must be received by no later than December 5, 2011.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: ORDER AMENDING RULE 101 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES AND STANDARDS WITH RESPECT TO OFFICES OF MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES : : : : : : : : : NO. 374 MAGISTERIAL DOCKET

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA M**  **AN D**  **NOW**, this 5th day of August, 2014, **IT IS**  **ORDERED** pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rule 101 of the Pennsylvania Rules and Standards with Respect to Offices of Magisterial District Judges is amended in the attached form. This **ORDER** shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective on September 4, 2014

.
Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined. Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41013-41014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16680]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA No. 00-1259; MM Docket No. 98-128; RM-9308 and RM-9385]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Crystal Falls and Republic, MI

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel 235A at Crystal Falls, Michigan, 
in response to a petition filed by Results Broadcasting of Iron 
Mountain, Inc. See 63 FR 40253, July 28, 1998. The coordinates for 
Channel 235A at Crystal Falls are 46-09-05 and 88-22-01. There is a 
site restriction 7.4 kilometers (4.6 miles) north of the community. In 
response to a counterproposal filed by Crystal Radio Company, we shall 
also allot Channel 244A at Republic, Michigan, at coordinates 46-26-09 
and 88-07-12. There is a site restriction 11.5 kilometers (7.2 miles) 
west of the community. Canadian concurrence has been received for the 
allotment of Channel 244A at Republic. Although Canadian concurrence 
has been requested for the allotment of Channel 235A at Crystal Falls, 
notification has not yet been received. Therefore, operation with the 
facilities specified for Crystal Falls herein is subject to 
modification, suspension, or termination without right to hearing, if 
found by the Commission to be necessary in order to conform to the USA-
Canada FM Broadcast Agreement or if specifically objected to by Canada. 
With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

[[Page 41014]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, MM Docket No. 98-128, adopted May 31, 2000, and released 
June 9, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the 
Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The 
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, 
facsimile (202) 857-3805.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

47 CFR PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Michigan, is 
amended by adding Channel 235A at Crystal Falls and by adding Republic, 
Channel 244A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-16680 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
§ 25.225 Geographic Service Requirements for 17/24 GHz Broadcasting Satellite Service. ( a ) Each operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is used to provide video programming directly to consumers in the 48 contiguous United States (CONUS) must provide comparable service to Alaska and Hawaii, unless such service is not technically feasible or not economically reasonable from the authorized orbital location.
( b ) Each operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station subject to paragraph (a) of this section must design and configure its space station to be capable of providing service to Alaska and Hawaii, that is comparable to the service that such satellites will provide to CONUS subscribers, from any orbital location capable of providing service to either Alaska or Hawaii to which it may be located or relocated in the future.
( c ) If an operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is used to provide video programming directly to consumers in the United States relocates or replaces a 17/24 GHz BSS space station at a location from which service to Alaska and Hawaii had been provided by another 17/24 GHz BSS space station, the operator must use a space station capable of providing at least the same level of service to Alaska and Hawaii as previously provided from that location.
[72 FR 50033, Aug. 29, 2007]
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the use of our report dated January 13, 1999 in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) of Connetics Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1998.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-21941, 30815, 56757 and 69055 and Form S-8 Nos. 333-04985 and
58427) pertaining to the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1994 Stock Plan,
1995 Director Stock Option Plan and Non Plan Options of Connetics Corporation,
of our report dated January 13, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Connetics Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1998.




                                                              ERNST & YOUNG, LLP


Palo Alto, California
March 30, 1999
#### § 301-11.2 Will I be reimbursed for per diem expenses if my official travel is 12 hours or less?

No.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Cotelligent, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-31914, 333-33312, 333-67589, 333-10253, 333-3388 and 333-103978) on
Form S-8 and in the registration statement (No. 333-53899) on Form S-4 of
Cotelligent, Inc., of our report dated March 26, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Cotelligent, Inc., as of December 31, 2002 and
2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the
nine months ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31,
2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Cotelligent, Inc.

                                        /s/ KPMG LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 31, 2003
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 7, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41386 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OHARA LINEAR LAWS,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. G-02-CR-8-ALL

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The appointed appellate attorney for defendant-appellant Ohara Linear Laws has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Laws has filed response briefs to counsel’s motion.

An independent review of the record reflects that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Laws’s claim that his former trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel with regard toNo. 03-41386 -2- his guilty plea and waiver of his right to appeal is adequately developed, but not supported by the record. Accordingly, Laws’s motion for access to sealed documents in the record and his motion to proceed pro se on appeal are DENIED.
See United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED and counsel is

e xcused from further responsibilities herein; and this appeal is
DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### C. A. Moore v. G. E. Hubbard.

Filed June 21, 1895.

No. 5967.

Review: Conflicting Evidence: Affirmance of Judgment: Practice. No question was presented in this case except a question of fact, and several questions of practice which have already been repeatedly passed upon.

Error from the district court of Holt county. Tried below before Kinkaid, J.

*R. R. Dickson*and *E. W. Adams,*for plaintiff in error.

M. *F. Harrington, contra.*

Irvine, C.

In this case there are eight assignments of error. Of these the sixth is *“*Errors of law occurring at the trial, and duly excepted to by plaintiff.” This, while sufficient in a motion for a new trial, is too general to present any question for review in a petition in error.

The seventh is that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. As the motion for a new trial assigns six grounds, this assignment is too general.

The eighth is that the court erred in not considering newly-discovered evidence and affidavits in support thereof. Accepting this as a sufficient assignment that the court *613erred in refusing a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, we cannot consider it, because the affidavits in support thereof are not preserved by a bill of exceptions.

The remaining assignments call only for a consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict in its general character and as to its amount. No question of law is presented on this point. We have examined the evidence and find that while it is conflicting there is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Carl E. Vogel, the Chief Executive Officer of CC V Holdings, LLC and CC
V Holdings Finance, Inc. (collectively, the Company) in compliance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission:  
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/  Carl E. VogelCarl E. VogelChief Executive Officer August 13, 2004
{"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":"19-1738: CHRISTY, INC. v. US [ERRATA], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YhfFImHQZC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/8-25-2020-19-1738-christy-inc-v-us-errata-19-1738-errata-8-25-2020_1642437\/\">19-1738: CHRISTY, INC. v. US [ERRATA], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/8-25-2020-19-1738-christy-inc-v-us-errata-19-1738-errata-8-25-2020_1642437\/embed\/#?secret=YhfFImHQZC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“19-1738: CHRISTY, INC. v. US [ERRATA], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"YhfFImHQZC\" 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: CHRISTY, INC. v. US [ERRATA](pdf) Appeal Number: 19-1738 Origin: CFC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### Alistair Jude ODUAH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-1497.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 5, 2004.

Decided March 25, 2004.

Aubrey Fitz-William Latchana, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner.

Emily Anne Radford, Linda S. Wendt-land, Office of Immigration Litigation, Ben Franklin Station, Shelley R. Goad, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Alistair Oduah, a citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. After careful review of the record, we deny the petition because substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the IJ’s conclusions. *See Menedez-Donis v. Ashcroft,*360 F.3d 915, -, 2004 WL 307451, at *3 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review). The IJ concluded that Oduah was not entitled to asylum: he had been subjected to discrimination and harassment, but not persecution, on account of his religion, *see Fisher v. INS,*291 F.3d 491, 497 (8th Cir.2002) (slurs and harassment from private individuals do not constitute persecution); and it was reasonable for him to relocate to the southern part of Nigeria to avoid future conflicts, *see*8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i)(B).

As Oduah did not establish a clear probability of persecution or a likelihood of torture upon his return to Nigeria, his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture also failed. *See Francois v. INS,*283 F.3d 926, 932-33 (8th Cir.2002) (withholding standard is more onerous than asylum standard); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (burden is on applicant to show likelihood of torture upon removal to proposed country).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.
No. 11-5256.

#### Cousins *v.*Green, Warden, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.