alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.2106 Submission of upfront payments. ( a ) The Commission may require applicants for licenses subject to competitive bidding to submit an upfront payment. In that event, the amount of the upfront payment and the procedures for submitting it will be set forth in a Public Notice. Any auction applicant that, pursuant to § 1.2105(a)(2)(xii), certifies that it is a former defaulter must submit an upfront payment equal to 50 percent more than the amount that otherwise would be required. No interest will be paid on upfront payments.
( b ) Upfront payments must be made by wire transfer in U.S. dollars from a financial institution whose deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and must be made payable to the Federal Communications Commission.
( c ) If an upfront payment is not in compliance with the Commission's Rules, or if insufficient funds are tendered to constitute a valid upfront payment, the applicant shall have a limited opportunity to correct its submission to bring it up to the minimum valid upfront payment prior to the auction. If the applicant does not submit at least the minimum upfront payment, it will be ineligible to bid, its application will be dismissed and any upfront payment it has made will be returned.
( d ) The upfront payment(s) of a bidder will be credited toward any down payment required for licenses on which the bidder is the high bidder. Where the upfront payment amount exceeds the required deposit of a winning bidder, the Commission may refund the excess amount after determining that no bid withdrawal penalties are owed by that bidder.
( e ) In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d), in the event a penalty is assessed pursuant to § 1.2104 for bid withdrawal or default, upfront payments or down payments on deposit with the Commission will be used to satisfy the bid withdrawal or default penalty before being applied toward any additional payment obligations that the high bidder may have.
[59 FR 44293, Aug. 26, 1994, as amended at 62 FR 13543, Mar. 21, 1997; 65 FR 52345, Aug. 29, 2000; 79 FR 48530, Aug. 15, 2014; 80 FR 56813, Sept. 18, 2015]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA-1413, MM Docket No. 99-252; RM-9648] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission, at the request of Journal Broadcast Corporation, licensee of Station KTNV, Las Vegas, Nevada, substitutes DTV Channel 12 for DTV Channel 17 at Las Vegas, Nevada.                         *See*64 FR 38621, July 19, 1999. DTV Channel 12 can be allotted to Las Vegas at coordinates (35-56-43 N. and 115-02-32 W) with a power of 26.4, HAAT of 610 meters and with a DTV service population of 738 thousand.                     

With this action, this proceeding is terminated. 

# DATES:

Effective August 14, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-252, adopted June 26, 2000, and released June 29, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

      - Television
      - Digital television broadcasting

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

# PART 73—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334. 336. 

§ 73.622 

2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under Nevada, is amended by removing DTV Channel 17 and adding DTV Channel 12 at Las Vegas. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00-16776  Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.263 Proposed findings and conclusions. ( a ) The presiding officer may direct any party to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions, briefs, or memoranda of law. If the presiding officer does not so order, any party to the proceeding may seek leave to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions, briefs, or memoranda of law. Such proposed findings of fact, conclusions, briefs, and memoranda of law shall be filed within the time prescribed by the presiding officer.
( b ) All pleadings and other papers filed pursuant to this section shall be accompanied by proof of service thereof upon all other counsel in the proceeding; if a party is not represented by counsel, proof of service upon such party shall be made.
( c ) In the absence of a showing of good cause therefor, the failure to file proposed findings of fact, conclusions, briefs, or memoranda of law, when directed to do so, may be deemed a waiver of the right to participate further in the proceeding.
(5 U.S.C. 557; 47 U.S.C. 154, 159, 208, 209, 214, 309, 312, 316, and 409)
[28 FR 12425, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 85 FR 63178, Oct. 6, 2020]
No. 11-9100.

#### Lowe *v.*Swanson, Sheriff, Stark County, Ohio.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
Director of Finance of AML Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



Dated:
June 30, 2003

|                                             |  | 
|-------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/SUSAN FITESusan Fite, Director of Finance |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Janet Kennedy purported to file an appeal on behalf of Alamo Ranch, Inc. As a non- 1

lawyer, Kennedy cannot represent a corporation. Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. Tyson, 862 S.W.2d

728, 737 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no writ) (“Only a licensed attorney can appear and represent a

corporation in litigation.”). To the extent Alamo Ranch, Inc. is before this Court, however, Janet

Kennedy purports to represent it. Accordingly, all references to Janet Kennedy in this opinion will

encompass Alamo Ranch, Inc.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00235-CV

Janet Kennedy and Alamo Ranch, Inc., Appellants

v.

Bobby Joe Kennedy, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 99-1437, HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Janet Kennedy filed a notice of appeal in this cause on April 24, 2006. On May 17, 1

this Court denied appellant’s motion for a free appellate record, concluding that the issues raised by

that motion must be presented to the trial court first. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1; see also Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 13.003 (West 2002). No record has been filed in this cause.

On December 19, 2006, this Court ordered the parties to file reports detailing the

status of record preparation. Appellee Bobby Joe Kennedy filed a letter disclaiming any interest in

the current appeal, asserting that it concerned only a claim by intervenor Richard Ihfe & Associates,
2

P.C. (“the firm”) for funds in the registry of the court in which Bobby Joe Kennedy had no interest.

By letter, Richard H. Ihfe stated that he believed that Janet Kennedy had abandoned her appeal and

that it is moot. The firm filed a status report asserting that his firm obtained a final judgment for

funds in the registry of the court. The firm requested that the appeal be dismissed. Janet

Kennedy did not file a status report and did not file a response to her opponent’s assertion that

she abandoned this appeal and that it is moot. Janet Kennedy has not shown that she has taken

the actions necessary to obtain a record in this appeal.

We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal. 

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Appellee’s Motion

Filed: February 23, 2007
No. 11-9788.

#### Banks *v.*Kastner, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
                 COMPUTATION OF DEFICIENCY OF COMBINED EARNINGS
                           TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES

     The following computations of the deficiency of combined earnings to
combined fixed charges has been based upon the audited Financial Statements of
Airplanes Limited and Airplanes U.S. Trust for the five year period ended March
31, 1999 included in this Form 10-K.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                        ------------------------------------
                                                        1995    1996    1997    1998    1999
                                                        ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
                                                                    ($ MILLIONS)
<S>                                                     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>
Operating loss before income tax....................    (125)    (69)   (140)   (153)   (181)
Add: interest expense...............................     357     376     400     427     442
                                                        ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
EARNINGS............................................     232     307     260     274     261
                                                        ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense....................................     357     376     400     427     442
                                                        ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
DEFICIT OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES................    (125)    (69)   (140)   (153)    181
                                                        ====    ====    ====    ====    ====
</TABLE>

                                       71
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 85 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 85

   To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit, with certain 
   exceptions, the transfer of a handgun to, or the possession of a 
    handgun by, an individual who has not attained 21 years of age.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

 Mr. Blagojevich introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit, with certain 
   exceptions, the transfer of a handgun to, or the possession of a 
    handgun by, an individual who has not attained 21 years of age.

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

SECTION 1. BAN ON HANDGUNS FOR PERSONS UNDER AGE 21.

    Section 922(x)(5) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``18'' and inserting ``21''.
                                 <all>
```
095P16

#### Cynthia Walker, D.D.S. v. The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-337)

Allowed
No. 11-9656.

#### Grigsby *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, James R. Lavelle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |                                                                   
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: April 8, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    JAMES R. LAVELLE
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                         | 
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | James R. Lavelle Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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":"18-1997: SYCAMORE IP HOLDINGS LLC v. AT&T CORP. [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=\"5kzEG37OOP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-15-2019-18-1997-sycamore-ip-holdings-llc-v-at-t-corp-rule-36-judgment-18-1997-rule_36_judgment-7-15-2019-1\/\">18-1997: SYCAMORE IP HOLDINGS LLC v. AT&T CORP. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/7-15-2019-18-1997-sycamore-ip-holdings-llc-v-at-t-corp-rule-36-judgment-18-1997-rule_36_judgment-7-15-2019-1\/embed\/#?secret=5kzEG37OOP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1997: SYCAMORE IP HOLDINGS LLC v. AT&T CORP. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"5kzEG37OOP\" 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: SYCAMORE IP HOLDINGS LLC v. AT&T CORP. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1997 Origin: DCT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
036P16

#### State v. James Anthony Barnett, Jr.

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-200)

1. Allowed 02/05/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FILED: November 26, 1997

No. 96-2253

JONATHAN LEWIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MEDICAL COLLEGE OF HAMPTON ROADS, a/k/a

Eastern Virginia Medical School of the Medical

College of Hampton Roads; JAMES E. ETHERIDGE,

JR.; WILLIAM J. COOKE; CLINTON H. TOEWE, II;

ROBERT M. MCCOMBS; JAMES F. LIND; THOMAS J.

MANSER,

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER

Appellant has filed a Petition for Rehearing with

Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc, alleging error with respect to

this Court's August 5, 1997 opinion. We grant the petition for

rehearing to clarify that our affirmance also extends to the

district court's January 12, 1996, order granting a motion to

dismiss, in part. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm both orders on the reasoning of the district court. Lewin v.
2

Medical College of Hampton Roads, No. CA-95-279-N (E.D. Va. Jan. 12

and Aug. 2, 1996).

For the Court

/s/ PATRICIA S. CONNOR

CLERK
3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2253

JONATHAN LEWIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MEDICAL COLLEGE OF HAMPTON ROADS, a/k/a

Eastern Virginia Medical School of the Medical

College of Hampton Roads; JAMES E. ETHERIDGE,

JR.; WILLIAM J. COOKE; CLINTON H. TOEWE, II;

ROBERT M. MCCOMBS; JAMES F. LIND; THOMAS J.

MANSER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-95-279-N)

Submitted: June 10, 1997 Decided: August 5, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Lewin, Appellant Pro Se. David Kegebein Sutelan, MAYS &

VALENTINE, Norfolk, Virginia; Alfred James Johnston, Jonathan

Barkasy Sprague, POST & SCHELL, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

for Appellees.

Rehearing granted, November 26, 1997 for the limited purpose of amending opinion
4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment against him in his action alleging a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1232g(a)(2)

(West Supp. 1997), and related state law claims. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Lewin v. Medical College of Hampton Roads, No. CA-95-279-N

(E.D. Va. Jan. 12 and Aug. 2, 1996). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ANAREN MICROWAVE, INC. FILED WITH FORM 10-Q FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          3,248,789
<SECURITIES>                                            0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                   5,706,066
<ALLOWANCES>                                       13,000
<INVENTORY>                                     8,332,561
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               17,499,635
<PP&E>                                         29,590,795
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,811,062)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 24,373,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,405,924
<BONDS>                                           566,668
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           50,021
<OTHER-SE>                                     19,212,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   24,373,061
<SALES>                                        16,438,865
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               16,438,865
<CGS>                                          11,048,482
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,384,439           
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 72,863 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,044,650 
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,044,650 
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0 
<CHANGES>                                               0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,044,650 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       $0.25   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       $0.25   
                                               
                                               

</TABLE>