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":"19-1141: AMERANTH, INC. v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"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=\"51mJcCGHy8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-01-2019-19-1141-ameranth-inc-v-dominos-pizza-llc-opinion-nonprecedential-19-1141-opinion-11-1-2019\/\">19-1141: AMERANTH, INC. v. DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-01-2019-19-1141-ameranth-inc-v-dominos-pizza-llc-opinion-nonprecedential-19-1141-opinion-11-1-2019\/embed\/#?secret=51mJcCGHy8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“19-1141: AMERANTH, INC. v. DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"51mJcCGHy8\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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: AMERANTH, INC. v. DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 19-1141 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 109-39.107 Limited exemptions.

The Office of Management and Program Secretarial Officer (PSO) for their respective organizations shall seek limited exemptions from the fleet management system.
{"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":"22-1042: In Re ADVANCED NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"AitjV3q4oS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-13-2022-22-1042-in-re-advanced-nutritional-supplements-rule-36-judgment-22-1042-rule_36_judgment-6-13-2022_1964218\/\">22-1042: In Re ADVANCED NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-13-2022-22-1042-in-re-advanced-nutritional-supplements-rule-36-judgment-22-1042-rule_36_judgment-6-13-2022_1964218\/embed\/#?secret=AitjV3q4oS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1042: In Re ADVANCED NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"AitjV3q4oS\" 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":"RULE 36 JUDGMENT Posted: In Re ADVANCED NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1042 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-9645.

#### Doyle *v.*Law, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 202.0 Objectives. ( a ) During, or in anticipation of, a non-wartime emergency or natural disaster, a telecommunications capacity must exist to provide temporary telecommunications service to State and local government officials and other persons deemed appropriate by the President.
( b ) In the event of a general war and attack upon the Nation, a national telecommunications capability must exist that will support telecommunications requirements with respect to national security, survival and recovery. The development of survivable telecommunications to support essential functions (including an emergency broadcasting system), and technical compatibility of signaling methods, transmission modes, switching facilities, and terminal devices to permit exchange of communications over the surviving media of all systems, government or commercial, are crucial elements of such a national capability. In addition, a survivable national telecommunications management structure is necessary to manage initiation, coordination and restoration of telecommunications services. The management structure must include the following: ( 1 ) Legal authority for telecommunications management.
( 2 ) A control mechanism to manage the initiation, coordination and restoration of telecommunications services.
( 3 ) Procedures to ensure timely damage assessment and allocation of residual resources and controlled restoration of services based on national policy/direction.
( 4 ) The capability to execute a telecommunications recovery plan based on national policy/guidance.
( c ) Notwithstanding any provision regarding NS/EP Planning and Execution, nothing in this part shall be deemed to affect the authorities or responsibilities of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or any Office or official thereof; or reassign any function assigned any agency under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, or under any other law, or any function vested by law in the Federal Communications Commission.
lnventoryExpertService 

-- 

A dlvision of the AmerIcan Chemical Socioty Phone: 800-631-1884, 614-447-3870 

Fax: 614-447-3747 

E-rnail: answersQcas.org 

Web: www.cas.org/products/other-cas-products/client-services! 

IN'VENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT 

IES Order Number: 376784-1 

Registry Number.: 1539128-27-2 

CA Yndex Naine: 

Phenol, styrenated, reaction product;s with polyethylene glycol and 2-[(2-propen 

-1-yloxy) me thyll oxirane 

Please print the above CA Index Name on the appropriate page ofyour PMN. 

❑

if this box is checked, CAS has made correction(s) marked in red to your IES order. 

Please make the same corrections to your PMN before submitting it to the EPA. 

CAS - 2540 Olentangy River Road - P.O. Box 3343 - Columbus, OH 43210-0334 - USA
**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 Palomar Enterprises Inc., a Nevada
      corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
      30, 2006, 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.






Dated:
      November 10, 2006




/s/
      Steve
      Bonenberger


By:
      Steve
      Bonenberger, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
§ 22.705 Rural radiotelephone system configuration. Stations in the Rural Radiotelephone Service are authorized to communicate as follows: ( a ) Rural subscriber stations are authorized to communicate with and through the central office station(s) with which they are associated. However, where the establishment of a central office station in this service is not feasible, rural subscriber stations may be authorized to communicate with and through a base station in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service.
( b ) Central office stations may communicate only with rural subscriber stations.
( c ) Interoffice stations may communicate only with other interoffice stations.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00197-CR

Paul Lee Navarro

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2016-DCR-01237-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 12, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,337
<INVENTORY>                                      4,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,402
<PP&E>                                          46,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,573
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          316,163
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,170
<OTHER-SE>                                    (241,808)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,525
<SALES>                                         33,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,054
<CGS>                                           23,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15,176)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15,176)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,176)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. 11-5106.

#### Jones *v.*Camden Police Department et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4322

To amend the Small Business Act to increase the authorization for the

development company program, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 2, 1994

Mr. LAFALCE (for himself and Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

A BILL

To amend the Small Business Act to increase the authorization for the development company program, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 Section 20(i)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act (15

4 U.S.C. 631(i)(2)(C)) is amended by striking

5 ‘‘$1,200,000,000’’ and by inserting in lieu thereof

6 ‘‘$1,500,000,000’’.

Æ
#### § 22.951 [Reserved]
No. 11-5270.

#### Hatch *v.*Parker, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5412.

#### Blackwell *v.*Colorado.

Ct. App. Colo. Cer-tiorari denied.
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

1. The accompanying annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: November 18, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/    David Fitzgerald                               
|                        |  |     |  | David Fitzgerald President and Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before of
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4617

To amend the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies

and Open Markets Support Act of 1992 to repeal the restriction on

assistance to Azerbaijan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 21, 1994

Mr. PENNY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian

Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992

to repeal the restriction on assistance to Azerbaijan.

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 ‘‘Freedom Support

5 Amendment Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds that—

8 (1) since 1991, tens of thousands of ethnic Ar9 menians and Azeris have died as a result of a con-
2

•HR 4617 IH

1 flict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which had

2 been a part of Azerbaijan since 1923;

3 (2) the United Nations estimates that there are

4 currently over 1,000,000 refugees in Azerbaijan;

5 (3) 85 percent of the people of Azerbaijan cur6 rently live in poverty;

7 (4) ethnic Armenian forces currently control the

8 Nagorno-Karabakh region, as well as 25 percent of

9 Azerbaijan;

10 (5) Armenia is currently preventing trade from

11 reaching Nakhichevan, a part of Azerbaijan which is

12 separated from the rest of the country by Armenian

13 territory;

14 (6) in 1993, the United Nations Security Coun15 cil condemned offensive military action by ethnic Ar16 menian forces outside of the Nagorno-Karabakh re17 gion through Resolutions 822, 853, 874, and 884;

18 (7) in 1992, the Congress passed the Freedom

19 for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and

20 Open Markets Support Act of 1992 to provide as21 sistance to the independent states of the former So22 viet Union;

23 (8) section 907 of such Act prohibits all United

24 States assistance, including humanitarian and medi25 cal assistance, to the Government of Azerbaijan be-
3

•HR 4617 IH

1 cause that Government had cut off trade and taken

2 other offensive uses of force against ethnic Arme3 nians in the Nagorno-Karabakh region in the early

4 1990s; and

5 (9) since the passage of such Act, the military

6 and humanitarian situation in Armenia and Azer7 baijan has changed considerably and aggressive ac8 tivities are no longer limited to one side or the other

9 in this conflict.

10 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE TO AZER11 BAIJAN.

12 (a) REPEAL.—Section 907 of the Freedom for Russia

13 and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets

14 Support Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5812 note; relating to

15 the restriction on assistance to Azerbaijan) is hereby

16 repealed.

17 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con18 tents in section 2 of such Act is amended by striking the

19 item relating to section 907.

Æ
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 First Community Bank Corporation of America (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kenneth P. Cherven, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  |                                  
|----- |  | ----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------
|Date: |  | November 15, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth P. Cherven           
|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  | Kenneth P. Cherven, President and
|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
656 A.2d 436

#### JANIS G. SCHULMEISTERS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. VIZBULITE I. SCHULMEISTERS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued January 31, 1994

Decided March 11, 1994.

Before Judges LEVY and BILDER.

*Jams G. Schulmeisters, pro se*argued the cause for appellant.

*Lisa M. DeGenova*argued the cause for respondent *(Jeffrey F. Dragon & Associates,*P.A, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has advised the court that this appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
NEMA Proposal for Efficiency Levels for Medium-Voltage Dry Type Transformers 

Design Line NEMA 

DL 9 (3 ph, 15 - 750 KvA, 20-45 kV BIL) 1.5 initially/no new proposal in 12/14 telcon 

DL 10 (3 ph, 750-2500 KvA, 20-45 kV BIL) 2.0 initially/no new proposal in 12/14 telcon 

DL 11 (3 ph, 15 – 750 KvA, 46 –95 kV BIL) 2.0 initially/no new proposal in 12/14 telcon 

DL 12 (3 ph, 750-2500 KvA, 46-95 kV BIL) 3.0 initially but agreed to 2.0 in 12/14 telcon 

DL 13 (3 ph, 225 – 2500 KvA, > 95 kV BIL) 10 % more losses than DL 12 equivalent 

EC 5 (1 ph, 15 - 833 KvA, 20-45 kV BIL) Increase allowable loss by 30% compared to 3 ph 

equivalent 

EC 7 (1 ph, 15 - 833 KvA, 46–95 kV BIL) Increase allowable loss by 30% compared to 3 ph 

equivalent 

EC 9 (1 ph, 75 – 833 KvA, > 95 kV BIL) Increase allowable loss by 30% compared to 3 ph 

equivalent 

Advocates agreed to 2.0 for DL 12 with “appropriate adjustments” for other design lines.