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.

§ 1.50003 Updates to the Covered List. ( a ) The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau shall monitor the status of determinations in order to update the Covered List.
( b ) If a determination regarding covered communications equipment or service on the Covered List is reversed or modified, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau shall remove from or modify the entry of such equipment or service on the Covered List, except the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau may not remove such equipment or service from the Covered List if any other of the sources identified in § 1.50002(b)(1)(i) through (iv) maintains a determination supporting inclusion on the Covered List of such equipment or service.
( c ) After each 12-month period during which the Covered List is not updated, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau will issue a Public Notice indicating that no updates were necessary during such period.
Exhibit 31.1

I, Christian A. Larsen, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of E-LOAN, Inc.;

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 the
statements 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 the
financial 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 defined in
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, including its
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 the effectiveness
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 most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially 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 the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation 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 other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

August 9, 2004

/s/ Christian A. Larsen 		   Christian A. Larsen
   Chief Executive Officer and Chairman

---
Appendix E: 

Scoping Report 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

Translocation of Southern Sea Otters 
This page intentionally left blank.
#### RICHARD O’NEAL, Employee v. INLINE FLUID POWER, INC. & AUTOMOTIVE PARTS CO., INC., Employee AND AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier

N.C. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

No. 261PA15

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs Petition for Discretionary Review, the Plaintiffs Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed as to issue number two only. The petition is denied as to any remaining issues. Further, Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed; Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Response to Motion to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review is denied.

By order of this Court in Conference, this 13th day of April, 2016.

s/Ervin. J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 16th day of April, 2016.

CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER Clerk of the Supreme Court

s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk
#### § 22.535 Effective radiated power limits.

The effective radiated power (ERP) of transmitters operating on the channels listed in § 22.531 must not exceed the limits in this section.

(a) *Maximum ERP.* The ERP must not exceed the applicable limits in this paragraph under any circumstances.

| Frequency range (MHz) | Maximum ERP (Watts) |
| --- | --- |
| 35-36 | 600 |
| 43-44 | 500 |
| 152-159 | 1400 |
| 931-932 | 3500 |

(b) *Basic power limit.* Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the ERP of transmitters on the VHF channels must not exceed 500 Watts.

(c) *Height-power limit.* Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the ERP of transmitters on the VHF channels must not exceed the amount that would result in an average distance to the service contour of 32.2 kilometers (20 miles). The average distance to the service contour is calculated by taking the arithmetic mean of the distances determined using the procedures specified in § 22.537 for the eight cardinal radial directions, excluding cardinal radial directions for which 90% or more of the distance so calculated is over water.

(d) *Encompassed interfering contour areas.* Transmitters are exempt from the basic power and height-power limits of this section if the area within their interfering contours is totally encompassed by the interfering contours of operating co-channel base transmitters controlled by the same licensee. For the purpose of this paragraph, operating transmitters are authorized transmitters that are providing service to subscribers.

(e) *Adjacent channel protection.* The ERP of transmitters must not exceed 500 Watts if they:

(1) Transmit on a channel in the 152-159 MHz frequency range and are located less than 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) from any station licensed in the Private Radio Services that receives on an adjacent channel; or,

(2) Transmit on channel 158.10 or 158.70 MHz and are located less than 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) from any station licensed in the Public Mobile Services that receives on either of the following adjacent channels: 158.07 MHz or 158.67 MHz.

(f) *Signal boosters.* The effective radiated power of signal boosters must not exceed 5 watts ERP under any normal operating condition.

[59 FR 59507, Nov. 17, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 31051, June 19, 1996]
#### § 301-53.4 May I select travel service providers for which my agency is not a mandatory user in order to maximize my frequent traveler benefits?

No, you may not select a traveler service provider based on whether it provides frequent traveler benefits. You must use the travel service provider for which your agency is a mandatory user. This includes contract passenger transportation services and travel management services. You may not choose a travel service provider to gain frequent traveler benefits for personal use. (Also see §§ 301-10.113 and 301-10.114 of this chapter.)

[FTR Amdt. 104, 67 FR 17947, Apr. 12, 2002, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2007-05, 72 FR 61539, Oct. 31, 2007; FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55706, Sept. 12, 2022]
Exhibit 32

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Anticline Uranium, Inc.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), we,
Kenneth P. Hamik, President and officer, and Kristy Hamik, Chief Operating
Officer and a director of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.

Dated: November 13, 2003                    /s/Kenneth P. Hamik
      -----------------                    -------------------------------
                                            Kenneth P. Hamik
                                            President and director


Dated: November 14, 2003                    /s/Kristy Hamik
      ------------------                    -------------------------------
                                            Kristy Hamik
                                            Chief Operating Officer and
                                            director
#### § 15.513 Technical requirements for medical imaging systems.

(a) The UWB bandwidth of an imaging system operating under the provisions of this section must be contained between 3100 MHz and 10,600 MHz.

(b) Operation under the provisions of this section is limited to medical imaging systems used at the direction of, or under the supervision of, a licensed health care practitioner. The operation of imaging systems under this section requires coordination, as detailed in § 15.525.

(c) A medical imaging system shall contain a manually operated switch that causes the transmitter to cease operation within 10 seconds of being released by the operator. In lieu of a switch located on the imaging system, it is permissible to operate an imaging system by remote control provided the imaging system ceases transmission within 10 seconds of the remote switch being released by the operator.

(d) The radiated emissions at or below 960 MHz from a device operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the emission levels in § 15.209. The radiated emissions above 960 MHz from a device operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the following average limits when measured using a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz:

| Frequency in MHz | EIRP in dBm |
| --- | --- |
| 960-1610 | −65.3 |
| 1610-1990 | −53.3 |
| 011990-3100 | −51.3 |
| 3100-10600 | −41.3 |
| Above 10600 | −51.3 |

(e) In addition to the radiated emission limits specified in the table in paragraph (d) of this section, UWB transmitters operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the following average limits when measured using a resolution bandwidth of no less than 1 kHz:

| Frequency in MHz | EIRP in dBm |
| --- | --- |
| 1164-1240 | −75.3 |
| 1559-1610 | −75.3 |

(f) There is a limit on the peak level of the emissions contained within a 50 MHz bandwidth centered on the frequency at which the highest radiated emission occurs, fM. That limit is 0 dBm EIRP. It is acceptable to employ a different resolution bandwidth, and a correspondingly different peak emission limit, following the procedures described in § 15.521.

[68 FR 19751, Apr. 22, 2003, as amended at 72 FR 63823, Nov. 13, 2007]
#### § 10.2 Purpose.

The rules in this part establish the requirements for participation in the voluntary Wireless Emergency Alerts system.

[78 FR 16807, Mar. 19, 2013]
§ 101.95 Sunset provisions for licensees in the 18.30-19.30 GHz band. ( a ) FSS licensees are not required to pay relocation costs after the relocation rules sunset (see §§ 74.502(c), 74.602(g), and 78.18(a)(4) of this chapter, and 101.147 (a) and (r)). Once the relocation rules sunset, an FSS licensee may require the incumbent to cease operations, provided that the FSS licensee intends to turn on a system within interference range of the incumbent, as determined by TIA Bulletin 10-F or any standard successor. FSS licensee notification to the affected FS licensee must be in writing and must provide the incumbent with no less than six months to vacate the spectrum. After the six-month notice period has expired, the FS licensee must turn its license back into the Commission, unless the parties have entered into an agreement which allows the FS licensee to continue to operate on a mutually agreed upon basis.
( b ) If the parties cannot agree on a schedule or an alternative arrangement, requests for extension will be accepted and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The Commission will grant such extensions only if the incumbent can demonstrate that: ( 1 ) It cannot relocate within the six-month period (e.g., because no alternative spectrum or other reasonable option is available); and
( 2 ) The public interest would be harmed if the incumbent is forced to terminate operations (e.g., if public safety communications services would be disrupted).
{"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":"2020-1994: Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Hirshfeld - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hoY8A9DmPA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-11-2022-2020-1994-rovi-guides-inc-v-hirshfeld-audio-uploaded\/\">2020-1994: Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Hirshfeld<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-11-2022-2020-1994-rovi-guides-inc-v-hirshfeld-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=hoY8A9DmPA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2020-1994: Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Hirshfeld” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"hoY8A9DmPA\" 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: Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Hirshfeld (mp3) Appeal Number: 2020-1994 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
EXHIBIT 23


                   Consent of Independent Public Accountants


      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our reports, dated February 19, 1999, included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed registration statements on Forms S-3 (File No.
333-44185), S-4 (File Nos. 333-44187 and 333-67765) and S-8 (File Nos.
333-24803, 333-33191, 333-43901, 333-60919, 333-60921 and 333-67499).

                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 26, 1999
---

---

Exhibit 12.4

# CERTIFICATION

I, Aviram Steinhart,
certify that:

|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 to annual report on Form 20-F of Lumenis
          Ltd.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 to the annual 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 report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: June 26, 2008

| |  | /s/ Aviram Steinhart
Aviram SteinhartChief Financial Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
KAPP 2989

35°

Nautical Miles

Yards 8

TOO Notes 3000 -—«4000~—=SC 000

T000 2000 3000 000 5000
Fron & South of)
iorth & South of
O)

SAFETY HARBOR
Scale 1:80,000

TOWERS:

Safet

—=

ty Harbor
Gre

o-vDAR >
“priv alas PA 1
7 ONE.

9
9 exe srince

Hoc Tea
ART ELAO ET
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KALE VOR

AK, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JOHN SER

VATIUS, individually ; C HUC K PR

ATHER , Individua lly , AKA C ha rle s Prathe r, AKA C ha

rle s E. Prathe r, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-36112 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00335-SM J M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Sa lva dor M e ndoz a , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d April 13, 2016 ** B e fore : FARRIS, TALLM AN, a n d B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s. W a shington sta

te prisone r Ka le Vorak a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging a First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia

tion c la im arising out of the filing of prison grie

va nc e s. W e 

# FIL ED APR 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Brodhe im v . C ry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use Vorak fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda

nts a c te d with a re ta lia tory m otive or whe the r the re wa s a n a bse nc e of le gitim ate c orre c tiona l goa ls for de fe nda

nts’ c onduc t. Se e id. at 1269 (se tting forth the e le m e nts of a re ta lia tion c la im in the prison c onte xt); W o od v . Yordy , 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ [M ] e re spe c ulation tha

t de fe nda nts a c te d out of re ta lia

t ion is not suffic ie n t.” ); Pratt v . Row land, 65 F.3d 802, 806-07 (9th C ir. 1995) (e xpla ining tha t it is the pla i ntiff’ s burde n to prove the a bse nc e of a le gitim ate c orre c tiona l goa l an d tha t c ourts “ should a fford a

ppropria te de fe re nc e and fle xibility to prison offic ia ls” whe n e va luating proffe re d le g itim ate goa ls (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 3 6 1 1 2 2
069A16

#### State v. Wendy M. Dale

Def’s *Pro Se*Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA15-105)

Dismissed *ex mero motu*
# par- OS-r-Z003-'li-T-B3
CLINTON COUNTY LEGISLATURE

Clinton County Government Center 137 Margaret Street, Suite 208 Plattsburgh, NY 12901 James R. Langley, Jr. Chairperson

February4, 2010 U.S. Department ofTransportation ATTN: Mr. Dennis J. DeVany, Chief Essential Air Service Division Office ofAviation Analysis 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington DC 20590 Re: Recommendation regarding Essential Air Service at Plattsburgh, New York DearMr. DeVany: Clinton Countyhas thoroughly reviewed the three proposals received in response to Order 2009-12-24, requesting proposals under the Essenthll Air Service (EAS) Program at Plattsburgh, New York. In addition, the matterhas generated significant communityinterest, and Clinton County Legislators have received substantial input from local residents and businesses. After considering several factors for evaluating the airlines submitting aproposal (including service reliability, fares, size ofaircraft, frequency ofservice, connectivity at Logan International Airport, airline alliances, and others) the Clinton County Legislature is formally endorsing Colgan Air, Inc. for service at Plattsburgh underthe Essential Air Service Program. Webelieve Colgan Air, Inc. best matches the needs ofour community for commuter flights from Plattsburgh International Airport at this time. In selecting Colgan Air, Inc., the Clinton CountyLegislature also respectfully states that it is not willing to waive the minimum fifteen seatrequirement for EAS to Plattsburgh for the new term, as service offering larger aircraft are abetterfit for our current needs. Weare grateful for the excellent serviceprovided by Cape Airoverthe past two years, and are looking forward to the new opportunities presentedby Colgan Air, Inc. at Plattsburgh.

Telephone (518) 565-4600 Fax (518) 565-4616

### DeVany Letter February 4, 2010 

### Page 2

Thank you for consideration ofourrequest. Please contactme or our County Administrator Michael Zurlo ifyou have any questions regarding ourrequest or any other elements ofthis letter.

Sincerely,

James R. Langley, Jr., Chairperson Clinton County Legislature

cc: Michael Zurlo, County Administrator Tom Long, PBG AirportManager

Telephone (518) 565-4600 Fax (518) 565-4616