alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 15.303 Definitions.

*Asynchronous devices.* Devices that transmit RF energy at irregular time intervals, as typified by local area network data systems.

*Emission bandwidth.* For purposes of this subpart the emission bandwidth shall be determined by measuring the width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, that are 26 dB down relative to the maximum level of the modulated carrier. Compliance with the emissions limits is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a peak detector function with an instrument resolutions bandwidth approximately equal to 1.0 percent of the emission bandwidth of the device under measurement.

*Isochronous devices.* Devices that transmit at a regular interval, typified by time-division voice systems.

*Peak transmit power.* The peak power output as measured over an interval of time equal to the frame rate or transmission burst of the device under all conditions of modulation. Usually this parameter is measured as a conducted emission by direct connection of a calibrated test instrument to the equipment under test. If the device cannot be connected directly, alternative techniques acceptable to the Commission may be used.

*Personal Communications Services (PCS) Devices [Unlicensed].* Intentional radiators operating in the frequency band 1920-1930 MHz that provide a wide array of mobile and ancillary fixed communication services to individuals and businesses.

*Spectrum window.* An amount of spectrum equal to the intended emission bandwidth in which operation is desired.

*Thermal noise power.* The noise power in watts defined by the formula N = kTB where N is the noise power in watts, K is Boltzmann's constant, T is the absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin (e.g., 295 °K) and B is the emission bandwidth of the device in hertz.

*Time window.* An interval of time in which transmission is desired.

[58 FR 59180, Nov. 8, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 32852, June 24, 1994; 60 FR 13073, Mar. 10, 1995; 69 FR 62620, Oct. 27, 2004; 69 FR 77949, Dec. 29, 2004; 77 FR 43013, July 23, 2012]
```

[House Report 106-430]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-430

======================================================================

 
   AGREEING TO THE CONFERENCE REQUESTED BY THE SENATE ON H.R. 2990, 
               QUALITY CARE FOR THE UNINSURED ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

  November 1, 1999.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______

     Mr. Goss, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 348]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 348, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                  summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for the disagreement by the House 
on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 2990, the Quality 
Care for the Uninsured Act of 1999, and the agreement by the 
House to the conference requested by the Senate thereon.

                                  

```
{"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":"20-1543: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"luu0LXCLaP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/8-12-2021-20-1543-personalweb-technologies-llc-v-google-llc-opinion-20-1543-opinion-8-12-2021_1818061\/\">20-1543: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/8-12-2021-20-1543-personalweb-technologies-llc-v-google-llc-opinion-20-1543-opinion-8-12-2021_1818061\/embed\/#?secret=luu0LXCLaP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1543: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"luu0LXCLaP\" 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: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1543 Origin: DCT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bancshares of Florida, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I,
Tracy L. Keegan, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal 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:



| | 3. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | To my knowledge, 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: October 31, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Tracy L. Keegan
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Tracy L. Keegan,           
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                     |  | Principal Financial Officer
S89A0385.

#### PRICE v. THE STATE.

(388 SE2d 857)

Hunt, Justice.

Charles Marquette Price was indicted along with three others for malice murder, felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and aggravated assault with intent to rob, arising out of the murder and armed robbery of a convenience store employee while she was making a deposit of the store’s receipts at a C & S bank in Fulton County on March 22, 1988.1 The state sought the death penalty, but Price agreed to plead guilty to murder and armed robbery and was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. He now claims his plea was not voluntary because he did not understand he was pleading guilty as a party to the crime rather than as an accessory.2

*835Decided February 28, 1990.

*Vernon S. Pitts, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Richard E. Hicks, William L. Hawthorne III, Assistant District Attorneys, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General,*for appellee.

The transcript of the guilty plea reveals the defendant’s concern with this issue at the time of the plea. However, not only his own attorney, but also the trial court explained the difference to him and both times he indicated on the record that he understood this distinction.

Since the record clearly indicates the defendant knew and understood the charges against him and the consequences of pleading guilty, we must affirm. *Goodman v. Davis,*249 Ga. 11, 16-17 (287 SE2d 26) (1982); *State v. Germany,*245 Ga. 326, 328 (265 SE2d 13) (1980).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The defendant was indicted on May 6, 1988, pleaded guilty on January 27, 1989, and was sentenced on March 2, 1989. He filed his notice of appeal on March 31, 1989, and the case was docketed in this court on April 28, 1989. The case was remanded to the superior court for appointment of counsel for appeal on June 22, counsel was appointed on July 24, and the appeal redocketed here on August 8. It was submitted for decision on September 22, 1989.

2

 While Price insists, contrary to the state’s assertions, he was not the triggerman, he *835admits he was a party to the armed robbery during which the victim was killed.
No. 11-5125.

#### Butry *v.*Pennsylvania.

Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.
415P15

#### State v. Jamie Rieson

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Cei'tiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court of Rockingham County

1. Dismissed

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed

3. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

3. Dismissed as moot
#### § 27.1220 Transmission standards.

The width of a channel in the LBS and UBS is 5.5 MHz, with the exception of BRS channels 1 and 2 which are 6.0 MHz. The width of all channels in the MBS is 6 MHz. However, the licensee may subchannelize its authorized bandwidth, provided that digital modulation is employed and the aggregate power does not exceed the authorized power for the channel. The licensee may also, jointly with other licensees, transmit utilizing bandwidth in excess of its authorized bandwidth, provided that digital modulation is employed, all power spectral density requirements set forth in this part are met and the out-of-band emissions restrictions set forth in § 27.53 are met at the edges of the channels employed.
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.                  

###### General Services Administration

# AGENCY:

Office of Governmentwide Policy, GSA. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The General Services Administration (GSA) is announcing that significant changes to the Federal Travel Regulation will be discussed at a national travel conference to be held in Orlando, Florida, October 30 through November 1, 2000. Additionally, Travel Managers of the Year Awards will be presented by Government Executive magazine. Federal agencies may hold agency-wide meetings at this conference. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jane Groat, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Travel Management Policy Division, at (202) 501-4318, or by e-mail to                         *jane.groat@gsa.gov*                         or at                         *www.nationaltravel2000.com*.                     

Dated: June 30, 2000. 

William T. Rivers, 

Acting Director, Travel Management Policy Division. 

[FR Doc. 00-17076 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
Florida Department of

Environmental Protection

Bob Martinez Center

2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Rick Scott

Governor

Carlos Lopez-Cantera

Lt. Governor

Jonathan P. Steverson

Secretary

Via U.S. Mail and Electronic-Mail

December 14, 2015 

Mrs. Heather McTeer Toney

Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Region 4

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

Re: Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP Requirements for 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

Dear Mrs. Toney:

On behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), I hereby 

confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Section 110(a)(1) and the elements required by CAA Section 110(a)(2) for 

implementation of the 2012 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) have been adequately addressed through the approval by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Florida’s original State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) and subsequent SIP revisions, and through EPA’s acceptance of Florida’s 

statutory authorities, resource commitments, and ongoing air program management 

activities related to the development and implementation of the state’s approved SIP. 

The State of Florida is not aware of any SIP deficiencies related to implementation of the 

revised PM2.5 standard.

Attached please find a submittal package detailing the components of Florida’s 

“Infrastructure SIP” for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, together with a summary of the existing 

Florida Statutes and SIP-approved rules that implement CAA Section 110(a)(1) and each 

of the CAA Section 110(a)(2) elements. 

The complete SIP submittal package (hard copy and electronic copy) has been sent 

directly to the Air Planning Branch for EPA Region 4. The electronic copy is in a 

searchable format and is an exact duplicate of the hard copy. The notice of opportunity 

to submit comments, request a public hearing, or participate in a public hearing, if 

requested, regarding this proposed SIP revision was published on October 15, 2015, in 

the Florida Administrative Register. No hearing was requested; therefore, the hearing 
Mrs. Heather McTeer Toney

Page 2 of 2

December 14, 2015

scheduled for November 17, 2015, was cancelled. Comments received during the noticed 

public comment period have been addressed in the submittal package. I hereby certify 

that the public participation requirements of all applicable state and federal regulations, 

including those of 40 CFR 51.102, have been satisfied with respect to this proposed SIP 

revision.

If you have any questions about DEP’s proposed SIP revision, please contact Preston 

McLane at (850) 717-9089 or by e-mail at Preston.McLane@dep.state.fl.us.

Sincerely,

Justin B. Green, Director

Division of Air Resource Management

cc (with SIP package): R. Scott Davis, Chief, Air Planning Branch, EPA Region 4
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40341 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ANASTACIO NERIO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:15

- CR

- 1447

- 1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Anastacio Nerio has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Nerio has filed a response. The rec ord is not sufficiently developed
to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Nerio ’s claims of ine ffective assistance

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 24, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40341 Document: 00513731144 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2016No. 16

- 40341

2 of counsel; we theref ore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to
collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Nerio ’s response. We concur with counsel’s

assessme nt that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Nerio’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is
DENIED. Case: 16-40341 Document: 00513731144 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 441 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 441

            To terminate the Space Station Freedom program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Zimmer (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Penny, and Mr. 
    Shays) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To terminate the Space Station Freedom program.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION.

    The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration may not enter into any contract in furtherance of the 
Space Station Freedom program. The Administrator shall take such other 
actions as are necessary to terminate the Space Station Freedom 
program.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE> 1


                                  Exhibit 99.2

                            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-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 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.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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
                                                    -----------------------
                                                    Senior Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer


                                                    Date:  February 13, 2003
---

---

# Exhibit 13.2

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.

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 Amendment
No. 3 to the Annual Report of Lumenis Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby
certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of
our knowledge:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Dov Ofer
Dov OferChief Executive Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------

| |  | /s/ Aviram Steinhart
Aviram SteinhartSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 8, 2009

A signed copy of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Lumenis Ltd. and will be
retained by to Lumenis Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



---

---