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":"17-1959: REAL FOODS PTY LTD. v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC. [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=\"wL2L9vCBL8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2018-17-1959-real-foods-pty-ltd-v-frito-lay-north-america-inc-opinion-17-1959-opinion-10-4-2018\/\">17-1959: REAL FOODS PTY LTD. v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC. [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2018-17-1959-real-foods-pty-ltd-v-frito-lay-north-america-inc-opinion-17-1959-opinion-10-4-2018\/embed\/#?secret=wL2L9vCBL8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-1959: REAL FOODS PTY LTD. v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC. [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"wL2L9vCBL8\" 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: REAL FOODS PTY LTD. v. FRITO-LAY NORTH AMERICA, INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-1959 Origin: PTO Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 149 (Thursday, August 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 44031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6662]



[[Page 44031]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Electronic Health 
Record Workgroup Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the eighth meeting of the American 
Health Information Community Electronic Health Record Workgroup in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 
U.S.C., App.)

DATES: August 15, 2006 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a 
Federal building).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/bio_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be available via Web cast 
at http://www.eventcenterlive.com/cfmx/ec/login/login1.cfm.?BID=67.

    Dated: July 25, 2006.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 06-6662 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
| 1) | to      the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2) | to      the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of      operations of the Company. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date      :  November 15, 2009 | By:  /s/ Linden J.      Boyne |   |
|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                     | Linden      J. Boyne                    |
|                                     | Secretary      / Treasurer              |
|                                     | (Principal      Financial Officer)      |

----
{"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":"2020-1510: Arbmetrics, LLC v. Dexcom Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"narSY5etux\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2020-2020-1510-arbmetrics-llc-v-dexcom-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2020-1510: Arbmetrics, LLC v. Dexcom Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2020-2020-1510-arbmetrics-llc-v-dexcom-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=narSY5etux\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2020-1510: Arbmetrics, LLC v. Dexcom Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"narSY5etux\" 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":"Oral argument audio posted: Arbmetrics, LLC v. Dexcom Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2020-1510 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

M.G.,

Petitioner

v.

L.D., :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 148 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 149 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of May, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

Nos. 04-13-00326-CR & 04-13-00327-CR

Christopher Hughes LAMAR,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2012CR5013 & 2012CR5014

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE MARION, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we REFORM the judgment in cause 

number 2012-CR-5013 to accurately reflect April 22, 2013 as the date of judgment. As reformed, 

the judgments of the trial court are AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 30, 2014.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ IBKUL UBHOT LTD., Appellant

v.

ALFWEAR, INC., Appellee

______________________

2020

- 2120

______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 91233985.

______________________
Decided: October 13, 2021

______________________

D ARREN J. Q UINN , Law Offices of Darren J. Quinn, Del Mar, CA, argued for appellant.

S. B RANDON O WEN , Ray Quinney & Nebeker P.C., Salt Lake City, UT, argued for appellee. Also represented by A DAM R ICHARDS ; T RENT B AKER , Baker IP PLLC , Salt Lake City, UT

.

______________________ Case: 20-2120 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2021IBKUL UBHOT LTD

. v. ALFWEAR , INC

. 2

Before M OORE , Chief Judge

, P ROST and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. IBKUL UBHOT LTD. appeal s a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision sustaining Alfwear , Inc. ’s opposition to registration of a mark , “ IBKÜL .” Alfwear, Inc. v. IBKUL UBHOT LTD

. , Opposition No. 91233985, 2020 WL 3429163, at * 1 ( T.T.A.B. June 2, 2020)

. Although Alfwear alleged consumers would likely confuse IBKÜL with four of Alfwear’s registered marks

, the Board considered confusion with respect to only one of those mark s, “KÜHL

. ” Id. at *8

. After the Board’s decision and while this appeal was pending, t he KÜHL mark was cancelled because Alfwear failed to file a declaration of use under 15 U.S.C. § 1058. Th e parties agree that canc ellation necessarily impacts the Board’s findings. Accordingly , we vacate and remand for the Board to reconsider its findings in light of the cancellation

. VACATED AND REMANDED

C OSTS

No costs. Case: 20-2120 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 10/13/2021
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

FORM OF RULE 13a-14(a)

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Fernando Sanchez, certify that:



1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ArthroCare Corporation;



2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;



3.    Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this annual report;



4.    The
registrants other certifying officer and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a)  Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; and



b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



5.    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and



b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal controls.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |                                                                   
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 12, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    FERNANDO SANCHEZ
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Fernando Sanchez Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
NAAQS and Other CAA 

Implementation Updates

Anna Marie Wood

Director, Air Quality Policy Division

Fall 2014

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standa
Exceptional Events
Exceptional Events Next Step

Revisions to the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule (EER)

◦ We anticipate proposing the EER revisions in mid‐2015 and

promulgating EER revisions in mid‐2016

◦ Schedule provides EER changes in advance of implementat

activities for any potential new or revised ozone NAAQS

Guidance to Support Data Exclusion Requests for Wildfir

Related Events that May Affect Ozone Concentrations

◦ Schedule anticipated to parallel EER revision effort

◦ Focus on demonstration components and the technical too

available to support EER criteria
Exceptional Events Rule Revisi

Possible Areas of Focus for Rule Revisions

◦ Clarify certain rule elements:

• High wind dust events

• Historical fluctuations• “Not reasonably controllable or preventable” criterion

• “But for”

◦ Clarify fire‐related terms and concepts

EPA recognizes that there are few readily‐available, c

effective tools that air agencies can use to support oz

related exceptional event demonstrations under theexisting EER.

◦ We intend to address this gap
Exceptional Events in Designations

Example Dates for a Potential 2015 Ozone NAAQS (under 

designations schedule)

◦ By December 1, 2014 – EPA proposes 2015 Ozone NAAQS◦ Mid‐2015 ‐ EPA proposes Exceptional Event Rule revisions/guidance◦ By October 1, 2015 – EPA promulgates 2015 Ozone NAAQS◦ Mid‐2016 ‐ EPA promulgates Exceptional Event Rule revisions/guida◦ October 2016 ‐ States/tribes submit area and boundary recommenda

2013‐2015 data

◦ June 2017 ‐ EPA notifies states/tribes re: any intended modifications 

recommendations (120‐day letters) based on 2014‐2016 data

◦ October 2017 ‐ EPA promulgates final ozone area designations

◦ Potential exceptional event schedule

Air Quality Data Collected for

Calendar Year

Event Flagging & Initial Description

Deadline

Detailed Documentation 

Deadline

2013 and 2014 July 2016 October 2016

2015 July 2016 October 20162016 May 2017 May 2017
Exceptional Events (cont.)

States continue to express concerns about EE demonstOngoing discussion with EPA Regions and states to det

best practices and lessons learned thus far – what work

and what could work better to address concerns for EE

demonstrations

◦ Are there opportunities to further standardize or “thin down” c

aspects of EE demonstrations?

◦ How can early and frequent coordination and communication, 

about regulatory significant, and templates be used to improve 

efficiency?

◦ Are there other process improvements or tools EPA and states 

consider?

Tools and approaches based on best practices and less

learned will be used to complement the EE Rule revisio
QUESTIONS OR COMMEN
#### § 3.23 Legal applicant.

The application shall be signed by the individual, partner or primary officer of a corporation who is legally able to obligate the entity for which he or she is a representative.
#### The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. SHAINOFF, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Shainoff*(1996), 117 Ohio St.3d 129.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

Nos. 70266 and 70267.

Decided Dec. 30, 1996.

*130
      *Stephanie Tubbs Jones,*Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Arthur Elkins,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Uche Mgbaraho,*for Appellant.

Patricia Ann Blackmon, Judge.

This appeal raises the issue whether attempted rape and attempted felonious sexual penetration are probationable. Probationable offenses are any offenses not specifically enumerated in R.C. 2951.02(F). R.C. 2951.02(F) in substance provides that probation shall not be given to repeat or dangerous offenders, or to those who are found guilty of aggravated murder or murder, offenses other than carrying a concealed weapon committed while the offender was armed with a firearm or dangerous ordnance, rape, felonious sexual penetration, or carrying a concealed weapon aboard an aircraft. Also, probation is not available to repeat offenders who have committed aggravated vehicular homicide or who have been sentenced to a term of actual incarceration.

Here Robert Shainoff appeals his conviction for three counts of attempted felonious sexual penetration, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and one count of attempted rape. Shainoff assigns the following error for our review:

“The trial court did not substantially comply with Crim.R. 11(C) when it accepted a guilty plea for the nonprobationable crimes of attempted felonious sexual penetration!,] attempted gross sexual imposition and attempted rape without informing the defendant that he was not eligible for probation, shock probation or shock parole.”

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, we affirm the trial court’s decision.

This court adopts the holding in *State v. Long*(1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 663, 589 N.E.2d 437 (attempted rape is probationable). Where a crime is not specifically mentioned in R.C. 2951.02(F), it is understood that the legislature intended to exclude that crime from consideration as nonprobationable *(expressio unius est exlcusio alterius).*Since attempted rape is not mentioned in the *131statute it is, therefore, probationable. Consequently, the trial court is not required to advise a defendant on eligibility for probation. It is required to inform the defendant only on ineligibility for probation. *State v. Floyd*(Oct. 13, 1993), Scioto App. No. 92CA2102, unreported, 1993 WL 415287.

Accordingly, the trial court did not err, and Shainoffs assignment of error is overruled.

*Judgment affirmed.*

James D. Sweeney, P.J., and Karpinski, J., concur.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            College of Information and Cyberspace
                    National Defense University
                CIC
        Search
                    Search CIC:
                        Search
                Search CIC:
                    Search
    Home

    About 
        Mission & Vision

    Faculty & Staff

    Fact Sheet

    Alumni

    Internships

    FAQ

    Admissions 
        Eligibility Requirements

    Admissions Calendar

    Application Instructions

    Apply Online

    International Students

    Academics 
        Graduate Catalog

    M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies
        
        JPME Master's Degree

    Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time)

    Leadership Development Programs

    Graduate Certificates

    Academic Partners

    Current Students 
        JPME II  Incoming Students

    LDP Incoming Students

    Student Registration

    Bring Your Own Device

    IA Compliance

    Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts

    Student Services and Resources

    Events
    
        Cyber Beacon

    Cyber PME Colloquium

    Hopper Award

    Lecture Series

    CYBERCOM Symposium

    NEWS

    UC2
    
        About

    Events

    Work With Us

    Center for Cybersecurity
    
        About

    Cybersecurity Center POC

    Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty

    CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program

    Cybersecurity Trending News

    Cyber Labs
        
        Ethical Hacking

    Critical Infrastructure - SCADA

    Cyber Exercises
        
        Tabletop Exercise

    Cyber Competitions

    Cyber Resources and Awareness

    Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council

    Contact 
        Contact Us

    Directions

    Access to Ft. McNair

    Map of Ft. McNair  Home
  NEWS
  News & Announcements
 News & Announcements News
 iCollege Courses Listed in NICCS Training Catalog By Patricia Coopersmith
 critical infrastructure st    http://niccs.us-cert.gov/training/tc
 SHARE
 PRINT
 National Defense University


College of Information and Cyberspace

300 Fifth Ave., Bldg. 62
Fort Lesley J. McNair
Washington, DC 20319-5066

202-685-6300
                    Stay Connected
                
                
                DOD Privacy & Security
 DOD Links Disclaimer
 DOD Social Media Policy
 DOD Web Policy
 FOIA
 NDU System of Records Notice
 NDU Privacy & Security Notice
 No FEAR Act
 Open GOV
 Plain Writing Act
 Section 508
 Small Business Act
 USA.gov
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### § 51.601 Scope of resale rules.

The provisions of this subpart govern the terms and conditions under which LECs offer telecommunications services to requesting telecommunications carriers for resale.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
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 Angel Acquisition Corp., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Steve Bonenberger, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to 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) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.
    ANGEL ACQUISITION
CORP.
  Dated:
November
4, 2008                                 /s/ Steve
Bonenberger
  By: Steve Bonenberger, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director