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":"Notice of New Mandate Format - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GZ0ILcfDpo\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-new-mandate-format\/\">Notice of New Mandate Format<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-new-mandate-format\/embed\/#?secret=GZ0ILcfDpo\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of New Mandate Format” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"GZ0ILcfDpo\" 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":"Beginning January 2, 2019, the court will begin using a new format for its mandates. Litigants, members of the bar, and the public may notice a change in the format of this item on the court\u2019s docket as of that date.  "}
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16624]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01-99-203]
RIN 2115-AA98, AA84, AE46


Temporary Regulations: OPSAIL 2000, Port of New London, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a final rule published in the Federal 
Register of June 14, 2000, concerning temporary regulations OPSAIL 2000 
events to held at the Port of New London, Connecticut. That document 
contained inaccurate positions for Safety Zones 1 and 2.

DATES: The correction is effective June 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Master Chief K.G. Dolan, Group/MSO 
Long Island Sound, New Haven, Connecticut, (203) 468-4429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    As published, the temporary final rule contains inaccurate latitude 
and longitude positions and several other positions that need to be 
corrected.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, in the publication on June 14, 2000, of the temporary 
final rule [CGD01-99-203], which is the subject of FR Doc. 00-15009, is 
corrected as follows:


Sec. 165.T01-198  Safety Zones: OPSAIL 2000, Port of New London, 
Connecticut.

    1. On page 37282, in the third column, line 63 and on page 37284, 
in the third column, line 52, the Longitude position ``072 deg.05'8.7" 
W'' should read ``072 deg.05'8" W''.
    2. On page 37283, in the first column, line 19 and on page 37285, 
in the first column, line 7, position ``41 deg.17'38" N, 072 deg.04'40" 
W'' should read ``41 deg.17'6" N, 072 deg.04'7" W''.
    3. On page 37283, in the first column, line 22, and on page 37285, 
in the first column, line 10, position ``41 deg.15'38" N, 
072 deg.08'22" W'' should read, ``41 deg.15'6" N, 072 deg.08'4" W''.
    4. On page 37283, in the first column, line 23, and on page 37285, 
in the first column, line 11, the word ``south'' should read ``north''.
    5. On page 37283, in the first column, line 24, and on page 37285, 
in the first column, line 12, ``(LLNR 21065)'' should read ``(LLNR 
21075)''
    6. On page 37283, in the first column, line 27, and on page 37285, 
in the first column, line 15, ``bearing 192 deg.T'' should read 
``bearing 065 deg.T''.

    Dated: June 21, 2000.
R.F. Duncan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard 
District.
[FR Doc. 00-16624 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-U
#### Rashai HARMON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

Nos. 13, 2016 & 14, 2016 Consolidated

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: July 1, 2016

Decided: September 8, 2016

Court Below—Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Cr. ID Nos. 0805010747 *&*1503003016

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16577]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Office of the Secretary; Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Unconventional 
Nuclear Warfare Defense will meet in closed session on July 10-11, 
2000, at Strategic Analysis, Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, 
Arlington, VA. This Task Force will determine the adequacy of DoD's 
ability to detect, identify, respond, and prevent unconventional 
nuclear attacks by terrorists or subnational entities, and the 
appropriate role(s) and capability of DoD to provide protection against 
unconventional nuclear attacks in support of homeland defense.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will review and evaluate 
the Department's ability to provide information
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has 
been determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly 
these meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: June 22, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-16577 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 437 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 437

  To provide for research on antiprogestin drugs through the National 
                         Institutes of Health.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Wyden (for himself, Mr. Waxman, Mrs. Schroeder, and Mr. DeFazio) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for research on antiprogestin drugs through the National 
                         Institutes of Health.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Antiprogestin Testing Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. RESEARCH.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting 
through the Director of the National Institutes of Health, may conduct 
and support research (including clinical trials) on antiprogestin drugs 
for their safety and efficacy for any potential use, including 
termination of pregnancy and contraception, and when used 
therapeutically for cancer, endocrine disorders, and endometriosis.
    (b) Institutional Review Boards and Peer Review.--Research 
conducted or supported under subsection (a) shall be subject to 
sections 491 and 492 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289, 
289a).
    (c) Priorities.--In determining priorities for research under 
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider data from previous 
research.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall report to Congress 
the results of research conducted or supported under section 2(a) on 
January 1, 1994, and annually thereafter.

                                 <all>
```
May 19, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11270 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket FAA

- 2014

- 0930

Dear Sir or Madam;

Elevated Perspective Media was issued an Exemption numbered 11270 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of conducting scripted, closed

- set filming for the motion picture and television industry. Elevated Perspective media herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow an additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the c onditions of the Exemption.

Elevated Perspective Media wishes to operate a DJI S1000 and a Xfoldrig using a DJI

A2 controller (both additional UAS ’ s are the same size and power as the already exempted aervonics skyjib) under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. All operations of the additional UAS ’ s will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption.

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of another type of unmanned aerial vehicle, Elevated Persp ective Media respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment to t he Exemption.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas Webb

Vice President Elevated Perspective Media 36 post road

Warwick Rhode Island
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

LUTHER KURTZ and SKYDIVE COASTAL 

CALIFORNIA d/b/a PHOENIX AREA 

SYDIVING, 

Complainant, 

v. 

CITY OF CASA GRANDE, ARIZONA, 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-16-01 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to June 16, 2017. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case due to the complexity of the Record. 

Kevin . Willis 

Directo Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

ltb 2011 

) 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 18, 2017, I FedX a true copy of the foregoing document 

addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Mr. Richard J. Durden 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, CO 80433 

Counsel for Respondent: 

Brett D. Wallace 

City Attorney's Office 

510 E. Florence Blvd 

Casa Grande, AZ 85122 

Copies to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

FAA Western Pacific Region, A WP-600 

~ Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
{"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":"22-1083: NETFLIX, INC. v. DIVX, LLC [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=\"5c9bClBDl6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-01-2023-22-1083-netflix-inc-v-divx-llc-opinion-22-1083-opinion-3-1-2023_2088157\/\">22-1083: NETFLIX, INC. v. DIVX, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-01-2023-22-1083-netflix-inc-v-divx-llc-opinion-22-1083-opinion-3-1-2023_2088157\/embed\/#?secret=5c9bClBDl6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1083: NETFLIX, INC. v. DIVX, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"5c9bClBDl6\" 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: NETFLIX, INC. v. DIVX, LLC [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1083 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
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 Agriculture

###### Agricultural Marketing Service 

          - [TB-00-12] 

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of committee renewal. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture has renewed the Burley Tobacco Advisory Committee for an additional period of 2 years. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John P. Duncan III, Deputy Administrator, Tobacco Programs, AMS, USDA, 300 12th Street, S.W., Stop 0280, Room 502 Annex Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, (202) 205-0567. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Committee, which reports to the Secretary through the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, recommends opening dates and selling schedules for the burley marketing area which aid the Secretary in making an equitable apportionment and assignment of tobacco inspectors. The Committee consists of 39 members; 21 producer representatives, 10 warehouse representatives, and 8 buyer representatives, representing all segments of the burley tobacco industry and meets at the call of the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that renewal of this Committee is in the public interest. 

To ensure that recommendations of the Committee take into account the needs of diverse groups served by the Department, membership should include, to the extent practicable, persons with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. 

This notice is given in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). 

Dated: June 22, 2000. 

Paul W. Fiddick, 

Assistant Secretary for Administration. 

[FR Doc. 00-16372 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
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 Greater Atlantic Financial Corp.
(the "company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carroll E. Amos, President and Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

B.   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.





                                      By: /s/ Carroll E. Amos
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Carroll E. Amos
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer


                                          Date: May 15, 2007
#### § 301-31.10 How will my agency pay my subsistence expenses?

Your agency will pay your actual subsistence expenses not to exceed the “maximum allowable amount” for the period you or your family occupy temporary living accommodations. The “maximum allowable amount” is the “maximum daily amount” multiplied by the number of days you or your family occupy temporary living accommodations not to exceed the number of days authorized. The “maximum daily amount” is determined by adding the rates in the following table for you and each member of your family authorized to occupy temporary living accommodations:

| If your agency authorizes | The “maximum daily amount” of per diem expenses that | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| You or your unaccompanied spouse, domestic partner or other unaccompanied family member may receive is | Your accompanied spouse, domestic partner or a member of your family who is age 12 or older may receive is | A member of your family who is under age 12 may receive is |
| Payment of only lodging expenses | The maximum lodging amount applicable to the locality | .75 times the maximum lodging amount applicable to the locality | .5 times the maximum lodging amount applicable to the locality. |
| Payment for lodging, meals, and other per diem expenses | The maximum per diem rate applicable to the locality | .75 times the maximum per diem rate applicable to the locality. | .5 times the maximum per diem rate applicable to the locality. |

[FTR Amdt. 70, [63 FR 15966](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/63-FR-15966), Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2010-06, [75 FR 67631](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/75-FR-67631), Nov. 3, 2010]
111P16

#### Paul L. Erickson v. Clayton Siegel, DC, Individually and on Behalf of the Other Named Defendants Identified in Exhibit A to the Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plt’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COA15-984)

Denied
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.9055 Assignment of file numbers to spectrum leasing notifications and applications.

Spectrum leasing notifications or applications submitted pursuant to the rules of this subpart are assigned file numbers and service codes in order to facilitate processing in the manner in which applications in subpart F are assigned file numbers (*see* § 1.926 of subpart F of this part).
contractor for respondent's approval) 

### See Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll.

Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 602-03, 172 P.3d 131, 134 (2007) (noting that when the nonmoving party bears the burden of persuasion at trial, the moving party may demonstrate that summary judgment is appropriate by "pointing out. .. that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case" (internal quotation omitted)).

As for the deficiency judgment, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the district court's determination that respondent mitigated its damages. 

### See Mason-McDuffie Real Estate, Inc. v. Villa Fiore Dev., LLC, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 83, 335 P.3d 211, 213-14 (2014) (recognizing that this court will not disturb a district court's factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence); 

### see also Sheehan & Sheehan v. Nelson Malley & 

### Co., 121 Nev. 481, 492, 117 P.3d 219, 226 (2005) (noting that the party asserting a failure-to-mitigate-damages defense bears the burden to prove that damages might have been lessened by "reasonable diligence on the part of the aggrieved party" (internal quotation omitted)). In particular, evidence was presented from which it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that appellant's proposed mitigation strategies were not practicable. 

### See Mason-McDuffie Real Estate, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 83, 335 P.3d at 214 (indicating that substantial evidence is "that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (internal quotation omitted)).

'To the extent that appellant has made arguments on appeal based on evidence that was procured after summary judgment was granted, we have not considered those arguments. 

### Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981).

SUPREME COURT

OF 2 NEVADA

(0) 1947A eia>

### J. Consistent with the foregoing, we affirm the judgment in Docket No. 61812. In light of our disposition of the appeal in Docket No. 61812, we affirm the award of attorney fees and costs appealed in Docket No. 62478. It is so ORDERED.

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge David J. Winterton & Associates, Ltd. Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF 

### 3 NEVADA

(0) 1947A en