alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"National Shipper Advisory Committee Holding May 11, 2023 Meeting","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Kj18zo049A\"><a href=\"\/national-shipper-advisory-committee-holding-meeting-may2023\/\">National Shipper Advisory Committee Holding May 11, 2023 Meeting<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/national-shipper-advisory-committee-holding-meeting-may2023\/embed\/#?secret=Kj18zo049A\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“National Shipper Advisory Committee Holding May 11, 2023 Meeting” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"Kj18zo049A\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"David Eng","title":"International Moving Checklist - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QGYp56J2oX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/about\/bureaus-offices\/consumer-affairs-dispute-resolution-services\/international-moving-checklist\/\">International Moving Checklist<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/about\/bureaus-offices\/consumer-affairs-dispute-resolution-services\/international-moving-checklist\/embed\/#?secret=QGYp56J2oX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“International Moving Checklist” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"QGYp56J2oX\" 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.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Saturday, March 28th: FMC Applications and Databases Unavailable","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wt13mQmQEs\"><a href=\"\/saturday-march-28th-fmc-applications-and-databases-unavailable\/\">Saturday, March 28th: FMC Applications and Databases Unavailable<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/saturday-march-28th-fmc-applications-and-databases-unavailable\/embed\/#?secret=wt13mQmQEs\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Saturday, March 28th: FMC Applications and Databases Unavailable” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"wt13mQmQEs\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JULY 7, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-11150

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00301-CV-BBM-1

MICHAEL P. MURPHY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHELLE MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants,

OFFICER JOHNS,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

 (July 7, 2006)

Before DUBINA, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Michael P. Murphy appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment

to Officer Courtney Johns in Murphy’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Murphy asserts

the district court erred in: (1) holding he had not exhausted his remedies under the

Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); (2) concluding an action

cannot be brought under § 1983 for violations of civil rights that are defined as

“torture” under 18 U.S.C. § 2340A; and (3) declining to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over his remaining state law claims. After a de novo review of the

parties’ arguments and the record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district

court’s well-reasoned February 13, 2006, Order granting Johns’ motion for

summary judgment. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION



I, David Natan, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of SFBC International, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))  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 report is being prepared;

(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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the 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 control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

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



Date: August 3, 2004



/s/ David Natan

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Alaska Communications Systems
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September
30, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Liane Pelletier Chief Executive Officer and
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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.

Date:  December 10, 2003            /s/ Liane Pelletier
                                    ---------------------------
                                    Liane Pelletier
                                    Chief Executive Officer and President
                                    Alaska Communications Systems Holdings, Inc.
#### Mark Dewayne PORTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jean HILL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-35524.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Mark Dewayne Porter, Ontario, OR, pro se.

Linda Wicks, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.

*286MEMORANDUM **

Mark Dewayne Porter, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his legal mail was opened outside his presence in violation of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Bahrampour v. Lampert,*356 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, *San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill,*360 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Defendants were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because the law concerning the opening of prisoners’ legal mail outside their presence was not clearly established at the time the alleged violations occurred. *See Pearson v. Callahan,*555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 822, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (concluding that state officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law); *Sherman v. MacDougall,*656 F.2d 527, 528 (9th Cir.1981) (reserving issue of whether there is a constitutional violation where a prison official opens a prisoner’s legal mail outside the prisoner’s presence).

Porter’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Porter’s “Motion for Stay of Obayence” [sic] is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

                   EXHIBIT 32.1 -- SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Richard L. Wambold, certify that:

     (1) the Form 10-Q of Pactiv Corporation for the period ended June 30, 2005
         (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of sec.13(a) or
         sec.15(d) 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
         Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended.

                                          /s/ RICHARD L. WAMBOLD
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Richard L. Wambold
                                          Chairman, President, and Chief
                                          Executive Officer

Date: August 15, 2005

     This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64959-64960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30947]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

AGENCY: Advisory Group on Electron Devices, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Working Group C (Electro-Optics) of the DoD Advisory Group on 
Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900, Wednesday, January 30, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research 
Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elise Rabin, AGED Secretariat, 1745 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, 
Virginia 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

[[Page 64960]]

Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering 
(DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and 
managing an effective and economical research and development program 
in the area of electron devices.
    The Working Group C meeting will be limited to review of research 
and development programs which the Military Departments propose to 
initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. This 
opto-electronic device area includes such programs as imaging device, 
infrared detectors and lasers. The review will include details of 
classified defense programs throughout.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, (5 
U.S.C. App. sec. 10(d)), it has been determined that this Advisory 
Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that 
accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: December 10, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-30947 Filed 12-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-00-M
85 A.3d 466

#### William MAYS, Petitioner v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA; Honorable Judge Sandy L.V. Byrd; President Judge of the Court, Respondents.

No. 190 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 5, 2014.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 2014, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, treated as an Application for Relief, are GRANTED. Appointed counsel has failed to represent Petitioner in the absence of a court order granting him leave to withdraw as counsel, thereby compromising Petitioner’s appellate rights. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is directed to appoint new counsel to Petitioner within 14 days of this order. The trial court shall provide notice of the appointment order to this Court within 5 days of issuing that order.

The Prothonotary is directed to provide notice of this Court’s order to the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and Anthony J. Voci, Esquire. The Prothonotary is also directed to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
758 S.E.2d 716

#### ALLEGRO, INC., Respondent-Petitioner, v. Emmett J. SCULLY, Synergetic, Inc., George C. Corbin, and Yvonne Yarborough, Petitioners-Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213386.

No. 27391.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted May 20, 2014.

Decided May 28, 2014.

*201Robert L. Widener and Richard J. Morgan, both of McNair Law Firm, of Columbia, for Respondent-Petitioner.

Amy L. Gaffney, of Gaffney Lewis & Edwards, LLC, C. Mitchell Brown, William C. Wood, and Brian P. Crotty, all of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Columbia, for Petitioners-Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner-respondent (Defendants) and respondent-petitioner (Allegro) each seek a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision in *Allegro, Inc. v. Scully,*400 S.C. 33, 733 S.E.2d 114 (Ct.App.2012). We deny Allegro’s petition, grant Defendants’ petition, dispense with further briefing, and remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration in accordance with this opinion.

Defendants argue the Court of Appeals erred in failing to address their claims that the trial judge erred in denying their motions for directed verdict and JNOV. We agree.

“The appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, decision or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in the Record on Appeal.” Rule 220(c), SCACR. An appellate court need not address remaining issues when disposition of a prior issue is dispositive. *Earthscapes Unlimited, Inc. v. Ulbrich,*390 S.C. 609, 617, 703 S.E.2d 221, 225 (2010); *see also Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.*335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999).

The Court of Appeals’ decision reversed and remanded this case for a new trial based on the trial judge’s decision to admit a temporary injunction order into evidence. However, relying on *Futch, supra,*the Court of Appeals declined to address Defendants’ claims that the trial judge erred in denying their motions for directed verdict and JNOV. Defendants argue the Court of Appeals’ disposition of the new trial issue was not dispositive of their directed verdict and JNOV arguments, and therefore, the Court of Appeals should have addressed the arguments before remanding for a new trial.

We find the Court of Appeals should have addressed whether the trial judge erred in denying Defendants’ directed verdict and JNOV motions. The Court of Appeals’ decision to *202reverse and remand for a new trial based on the admission of the temporary injunction order did not dispose of any parties or causes of action that could have been eliminated by a decision on the trial judge’s denial of Defendants’ motions. Therefore, *Futch, supra,*did not apply because the Court of Appeals’ disposition of the new trial issues did not dispose of the directed verdict and JNOY issues.

Accordingly, this matter is hereby REMANDED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.