alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276 • (217) 782-2829 

james R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph, Suite 11-300, Chicago, IL 60601 • (312) 814-6026 

PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR 

March 22, 2011 

Ms. Susan Hedman 

Regional Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Mail Code RA-191 

Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590 

Dear Ms. Hedman: 

The purpose ofthis letter is to convey the support ofIllinois regarding the listing ofthe BautschGray Mine Site, located in Galena, Illinois, on the National Priorities List. 

The State ofIllinois' evaluation ofthe Bautsch-Gray Mine Site shows that past disposal practices 

have resulted in uncontrolled releases ofhazardous substances to the environment that pose 

unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. 

The State ofIllinois supports the inclusion of the Bautsch-Gray Mine Site in the next proposed 

update to the National Priorities List. 

Interim Director 

R.ECEIVE.:C· 

MAR 24 2011 

~.... ................ 


OfFICE OF REGJQ;I,\L ADMINIST;v1W: 

Rockford • 4302 N. Main St., Rockford, ll61103 • (815) 987·7760 Des Plaines • 9511 W. Harrison St., Des Plaines, ll60016 • (847) 294-4000 

Elgin • 595 S. State, Elgin, ll 60123 • (847) 608-3131 Peoria• 5415 N. University St., Peoria, ll61614 • (309) 693-5463 

Bureau of land- Peoria • 7620 N. University St., Peoria, ll61614 • (309) 693·5462 Champaign • 2125 S. First St., Champaign, ll61820 • (217) 278-5800 

Collinsville •.2009 Mall Street Collinsville, ll62234 • (618) 346-5120 Marion • 2309 W. Main St., Suite 116, Marion, ll62959 • (618) 993-7200 

Printed on Recycled Paper
{"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":"Federal & Local Rules of Appellate Procedure - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"s4AkpFOLBm\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/rules-procedures-forms\/federal-local-rules-of-appellate-procedure\/\">Federal & Local Rules of Appellate Procedure<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/rules-procedures-forms\/federal-local-rules-of-appellate-procedure\/embed\/#?secret=s4AkpFOLBm\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Federal & Local Rules of Appellate Procedure” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"s4AkpFOLBm\" 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":"The Federal Circuit adopts various rules and directions for parties, litigants, and counsel to regulate practice before this court.  See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2071; Fed. R. App. P. 47; Fed. Cir. R. 47. These rules are codified in the Federal Circuit’s Rules of Practice (available below).  The Clerk’s Office issues a new edition of the Rules of [...]"}
(1975) 

Volume 1 of 3, Part C 

IV. COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND FILINGS OF 

THE PARTIES LEADING UP TO THE SEPTEMBER EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS 

a. Filings regarding Witnesses and Subpoenas 
1976 
1977 
1978 
1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 
1983 
1984 
1985 
1986 
1987 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
1996
Exhibit








AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO GOOGLE SERVICES AGREEMENT 


This Amendment Number One to the Google Services Agreement (“Amendment”), effective as of February 1, 2017 (“Amendment Effective Date”), is between Vertro, Inc. (“Company”) and Google Inc. (“Google”) and amends the Google Services Agreement that has an effective date of February 1, 2015, as amended (“Agreement”).  Capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment have the meanings given to those terms in the Agreement.  The parties agree as follows:


1.1-Month Extension.  The term set forth on the cover page of the Agreement is extended through February 28, 2017.


2.General.  The parties may execute this Amendment in counterparts, including facsimile, PDF, or other electronic copies, which taken together will constitute one instrument.  Except as expressly modified herein, the terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the Amendment Effective Date by persons duly authorized.


	
		
	GOOGLE
	COMPANY

	 
	 

	By:       ______________________________
	By:   ______________________________

	Name:  ______________________________
	Name:   ______________________________

	Title:    ______________________________
	Title:   ______________________________

	Date:    ______________________________
	Date:   ______________________________










 




Page 1 of 1 – Confidential
Amendment Number One
{"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":"20-1131: MINNS v. WILKIE [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=\"vKwfwk9mJc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-20-2020-20-1131-minns-v-wilkie-opinion-20-1131-opinion-11-20-2020_1688938\/\">20-1131: MINNS v. WILKIE [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-20-2020-20-1131-minns-v-wilkie-opinion-20-1131-opinion-11-20-2020_1688938\/embed\/#?secret=vKwfwk9mJc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1131: MINNS v. WILKIE [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"vKwfwk9mJc\" 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: MINNS v. WILKIE [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1131 Origin: CAVC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON :

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

61–911 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 111–691 

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL COMMITTEE 

ON THE ARTICLES AGAINST 

JUDGE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR. 

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL 

COMMITTEE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST JUDGE G. THOMAS 

PORTEOUS, JR., A JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 

November 16, 2010 

Volume 2 of 3, Part B 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 
ii

IMPEACHMENT TRIAL COMMITTEE ON THE ARTICLES 

AGAINST JUDGE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR. 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri, Chairman

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Vice Chairman 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

COMMITTEE STAFF 

DERRON R. PARKS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

THOMAS L. JIPPING, Deputy Staff Director and Deputy Chief Counsel 

JUSTIN KIM, Counsel

REBECCA S. SEIDEL, Counsel

ERIN P. JOHNSON, Deputy Counsel and Chief Clerk 

LAKE DISHMAN, Professional Staff Member 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE STAFF 

SUSAN NAVARRO SMELCER, Analyst on the Federal Judiciary 

SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL STAFF 

MORGAN J. FRANKEL, Senate Legal Counsel 

PATRICIA MACK BRYAN, Deputy Senate Legal Counsel 

GRANT R. VINIK, Assistant Senate Legal Counsel 

THOMAS E. CABALLERO, Assistant Senate Legal Counsel 
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Committee gratefully acknowledges the high standard of professionalism and 

long hours of dedicated service of its staff. The Committee also expresses its appreciation to Lynden C. Armstrong, Chief Clerk of the Committee on Rules and Administration, and to the following staff of Committee members: 

STAFF OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Senator MCCASKILL, Chairman, Derron R. Parks 

Senator HATCH, Vice Chairman, Thomas L. Jipping 

Senator KLOBUCHAR, Paige Herwig 

Senator WHITEHOUSE, Stephen C. N. Lilley and Justin G. Florence 

Senator UDALL, Matthew T. Nelson 

Senator SHAHEEN, Thomas J. Maloney 

Senator KAUFMAN, Nhan Nguyen 

Senator DEMINT, Erica Suares 

Senator BARRASSO, Bryn Stewart 

Senator WICKER, Emily Ferris 

Senator JOHANNS, Sarah Novascone 

Senator RISCH, Jason Bohrer 

INTERNS

Christian Dibblee 

Timothy Holman 

Hannah Lockhart 

Annie Moulton 

Michael Naclerio 

Patrick Sadler
Proposed Amendments to the Federal Circuit Rules

Fed. Cir. R. 47.4 – Certificate of Interest

Revise Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a):

(5) The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this or 

any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by 

this court’s decision in the pending appeal. 

Fed. Cir. R. 47.5 – Statement of Related Cases

Revise Fed. Cir. R. 47.5:

Each principal brief and certificate of interest must contain a statement of related 

cases indicating:

* * *

(b) the title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this or 

any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected by 

this court’s decision in the pending appeal. If there are many related cases, 

they may be described generally, but the title and case number must be given 

for any case known to be pending in the Supreme Court, this court, or any 

other circuit court of appeals.

July 2017
#### Bryan Dale OSBORNE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. K. COLEMAN, Corporal, Defendant—Appellee, and Counselor Sykes; Frank Roach, Housing Unit-8 Manager; R. Parker, Sergeant, Internal Affairs; Carabella-Fernandez, Housing Unit-3 Manager; Others Unknown, Defendants.

No. 03-7846.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Bryan Dale Osborne, Appellant pro se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Pamela Anne Sar-geant, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*31Bryan Dale Osborne appeals the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment to Defendants and the district court’s subsequent order entering judgment for Defendants in accordance with the jury’s verdict on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. *See Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc.,*207 F.3d 717, 722 (4th Cir.2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no material issues of fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); *Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv. Co.,*80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir.1996). In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must produce competent evidence sufficient to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. *See Greensboro Prof’l Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Greensboro,*64 F.3d 962, 967 (4th Cir.1995). Our review of the record convinces us that the district court properly granted partial summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Osborne v. Coleman,*No. CA-00-801 (E.D.Va. Sept. 10, 2002).

Osborne asserts several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. As there is no constitutional right to counsel for civil litigation, however, we do not consider these claims. Finally, the record indicates that the parties’ versions of events were contradictory. We will not disturb the jury’s credibility determination in favor of the Defendant, nor will we weigh the evidence anew. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Attachment 009

These pages have been omitted as Confidential Business Information
§ 101.519 Interconnection. ( a ) All DEMS licensees must make available to the public all information necessary to allow the manufacture of user equipment that will be compatible with the licensee's network.
( b ) All DEMS licensees must make available to the public all information necessary to allow interconnection of DEMS networks.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1845

In Re: RALPH D. DAVIS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:07-cr-00254-TSE-1)

Submitted: November 4, 2010 Decided: November 22, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph D. Davis, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Ralph D. Davis petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 

motion to unseal a search warrant. He seeks an order from this 

court directing the district court to act. On November 1, 2010, 

the district court issued an order unsealing the affidavit in 

support of the search warrant, the application for the search 

warrant, and the search warrant itself. Accordingly, because 

the district court has recently resolved the motion in question, 

we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16876]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Findings of Scientific Misconduct

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that based on an investigation by the 
Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and a decision by the Assistant 
Secretary for Health, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) has made a 
final finding of scientific misconduct in the following case:
    Mr. Jin Qian, New Dimensions Research and Instrument, Inc.: Mr. 
Qian, Executive Manager for Corporate Planning and Research, New 
Dimensions Research and Instrument, Inc. (NDRI), committed scientific 
misconduct by plagiarizing research results and text from other 
investigators in an application to the National Institute of 
Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), National Institutes of 
Health (NIH), for a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) award, 
``Glass-based neurochip system,'' 1 R43 NS39266-01.
    Specifically, based on ORI's analysis, PHS finds that Mr. Qian: (1) 
Used research images and descriptions posted on the Internet to create 
seven figures in the application and used that material, its associated 
text, and text from other publications obtained from the Internet 
without attribution; (2) misrepresented research results in two of the 
plagiarized figures as exemplar applications of NDRI's proprietary 
technology; and (3) misrepresented his research bibliography in that 
application and to ORI staff during the investigation. These actions 
constitute falsifications in the proposing of research because their 
collective effect was to falsify the basis on which NIH reviewers 
determine whether NDRI could achieve the goals of the proposed project.
    Mr. Qian has accepted the PHS finding and has entered into a 
Voluntary Exclusion Agreement with PHS in which he has voluntarily 
agreed for a three (3) year period, beginning on June 12, 2000:
    (1) To exclude himself from any contracting or subcontracting with 
any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility for, or 
involvement in, nonprocurement transactions (e.g., grants and 
cooperative agreements) of the United States Government as defined in 
45 CFR part 76 (Debarment Regulations);
    (2) To exclude himself from serving in any advisory capacity to 
PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory 
committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Acting Director, Division of 
Investigative Oversight, Office of Research Integrity, 5515 Security 
Lane, Suite 700, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 443-5330.

Chris B. Pascal,
Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity.
[FR Doc. 00-16876 Filed 7-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-17-P
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.302 Appeal from final ruling by presiding officer other than the Commission; effective date of ruling. ( a ) If the presiding officer's ruling terminates a hearing proceeding, any party to the proceeding, as a matter of right, may file an appeal from that ruling within 30 days after the ruling is released.
( b ) Any party who desires to preserve the right to appeal shall file a notice of appeal within 10 days after the ruling is released. If a notice of appeal is not filed within 10 days, the ruling shall be effective 30 days after the ruling is released and within this period, may be reviewed by the Commission on its own motion. If an appeal is not filed following notice of appeal, the ruling shall be effective 50 days after the day of its release and, within this period, may be reviewed by the Commission on its own motion. If an appeal is filed, or if the Commission reviews the ruling on its own motion, the effect of the ruling is further stayed pending the completion of proceedings on appeal or review.
( c ) The appeal shall conform with the specifications set out in § 1.49 and shall be subscribed and verified as provided in § 1.52.
( d ) The appeal shall be served on parties to the proceeding (see §§ 1.47 and 1.211), and shall be filed with the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.
( e ) The appeal shall not exceed 25 double-spaced typewritten pages.
( f ) The Commission will act on the appeal.
( g ) Oppositions and replies shall be filed and served in the same manner as the appeal. Oppositions to an appeal shall be filed within 15 days after the appeal is filed. Replies to oppositions shall be filed within 10 days after the opposition is filed and shall be limited to matters raised in the oppositions. Oppositions shall not exceed 25 double-spaced typewritten pages. Replies shall not exceed 10 double-spaced typewritten pages.
[35 FR 17333, Nov. 11, 1970, as amended at 36 FR 7423, Apr. 20, 1971; 62 FR 4171, Jan. 29, 1997; 85 FR 63180, Oct. 6, 2020]
#### § 302-6.3 What are “temporary quarters”?

The term “temporary quarters” refers to lodging obtained for the purpose of temporary occupancy from a private or commercial source incident to an official relocation or temporary change of station.
#### § 101.515 Emissions and bandwidth.

Different types of emissions may be authorized if the applicant describes fully the modulation and bandwidth desired, and demonstrates that the bandwidth desired is no wider than needed to provide the intended service. In no event, however, may the necessary or occupied bandwidth exceed the specified channel width of the assigned pair.