alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Arezu Sarvestani","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/asarvest\/","title":"NASA\u2019s Honey Astrobee Robot Returns to Space","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pL8krWArd2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/iss-research\/honey-astrobee-returns-space\/\">NASA\u2019s Honey Astrobee Robot Returns to Space<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/iss-research\/honey-astrobee-returns-space\/embed\/#?secret=pL8krWArd2\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s Honey Astrobee Robot Returns to Space” — NASA\" data-secret=\"pL8krWArd2\" 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","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/astrobee-1.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
1 United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2111

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Dennell Malone, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 19, 2009 Filed: October 27, 2009

___________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
The district court 1 originally sentenced Dennell R. Malone to the applicable Guidelines range of life imprisonment (with a consecutive 60-month sentence for a firearm count). After Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the court resentenced Malone to 360 months imprisonment (with a consecutive 60-month sentence for the firearm count), the bottom of his recalculated Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).-2- Malone appeals, arguing that the districtcourt should be allowed to resentence him below the Guidelines range . This court has previously rejected this argument. See United States v. Starks , 551 F.3d 839, 841-43 (8th Cir. 2009) (resentencing under section 3582(c)(2) is more na rrow in scope than original sentencing proceedings; the limitation that resentencing courts “must not reduce the sentence of a defendant who was originally sentenced within the applicab le guideline range to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range” is “constitutional and enforceable”) (internal citations omitted); United States v. Harris , 556 F.3d 887, 888 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) ( Starks forecloses the argument thatthe district court has authority to sentence him below the Gu idelines range in a section 3582(c)(2) resentencing); United States v. Murphy , 578 F.3d 719, 720-21 (8th Cir. 2009) (same, holding that there is no conflict between Starks and United States v. Mihm , 134 F.3d 1353 (8th Cir. 1998)).
The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Dual-mode Propulsion System Enabling CubeSat Exploration of the Solar System","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"LYSIsvAVk0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/small-satellite-missions\/dual-mode-propulsion-system-enabling-cubesat-exploration-of-the-solar-system\/\">Dual-mode Propulsion System Enabling CubeSat Exploration of the Solar System<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/small-satellite-missions\/dual-mode-propulsion-system-enabling-cubesat-exploration-of-the-solar-system\/embed\/#?secret=LYSIsvAVk0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Dual-mode Propulsion System Enabling CubeSat Exploration of the Solar System” — NASA\" data-secret=\"LYSIsvAVk0\" 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","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/07\/2013-jerred.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":594}
Case 2:16-mj-01001-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01001-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01001-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25131]


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

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Chapter VI


Farm Credit Administration Board Policy Statements

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION: Notice of policy statements and index.

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

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration (FCA), as part of its annual 
public notification process, is publishing for notice an index of the 
18 Board policy statements currently in existence. Most of the policy 
statements remain unchanged since our last Federal Register notice on 
October 24, 2013 (78 FR 63380), except for one with minor updates on 
Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity.

DATES: October 22, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to Board, 
Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean Virginia 
22102-5090, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056; or Wendy R. Laguarda, 
Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit 
Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean Virginia 22102-5090, 
(703) 883-4020, TTY (703) 883-4020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A list of the 18 FCA Board policy statements 
is set forth below. FCA Board policy statements may be viewed online at 
www.fca.gov/handbook.nsf.
    On August 20, 2014, the FCA Board reaffirmed, and made minor 
updates only, to FCA-PS-62 on, ``Equal Employment Opportunity and 
Diversity.'' The changes were grammatical in nature.
    The policy was published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2014 
(79 FR 50908). The FCA will continue to publish new or revised policy 
statements in their full text.

FCA Board Policy Statements

FCA-PS-34 Disclosure of the Issuance and Termination of Enforcement 
Documents
FCA-PS-37 Communications During Rulemaking
FCA-PS-41 Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution
FCA-PS-44 Travel
FCA-PS-53 Examination Philosophy
FCA-PS-59 Regulatory Philosophy
FCA-PS-62 Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity
FCA-PS-64 Rules for the Transaction of Business of the Farm Credit 
Administration Board
FCA-PS-65 Release of Consolidated Reporting System Information
FCA-PS-67 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Agency 
Programs and Activities
FCA-PS-68 FCS Building Association Management Operations Policies and 
Practices
FCA-PS-71 Disaster Relief Efforts by Farm Credit Institutions
FCA-PS-72 Financial Institution Rating System (FIRS)
FCA-PS-77 Borrower Privacy
FCA-PS-78 Official Names of Farm Credit Institutions
FCA-PS-79 Consideration and Referral of Supervisory Strategies and 
Enforcement Actions
FCA-PS-80 Cooperative Operating Philosophy--Serving the Members of Farm 
Credit System Institutions
FCA-PS-81 Ethics, Independence, Arm's-Length Role, Ex Parte 
Communications and Open Government

    Dated: October 16, 2014.
Dale L. Aultman,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-25131 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karen Shanks,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03946-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8493 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 1
#### John Sawtell *v.*W. R. English, &c.

Boundaries — Division Line — Agreed Division.

A compromise line, used by both claimants, held, best evidence of boundary.

APPEAL EROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

February 22, 1870.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Eobertson :

Denton Geohagen, owning a large tract of land, brought from Thomas Lewis one hundred acres adjoining thereto, and Benjamin Singleton, owning another neighboring tract, also bought from Lewis the same tract. Each party having improved different portions of the 100 acres, to compromise the conflict of title, they agreed in writing, in 1835, to divide that tract between them by a convenient line, each conceding the right to the portion then allotted to the other. The written memorial of compromise, in defining the division line, calls to run, from one of the points to another, north 72 degrees west, and this is the line from E. to G. as degisnated on the plat, page 76, of the record, and it alloted to D. Geohagen the triangle E. G. E., as shown on the same plat, containing about 16 acres, the principal subject of this controversy, the appellee claiming that E. E. and not E. G. is the true compromise line, and that S. 85 W., instead of N. 72 W., was the true course.

The writing itself, sufficient proof without other evidence, is corroborated by the fact that each party has improved and occupied correspondingly with the line and course described in the writing.

In afterwards conveying *mil that he owned*to his son, Thomas, Denton Geohagen called for the wrong line which would not include the triangle, and Thomas Geohagen’s conveyance of all he got from his father recites the same line. But the written compromise and the confirmatory occupancy and improving sufficiently show the mistake.

We are satisfied that the line N. 72 W. from E. to G. is the *542true compromise line and that neither the appellee nor his vendor, Singleton, ever had title to, or improved, or occupied any portion of the triangle, and that it rightfully belongs, by both grant and occupancy, to the appellant.

*Wintersmith, for appellant.*

*Gofer, for appellees.*

The circuit court, therefore, erred in adjudging it to the appellee.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to adjudge to the appellant the 16 acres included in the triangle and also $32 for difference in exchange of lands between the parties.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wilma Johnson-Yancy,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03654-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 11/14/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9238 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Andrew Potter et al. *v*Jacob Rams.

Duress — Question of Fact.

The question of duress is a fact within the peculiar province of the jury to determine from the evidence and circumstances before them.

Pleading — When Answer of One Defendant Not the Answer of All.

The joint answer of- all defendants to an action, sufficient as a plea of duress on the part of one of said defendants, does not present that defense as a bar to the action as against the other defendants who seek to avoid an obligation on the ground of a false representations of plaintiff in the procurement of their signature to a note.

APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT.

September 13, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin :

The joint answer of the appellants, if sufficient as a plea of duress on the part of the appellant, Andrew Potter, does not pre*68sent that defense as a bar to the action as against the other defendants, Ratliffe and Ranny, who seek to avoid the note only on the ground that they,

Bowles, *for appellants.*

> “relying on the false representations of plaintiff, signed the note sued on as sureties of their co-defendant, Potter, and for no other consideration whatever.”

If this defense was sufficiently pleaded it is not sustained by any such preponderating evidence as to authorize this court to disturb the verdict as to 'Ratliffe and Ranny, on the ground of an improper finding of the jury. Nor do we feel authorized to reverse the judgment on that ground as to Potter. Although the evidence strongly indicates an intention on the part of the appellee, upon meeting Potter before the note was given, to compel him to execute it or pay the amount, by force, it does not appear that Potter was under duress when he gave the note. Whether such was the case or not, it was the peculiar province of the jury to determine, from all the facts and circumstances of the case before them, and we cannot say, from the evidence in this record, that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence;

No objection seems to have been taken to the instructions given by the court.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSE FUENTES.

September 25, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7587

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GERALD FELTON, a/k/a Big Mass,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CR-93-123-F)

Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Felton, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Even if Appellant's motion for reduction of sentence were

construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, which has a sixty-day appeal period, the

notice of appeal was untimely.

2

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Felton filed an untimely notice of appeal from the

district court's denial of his motion for reduction of sentence. We

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing

notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods

are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Criminal defendants have ten

days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal

from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).* The only

exception to the appeal period is when the district court extends

the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) upon a showing of

excusable neglect.

The district court entered its order on March 20, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 11, 1996. Appellant's

failure to obtain an extension within the prescribed time frame

leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of

Appellant's appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.1


        CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ambient Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, John J. Joyce, Chief Executive
Officer (and Principal Financial Officer) 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 Company's 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


August 14, 2002                       /s/ John J. Joyce
                                      ---------------------------------
                                      John J. Joyce
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      (and Principal Financial Officer)
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Matthew Hoyt Walker, 

Defendant.

No. CR15-08211-001-PCT-DMF

ORDER 

 The defendant appeared in court with counsel. The defendant's probable cause 

hearing was waived and the detention hearing was held on the record. The Court finds 

probable cause to believe the defendant violated the terms of his supervised release as 

alleged in the petition. The Court further finds, pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), that 

defendant has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk 

or a danger. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the defendant shall be bound over for further 

proceedings on the petition to revoke his supervised release. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the defendant is detained as flight risk and danger, 

pending further revocation proceedings. 

 Dated this 18th day of August, 2016. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cr-08211-DMF Document 33 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:15-mj-01967-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/31/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01967-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/31/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01967-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/31/15 Page 3 of 3