alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 15.201 Equipment authorization requirement. ( a ) Intentional radiators operated as carrier current systems, devices operated under the provisions of §§ 15.211, 15.213, and 15.221, and devices operating below 490 kHz in which all emissions are at least 40 dB below the limits in § 15.209 are subject to Suppliers Declaration of Conformity pursuant to the procedures in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter prior to marketing.
( b ) Except as otherwise exempted in paragraph (c) of this section and in § 15.23, all intentional radiators operating under the provisions of this part shall be certified by the Telecommunication Certification Bodies pursuant to the procedures in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter prior to marketing.
( c ) For devices such as perimeter protection systems which, in accordance with § 15.31(d), are required to be measured at the installation site, each application for certification must be accompanied by a statement indicating that the system has been tested at three installations and found to comply at each installation. Until such time as certification is granted, a given installation of a system that was measured for the submission for certification will be considered to be in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, including the marketing regulations in subpart I of part 2 of this chapter, if tests at that installation show the system to be in compliance with the relevant technical requirements. Similarly, where measurements must be performed on site for equipment subject to Supplier's Declaration of Conformity, a given installation that has been found compliant with the applicable standards will be considered to be in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, including the marketing regulations in subpart I of part 2 of this chapter.
( d ) For perimeter protection systems operating in the frequency bands allocated to television broadcast stations operating under part 73 of this chapter, the holder of the grant of certification must test each installation prior to initiation of normal operation to verify compliance with the technical standards and must maintain a list of all installations and records of measurements. For perimeter protection systems operating outside of the frequency bands allocated to television broadcast stations, upon receipt of a grant of certification, further testing of the same or similar type of system or installation is not required.
[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 68 FR 68546, Dec. 9, 2003; 82 FR 50834, Nov. 2, 2017]
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

June 26, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-12757

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00025-CR-001-WLS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

CEDRIC MATIVA WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(June 26, 2008)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Scott C. Huggins, appointed counsel for Cedric Mativa Williams, has filed a
2

motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals

no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and

Williams’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
#### § 302-9.100 Who is eligible for transportation of a POV to a post of duty?

An employee who is authorized to transfer to the post of duty, or a new appointee or student trainee assigned to the post of duty.
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

          - [I.D. 061900C] 

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of June 23, 2000, concerning convening of public meetings. This document contained insufficient information.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: 813-228-2815. 

## Correction 

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of June 23, 2000, in FR Doc. 00-15974, on page 39132, in the first column, under the heading “Monday, July 10, 2000,” first paragraph, last sentence, add the following to read:                     

“The Committee will hear a NOAA General Counsel legal opinion regarding the stone crab amendment and will discuss possible responses to that legal opinion.” 

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of June 23, 2000, in FR Doc. 00-15974, on page 39133, in the second column, under the heading “Tuesday, July 11, 2000,” revise the last paragraph to read:                     

3:30 p.m.-5 p.m.—Convene the Habitat Protection Committee to hear a presentation on the Williams Gas Pipeline Project, the Gulfstream Gas Pipeline Project, and a review of the proposed Destination Broadwater Draft EIS. 

Dated: June 26, 2000. 

Richard W. Surdi, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 00-16508 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
47018.

#### COLLINS v. WALDRON et al.

(385 SE2d 74)

Hunt, Justice.

The state revenue commissioner appeals from an injunction issued by the superior court on April 14, 1989, directing that he maintain an escrow fund for all payments of income taxes attributable to federal pensions. The controversy stems from a holding by the United States Supreme Court in *Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury,*57 USLW 4389 (March 28, 1989), to the effect that it is unconstitutional for Michigan to impose an income tax on federal pensions and exempt state pensions.

The complainants are three retired federal employees. They insist that OCGA § 48-7-27, as it existed on the date of the injunction, creates distinctions similar to those struck down in *Davis.*

1. Subsequent to the oral argument of the case, the General Assembly repealed the challenged provisions of OCGA § 48-7-27 by the enactment of HB No. 1 EX. The new act, effective September 20, 1989, makes no distinction in the income tax treatment of state and federal pensions. Present OCGA § 48-7-27 (2) (a) provides that the new statute “shall apply to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 1989.”

2. The stated purpose of the injunction is to create and maintain an escrow fund pending determination of the legality of taxing federal pensions while exempting state pensions.

(a) The enactment of HB No. 1 EX has determined the future legal implications of the challenged provisions by repealing them. Income tax payments received by the commissioner after April 14, 1989 (the date of the injunction) will be governed by the new statute.1 Hence, no judicial decision is needed to determine prospectively the legality of a non-existent statute.

*583Decided October 25, 1989 —

Reconsideration denied November 22, 1989.

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Warren R. Calvert, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellant.

*Bell & Bell, John C. Bell, Jr., James F. Findlay, David E. Hudson, Thomas W. Tucker,*for appellees.

(b) Because our grant of supersedeas stayed the injunction, there is no escrow fund. No judicial supervision is needed for a fund that does not exist.

3. (a) Former distinctions in the taxing of state and federal pensions are no more. The complainants now may achieve equality of treatment by a remarkably simple remedy. They only need submit tax returns that conform to the new statute.

(b) Because the enactment of HB No. 1 EX leaves nothing for the judicial system to decide in this case, the injunction must be dissolved.

*Judgment vacated.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 We are aware that some payments received by the commissioner after that date may relate to “taxable years” that commenced before January 1, 1989. Nothing in the record, however, suggests that such a possibility affects any of the three complainants. Nor does the record suggest that a substantial number of pensioners report income taxes on a fiscal year basis that differs from the calendar year. Even so, the refund statute (OCGA § 48-2-35) provides an adequate remedy for any vestigial disparity.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Certifications 

 

I, James R. Lavelle, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Cotelligent, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of Cotelligent, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual 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 ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’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 overfinancial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls 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 of not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 21, 2005
KENDALL E. NEWTON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5547

________ __________________/

Opinion filed March 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Robert Groeb , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Carrie S. McMullen, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, At torney General, Michael L. Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS

, C.J., WOLF and B.L. THOMAS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Rule 13a-14(a)**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Harry V. Maccarrone, Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of COMFORCE Corporation, hereby certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation; 

 

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 thestatements 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 thefinancial 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 definedin 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, includingits 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 theeffectiveness 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 mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to 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 registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 4, 2005 

 

/s/ Harry V. Maccarrone

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16767]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3352]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Art and the Empire City''

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority of 
October 19, 1999, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in 
the exhibition ``Art and the Empire City, `` imported from abroad for 
the temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are 
of cultural significance. These objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with foreign lenders. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum, New York, 
NY from September 11, 2000 through January 7, 2001 is in the national 
interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of exhibit objects, contact Jacqueline Caldwell, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/
619-6982). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44; 301-4th 
Street, SW, Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: June 22, 2000.
William B. Bader,
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 00-16767 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-U
No. 92-1487.

#### Butler, Individually and on Behalf of Butler, a Minor, et al. *v.*Medley et al.

Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied.
#### William G. Ball v. Mary J. Wicks.

Filed June 18, 1895.

No. 6534.

Corporations: Failure to Publish Notice or Indebtedness : Action Against Stockholders. An action to enforce the statutory liability of a stockholder arising from a corporation’s failure to publish an annual notice of its indebtedness as required by law, cannot be maintained until after a judgment has been rendered against such corporation by which has been j udicially ascertained the amount owing by it. Following *Globe Publishing Co. v. State Bank of Nebraska,*41 Neb., 175.

Error from the district court of Harlan county. Tried below before Beall, J.

*C. C. Flansburg,*for plaintiff in error.

*James*McNeny, contra.

Ryan, C.

In the petition of the defendant in error it was alleged that said defendant in error had entrusted to the Nebraska *&*Kansas Farm Loan Company, a corporation, a promissory note for the sum of $700 and interest for collection; that said collection had been made, but that the said corporation at the time it received and collected said note was insolvent, and had failed to pay the amount collected; that the defendant was a stockholder in said corporation, which for more than a year before it became liable for the aforesaid collection had failed to publish the notice of its indebtedness required by law, wherefore it was claimed that the plaintiff was individually liable for the payment of the amount of the aforesaid collection. Upon a trial, without a jury, the district court of Harlan county, wherein this cause was pending, held the plaintiff in error responsible for the default of the said corporation and rendered judgment accordingly.

*368The Nebraska & Kansas Farm Loan Company was a Nebraska corporation and became indebted to the defendant in error in April, 1891. The judgment against the plaintiff in error was rendered on May 25, 1893, although against the delinquent corporation no judgment was ever alleged or shown to have been rendered. The case therefore falls within the rule laid down in *Globe Publishing Co. v. State Bank of Nebraska,*41 Neb., 175. The judgment of the district court is

Reversed.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

MONAHAN, STEPHENS, and DEERWESTER

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Michael A. TRUE

Corporal (E-4), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202100152

_________________________

Decided: 13 June 2022

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judges:

Wilbur Lee (arraignment and motions)

Donald C. King (motions)

Ann K. Minami (motions and trial) 

Sentence adjudged 15 March 2021 by a general court-martial convened 

at Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii, and Marine Corps Base 

Hawaii, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for sixteen years, and a 

dishonorable discharge.

For Appellant: 

Major Mary C. Finnen, USMC
United States v. True, NMCCA No. 202100152

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

KYLE D. MEEDER

Interim Clerk of Court

 

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LAWRENCE WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-1863

[December 14, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-

2014-CF-002167-AXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allen R. Geesey, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 11-98.

#### Toomer et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILLIAM OZAH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1523

[December 6, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael A. Robinson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17-004070-

CF-10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.