alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4474

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to require the performance

of the debtor’s obligations under an unexpired lease of certain personal

property until such lease is assumed or rejected under section 365

of such title.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 1994

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to require

the performance of the debtor’s obligations under an

unexpired lease of certain personal property until such

lease is assumed or rejected under section 365 of such

title.

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 ‘‘Equipment Leasing,

5 Maintenance, and Payment Amendment of 1994’’.
2

•HR 4474 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

2 The first sentence of section 365(d)(3) of title 11,

3 United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, and in

4 a case under chapter 11 of this title under any unexpired

5 lease of personal property (other than personal property

6 relating to residential real property),’’ after ‘‘property’’.

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.

8 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub9 section (b), this Act and the amendment made by section

10 2 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this

11 Act.

12 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.—The amendment

13 made by section 2 shall not apply with respect to cases

14 commenced under title 11 of the United States Code be15 fore the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
{"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":"20-2210: SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. APRICORN [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"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=\"vd0lpryGdp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-17-2022-20-2210-spex-technologies-inc-v-apricorn-opinion-20-2210-opinion-10-14-2022_2018594\/\">20-2210: SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. APRICORN [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-17-2022-20-2210-spex-technologies-inc-v-apricorn-opinion-20-2210-opinion-10-14-2022_2018594\/embed\/#?secret=vd0lpryGdp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-2210: SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. APRICORN [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"vd0lpryGdp\" 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: SPEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. APRICORN [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-2210 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
# Comments on: 19-1374: KAMMUNKUN v. DEFENSE [OPINION], Nonprecedential
{"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":"Filing Resources - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rdJUpwKXAj\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/case-information\/filing-resources\/\">Filing Resources<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/case-information\/filing-resources\/embed\/#?secret=rdJUpwKXAj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Filing Resources” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"rdJUpwKXAj\" 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 Clerk’s Office has prepared the following materials to assist litigants and counsel appearing before the Federal Circuit. In using these materials, litigants should always review the relevant portions of the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice and Electronic Filing Procedures. Common Filing Errors (pdf) Events and Reliefs List (pdf) Guidance on Oral Argument Scheduling Conflicts\u00a0(pdf) […]"}
# Comments on: 19-2130: SHEA v. US [OPINION], Precedential
§ 24.53 Calculation of height above average terrain (HAAT). ( a ) HAAT is determined by subtracting average terrain elevation from antenna height above mean sea level.
( b ) Average terrain elevation shall be calculated using elevation data from a 30 arc second or better Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). DEM data is available from United States Geological Survey (USGS). The data file shall be identified. If 30 arc second data is used, the elevation data must be processed for intermediate points using interpolation techniques; otherwise, the nearest point may be used. If DEM data is not available, elevation data from the Defense Mapping Agency's Digital Chart of the World (DCW) may be used.
( c ) Radial average terrain elevation is calculated as the average of the elevation along a straight line path from 3 to 16 kilometers extending radially from the antenna site. At least 50 evenly spaced data points for each radial shall be used in the computation.
( d ) Average terrain elevation is the average of the eight radial average terrain elevations (for the eight cardinal radials).
( e ) The position location of the antenna site shall be determined to an accuracy of no less than ±5 meters in both the horizontal (latitude and longitude) and vertical (ground elevation) dimensions with respect to the National Geodetic Reference System.
[58 FR 59183, Nov. 8, 1993; 59 FR 15269, Mar. 31, 1994]
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

CLERK’S OFFICE

January 2023 Page 1

Requesting a Certificate of Good Standing

An attorney wishing to receive a Duplicate Certificate of Admission will need to 

complete the following:

a. Go to http://ecf.cafc.uscourts.gov and click Document Filing System.

b. Enter your PACER credentials.

c. From the Utilities menu, select Pay Miscellaneous Fees.

d. Select Certificate of Good Standing from the drop-down menu.

• Please ensure that the correct fee type and amount are displayed before 

selecting the desired quantity.

e. Upload a letter in Portable Document Format (PDF) requesting a Certificate of 

Good Standing.

• The letter must include the attorney’s current contact information (name, 

firm/office, address, phone number, and email address) along with the 

attorney’s admission date.

• Please use the court’s Attorney Admissions Search if you do not have your 

admission date.

f. Click the Pay Now and Submit button at the bottom of the screen to complete 

the transaction.

g. The Clerk’s Office will process the request within two business days. The 

completed certificate will be mailed to the requesting attorney at the attorney’s 

official address of record in the court’s CM/ECF system unless otherwise directed.
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (00-075)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of prospective patent license. 

# SUMMARY:

NASA hereby gives notice that Cytec Industries, Inc., of Five Garret Mountain Plaza, West Paterson, NJ 07424, has applied for an exclusive patent license to practice the invention described and claimed in NASA Case Number LAR 15449-1 entitled “METHOD TO PREPARE PROCESSABLE POLYIMIDES WITH REACTIVE ENDGROUPS USING 1, 3 BIS (3-AMINOPHENOXY) BENZENE,” which has been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to Langley Research Center. 

# DATE:

Responses to this notice must be received by September 5, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hillary W. Hawkins, Patent Attorney, Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 212, Hampton, VA 23681-2199; Telephone (757) 864-8882; Fax (757) 864-9190. 

Dated: June 28, 2000. 

Edward A. Frankle, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 00-16902 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1928 Hearing. ( a ) *Petition for hearing.* ( 1 ) An employee may request a hearing by filing a written petition with the Managing Director of the Commission, or designated official stating why the employee believes the determination of the Commission concerning the existence or the amount of the debt is in error.
( 2 ) The employee's petition must be executed under penalty of perjury by the employee and fully identify and explain with reasonable specificity all the facts, evidence and witnesses, if any, which the employee believes support his or her position.
( 3 ) The petition must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days from the date that the notification was hand delivered or the date of delivery by certified mail, return receipt requested.
( 4 ) If a petition is received after the fifteenth (15) calendar day deadline referred to paragraph (a) (3) of this section, the Commission will nevertheless accept the petition if the employee can show, in writing, that the delay was due to circumstances beyond his or her control, or because of failure to receive notice of the time limit (unless otherwise aware of it).
( 5 ) If a petition is not filed within the time limit specified in paragraph (a) (3) of this section, and is not accepted pursuant to paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the employee's right to hearing will be considered waived, and salary offset will be implemented by the Commission.
( b ) *Type of hearing.* ( 1 ) The form and content of the hearing will be determined by the hearing official who shall be a person outside the control or authority of the Commission except that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the appointment of an administrative law judge by the Commission. In determining the type of hearing, the hearing officer will consider the nature and complexity of the transaction giving rise to the debt. The hearing may be conducted as an informal conference or interview, in which the Commission and employee will be given a full opportunity to present their respective positions, or as a more formal proceeding involving the presentation of evidence, arguments and written submissions.
( 2 ) The employee may represent him or herself, or may be represented by an attorney.
( 3 ) The hearing official shall maintain a summary record of the hearing.
( 4 ) The decision of the hearing officer shall be in writing, and shall state: ( i ) The facts purported to evidence the nature and origin of the alleged debt;
( ii ) The hearing official's analysis, findings, and conclusions, in the light of the hearing, as to— ( A ) The employee's and/or agency's grounds,
( B ) The amount and validity of the alleged debt, and,
( C ) The repayment schedule, if applicable.
( 5 ) The decision of the hearing official shall constitute the final administrative decision of the Commission.
EXHIBIT 23



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-72338) pertaining to the Restated Stock Option Incentive Plan and
the Restated Employee Stock Option Plan of Dynacare Inc. of our report dated
February 22, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Dynacare Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2001.



                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 20, 2002









                                       E-3
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Kenneth D. Denman as Chief Executive Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of his
knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 Openwave Systems Inc.



|            |  |  |  |     |  |                                           |  | 
|----------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------- |  | 
|            |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth D. Denman                    
|May 8, 2009 |  |  |  |     |  | Kenneth D. Denman Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Karen J. Willem, as Chief Financial Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of her knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 Openwave Systems Inc.



|            |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                   |  | 
|----------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|            |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Karen J. Willem                                              
|May 8, 2009 |  |  |  |     |  | Karen J. Willem Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Tolerton & Stetson Company v. McClure, Haggerty & Company.

Filed June 18, 1895.

No. 6313.

1. Trial to Court: Admission or Incompetent Testimony. In a cause tried to the court without the intervention of a jury the admission of incompetent evidence is not reversible error. Following *Whipple v. Fowler,*41 Neb., 675.

2. Sufficiency of Evidence: Review. The findings of fact of the district court which are supported by sufficient evidence will not be disturbed in error proceedings upon the assignment that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence.

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

*W. H. Farnsworth,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. M. Uttley, contra.*

Ryan, C.

In this court Tolerton & Stetson Co., an Iowa corporation, is the plaintiff in error, and the firm of McClure, Haggerty & Co. is the sole defendant in error. The party j *369last named began this action May 18, 1888, in the district court of Holt county for the foreclosure of a morlgage made by John C. Hayes and his wife. This mortgage was of date, and was filed for record, November 3, 1887. On the day last mentioned suit was begun in said district court by plaintiff in error against John C. Hayes, in which suit on the same day an attachment was levied upon the real property described in the aforesaid mortgage. There was rendered a judgment on December 12, 1887, in favor of plaintiff in error against John C. Hayes in the aforesaid attachment suit for the sum of $1,033, and the attached property was ordered sold. In the foreclosure action the plaintiff in error, as a judgment creditor of John C. Hayes, was joined with him as a defendant and answered in denial of the existence of an indebtedness from Hayes to the petitioner for foreclosure, and alleging that the mortgage was fraudulent as to creditors of Hayes. A decree was entered as prayed by the defendant in error.

There are assignments of error pertaining to the competency of certain evidence which need not be considered, since this cause was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury. *(Whipple v.*Fowler, 41 Neb., 675.) There was ample evidence to sustain the findings of the district court. Its judgment is therefore

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. D A 20 - 01 62 IN THE MATTER OF: J.D.D., A.D.J. , and M.T.D. ,

Youth s in Need of Care. **ORDER** Upon consideration of the State’s Unopposed M otion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, submitted by the Ap pell ee , and good cause appearing therefor , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the record on appeal shall be supple me nted with the fo llowing Eleventh J udicial District Court file s: Sta te v. [

D.E.D . ] , Cause No. DC 08 - 066; and State v. [ D.E.D.] , Cause No. DC 08 - 134 . IT IS FURTH ER O RDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve all parties of r ecord and the Clerk of Di strict Court, Flathead County , with this Order .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 15 2020

05/15/2020
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bancshares of Florida, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Michael L. McMullan, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 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: October 31, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael L. McMullan
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Michael L. McMullan,       
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Principal Executive Officer