alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
the law or a clearly erroneous application of a law or rule" (internal 

quotations, brackets, and citations omitted)); State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. 

Court (Riker), 121 Nev. 225, 233, 112 P.3d 1070, 1075 (2005) (concluding 

that "extraordinary relief is not warranted for routine correction of errors 

that a district court may make," and "[t]hat the [prosecution], or even this 

court, might disagree with the district court's conclusion is not a reason to 

seek extraordinary relief as long as the district court has made a 

reasonable effort to follow the applicable law"); Round Hill Gen. 

Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 

(1981) ("Mandamus will not lie to control discretionary action unless 

discretion is manifestly abused or is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously." 

(internal citation omitted)). We are not convinced that our intervention by 

way of extraordinary relief is warranted, see Smith v. Eighth Judicial 

Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677,818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (holding that the 

decision to entertain a writ of mandamus is within this court's sole 

discretion), particularly where the matter is remanded for a new trial. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Saitta 

I CACI 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

Las Vegas City Attorney 

Las Vegas City Attorney/Criminal Division 

Law Offices of John G. Watkins 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
#### § 26.109 Assignment and transfer.

Licensees may assign or transfer their non-exclusive nationwide licenses upon application to and prior approval from the Commission, and any stations registered under those licenses will remain associated with those licenses unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties to the assignment or transfer and approved by the Commission.
#### § 17.58 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3



                        Report of Independent Accountants


Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Transferor,
and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, Servicer

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management
Report on Internal Control over Servicing of Securitized Credit Card
Receivables, that JPMorgan Chase Bank (the "Bank"), as servicer of the Chase
Master Trust, maintained effective internal control over servicing of
securitized credit card receivables as of December 31, 2003, based upon the
criteria for effective internal control established in "Internal Control -
Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission. The Bank's management is responsible for maintaining
effective internal control over servicing of securitized credit card
receivables. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included obtaining an understanding of internal control over
servicing of the securitized credit card receivables, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such
other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatement due to
error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of internal control over servicing of securitized credit card
receivables to future periods are subject to the risk that the internal control
may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of
compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that JPMorgan Chase Bank, as servicer of
the Chase Master Trust, maintained effective internal control over servicing of
securitized credit card receivables as of December 31, 2003, is fairly stated,
in all material respects, based upon the criteria for effective internal control
established in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


March 25, 2004
No. 11-9394.

No. 11-9395.

#### Scarborough *v.*Chase Home Finance, LLC. Cleaver-Bascombe *v.*Kartano.

Super. Ct. Pa.; and

Ct. App. D. C. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pau-peris*denied. Petitioners are allowed until June 11, 2012, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to *1009submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
No. 11-5326.

#### Houston *v.*Neven, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Anaren, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence A. Sala,
President and Chief Executive Officer 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(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/ Lawrence A. Sala
-------------------------------------
Lawrence A. Sala
President and Chief Executive Officer
April 29, 2003


                                       33
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RETURN MAIL, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1898

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:11-cv-00130-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ALFRED ROSS FABRICANT, Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by PETER 

LAMBRIANAKOS, JOSEPH M. MERCADANTE, VINCENT J.

RUBINO, III. 

 SHAHAR HAREL, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented 

by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, GARY LEE HAUSKEN, RACHEL HICKS; 

REBECCA HARKER DUTTRY, United States Postal Service, 

Washington, DC. 

Case: 22-1898 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 02/13/2024
 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

February 13, 2024

Date

Case: 22-1898 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 02/13/2024
#### § 15.509 Technical requirements for ground penetrating radars and wall imaging systems.

(a) The UWB bandwidth of an imaging system operating under the provisions of this section must be below 10.6 GHz.

(b) Operation under the provisions of this section is limited to GPRs and wall imaging systems operated for purposes associated with law enforcement, fire fighting, emergency rescue, scientific research, commercial mining, or construction.

(1) Parties operating this equipment must be eligible for licensing under the provisions of part 90 of this chapter.

(2) The operation of imaging systems under this section requires coordination, as detailed in § 15.525.

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

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

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

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

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

(f) For UWB devices where the frequency at which the highest radiated emission occurs, fM, is above 960 MHz, there is a limit on the peak level of the emissions contained within a 50 MHz bandwidth centered on fM. That limit is 0 dBm EIRP. It is acceptable to employ a different resolution bandwidth, and a correspondingly different peak emission limit, following the procedures described in § 15.521.

[68 FR 19749, Apr. 22, 2003]
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on June 23, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. has filed written notification simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Dow-Key Microwave, Ventura, CA; Advantech, Taipei, Taiwan; and Data Design, Gaithersburg, MD have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Bi2S, Courtsboeuf Cedex, France; Advantest, Tokyo, Japan; and Exacq, Indianapolis, IN have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 8, 2001 (66 FR 13971).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 30, 2006. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 25, 2006 (71 FR 23948).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 06-6777 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
{"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":"21-2190: AUBART v. MSPB [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=\"onZYvxA5h8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-18-2022-21-2190-aubart-v-mspb-opinion-21-2190-opinion-1-18-2022_1893861\/\">21-2190: AUBART v. MSPB [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-18-2022-21-2190-aubart-v-mspb-opinion-21-2190-opinion-1-18-2022_1893861\/embed\/#?secret=onZYvxA5h8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-2190: AUBART v. MSPB [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"onZYvxA5h8\" 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: AUBART v. MSPB [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-2190 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
§ 60-300.63 Violation of conciliation agreements. ( a ) When OFCCP believes that a conciliation agreement has been violated, the following procedures are applicable: ( 1 ) A written notice shall be sent to the contractor setting forth the violation alleged and summarizing the supporting evidence. The contractor shall have 15 days from receipt of the notice to respond, except in those cases in which OFCCP asserts that such a delay would result in irreparable injury to the employment rights of affected employees or applicants.
( 2 ) During the 15-day period the contractor may demonstrate in writing that it has not violated its commitments.
( b ) In those cases in which OFCCP asserts that a delay would result in irreparable injury to the employment rights of affected employees or applicants, enforcement proceedings may be initiated immediately without proceeding through any other requirement contained in this chapter.
( c ) In any proceedings involving an alleged violation of a conciliation agreement OFCCP may seek enforcement of the agreement itself and shall not be required to present proof of the underlying violations resolved by the agreement.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


     In connection with the Annual Report of Softwall Equipment
Corporation, on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Randall Peterson, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Date: May 20, 2004            /S/ Randall Peterson
                              -------------------------------------
                              Randall Peterson, Chief Executive Officer
                              and Principle Accounting Officer
46972.

#### HEALTHMASTER, INC. et al. v. CHATTAHOOCHEE VALLEY HOME HEALTH CARE, INC.

(385 SE2d 290)

Decided July 13, 1989

Reconsiderations denied September 6 and September 7, 1989.

*Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, Robert P. Williams II,*for appellant.

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan L. Baranoff, Staff Assistant Attorney General, Arnall, Golden & Gregory, Charles L. Gregory,*for appellee.

*Dillard, Greer, Westmoreland & Wilson, Richard W. Wilson, Jr., Phears & Dailey, Michael Alan Dailey, Victor L. Moldovan,*amici curiae.

Per curiam.

After plenary consideration of this matter *(Healthmaster, Inc. v. Chattahoochee Valley Home Health Care, Inc.,*191 Ga. App. 42 (381 SE2d 56) (1989)), it is found not to satisfy the criteria for the grant of certiorari, and the writ is therefore vacated.

*All the Justices concur, except Hunt, J., not participating.*
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 First Community Bank Corporation of America (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Stan B. McClelland, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by
§ 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 as of and for the period covered
by the report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |              |  |     |  |                                            
|----- |  | ------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: |  | May 15, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Stan B. McClelland                     
|      |  |              |  |     |  | Stan B. McClelland, Chief Financial Officer
§ 302-17.20 What is the purpose of the WTA? The purpose of the WTA is to protect you from having to use part of your relocation expense reimbursements to pay Federal income tax withholding; it does not cover state taxes, local taxes, Medicare taxes, or Social Security taxes (see § 302-17.22(c) and (d)). Note to § 302-17.20 :
If your agency offers you the choice, the WTA is optional to you. See §§ 302-17.61 through 302-17.69.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.1041 Measurement procedure. ( a ) For equipment operating under parts 15 and 18, the measurement procedures are specified in the rules governing the particular device for which certification is requested.
( b ) For equipment operating in the authorized radio services, measurements are required as specified in §§ 2.1046, 2.1047, 2.1049, 2.1051, 2.1053, 2.1055 and 2.1057. The measurement procedures in ANSI C63.26-2015 (incorporated by reference, see § 2.910) are acceptable for performing compliance measurements for equipment types covered by the measurement standard. See also § 2.947 for acceptable measurement procedures.
[82 FR 50829, Nov. 2, 2017]
Exhibit 99.4

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Shane Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB/A of Ecuity,  Inc., for
the quarter ended December 31, 2004;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c)  presented  in this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

         a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and I have  indicated  in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  February 23, 2005

/s/ Shane Smith
------------------------
Shane Smith
Chief Executive Officer