alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

THE NOCO COMPANY, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SHENZHEN CARKU TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,

Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2022-1646, 2022-1741

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

00944.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

GREGORY A. CASTANIAS, Jones Day, Washington, DC, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by ROBERT BREETZ,

DAVID B. COCHRAN, JOSEPH M. SAUER, MEREDITH M.

WILKES, Cleveland, OH. 

 KEVIN PATARIU, Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by EVAN 

SKINNER DAY, JOHN ESTERHAY, JOHN PETER SCHNURER; 

ANDREW DUFRESNE, Madison, WI; NATHAN K. KELLEY, 

Washington, DC. 

Case: 22-1646 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 02/12/2024
 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, DYK, and STARK, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

February 12, 2024

Date

Case: 22-1646 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 02/12/2024
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

#### § 36.112 Apportionment procedure.

(a) The costs of the general support facilities of local exchange carriers that had annual revenues from regulated telecommunications operations equal to or greater than $157 million for calendar year 2016 are apportioned among the operations on the basis of either the method in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or the method in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, at the election of the local exchange carrier:

(1) The separation of the costs of the combined Big Three Expenses which include the following accounts:

| **Plant Specific Expenses** |
| --- |
| Central Office Switching Expenses | Account 6210. |
| Operators Systems Expenses | Account 6220. |
| Central Office Transmission Expenses | Account 6230. |
| Information Origination/Termination Expenses | Account 6310. |
| Cable and Wire Facilities Expenses | Account 6410. |
| **Plant Non-Specific Expenses** |
| Network Operations Expenses | Account 6530. |
| **Customer Operations Expenses** |
| Marketing | Account 6610. |
| Services | Account 6620. |

Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)

(2) The separation of the costs of Central Office Equipment, Information Origination/Termination Equipment, and Cable and Wire Facilities, combined.

(b) The costs of the general support facilities of local exchange carriers that had annual revenues from regulated telecommunications operations less than $157 million for calendar year 2016 are apportioned among the operations on the basis of the separation of the costs of Central Office Equipment, Information Origination/Termination Equipment, and Cable and Wire Facilities, combined.

[83 FR 63584, Dec. 11, 2018]
{"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":"22-1988: DELGADO v. DOJ [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OFGqtBbEKY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-17-2022-22-1988-delgado-v-doj-opinion-22-1988-opinion-11-17-2022_2034849\/\">22-1988: DELGADO v. DOJ [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-17-2022-22-1988-delgado-v-doj-opinion-22-1988-opinion-11-17-2022_2034849\/embed\/#?secret=OFGqtBbEKY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1988: DELGADO v. DOJ [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"OFGqtBbEKY\" 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":"OPINION Posted: DELGADO v. DOJ [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1988 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 3.61 Reporting address.

All reports must be received at the following address no later than the required reporting date: Accounting Authority Certification Officer, Financial Operations Center, Federal Communications Commission, at the address indicated in 47 CFR 0.401(a).

[85 FR 64406, Oct. 13, 2020]
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 42 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/03 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 03 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
No. 11-5502.

#### El Ghannam *v.*Suburban Hospital Inc. et al.

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
§ 22.909 Cellular markets. Cellular Market Areas (CMAs) are standard geographic areas used by the FCC for administrative convenience in the licensing of Cellular systems. CMAs comprise Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs). All CMAs and the counties they comprise are listed in: “Common Carrier Public Mobile Services Information, Cellular MSA/RSA Markets and Counties,” *Public Notice,* Rep. No. CL-92-40, 7 FCC Rcd 742 (1992). ( a ) *MSAs.* Metropolitan Statistical Areas are 306 areas, including New England County Metropolitan Areas and the Gulf of Mexico Service Area (water area of the Gulf of Mexico, border is the coastline), defined by the Office of Management and Budget, as modified by the FCC.
( b ) *RSAs.* Rural Service Areas are 428 areas, other than MSAs, established by the FCC.
[59 FR 59507, Nov. 17, 1994, as amended at 79 FR 72151, Dec. 5, 2014]
EXHIBIT  99.1
                                  HIV-VAC, INC.
                            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 HIV-VAC, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2001, as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Kevin  Murray,  the
Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,  hereby certify,  pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





                                                     /s/ Kevin Murray
                                                     ----------------
                                                     President and CEO
October 22, 2002









                                       19
§ 15.309 Cross reference. ( a ) The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to unlicensed PCS devices, except where specific provisions are contained in subpart D.
( b ) The requirements of subpart D apply only to the radio transmitter contained in the PCS device. Other aspects of the operation of a PCS device may be subject to requirements contained elsewhere in this chapter. In particular, a PCS device that includes digital circuitry not directly associated with the radio transmitter also is subject to the requirements for unintentional radiators in subpart B.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6437

SCOTT SOWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LLOYD L. WATERS; RICHARD A. LANHAM; P.

RAFFERTY; UNKNOWN HOUSING OFFICER; CAPTAIN

SCOTT; CHARLES POTTS, M.D.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-94-3590-JFM)

Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Sowell, Appellant Pro Se. Glenn William Bell, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Roy Leonard

Mason, Deborah Maude Peyton, MASON, KETTERMAN & MORGAN, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Sowell v. Waters, No. CA-94-3590-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 5, 1996).

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.

AFFIRMED
# Advanced Management Program (AMP) 50 Now Recruiting for Jan 2015 

/ Published Nov. 3, 2014

The college's 14-week, twice-per-year cohort program, the Advanced Management Program (AMP), is now recruiting students for its 50th seminar, beginning in January 2015.  Applications are due mid Nov 2014 for the winter session.  AMP is the iCollege's flagship program that brings together DoD military, civilians, federal agency, private sector, and international students.   This program is a unique experience that combines teambuilding activities (e.g., "Day in the Woods") with weeks of information leadership/cyber courses in several key areas, subject matter expert speakers, domestic field studies, and more!  This challenging and selective program allows students to complete a full iCollege graduate certificate in only a few short, but intense, weeks.  Please see the AMP page for more information on how to apply for AMP50, or contact the AMP Director at Russell.Quirici@ndu.edu.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 04-2051

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JAMES T. LATA, SR.,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court issued on June 24, 2005, is amended

as follows:

On page 8, line 9, delete the quotation marks after the word

"significantly."
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-06-048] 

# Agency Holding the Meeting: 

United States International Trade Commission. 

# Time and Date: 

August 7, 2006 at 11 a.m. 

# Place: 

Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000. 

# Status: 

Open to the public. 

# Matters To Be Considered: 

1. Agenda for future meetings: none. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. No. 731-TA-1104 (Preliminary) (Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on August 7, 2006; Commissioners' opinions are currently scheduled to be transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce on or before August 14, 2006.). 

5. Outstanding action jackets: none. 

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

By order of the Commission.

Issued: July 27, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 06-6644 Filed 7-28-06; 1:12 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
# Professor Cathy Downes Publishes in Innovative Learning

/ Published Dec. 4, 2015
Congratulations to Dr. Cathy Downes, of the iCollege's Cyber Leadership Department, for her publication in *Innovative Learning: A Key to National Security*(Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Army Press), Doughty, Ralph, Wells, Linton, Hales, Theodore (Eds.) (2015, December), ISBN 9781840804231.  Dr. Downes' chapter in this new book is entitled "Rapidly Evolving, Digitally-Enabled Learning Environments: Implications for Institutional Leaders, Educators and Students” (pp. 101-132).  To contact Cathy Downes, please email her at DownesC@ndu.edu.
Order entered February 8, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-11-00820-CR

No. 05-11-00821-CR

SAMUEL MONCADA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-72070-H & F09-72067-H

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES these appeals.

These appeals were submitted to the Court for consideration on December 11, 2012, and 

we determined the issues raised by Samuel Moncada were inadequately briefed. Accordingly, 

on December 11, 2012, we ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing and determine whether

Moncada was indigent. If the trial court determined Moncada was indigent, we ordered the trial 

court to take such measures as necessary to assure effective representation, which could include 

appointment of new counsel. If the trial court determined Moncada was not indigent, we ordered 

the trial court to determine whether Moncada wished to proceed with his current counsel or 

retain new counsel to represent him in these appeals. We ADOPT the trial court’s findings that 
Moncada is not indigent, desires to prosecute these appeals, and wishes to proceed with his 

current appellate counsel, Rosalind Kelly.

We STRIKE the appellant brief filed by Moncada on May 31, 2012. We ORDER

Moncada to file a new brief within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date of this order. Any brief 

filed by the State must be filed within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date on which Moncada’s 

brief is filed. No extensions will be granted to either party.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Robert Burns, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 1; Rosalind Kelly, 

counsel for Moncada; and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION 10-Q/A


                                   EXHIBIT 99

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL BE RETAINED BY
     THE REGISTRANT AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                           OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of
the amendment to the Quarterly Report of American Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"),
the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge:

       (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
            or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and

       (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.




May 22, 2003                            BY: s/Carl H. Lindner
---------------------------                 -----------------------------------
Date                                        Carl H. Lindner
                                            Chairman of the Board and
                                              Chief Executive Officer




May 22, 2003                            BY: s/Fred J. Runk
---------------------------                 -----------------------------------
Date                                        Fred J. Runk
                                            Senior Vice President and Treasurer
## Affidavit of Publication/Posting



## with the Rhode Island Office of the Secretary of State Database of Proposed Rules and Regulations I, Barbara Morin, being duly sworn and under oath, do hereby depose and statethe following: 1) I am

an employee of the Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Resources, and among my duties is the coordinating of the promulgation of Air Pollution Control Regulations
. 2) On July 21, 2010

, I posted the required notice of public comment period concerning amendments to the Rhode Island Air Pollution Control General Definitions Regulation
. 3) On July 21, 2010

, 1 verified the publication of theelectronic notice described above in Paragraph #2 and its availability on the RI Office ofthe Secretary ofState, Proposed Rules and Regulations Database, and down loaded a copyof same. A true and an accurate copyof the public notice which was published on the Database and availableto the general public on thatdate, was downloaded at that time and is attached hereto and designated as Exhibit 1
. Barbara Morin

Subscribed nd sworn to befor me this ~r day of ,^7w ,20 l ~ Notary Public My Commission expires on: `1 une (1.7 ~t Cf-30
#### IN THE MATTER OF LARRY W. THOMASON.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 712)

(379 SE2d 405)

Decided May 25, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Paul B. Cohen, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*James E. Spence, Jr.,*for Thomason.

Per curiam.

Respondent Larry W. Thomason has petitioned for voluntary surrender of his license to practice law in the State of Georgia. His petition is based upon his failure to account for property held by him in a fiduciary capacity in violation of Standard 65 (a), State Bar of Georgia Rule 4-102.

Respondent, in his petition, requests that this Court accept his voluntary surrender of his license to practice law.

In view of the recommendation of the Review Panel that Respondent be allowed to surrender his license to practice law, it is directed that he be allowed to surrender his license. Before any reinstatement petition is granted, he must comply with the reinstatement rules of the State Bar of Georgia in effect at such time.

Application for voluntary surrender of license is granted.

*All the Justices concur.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of 

PETER FRANCIS BLUST 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

FROM ADMINISTRATIVE 

SUSPENSION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 183 DB 2015 (No. 9 RST 2016) 

Attorney Registration No. 47072 

(Out of State) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 27th day of January, 2016, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated January 19, 2016, is approved and it is ORDERED 

that Peter Francis Blust, who has been on Administrative Suspension, has never been 

suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, 

competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the 

Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the 

Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation 

and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
Exhibit 99.2


                               [Chase Letterhead]


Chase Bank USA, N.A.
201 N. Walnut Street
Wilmington, DE 19813

                                 March 29, 2005

                   Management Report on Internal Control over
                Servicing of Securitized Credit Card Receivables

Management of Chase Bank USA, NA (the "Bank"), as servicer of the Chase Credit
Card Master Trust, (the "Trust"), is responsible for establishing and
maintaining effective internal control over servicing of securitized credit card
receivables, which is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
proper servicing of securitized credit card receivables, in compliance with the
Chase Credit Card Master Trust Fourth Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing
Agreement dated as of October 15, 2004.

There are inherent limitations in any internal control, including the
possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of controls.
Accordingly, even effective internal control can provide only reasonable
assurance with respect to servicing of securitized credit card receivables.
Further, because of changes in conditions, the effectiveness of internal control
may vary over time.

Management of the Bank, as servicer of the Chase Credit Card Master Trust,
assessed its internal control over servicing of securitized credit card
receivables as of December 31, 2004, in compliance with the Chase Credit Card
Master Trust Fourth Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of October 15, 2004, in relation to the criteria for effective internal
control established in "Internal Control-Integrated Framework" issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this
assessment, management believes that the Bank, as servicer of the Chase Credit
Card Master Trust, maintained effective internal control over servicing of
securitized credit card receivables as of December 31, 2004, in compliance with
the Chase Credit Card Master Trust Fourth Amended and Restated Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated as of October 15, 2004, based on the criteria for
effective internal control established in "Internal Control-Integrated
Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission.


/s/ Raymond Fischer
--------------------------------
Raymond Fischer
Chief Financial Officer
Chase Bank USA, N.A.

/s/ Keith Schuck
--------------------------------
Keith Schuck
President
Chase Bank USA, N.A.