alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 22.352 Protection from interference. Public Mobile Service stations operating in accordance with applicable FCC rules and the terms and conditions of their authorizations are normally considered to be non-interfering. If the FCC determines, however, that interference that significantly interrupts or degrades a radio service is being caused, it may, in accordance with the provisions of sections 303(f) and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (47 U.S.C. 303(f), 316), require modifications to any Public Mobile station as necessary to eliminate such interference. ( a ) *Failure to operate as authorized.* Any licensee causing interference to the service of other stations by failing to operate its station in full accordance with its authorization and applicable FCC rules shall discontinue all transmissions, except those necessary for the immediate safety of life or property, until it can bring its station into full compliance with the authorization and rules.
( b ) *Intermodulation interference.* Licensees should attempt to resolve such interference by technical means.
( c ) *Situations in which no protection is afforded.* Except as provided elsewhere in this part, no protection from interference is afforded in the following situations: ( 1 ) *Interference to base receivers from base or fixed transmitters.* Licensees should attempt to resolve such interference by technical means or operating arrangements.
( 2 ) *Inteference to mobile receivers from mobile transmitters.* No protection is provided against mobile-to-mobile interference.
( 3 ) *Interference to base receivers from mobile transmitters.* No protection is provided against mobile-to-base interference.
( 4 ) *Interference to fixed stations.* Licensees should attempt to resolve such interference by technical means or operating arrangements.
( 5 ) *Anomalous or infrequent propagation modes.* No protection is provided against interference caused by tropospheric and ionospheric propagation of signals.
( 6 ) *Facilities for which the Commission is not notified.* No protection is provided against interference to the service of any additional or modified transmitter operating pursuant to § 1.929 or § 22.165, unless and until the licensee modifies its authorization using FCC Form 601.
( 7 ) *In-building radiation systems.* No protection is provided against interference to the service of in-building radiation systems (see § 22.383).
[59 FR 59507, Nov. 17, 1994, as amended at 62 FR 11633, Mar. 12, 1997; 63 FR 68944, Dec. 14, 1998; 70 FR 19308, Apr. 13, 2005]
#### Imelda Julia GOMEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-72835.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2004.*

Decided March 24, 2004.

Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Attorney at Law, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.

*995Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Donald E. Keener, Esq., Francis W. Fraser, Esq., DOJ- — ■U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Imelda Julia Gomez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to terminate removal proceedings and for relief under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NA-CARA”). We have jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s contention that NACARA section 202(b) violates equal protection, and we review this constitutional claim de novo. *See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.

“ ‘Line drawing’ decisions made by Congress ... in the context of immigration and naturalization must be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose,” *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001), and “[e]hallengers have the burden to negate ‘every conceivable basis which might support [a legislative classification] ... whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record.’ ” *Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting *Heller v. Doe,*509 U.S. 312, 320-21, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993)). Petitioner has not met this burden, because a rational basis exists for distinguishing groups of aliens from Mexico from those from Nicaragua or Cuba based on conditions in their home countries. *See Jimenez-Angeles,*291 F.3d at 602-03. Moreover, we have specifically held that NACARA section 203 does not violate equal protection. *See Ram,*243 F.3d at 517 (Congress’s decision to favor aliens from specific war-torn countries “stems from a rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in the United States.”).

The Clerk is directed to stay the mandate pending the resolution of *Desta v. Ashcroft,*No. 03-70477 and further order of this Court.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6211

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAPHITH ORLANDO TATE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-98-281, CA-01-468-1)

Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Japhith Orlando Tate, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Japhith Orlando Tate seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Tate, Nos. CR-98-281; CA-01-468-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 30, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-1119.2 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TRADE 

Beef and Beef By-Products 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Effected by Exchange of Letters at 

Hanoi and Washington 

November 19, 2006 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

Trade: Beef and Beef By-Products 

 Agreement effected by exchange of letters 

 at Hanoi and Washington November 19, 2006; 

 Entered into force November 19, 2006. 
NOTE: At present, we do not have an official translation of this letter. Once the official translation is obtained, it will be added to this publication.
{"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":"2018-1132: Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zcs3C8TTnj\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1132-uniloc-usa-inc-v-adp-llc-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1132: Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-07-2019-2018-1132-uniloc-usa-inc-v-adp-llc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=zcs3C8TTnj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1132: Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"zcs3C8TTnj\" 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":"Oral argument audio posted: Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1132 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RICHARD A. BECKER, 

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent

______________________

2023-1102

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-3443-16-0064-I-1.

______________________

O R D E R

The petitioner having failed to file the required 

Statement Concerning Discrimination,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for review be, and the same hereby is, 

DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance 

with the rules. 

Case: 23-1102 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 01/20/2023
2 BECKER V. MSPB

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT

January 20, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 20, 2023

Case: 23-1102 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 01/20/2023
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.23


Execution Version


CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [***], HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 24B-2 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.


AMENDMENT No. 1 TO
LETTER AGREEMENT COM0271-15
This Amendment No.1 COM0728-16 (the “Amendment No.1”) dated as of November 11, 2016 is between Embraer S.A. (“Embraer”) and Aircastle Holding Corporation Limited (“Buyer”), collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”, and constitutes an amendment and modification to Letter Agreement COM0271-15 dated June 12, 2015 as amended from time to time (the “Letter Agreement”).
All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning when used herein as provided in the Letter Agreement and in case of any conflict between this Amendment No. 1 and the Letter Agreement, this Amendment No. 1 shall control.


WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to modify certain items of the deferral rights;


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties, Embraer and Buyer agree as follows:


1. [***]


The Article 13 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following:


“13. [***]”
2. REINSTATEMENT OF LETTER AGREEMENT
All other provisions and conditions of the referenced Letter Agreement, as well as its related Attachments, which are not specifically modified by this Amendment No. 1 shall remain in full force and effect without any change.
3. COUNTERPARTS
This Amendment No. 1 may be signed by the Parties hereto in any number of separate counterparts with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
This Amendment No. 1 may be signed by facsimile with originals duly signed to follow by an internationally recognized courier.






[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]





































IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Embraer and Buyer, by their duly authorized officers, have entered into and executed this Amendment No. 1 to be effective as of the date first written above.




EMBRAER S.A.                                     AIRCASTLE HOLDING CORPORATION LIMITED




By: /s/ Luis Carlos Affonso            By: /s/ Alexander A. Green
Name: Luis Carlos Affonso            Name: Alexander A. Green
Title: Chief Operating Officer            Title: Director
        Commercial Aviation




By: /s/ Adriana Sarlo
Name: Adriana Sarlo
Title: Vice President, Contracts
        Commercial Aviation




Place: São José dos Campos - SP                Place: Stamford, CT
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16898]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Public Meeting on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Licensing 
Process for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility; Notice of 
Meeting

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is hosting two public 
meetings to discuss the licensing process for the mixed oxide (MOX) 
fuel fabrication facility. One meeting will be held in Columbia, South 
Carolina, and the second meeting will be held in N. Augusta, South 
Carolina. The purpose of both meetings is to explain the NRC's role for 
MOX, describe the NRC's licensing process, describe opportunities for 
public participation during the licensing process, and to answer 
questions from meeting participants.

DATES: The meetings are scheduled for Wednesday, July 12, 2000, 
(Columbia, South Carolina) and July 13, 2000, (N. Augusta, South 
Carolina). Each meeting will run from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. The meetings 
are open to the public.

ADDRESSES: The Columbia, South Carolina, meeting will be held at the 
University of South Carolina's Capstone Conference Center, which is 
located at 900 Barnwell St., Columbia, South Carolina. Parking is 
available on the street (free after 6 p.m.), or in lots located 
immediately Northwest of the Capstone building, the southern corner at 
the intersection of Barnwell and Pendleton, or at the intersection of 
Pendleton and Barnwell. The lots are free after 5 p.m.
    The N. Augusta, South Carolina, meeting will be held at the N. 
Augusta Community Center. The N. Augusta Community Center is located at 
495 Brookside Drive in N. Augusta, South Carolina. Parking is available 
adjacent to the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
meetings, contact Andrew Persinko, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555, telephone (301) 415-6522 or e-mail [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of June, 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael Tokar,
Acting Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety 
and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 00-16898 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4536 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4536

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation with appropriate endorsement for the vessel ALPHA TANGO.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 1994

Mr. Burton of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
           to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation with appropriate endorsement for the vessel ALPHA TANGO.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and sections 12106, 12107, 
and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsement for the vessel ALPHA TANGO (United States 
official number 723340).

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 418 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 418

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise taxes 
                            on luxury items.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Tauzin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise taxes 
                            on luxury items.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LUXURY EXCISE TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 31 of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 (relating to certain luxury items) is hereby repealed.
    (b) Technical Amendments.--
            (1) The material preceding paragraph (1) of section 4221(a) 
        of such Code is amended by striking ``subchapter A or C'' and 
        inserting ``subchapter C''.
            (2) Subsection (a) of section 4221 of such Code is amended 
        by striking the last sentence.
            (3) Subsection (c) of section 4221 of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``section 4001(c), 4002(b), 4003(c) 4004(a), or 
        4053(a)(6)'' and inserting ``section 4053(a)(6)''.
            (4) Paragraph (1) of section 4221(d) of such Code is 
        amended by striking ``subchapter A or C'' and inserting 
        ``subchapter C''.
            (5) Subsection (d) of section 4222 of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``section 4001(c), 4002(b), 4003(c) 4004(a), 
        4053(a)(6)'' and inserting ``section 4053(a)(6)''.
            (6) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``subchapter A of chapter 31,''.
            (7) The table of subchapters for chapter 31 of such Code is 
        amended by striking the item relating to subchapter A.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on January 1, 1993.

                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 852 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 852

  To require the Department of Agriculture to establish an electronic 
 filing and retrieval system to enable the public to file all required 
  paperwork electronically with the Department and to have access to 
  public information on farm programs, quarterly trade, economic, and 
           production reports, and other similar information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 1999

  Mr. LaHood introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Department of Agriculture to establish an electronic 
 filing and retrieval system to enable the public to file all required 
  paperwork electronically with the Department and to have access to 
  public information on farm programs, quarterly trade, economic, and 
           production reports, and other similar information.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom to E-File Act''.

SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC FILING AND RETRIEVAL.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall establish an 
electronic filing and retrieval system to enable the public to file all 
required paperwork electronically with the Department of Agriculture 
and to have access to public information on farm programs, quarterly 
trade, economic, and production reports, and other similar information.
    (b) Progress Reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress the 
progress made toward implementing subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```