alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 11.18 EAS Designations. ( a ) A Primary Entry Point (PEP) is a private or commercial radio broadcast station that cooperatively participates with FEMA to provide EAS alerts to the public. PEPs are the primary source of initial broadcast for a Presidential Alert. A PEP is equipped with back-up communications equipment and power generators designed to enable it to continue broadcasting information to the public during and after disasters of national significance. The National Public Warning System (formerly called the Primary Entry Point System) is a nationwide network of broadcast stations and satellite operators used to distribute EAS alerts formatted in the EAS Protocol. FEMA is responsible for designating broadcast stations as PEPs.
( b ) A National Primary (NP) is an entity tasked with the primary responsibility of receiving the National Emergency Message from a PEP and delivering it to an individual state or portion of a state. In states without a PEP, the NP is responsible for receiving the National Emergency Message from an out-of-state PEP and transmitting it to the public and other EAS Participants in the state. Multiple entities may be charged with primary responsibility for delivering the National Emergency Message.
( c ) A State Primary (SP) is an entity tasked with initiating the delivery of EAS alerts other than the National Emergency Message.
( d ) A State Relay (SR) is an entity not otherwise designated that is charged with retransmitting EAS alerts for the purpose of being monitored by a Local Primary or Participating National. SRs must monitor or deliver EAS alerts as required by the State EAS Plan.
( e ) A State Relay Network (SRN) is a network composed of State Relay (SR) sources, leased common carrier communications facilities, or any other available communication facilities. The network distributes State EAS messages originated by the Governor or designated official. In addition to EAS monitoring, satellites, microwave, FM subcarrier, or any other communications technology may be used to distribute State emergency messages.
( f ) A Local Primary (LP) is an entity that serves as a monitoring assignment for other EAS Participants within the state. LP sources may be assigned numbers (e.g., LP-1, 2, 3) and are relied on as monitoring sources by other EAS Participants in the Local Area. An LP may monitor any other station, including another LP, as set forth in the State EAS Plan, so long as doing so avoids creating a single point of failure in the alert distribution hierarchy.
( g ) A Participating National (PN) is an EAS Participant that transmits national, state, or Local Area EAS messages, and is not otherwise designated within the State EAS Plan. PNs monitor LPs or other sources as set forth in the State EAS Plan.
[87 FR 67823, Nov. 10, 2022]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.9050 Who may sign spectrum leasing notifications and applications. Under the rules set forth in this subpart, certain notifications and applications to the Commission must be filed by licensees and spectrum lessees that enter into spectrum leasing arrangements. In addition, the rules require that certain notifications and applications be filed by the licensee and/or the spectrum lessee after they have entered into such arrangements. Whether the signature of the licensee, the spectrum lessee, or both, is required will depend on the particular notification or application involved, and whether the leasing arrangement concerns a spectrum manager leasing arrangement or a *de facto* transfer leasing arrangement. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the notifications, applications, amendments, and related statements of fact required by the Commission (including certifications) must be signed as follows (either electronically or manually, *see* paragraph (d) of this section): ( 1 ) By the licensee or spectrum lessee, if an individual;
( 2 ) By one of the partners if the licensee or lessee is a partnership;
( 3 ) By an officer, director, or duly authorized employee, if the licensee or lessee is a corporation; or
( 4 ) By a member who is an officer, if the licensee or lessee is an unincorporated association.
( b ) Notifications, applications, amendments, and related statements of fact required by the Commission may be signed by the licensee or spectrum lessee's attorney in case of the licensee's or lessee's physical disability or absence from the United States. The attorney shall, when applicable, separately set forth the reason why the application is not signed by the licensee or lessee. In addition, if any matter is stated on the basis of the attorney's belief only (rather than knowledge), the attorney shall separately set forth the reasons for believing that such statements are true. Only the original of notifications, applications, amendments, and related statements of fact need be signed.
( c ) Notifications, applications, amendments, and related statements of fact need not be signed under oath. Willful false statements made therein, however, are punishable by fine and imprisonment (*see* 18 U.S.C. section 1001), and by appropriate administrative sanctions, including revocation of license pursuant to section 312(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 or revocation of the spectrum leasing arrangement.
( d ) “Signed,” as used in this section, means, for manually filed notifications and applications only, an original hand-written signature or, for electronically filed notifications and applications only, an electronic signature. An electronic signature shall consist of the name of the licensee or spectrum lessee transmitted electronically via ULS and entered on the application as a signature.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<NAME> AIRPLANES GROUP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             225
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       23
<ALLOWANCES>                                        13
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   237
<PP&E>                                           4,772
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              118
<BONDS>                                          4,078
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,298)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,743
<SALES>                                              4
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   679
<CGS>                                             (90)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    30
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (153)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (150)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (150)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Roderick PRESIDENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. STADLER, Individually, and in His Official Capacity; Baron Kaylo, Individually and in His Official Capacity; Store Manager Avoyelles Correctional Center, Individually and in His Official Capacity; Clyde Benson, Individually and in His Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-30669

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 2004.

*712Roderick President, pro se, Cottonport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Laurel I. McDonald, Louisiana Department of Justice, Alexandria, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Louisiana prisoner Roderick President appeals from the summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that he had been detrimentally exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. In dismissing his complaint, the district court ruled that President had not propounded either evidence suggesting that the exposure was the cause of his various ailments or evidence suggesting that recent changes to his prison’s smoking policy were ineffective. We affirm.

President has filed before this court on appeal affidavits of several inmates, including himself, in an attempt to show that the prison’s smoking policy is not enforced. These affidavits, however, do not appear in the record, and they are not referenced therein. As the affidavits were not before the district court, we will not consider them now as part of President’s summary judgment evidence. *See Munoz v. Orr,*200 F.3d 291, 303 (5th Cir.2000). Moreover, because President gives no explanation, either in his briefs on appeal or in the record before the district court, as to why he could not file these affidavits, including his own, before the district court in support of his claim, the district court’s failure to grant President’s Rule 56(f) motion was not abuse of discretion. *See Beattie v. Madison County Sch. Dist.,*254 F.3d 595, 605-06 (5th Cir.2001).

Furthermore, because 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not give the district court the authority to either pay or waive fees for the services President requested of the United States Marshals, the district court properly denied President’s motion for leave to perform a cotinine test.1*See Pedraza v. Jones, 71*F.3d 194, 196 (5th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. A test designed to measure the amount of nicotine a person has inhaled. We also observe that there is nothing to suggest that the results of this test could *alone*suffice to authorize the granting of any relief.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David J. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 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 Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


         c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;


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


         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and


6. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: May 13, 2004

/S/ DAVID J. JOHNSON
David J. Johnson
Interim President and Chief Executive Officer



                                       20
<PAGE>
69–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–38

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 661, CONDITIONALLY PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT

MARCH 2, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 86]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 86, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 661, ‘‘Conditionally Prohibiting the Operation of Supersonic Aircraft,’’ under an

open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate divided

equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

The rule waives clause 4(a) of Rule XIII (requiring a three-day

layover of the committee report) against consideration of the bill.

The waiver is necessary because the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was not able to file its report until Tuesday, March

2 and the bill may be considered in the House on Wednesday,

March 3. The rule also provides that the bill be considered as read.

Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record

prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to

offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules.

The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce

voting time to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion

to recommit, with or without instructions.

Æ
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02680

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

02680\02680_ Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02680\02680_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

x 02680\02680_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02680\02680_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02680\02680_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .
**Exhibit23**

** **

**Independent Auditors’ Consent**

 

 

The Board ofDirectors

Capital Corp ofthe West:

 

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-41440) onForm S-8 of Capital Corp of the West of our report dated January 28, 2003,relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Capital Corp of the West andsubsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidatedstatements of income and comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity, and cashflows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002,which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-Kof Capital Corp of the West.

 

 

 

 

 

Sacramento,California

March 24,2003

 

----
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ADRIAN E. BLAIR,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________

2023-1626

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0752-16-0302-I-1.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Because Adrian E. Blair asserted before the Merit Systems Protection Board that his removal was in violation of 

federal antidiscrimination laws and indicated that he did 

not wish to abandon his discrimination claims on judicial 

review, this court directed the parties to show cause why 

this case should not be transferred. Having now considered 

the responses to that order, we transfer the case to the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Texas.

Case: 23-1626 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 10/30/2023
2 BLAIR v. DVA

As respondent correctly notes, this is a “[c]ase[] of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. §] 7702,” 

5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). We lack jurisdiction over such a case, 

which must instead be brought in federal district court. 

Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420 (2017). Under 

the circumstances, we find it appropriate to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the Northern District of Texas, 

where the employment action occurred. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition for review and all of the filings are transmitted to the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

October 30, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

 

Case: 23-1626 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 10/30/2023
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of VendingData Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Mark R. Newburg, Executive Director, and Douglas H. Caszatt, Acting Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    The 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.


By:         /s/ Mark R. Newburg                      Dated:  March 31, 2005
            -------------------------------------
            Mark R. Newburg
Title:      Executive Director,
            Principal Executive Officer of VendingData Corporation


By:         /s/ Douglas H. Caszatt                   Dated:  March 31, 2005
            -------------------------------------
            Douglas H. Caszatt
Title:      Acting Chief Financial Officer of VendingData Corporation

      This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
file:///C|/Users/bamagai/Desktop/p120116.eng.txt[8/4/2014 8:41:29 AM]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1111 Payment of charges. ( a ) The schedule of fees for applications and other filings (Bureau/Office Fee Filing Guides) lists those applications and other filings that must be accompanied by an FCC Form 159, Remittance Advice' or the electronic version of the form, FCC Form 159-E, one of the forms that is automatically generated when an applicant accesses the Commission's on-line filing and payment process.
( b ) Applicants may access the Commission's on-line filing systems at *https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/online-filing ,* and the Commission's fee payment module through the FRN access page of the Commission's Registration System at *https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/paymentFrnLogin.do .* Applicants who use the on-line processes will be directed to the appropriate electronic application and payment forms for completion and submission of the required application(s) and payment information.
( c ) Applications and other filings that are not submitted in accordance with these instructions will be returned as unprocessable. Note to paragraph ( c
):
This requirement for the simultaneous submission of fee forms with applications or other filings does not apply to the payment of fees for which the Commission has established a billing process. *See* § 1.1121 of this subpart.
( d ) Applications returned to applicants for additional information or corrections will not require an additional fee when resubmitted, unless the additional information results in an increase of the original fee amount. Those applications not requiring an additional fee should be resubmitted electronically or directly to the Bureau/Office requesting the additional information, as requested. The original fee will be forfeited if the additional information or corrections are not resubmitted by the prescribed deadline. A forfeited application fee will not be refunded. If an additional fee is required, the original fee will be returned and the application must be resubmitted with a new remittance in the amount of the required fee. Applicants should attach a copy of the Commission's request for additional or corrected information to their resubmission.
( e ) Should the staff change the status of an application, resulting in an increase in the fee due, the applicant will be billed for the remainder under the conditions established by § 1.1118(b) of the rules.
Note to paragraph ( e
):
Due to the statutory requirements applicable to tariff filings, the procedures for handling tariff filings may vary from the procedures set out in the rules.
[74 FR 3445, Jan. 21, 2009, as amended at 83 FR 2556, Jan. 18, 2018; 88 FR 44736, July 13, 2023]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.738 Complaints filed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 271(d)(6)(B). ( a ) Where a complaint is filed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 271(d)(6)(B), parties shall indicate whether they are willing to waive the 90 day resolution deadline contained in 47 U.S.C. 271(d)(6)(B) in the following manner: ( 1 ) The complainant shall so indicate in both the complaint itself and in the Formal Complaint Intake Form, and the defendant shall so indicate in its answer; or
( 2 ) The parties shall indicate their agreement to waive the 90 day resolution deadline to the Commission staff at the initial status conference, to be held in accordance with § 1.733.
( b ) Requests for waiver of the 90 day resolution deadline for complaints filed pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 271(d)(6)(B) will not be entertained by the Commission staff subsequent to the initial status conference, absent a showing by the complainant and defendant that such waiver is in the public interest.
[83 FR 44837, Sept. 4, 2018]