alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"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":"21-109: ARUNACHALAM v. CSAA INSURANCE GROUP [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"myi4JNly0G\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-29-2021-21-109-arunachalam-v-csaa-insurance-group-order-21-109-order-3-29-2021_1755265\/\">21-109: ARUNACHALAM v. CSAA INSURANCE GROUP [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/3-29-2021-21-109-arunachalam-v-csaa-insurance-group-order-21-109-order-3-29-2021_1755265\/embed\/#?secret=myi4JNly0G\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-109: ARUNACHALAM v. CSAA INSURANCE GROUP [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"myi4JNly0G\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: ARUNACHALAM v. CSAA INSURANCE GROUP [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-109 Origin: RIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### Rebecca L. SHORTRIDGE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-7923.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Rebecca L. Shortridge, Appellant pro se. Jennifer Ransom Franklin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Rebecca L. Shortridge seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shortridge has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap*34peal. 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*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-23074-CIV-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

for himself and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC, 

d/b/a KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC AND ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants 450 North River Drive LLC, d/b/a 

Kiki on the River (“450 North River Drive”), Roman Jones (“Jones”), and RJ River, LLC (“RJ”) 

(together, “Defendants”) Notice of Discovery Hearing [D.E. 226]. This matter was referred to the 

undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 by the Honorable Beth Bloom, United States District 

Judge [D.E. 26]. The undersigned held a hearing on this matter on November 27, 2023 (hereafter, 

“Hearing”). In accordance with the rulings at the Hearing, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery [D.E. 229]

is GRANTED IN PART as follows: 

1. With respect to Items 1 and 2 in Defendants’ Notice of Hearing, Defendants may 

depose the named Plaintiff, Octavio Collado (“Mr. Collado”), for two (2) sessions of seven (7) 

hours each, with the first session to be held as noticed on December 12, 2023, and the second 

session to be scheduled on a date mutually agreed upon by the parties. For purposes of Mr. 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 1 of 2
2 

Collado’s deposition, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs a list of anticipated areas of inquiry by 

the close of business on December 1, 2023. Mr. Collado’s deposition testimony as to all of these 

areas of inquiry shall bind him and all of the Opt-in Plaintiffs.

2. As to Item 3 in Defendants’ Notice of Hearing, the issue of which witnesses may 

testify at trial is more properly the subject of a motion in limine. 

3. As to Items 4, 5 and 6 in Defendants’ Notice of Hearing, Mr. Collado and each of 

the Opt-in Plaintiffs shall respond to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 5 and 6 and the corresponding 

Requests for Production; and Mr. Collado shall respond to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the 

corresponding Requests for Production. Mr. Collado’s responses shall bind him and all of the Optin Plaintiffs. To allow Defendants time to prepare for Mr. Collado’s deposition, all responses to 

these outstanding discovery requests shall be due by December 8, 2023, except for any responses 

that the parties agree are not necessary by that date, and those responses shall be due on a later, 

agreed upon date, before the close of discovery. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 27th day of November, 

2023. 

________________________________ 

ALICIA M. OTAZO-REYES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: United States District Judge Beth Bloom 

 Counsel of Record 

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 231 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.2




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-07377) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-53400) pertaining to the Special Purpose Stock Option Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-73000) pertaining to the 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-73002) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-72998) pertaining to the 2001 Consultant Stock Purchase Plan of SPAR Group, Inc., in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-152706) pertaining to the SPAR Group, Inc. 2008 Stock Compensation Plan, and with Respect to the December 31, 2009 consolidated financial statements of SPAR Group, Inc included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K), for the year ended December 31, 2009 of our report dated February 6, 2009 with respect to the financial statements of Spar Alan Pazarlama Hizmetleri Limited Sirketi, as of December 31, 2008 and for the year ended December 31, 2008.




/s/Güreli Yeminli Mali Müşavirlik A.Ş.







Istanbul, Turkey


April 13, 2010
{"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":"Oral Argument - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5FaSyliXEy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/oral-argument\/\">Oral Argument<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/oral-argument\/embed\/#?secret=5FaSyliXEy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Oral Argument” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"5FaSyliXEy\" 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":"Information relating to Federal Circuit oral arguments can be found on these pages. Access Coordinator Attending Oral Arguments Calendar of Sessions Daily Schedule Listen to Oral Arguments Scheduled Cases"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-2338: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"us2TTzf529\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-20-2020-18-2338-network-1-technologies-inc-v-hewlett-packard-company-opinion-18-2338-opinion-11-20-2020_1688984\/\">18-2338: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-20-2020-18-2338-network-1-technologies-inc-v-hewlett-packard-company-opinion-18-2338-opinion-11-20-2020_1688984\/embed\/#?secret=us2TTzf529\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-2338: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"us2TTzf529\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-2338 Origin: DCT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Exhibit






     Exhibit 10.16
AGREEMENT NUMBER:  2015003
ADDENDUM #2


QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE AGREEMENT


made between


OMEGA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY


(hereinafter referred to as the "Reinsured")


And


WYNDHAM INSURANCE COMPANY  (SAC) LIMITED,


in respect of its Segregated Account AX (hereinafter referred to as the "Reinsurer")




WHEREAS the Reinsured and the Reinsurer entered into a Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement effective January 1, 2015;


AND WHEREAS the Reinsured and the Reinsurer now desire to further amend the Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement to take effect as of January 1, 2016;


In consideration of the covenants and agreements contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


Amendment of Article 8


Effective January 1, 2016, Article 8 of the Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following shall be substituted in its place:


ARTICLE 8 CEDING COMMISSION


The Reinsurer will allow the Reinsured a "Ceding Commission" equal to the sum of:


		
	A.
	100% of the commission charged by the producing Broker, plus;




		
	B.
	3.75% of gross premium on the subject Business, representing reimbursement for premium taxes, plus;




		
	C.
	$800,000 for the calendar  year  ended  December  31, 2016, representing  the Reinsured's


"Fronting Fee".


The Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission shall be payable in monthly instalments of $58,333.33 for the first six months of 2016 and $75,000.00 for the second six months of 2016.
    
    


The Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission is intended to represent approximately 1.75% 







of gross premium on the estimated volume of subject Business. The Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission will be renegotiated annually, no later than 90 days prior to the calendar year end, or any time during the year when projected gross premiums on the subject Business vary by 15% from the estimated volume of subject Business.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 44297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6676]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry


Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of 
Authority

    PART J (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) of the 
Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of 
the Department of Health and Human Services (50 FR 25129-25130, dated 
June 17, 1985, as amended most recently at 70 FR 72839-72840, dated 
December 7, 2005) is amended to reflect the reorganization of the 
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
    Section T-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as 
follows:
    Delete item (11) of the functional statement for the Office of 
Communications (JAA4), Office of the Director (JAA), Office of the 
Administrator (JA), and insert the following: (11) provides 
publications-related activities including preparing articles and 
drafting news releases, distributing publications, and bibliographic 
services, and.
    Delete item (8) of the functional statement for the Office of 
Communications (JAA4), and renumber the remaining items accordingly.

    Dated: July 21, 2006.
William H. Gimson,
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC).
[FR Doc. 06-6676 Filed 8-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-70-M
S90A0085.

#### LOWERY v. THE STATE.

(388 SE2d 329)

Clarke, Chief Justice.

John Lewis Lowery was convicted of the malice murder of Johnny Harbin, and sentenced to life imprisonment.1 The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, showed that on the day of the crime the defendant accompanied the victim to Lavonia to see the victim’s wife. Also travelling with them were the victim’s girl friend and her mother. The defendant and two women remained in the defendant’s car while the victim went into his wife’s apartment. Hearing the victim and his wife arguing, the defendant entered the apartment. He found the victim’s wife unconscious and revived her. It is undisputed that the victim had struck his wife several times in a dispute over an automobile. The defendant and victim argued over the defendant’s interference in this quarrel, and there *819was testimony from the victim’s wife and stepdaughter that the defendant threatened to kill the victim. There was also testimony, including that of the defendant, that the defendant drew his gun, but the victim’s wife and her daughter held his hand down so that he could not use it. The defendant then left the apartment and returned to the car, instructing the victim’s girl friend to drive away. As she began to do so the victim rushed toward the car, cursing at the defendant, and attempted to climb in the back window. The defendant testified that he drew his gun and “shot at” the victim because he was afraid of him. The defendant testified that he did not intend to shoot the victim.

Decided February 15, 1990.

*Floyd W. Keeble, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Lindsay A. Tise, Jr., District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, C. A. Benjamin Woolf,*for appellee.

The defendant then left the scene. He turned himself in to law enforcement officers later that night, and gave a statement to them admitting he had shot the victim.

1. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence authorized a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of malice murder. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. The defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting a pre-autopsy photograph of the victim, alleging that its prejudicial value outweighed its probative value.

The trial court admitted this photograph to illustrate the cause of death, and instructed the jurors that they were to “consider it for that purpose only . . . and nothing else.” The rule is that pre-autopsy photographs of the victim which are relevant to an issue in the case may be admitted even though they may have a prejudicial impact on the jury. *Hicks v. State,*256 Ga. 715 (13) (352 SE2d 762) (1987). Therefore we find no error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crime occurred on February 22, 1987. The defendant was tried on October 9, 1987, and sentenced that same day. The trial court granted the defendant’s *pro se*motion for an out-of-time appeal, and appointed counsel to represent the defendant on September 25,1989. An appeal was docketed in this court on October 19, 1989, and submitted on briefs on December 1, 1989.
No. 11-5159.

#### Battle *v.*Bodison, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT 

 

Bank of Florida – Southwest f/k/a Bank of Florida N.A. f/k/a Citizens National Bank of Southwest Florida, Naples, Collier County, Florida. 

Organized under the laws of the State of Florida. 

 

Bank of Florida Trust Company f/k/a Citizens Capital Management, Inc., Naples, Collier County, Florida. 

Organized under the laws of the State of Florida. 

 

Bank of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. 

Organized underthe laws of the State of Florida. 

 

Bank of Florida – Tampa Bay, Tampa,Hillsborough County, Florida. 

Organized under the laws of the State of Florida 

 

38
#### § 19.735-102 Cross-reference to ethics and other conduct related regulations.

In addition to the rules in this part, employees of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) are subject to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 CFR part 2635 and the Commission's regulations at 5 CFR part 3901 which supplement the executive branch-wide standards, the executive branch financial disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part 2634 and the Commission's regulations at 5 CFR part 3902 which supplement the executive branch-wide financial disclosure regulations, and the employee responsibilities and conduct regulations at 5 CFR part 735.
No. 11-110.

#### Udofot *v.*Seven Eights Liquor.

Ct. App. Minn. Certiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1601 Scope. The provisions of this subpart, and the provisions referenced herein, shall apply to applications for initial licenses or construction permits or for major changes in the facilities of authorized stations in the following services: ( a ) - ( b ) [Reserved]
[48 FR 27202, June 13, 1983, as amended at 63 FR 48622, Sept. 11, 1998]