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":"21-1826: VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ETwTw5xkPp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-15-2022-21-1826-vlsi-technology-llc-v-intel-corporation-opinion-21-1826-opinion-11-15-2022_2033485\/\">21-1826: VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-15-2022-21-1826-vlsi-technology-llc-v-intel-corporation-opinion-21-1826-opinion-11-15-2022_2033485\/embed\/#?secret=ETwTw5xkPp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1826: VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"ETwTw5xkPp\" 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: VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC v. INTEL CORPORATION [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1826 Origin: PTO Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-8766.

#### Arellano *v.*Curry, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 23.2

Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of
DirectorsCapital Corp of the West:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 333-41440) on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 11, 2005,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Capital Corp of the West and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of income and comprehensive income, shareholders equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2004, managements assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004,
annual report on Form 10-K of Capital Corp of the West.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Sacramento, CaliforniaMarch 11,
2005
225P15

#### State v. Connie Prentice Reaves

Def’s *Pro Se*PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-1055)

Denied
April 21, 2015

Mr. Thaddeus Sargent

Team AeroD ynamix

2735 Grey Rd.

Davidson, NC 28036

Dear Mr. Sargent :

This is in response to your August 5, 2015

, letter sent to the public docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0597 petitioning the Federal Aviation Admini stration on behalf of Team AeroD ynamix for an

exemption from § 91.319(a)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That

exemption, if granted, would allow Team AeroD ynamix to operate within a 25 mile radius of

an air show venue for the purpose of conducting media/spons or flights to promote the air

show industry, aviation, and the air show event specifically without compensation.

You do not require an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.319 (a) (2) since the regulation in

pertinent part only prohibits those operations conducted c arrying persons or property for

compensation or hire. Your exemption request specifically refers to operations conducted

without compensation for the carriage of persons identified in your petition.

Because the relief you seek is not required , we will ta ke no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
# iCollege Awarded for Contributions to Cyber Defense Workshop

/ Published July 23, 2013

The NDU-iCollege was just recognized with an award for "Exceptional Achievement" in its contributions to the 14th International Cyber Defense Workshop (ICDW) that was held 10-14 June 2013.

 The ICDW is conducted entirely online and the iCollege presented a series of 2-hour webinars entitled, "The ART of Cyber Leadership - Educating Cyber Warriors in A Strategy for Cyber Conflict & Asymmetric Warfare."   The ICDW audience was comprised of over 250 individuals from the armed forces and defense ministries of 20 countries.

 The award was presented by Mr. Mike Coomes, Program manager for International Cybersecurity & Internet Governance on behalf of the DoD CIO, and will be placed on display in the iCollege cabinets in the Marshall Hall atrium on the NDU campus.
#### UNITED STATES v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. et al.

No. 10187.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Jan. 18, 1951.

*375Roger P. Marquis, Fred W. Smith, A. Devitt Vanech, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., William W. Hart, U. S. Atty., Ernest R. McHale, Asst. U. S. Atty. East St. Louis, Ill. for appellant.

Timothy G. Lowry, Owen Rail, and Charles A. Helsell, all of Chicago, Ill., C. E. Feirich, Carbondale, Ill., Bruce Campbell, East St. Louis, Ill. (V. W. Foster, Chicago, Ill., Feirich & Feirich, Carbondale, Ill., Kramer, Campbell, Costello & Wiechert, East St. Louis, Ill., Eckert,' Peterson & Leeming, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee.

Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, and KER-NER and FINNEGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendants in an action to enjoin the Illinois Central Railroad Company from alienating or disposing of gas, oil, or other minerals, underlying any part of its railroad right of way and to enjoin the railroad and defendant, Menhall, the railroad’s lessee, from extracting gas and oil under the right of way except under a lease issued by the Secretary of the Interior under the Act of May 21, 1930, 46 Stat. 373, 30 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. The District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the railroad had the right to extract and sell the oil from its right of way.

The railroad received its title by a conveyance from the State of Illinois acting under and pursuant to the Act of Congress of' September 20, .1850, 9 Stat. 466. That Act was a grant of lands from the United States to the State of Illinois to aid in the construction of a railroad. On February 10, 1851, the State of Illinois granted the land involved in this case' to the Illinois (Central Railroad Company. The deed •from the State of Illinois to the railroad ■was “for the purpose of securing construction of said Rail Road * * * To Have :and to Hold in fee simple all and singular rthe above granted and described premises with the appurtenances thereunto belonging to the said Illinois Central Rail Road Company * * •*.” It was stipulated that the extraction of the oil in no way interfered with the operation of the railroad or the use of its right of way for railroad purposes.

The District Court concluded that the railroad held a limited fee subject to an implied condition of reverter in the event it ceased to use or retain the right of way for the purpose for which it was granted and that the railroad by the deed from the State of Illinois had title in the land occupied by its right of way, to the largest estate it was possible for it to acquire within the meaning of the grant.

Judge Wham filed an opinion, D. C., 89 F.Supp. 17, in which he adequately discussed the issues and the applicable law. In our opinion he correctly decided and fully discussed the question involved. It would serve no useful purpose to add to what is there stated. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
___________

No. 95-4178

___________

Barry Andre Wilburn, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Bill Terry, Classification *

Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Carmen *

McMahan, Nurse, Cummins Unit *

Infirmary, Arkansas Department *

of Correction (originally sued *

as McHand); Yvonne Cole, Cummins *

Unit Infirmary, Arkansas *

Department of Correction * Appeal from the United States

(originally sued as Cole); Ella * District Court for the

Casady, Nurse, Cummins Unit * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Infirmary, Arkansas Department *

of Correction (originally sued * [UNPUBLISHED]

as Cassity), *

 *

Appellees. *

 *

---------------------- *

 *

Barry Andre Wilburn, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Floyd McHan, originally sued as *

Major McHan, *

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: June 20, 1996

 Filed: June 25, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________
 The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge 1

for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred

for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Barry Andre Wilburn appeals from the district court's order

1

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the

record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the judgment of the district

court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
{"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":"21-1115: QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD [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=\"e882xUNHhr\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-27-2021-21-1115-quest-diagnostics-investments-llc-v-hirshfeld-opinion-21-1115-opinion-12-27-2021_1885462\/\">21-1115: QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-27-2021-21-1115-quest-diagnostics-investments-llc-v-hirshfeld-opinion-21-1115-opinion-12-27-2021_1885462\/embed\/#?secret=e882xUNHhr\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1115: QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"e882xUNHhr\" 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: QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INVESTMENTS LLC v. HIRSHFELD [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1115 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-9431.

#### Richardson *v.*Pennsylvania.

Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
#### § 30.209 Duplexing.

Stations authorized under this rule part may employ frequency division duplexing, time division duplexing, or any other duplexing scheme, provided that they comply with the other technical and operational requirements specified in this part.
Merrimack County Probate Court

No. 82-264

#### *In re*Dolores P.

December 30, 1982

*1178
      *Gregory H. Smith,*attorney general *(Jeffrey R. Cohen,*assistant attorney general, on the brief), by brief for the State.

*Joseph F. Vittek, Jr.,*of Franklin, by brief for Dolores P.

Memorandum Opinion

On or about July 15, 1981, a petition was filed against Dolores P. seeking involuntarily to commit her to the New Hampshire Hospital as provided in RSA 135-B:26 to :41. Pursuant to RSA 135-B:5, which guarantees the right to legal counsel to persons sought to be committed involuntarily, Attorney Joseph F. Vittek, Jr., was appointed to represent Dolores P. *See*RSA 135-B:6.

Attorney Vittek represented Dolores P. and subsequently filed a bill for services with the Merrimack County Probate Court seeking compensation at a rate of $25 per hour for case preparation and $35 per hour for time spent in court. The Probate Court *(Cushing, J.)*approved Attorney Vittek’s statement of costs by signing it on January 5, 1982. In so doing, the probate court made no finding, express or otherwise, to the effect that the circumstances surrounding the committal of Dolores P. were in any way “exceptional.”

The State sought reconsideration of the approved amount of attorney’s fees, asserting that the correct hourly rates should have been $20 and $30, respectively. The relief was denied, and this appeal ensued.

RSA 135-B:6 provides that in involuntary-civil-commitment cases a court-appointed attorney “shall be compensated ... at the same rate as appointed counsel in a criminal case heard before the superior court.” Pursuant to this court’s decision in *Smith v. State,*118 N.H. 764, 769-71, 394 A.2d 834, 838-39 (1978), this court from time to time has issued and modified indigent-counsel-fee schedules. This court set a presumptive hourly rate of $20 for out-of-court time and $30 for in-court time, but established maximum rates of $25 and $35, effective May 1, 1981. N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 47.

Attorney Vittek was appointed to represent Dolores P. *after*the fee schedule took effect and therefore, to warrant the allowable maximum fee, the trial judge must have made an “express, written finding of exceptional circumstances.” Id. The probate court made *1179no such finding, and therefore the State was entitled to the relief it sought in its motion for reconsideration.

*Reversed.*
No. 11-8886.

#### Thomas *v.*California (two judgments).

Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
 
 
 In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and
 
 (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   ****Date:  October 12, 2004
By:
/s/ *Allen E. Kahn*Allen E. KahnChief Financial Officer
 **
 Exhibit 32.1Page 1 of 1 Page
 
  
 
 
 The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
 
 
  Exhibit 32.1
Page 1 of 1 Page
§ 68.110 Compatibility of the public switched telephone network and terminal equipment. ( a ) *Availability of interface information.* Technical information concerning interface parameters not specified by the technical criteria published by the Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments, that are needed to permit terminal equipment to operate in a manner compatible with the communications facilities of a provider of wireline telecommunications, shall be provided by the provider of wireline telecommunications upon request.
( b ) *Availability of inside wiring information.* Any available technical information concerning wiring on the customer side of the demarcation point, including copies of existing schematic diagrams and service records, shall be provided by the provider of wireline telecommunications upon request of the building owner or agent thereof. The provider of wireline telecommunications may charge the building owner a reasonable fee for this service, which shall not exceed the cost involved in locating and copying the documents. In the alternative, the provider of wireline telecommunications may make these documents available for review and copying by the building owner. In this case, the provider of wireline telecommunications may charge a reasonable fee, which shall not exceed the cost involved in making the documents available, and may also require the building owner to pay a deposit to guarantee the documents' return.
[66 FR 7583, Jan. 24, 2001, as amended at 83 FR 31677, July 9, 2018]
No. 11-5574.

#### Garcia-Morales *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 5.63 Supplemental statements required. Applicants must provide the information set forth on the applicable form as specified in § 5.59. In addition, applicants must provide supplemental information as described below: ( a ) If installation and/or operation of the equipment may significantly impact the environment (see § 1.1307 of this chapter) an environmental assessment as defined in § 1.1311 of this chapter must be submitted with the application.
( b ) If an applicant requests non-disclosure of proprietary information, requests shall follow the procedures for submission set forth in § 0.459 of this chapter.
( c ) For conventional and broadcast experimental radio licenses, each application must include: ( 1 ) A narrative statement describing in detail the program of research and experimentation proposed, the specific objectives sought to be accomplished; and how the program of experimentation has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, extension, or expansion, or use of the radio art, or is along lines not already investigated.
( 2 ) If the authorization is to be used for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of a contract with an agency of the United States Government, a narrative statement describing the project, the name of the contracting agency, and the contract number.
( 3 ) If the authorization is to be used for the sole purpose of developing equipment for exportation to be employed by stations under the jurisdiction of a foreign government, a narrative statement describing the project, any associated contract number, and the name of the foreign government concerned.
( 4 ) If the authorization is to be used with a satellite system, a narrative statement containing the information required in § 5.64.
( d ) For program experimental radio licenses, each application must include: ( 1 ) A narrative statement describing how the applicant meets the eligibility criteria set forth in subpart E of this part.
( 2 ) If the authorization is to be used for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of a contract with an agency of the United States Government, a narrative statement describing the project, the name of the contracting agency, and the contract number.
( 3 ) If the authorization is to be used for the sole purpose of developing equipment for exportation to be employed by stations under the jurisdiction of a foreign government, a narrative statement describing the project, any associated contract number, and the name of the foreign government concerned.
( e ) For medical testing and compliance testing experimental radio licenses, each application must include a narrative statement describing how the applicant meets the eligibility criteria set forth in §§ 5.402(a) and 5.502 respectively.
[78 FR 25162, Apr. 29, 2013]
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Depomed, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John W. Fara, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
|        | Date: March 15, 2007                       |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|        | /s/ John W. Fara, Ph.D.                         |
|   | John W. Fara, Ph.D.                             |
|   | President, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
No. 11-1244.

#### Grundstein *v.*Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio et al. (two judgments).

C. A. 6th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### § 19.735-103 Definitions.

*Commission* means the Federal Communications Commission.

*Communications Act* means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 *et seq.*

*Employee* means an officer or employee of the Commission including special Government employees within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 202(a) and the Commissioners.

*Person* means an individual, a corporation, a company, an association, a firm, a partnership, a society, a joint stock company, or any other organization or institution.