alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 101.1011 Construction requirements.

LMDS licensees must make a showing of “substantial service” in their license area within ten years of being licensed. “Substantial” service is defined as service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of mediocre service which might minimally warrant renewal. Failure by any licensee to meet this requirement will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.

[82 FR 41549, Sept. 1, 2017]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of Daou Systems, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Neil R. Cassidy,
the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of
         the Company.

/s/ NEIL R. CASSIDY
--------------------------------
Neil R. Cassidy
Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-5424.

#### Cox *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 0.559 Disclosure of disputed information to persons other than the individual to whom it pertains.

If the Commission determines not to amend a record consistent with an individual's request, and if the individual files a statement of disagreement pursuant to § 0.557(d)(2), the Commission shall clearly annotate the record so that the disputed portion becomes apparent to anyone who may subsequently have access to, use or disclose the record. A copy of the individual's statement of disagreement shall accompany any subsequent disclosure of the record. In addition, the Commission may include a brief summary of its reasons for not amending the record when disclosing the record. Such statements become part of the individual's record for granting access, but are not subject to the amendment procedures of § 0.556.
Exhibit 23.3

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-07377) pertaining to the 1995
Stock Option Plans, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-53400) pertaining to the
Special Purpose Stock Option Plan, in Registration form S-8 (No. 333-73000) pertaining to
the 2000 Stock Option Plan and in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-73000)
pertaining to 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No.
333-73002) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan and in Registration Statement Form S-8
( No. 333-72998) pertaining to the 2001 Consultant Stock Purchase Plan of SPAR Group,
Inc., and with respect to the December 31, 2005 consolidated financial statements of SPAR
Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K), for the year ended December 31,
2006 of our report dated March 21, 2007 with respect to the financial statements of SPAR
Merchandising Romania SRL, as of December 31, 2006 and for the year ended December 31,
2006.

| |                                           
| | ------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Baker Tilly Klitou and Partners S.R.L.

Bucharest, Romania
March 21, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sammie Lee BROWN, Jr., a/k/a Sammie L. Brown, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-6101.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 19, 2004.

*56Sammie Lee Brown, Jr., Appellant pro se. Nancy Chastain Wicker, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, 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.

Sammy Lee Brown, Jr., appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to vacate his sentence. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability 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 jurists of reason would find that his 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. McDanial,*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 reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 in the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greater Atlantic Financial Corp.
(the "company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David E. Ritter Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

A.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

B.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.



                                        By:  /s/ David E. Ritter
                                             ---------------------------
                                             David E. Ritter
                                             Senior Vice President and
                                             Chief Financial Officer


                                        Date: August 13, 2007
#### § 60-741.81 Access to records.

Each contractor shall permit access during normal business hours to its places of business for the purpose of conducting on-site compliance evaluations and complaint investigations and inspecting and copying such books, accounts, and records, including electronic records, and any other material OFCCP deems relevant to the matter under investigation and pertinent to compliance with the act or this part. Contractors must also provide OFCCP access to these materials, including electronic records, off-site for purposes of conducting compliance evaluations and complaint investigations. Upon request, the contractor must provide OFCCP information about all format(s), including specific electronic formats, in which the contractor maintains its records and other information. The contractor must provide records and other information in any of the formats in which they are maintained, as selected by OFCCP. Information obtained in this manner shall be used only in connection with the administration of the act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), and in furtherance of the purposes of the act and the ADA. OFCCP will treat records provided by the contractor to OFCCP under this section as confidential to the maximum extent the information is exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

75–963 WASHINGTON : 2012

112th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 112–140 

SEQUESTRATION TRANSPARENCY ACT REPORT 

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET’S REPORT REQUIRED 

BY THE SEQUESTRATION TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2012 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2012.—Referred to the Committee on the Budget and 

ordered to be printed 

5:51 Sep 19 2012 Jkt 075963 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\HD140 XXX HD140

(III)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Washington, September 14, 2012. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to section 2 of the Sequestration 

Transparency Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–155), I am providing a 

report prepared by the Office of Management and Budget on the 

sequestration required to be ordered by paragraphs (7)(A) and (8) 

of section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) for Fiscal Year 2013 on January 2, 2013. 

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA.



(1)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
{"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":"20-1336: VETERAN SHREDDING, LLC v. US [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=\"EoThtudJke\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-13-2021-20-1336-veteran-shredding-llc-v-us-opinion-20-1336-opinion-1-13-2021_1716866\/\">20-1336: VETERAN SHREDDING, LLC v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-13-2021-20-1336-veteran-shredding-llc-v-us-opinion-20-1336-opinion-1-13-2021_1716866\/embed\/#?secret=EoThtudJke\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1336: VETERAN SHREDDING, LLC v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"EoThtudJke\" 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: VETERAN SHREDDING, LLC v. US [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1336 Origin: CFC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of Daou Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Roberts, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, 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 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    JOHN A.
ROBERTS               
|John A. Roberts                      
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary



March
30, 2004
§ 24.104 Partitioning and disaggregation. Nationwide, regional, and MTA licensees may apply to partition their authorized geographic service area or disaggregate their authorized spectrum at any time following grant of their geographic area authorizations. ( a ) *Application required.* Parties seeking approval for partitioning and/or disaggregation shall apply for partial assignment of a license pursuant to § 1.948 of this chapter.
( b ) *Partitioning.* In the case of partitioning, applicants and licensees must file FCC Form 603 pursuant to § 1.948 of this chapter and describe the partitioned service area on a schedule to the application. The partitioned service area shall be defined by up to 120 sets of geographic coordinates at points at every 3 degrees azimuth from a point within the partitioned service area along the partitioned service area boundary unless either an FCC-recognized service area is used (*e.g.*, MEA or EA) or county lines are followed. The geographical coordinates must be specified in degrees, minutes, and seconds to the nearest second latitude and longitude, and must be based upon the 1983 North American Datum (NAD83). In the case where FCC-recognized service areas or county lines are used, applicants need only list the specific area(s) through use of FCC designations or county names that constitute the partitioned area.
( c ) *Disaggregation.* Spectrum may be disaggregated in any amount.
( d ) *Combined partitioning and disaggregation.* Licensees may apply for partial assignment of authorizations that propose combinations of partitioning and disaggregation.
( e ) *License term.* The license term for a partitioned license area and for disaggregated spectrum shall be the remainder of the original licensee's license term as provided for in § 1.955 of this chapter.
[65 FR 35853, June 6, 2000, as amended at 82 FR 41547, Sept. 1, 2017] Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 65 FR 35853, June 6, 2000, § 24.104 was added. This section contains information collection and recordkeeping requirements and will not become effective until approval has been given by the Office of Management and Budget.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Bruce Coleman, as Interim Chief Executive Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of his
knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.



| |  |              |  |  |  |     |  |                                              
| |  | ------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------
| |  |              |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Bruce Coleman                            
| |  | July 7, 2008 |  |  |  |     |  | Bruce Coleman Interim Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Anne Brennan, as Interim Chief Financial Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of his knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.



| |  |              |  |  |  |     |  |                                             
| |  | ------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------
| |  |              |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Anne Brennan                            
| |  | July 7, 2008 |  |  |  |     |  | Anne Brennan Interim Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELECTROMEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES

INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation;

et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

CHAD WOLF , in his capacity as the Acting

Secretary of the United States Department of

Homeland Security; et al., *

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 19

- 15966

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 00508

- GMS

MEMORANDUM * *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

G. Murray Snow, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 7, 202 0

Portland, Oregon

Before: WATFORD and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BATTAGLIA, * * *

District Judge.

* Chad Wolf is the current Acting Secretary of Homeland Security and

was automatically substituted as a party. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

* * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** * The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALSPage 2 of 3

Peter Gajic and his employer, El ectroMedical Technologies, Inc., appeal

from the district court’s order rejecting their challenges to the denial of

ElectroMedical Technologies’ untimely filed H

- 1B visa extension petition and

Gajic’s application for adjustm ent of status. We affirm.

1. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) did not

arbitrarily deny the visa extension petition , which was filed over seven years after

Gajic fel l out of status. Plaintiffs argue d before the agency that the petition’s

lateness should have been excused due to ineffective assistance by their prior

attorney

, who failed to fil e a vis a extension petition on Gajic’s behalf

. See 8

C.F.R. § 214.1(c)(4)(i). But after prior counsel stopped representing Plai ntiffs

,

they waited roughly two years before filing a visa extension petition . Plaintiffs did

not argue before the agency that their lawyers during this time period also acted

negligently . Thus, even if the portion of the filing delay attributable to att orney

negligence were excusable , there still would have be en two years of unexcused

delay. USCIS did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the petition on the ground

that prior counsel’s negligence was incommensurate with the delay in filing

.

2. Because USCIS did not err in rejecting Gajic’s visa extension petition, it

necessarily did not err in rejecting his application for adjustment of status. Gajic

was ineligible for adjustment of status becau se he had been out of lawful status and

was without employment authorization for far longer than 180 days when hePage 3 of 3

submitted his application

. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (c)(2)

, (c)(7), (c)(8), (k)

.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 27.54 Frequency stability.

The frequency stability shall be sufficient to ensure that the fundamental emissions stay within the authorized bands of operation.
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 26, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O RT H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12757 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 25 -C R -001 -W L S -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C E D R I C M A T I V A W I L L I A M S , D e f e n d an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea lfr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 26, 2008) B efo re E D M O N D S O N , C h i ef Ju d g e, C A RN E S an dB A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E RC U R I A M: S c ottC . H uggi ns , appoi nt e d c ouns e lf orC e dr i c M a t i vaW i l l i am s , ha s f i l e d a2

m ot i on t o w i thdr aw on appe a ls upport e d byabr i e f pr e par e d pur s uantt o A nde r s v. C a l i f orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O uri nde pe nde nt r e vi e w of

the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tc ouns e l ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the r e l a t i ve m e r i tof th e ap p e a l is c o rr e c t. B e c au s e in d e p e n d e n t e x am in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o i ssu es o f arg u ab l e m eri t , co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED and W i l l i am s’ s c on vi ct i on s andse nt ence s are A FFI R M ED .