alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TOWN OF YEMASSEE MUNICIPAL COURT, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nancy D. JONAS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-1037.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Nancy D. Jonas, Appellant pro se.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM.

Nancy D. Jonas seeks to appeal the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing her civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed as to this order.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order that Jonas seeks to appeal was entered on the docket on October 30, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on January 2, 2004. Because Jonas failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal to the extent that it pertains to this order.

The notice of appeal is timely, however, as to the district court’s orders denying *33Jonas’s motions for rehearing en banc and her motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. To the extent that Jonas is appealing these orders, we note that she was warned in the briefing order that this court would not consider issues not specifically raised in her informal brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Nonetheless, Jonas failed to raise any challenges to the district court’s orders denying her post-judgment motions in her informal brief and thus has failed to preserve any issues for our review. Accordingly, we affirm these orders for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Yemassee Mun. Ct. v. Jonas,*No. CA-03-1508-9-08AJ (D.S.C. filed Dec. 9, 2003 & entered Dec. 10, 2003; Jan. 2, 2004; Jan. 21, 2004). 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 IN PART, AND DISMISSED IN PART*
§ 14.5 Waivers—Multipurpose Services and Equipment. ( a ) *Waiver.* ( 1 ) On its own motion or in response to a petition by a provider of advanced communications services, a manufacturer of equipment used for advanced communications services, or by any interested party, the Commission may waive the requirements of this part for any feature or function of equipment used to provide or access advanced communications services, or for any class of such equipment, for any provider of advanced communications services, or for any class of such services, that— ( i ) Is capable of accessing an advanced communications service; and
( ii ) Is designed for multiple purposes, but is designed primarily for purposes other than using advanced communications services.
( 2 ) For any waiver petition under this section, the Commission will examine on a case-by-case basis— ( i ) Whether the equipment or service is designed to be used for advanced communications purposes by the general public; and
( ii ) Whether and how the advanced communications functions or features are advertised, announced, or marketed.
( b ) *Class Waiver.* For any petition for a waiver of more than one advanced communications service or one piece of equipment used for advanced communications services where the service or equipment share common defining characteristics, in addition to the requirements of §§ 14.5(a)(1) and (2), the Commission will examine the similarity of the service or equipment subject to the petition and the similarity of the advanced communications features or functions of such services or equipment.
( c ) *Duration.* ( 1 ) A petition for a waiver of an individual advanced communications service or equipment used for advanced communications services may be granted for the life of the service or equipment as supported by evidence on the record, or for such time as the Commission determines based on evidence on the record.
( 2 ) A petition for a class waiver may be granted for a time to be determined by the Commission based on evidence on the record, including the lifecycle of the equipment or service in the class. Any class waiver granted under this section will waive the obligations of this part for all advanced communications services and equipment used for advanced communications services subject to a class waiver and made available to the public prior to the expiration of such waiver.
( d ) *Public notice.* All petitions for waiver filed pursuant to this section shall be put on public notice, with a minimum of a 30-day period for comments and oppositions.
§ 51-1.1 Policy. ( a ) It is the policy of the Government to increase employment and training opportunities for persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities through the purchase of commodities and services from qualified nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. The Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind or Severely Disabled (hereinafter the Committee) was established by the Javits-Wagner—O'Day Act, Public Law 92-28, 85 Stat. 77 (1971), as amended, 41 U.S.C. 46-48c (hereinafter the JWOD Act). The Committee is responsible for implementation of a comprehensive program designed to enforce this policy.
( b ) It is the policy of the Committee to encourage all Federal entities and employees to provide the necessary support to ensure that the JWOD Act is implemented in an effective manner. This support includes purchase of products and services published on the Committee's Procurement List through appropriate channels from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities designated by the Committee; recommendations to the Committee of new commodities and services suitable for addition to the Procurement List; and cooperation with the Committee and the central nonprofit agencies in the provision of such data as the Committee may decide is necessary to determine suitability for addition to the Procurement List.
[56 FR 48976, Sept. 26, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 16777, Apr. 8, 1994]
No. 11-9747.

#### Jones *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Exhibit 15.2


Head Office: Amot Bituach House

Building B46-48 Menachem Begin Road,

Tel-Aviv 66184Tel: +972 3 638 6868

Fax: +972 3 639 4320E-mail: zivhaft@bdo.co.il

www.bdo.co.il





Board of Directors


Lumenis Ltd.


Yokneam, Israel




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 (333-148460) of Lumenis Ltd., of our report dated June 25, 2008 with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity (capital deficiency) and cash flows of Lumenis Ltd. and its subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007, which report appears in the annual report on Form 20-F of Lumenis Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2009.




/s/ Ziv Haft

Ziv Haft

Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)

A BDO member firm




Tel Aviv, Israel


April 6, 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":"17-2218: VIVINT, INC. v. ALARM.COM INC. [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=\"c8bJbfKhql\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-20-2018-17-2218-vivint-inc-v-alarmcom-inc-opinion-nonprecedential-17-2218-opinion-12-20-2018\/\">17-2218: VIVINT, INC. v. ALARM.COM INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-20-2018-17-2218-vivint-inc-v-alarmcom-inc-opinion-nonprecedential-17-2218-opinion-12-20-2018\/embed\/#?secret=c8bJbfKhql\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-2218: VIVINT, INC. v. ALARM.COM INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"c8bJbfKhql\" 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: VIVINT, INC. v. ALARM.COM INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-2218 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (No. 333-33214, No. 333-47824, No. 333-136863 and No. 333-153772) on Form S-8 of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2011 relating to our audits ofthe consolidated financial statements, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

/S/     MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP

Columbus, Ohio 

March 11, 2011
#### § 101.809 Bandwidth and emission limitations.

(a) Stations in this service operating on frequencies in the 27.23-27.28 MHz band will be authorized to employ only amplitude modulated or frequency modulated emission for radiotelephony. The authorization to use such emissions will be construed to include authority to employ unmodulated emission only for temporary or short periods necessary for equipment testing incident to the construction and maintenance of the station.

(b) Stations in the service operating on frequencies above 940 MHz may be authorized to use amplitude modulated, frequency modulated or pulse type of emission for radiotelephony and television. In addition, the use of unmodulated emission may be authorized in appropriate cases.

(c) The maximum bandwidths which will normally be authorized for single channel operation on frequencies below 500 MHz in this service must not exceed the limits set forth below:

| Type of emission | Authorized bandwidth (kHz) |
| --- | --- |
| A3E | 8 |
| F3E or (G3E) | 40 |

(d) Maximum bandwidths in the following frequency bands must not exceed the limits set forth below:

Maximum Authorized

| Frequency band (MHz) | Bandwidth (MHz) |
| --- | --- |
| 3,700 to 4,200 | 1 20 |
| 5,925 to 6,425 | 1 30 |
| 6,425 to 6,525 | 25 |
| 10,700 to 12,200 | 1 2 40 |
| 13,200 to 13,250 | 25 |
| 21,200 to 23,600 | 1 50 |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 The maximum bandwidth that will be authorized for each particular frequency in this band is detailed in the appropriate frequency table in [§ 101.147](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-101.147). | |
| 2 As of March 1, 2005, no new LTTS operators will be licensed in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band. LTTS operators authorized prior to March 1, 2005 may continue to operate in 11.7-12.2 GHz band until their license expires; no existing LTTS licensees will be renewed in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band. | |

(e) The bandwidths authorized on frequencies above 500 MHz must be appropriate to the type of operation in any particular case. An application requesting such authorization must fully describe the modulation, emission, and bandwidth desired and must specify the bandwidth to be occupied.

[[61 FR 26677](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-26677), May 28, 1996, as amended at [68 FR 4961](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/68-FR-4961), Jan. 31, 2003; [70 FR 4788](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/70-FR-4788), Jan. 31, 2005]
{"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":"2018-1020: United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Company - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"We0DPMEjjZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2018-1020-united-technologies-corp-v-general-electric-company-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1020: United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Company<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2018-1020-united-technologies-corp-v-general-electric-company-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=We0DPMEjjZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1020: United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Company” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"We0DPMEjjZ\" 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: United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Company (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1020 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16279]

[[Page 39911]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): NORA Exploratory/Development Grants Program 
(R21), RFA-OH-00-006

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.

    Name: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control 
Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): National Occupational Research Agenda 
Exploratory/Development Grants Program (R21), RFA-OH-00-006.
    Times and Dates: Noon-12:30 p.m., July 11, 2000 (Open). 12:30 
p.m.-5 p.m., July 11, 2000 (Closed). 8 a.m.-Noon, July 12, 2000 
(Closed).
    Place: Embassy Suites, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, Virginia 
22314.
    Status: Portions of the meeting will be closed to the public in 
accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), 
Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Associate Director for 
Management and Operations, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to 
RFA-OH-00-006.
    This notice is published less than 15 days in advance of the 
meeting due to administrative delays.
    Contact person for more Information: Michael J. Galvin, Jr., 
Ph.D., Health Science Administrator, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
1600 Clifton Road, N.E., m/s D30 Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone 
404/639-3525, e-mail [email protected].
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services office has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: June 21, 2000.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention CDC.
[FR Doc. 00-16279 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15789]



[[Page 38819]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2469-000]


Williams Flexible Generation, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 19, 2000.
    Williams Flexible Generation, LLC (Williams Flexible) submitted for 
filing a rate schedule under which Williams Flexible will engage in 
wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. 
Williams Flexible also requested waiver of various Commission 
regulations. In particular, Williams Flexible requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Williams 
Flexible.
    On June 9, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Williams Flexible should file a motion 
to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
888 First Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Williams Flexible 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Williams Flexible's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is July 10, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15789 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-1220.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TRADE 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Measures 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and PANAMA 

Signed at Washington and Panama City 

December 20, 2006 

with 

Annex 

 
 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.” 
PANAMA 

 Trade: Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

 Measures 

 Agreement signed at Washington and Panama City 

 December 20, 2006; 

 Entered into force December 20, 2006. 

 With annex.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4551 Committee Discharged Senate (CDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4551

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 20 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

            October 8 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

                          Committee discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the United States Post Office building located at 301 West 
Lexington Street in Independence, Missouri, as the ``William J. Randall 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office building located at 301 West 
Lexington Street in Independence, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``William J. Randall Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the William J. Randall Post 
Office.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 1994.

            Attest:

                                            DONALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```