alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 26.302 Emission masks. ( a ) *2025-2110 MHz.* For frequencies offset from the assigned frequency less than the 50 percent of the necessary bandwidth, no attenuation is required. At a frequency offset equal to 50 percent of the necessary bandwidth, an attenuation of at least 8 dB is required. Frequencies offset more than 50 percent of the necessary bandwidth shall be attenuated by the following mask: Equation 1 to Paragraph (a) Where: fd is the frequency displaced from the center of the emission bandwidth. Bn is the necessary bandwidth, which is determined in accordance with Annex J of the NTIA Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management (NTIA Manual) (incorporated by reference, see § 26.305). dBsd is dB attenuation in a 4 kHz bandwidth, relative to the maximum power in any 4 kHz bandwidth within the necessary bandwidth (0 dBsd), where attenuation in this sense refers to the reduction in level relative to the reference, 0 dBsd, unless otherwise specified.
The unwanted emission mask rolls off at 40 dB per decade to a maximum attenuation of 60 dBsd, at which point it continues on both sides of the carrier for all frequencies beyond this point; see Annex M of the NTIA Manual regarding measurement requirements (incorporated by reference, see § 26.305); for any narrowband or single frequency unwanted emission which is not spread by the modulation process, the required attenuation shall be at least 60 dBc, where dBc is attenuation below the mean transmit power, rather than the dBsd value determined in equation 1 to this paragraph (a).
( b ) *2200-2290 MHz.* ( 1 ) During the first stage of a launch, all spectral components larger than −[55 + 10xlog(P)] dBc (*i.e.,* larger than −25 dBm) at the transmitter output must be within the spectral mask calculated using the following equation: Equation 2 to Paragraph (b)(1) M(f) = K + 90 log(R)−100 log |f-fc|; |f-fc| ≥ R/m Where: M(f) = power (dBc) at frequency f (MHz). K = −20 for analog signals. K = −28 for binary signals. K = −61 for FQPSK-B, FQPSK-JR, SOQPSK-TG. K = −73 for ARTM CPM. fc = transmitter center frequency (MHz). R = bit rate (Mbps) for digital signals or (Δf +fmax)(MHz) for analog FM signals. M = number of states in modulating signal (m = 2 for binary signals, m = 4 for quaternary signals and analog signals). f = peak deviation. fmax = maximum modulation frequency.
( 2 ) After the first stage of a launch, the emission mask set forth in paragraph (a) of this section shall apply.
#### § 102-36.160 What additional information must we provide on the SF 122 when acquiring excess personal property for non-federal recipients?

Annotate on the SF 122, the name of the non-federal recipient and the contract, grant or agreement number, when applicable, and the scheduled completion/expiration date of the contract, grant or agreement. If the remaining time prior to the expiration date is less than 60 calendar days, you must certify that the contract, grant or agreement will be extended or renewed or provide other written justification for the transfer.
701 P.2d *111*

#### STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael William JOHNSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15711.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

May 24, 1985.

George M. Parham, Ada County Deputy Public Defender, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Johnston appeals from concurrent indeterminate prison sentences of fifteen years for robbery and three years for grand theft. The sole issue is whether the district court abused its sentencing discretion.

Johnston pled guilty to robbery of a pizza parlor and grand theft of a vehicle. The presentence report showed a prior criminal record of assorted non-violent crimes, including forgery, theft and receiving stolen property. As a juvenile he had been caught dealing in illicit drugs. Having reviewed the full record and having considered the sentence review criteria set forth in *State v. Toohill,*103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1982), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The sentences are affirmed.
No. 11-1032.

No. 11-1045.

No. 11-1165.

#### Agarano et al. *v.*Mattos et ux.; Brooks *v.*Daman et al.; and Mattos et ux. *v.*Agarano et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 661 F. 3d 433.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 52081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21184]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 233 (SC 233) Addressing 
Human Factors/Pilot Interface Issues for Avionics

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Third Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 233.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
third meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 233.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 15th-17th from 8:00 a.m.-4:30 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th 
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, Tel: (202) 330-0662.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street 
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or 
Jennifer Iversen, Program Director, RTCA, Inc., jiversen@rtca.org, 
(202) 330-0662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 233. The 
agenda will include the following:

Tuesday, September 15, 2015 (8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.)

1. Introduction, Upcoming PMC Dates, Minutes from Last Meeting
2. Rotorcraft Directorate Test Pilot Evaluations
3. Outline Discussion
4. Subcommittee Out-brief
5. Subcommittee Initial Breakout Session
6. Planning for Next Meeting

Wednesday, September 16, 2015 (8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.)

1. Subcommittee Breakout Sessions
2. Subcommittee Breakout Sessions
3. Subcommittee Out-brief

Thursday, September 17, 2015 (8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.)

1. Leadership Team Wrap-up/Discussion on Outline Content
2. Subcommittee Assignments
3. Meeting Recap, Action Items, Key Dates
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 19, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, Next Generation, Enterprise Support 
Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-21184 Filed 8-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
EXHIBIT 99.14

                           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 Amended Quarterly Report of Xin Net Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I, S.Y. Marc Hung,
President and CEO of the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sction 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/ S.Y. Marc Hung
                                         --------------------------------
                                         S.Y. Marc Hung, President/CEO

Dated:  9/3/02
```

EXHIBIT 32.2

                                   iDNA, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of iDNA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), do hereby
represent, warrant and certify 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, 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
Registrant.

/s/ Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
-----------------------------------
Name: Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: May 11, 2007
```
§ 32.2220 Operator systems. ( a ) This account shall include the original cost of those items of equipment used to assist subscribers in utilizing the network and equipment used in the provision of directory assistance, call intercept, and other operator assisted call completion activities.
( b ) This account does not include equipment used solely for the recording of calling telephone numbers in connection with customer dialed charged traffic, dial tandem switchboards and special service switchboards used in conjunction with private line service; such equipment shall be classfied to the particular switch that it serves.
[51 FR 43499, Dec. 2, 1986, as amended at 59 FR 46930, Sept. 13, 1994]
#### § 32.6210 Central office switching expenses.

Class B telephone companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character required of Class A companies in Accounts 6211 through 6212.

[67 FR 5695, Feb. 6, 2002]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50288

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL MENDIETA-GOMEZ, also known

as Jorge Mendieta-Gomez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-03-CR-293-ALL-LY

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Miguel MendietaGomez concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed by

circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further review. 

The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing

an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
§ 25.139 NGSO FSS coordination and information sharing between MVDDS licensees in the 12.2 GHz to 12.7 GHz band. ( a ) NGSO FSS licensees shall maintain a subscriber database in a format that can be readily shared with MVDDS licensees for the purpose of determining compliance with the MVDDS transmitting antenna spacing requirement relating to qualifying existing NGSO FSS subscriber receivers set forth in § 101.129 of this chapter. This information shall not be used for purposes other than set forth in § 101.129 of this chapter. Only sufficient information to determine compliance with § 101.129 of this chapter is required.
( b ) Within ten business days of receiving notification of the location of a proposed MVDDS transmitting antenna, the NGSO FSS licensee shall provide sufficient information from the database to enable the MVDDS licensee to determine whether the proposed MVDDS transmitting site meets the minimum spacing requirement.
( c ) If the location of the proposed MVDDS transmitting antenna site does not meet the separation requirements of § 101.129 of this chapter, then the NGSO FSS licensee shall also indicate to the MVDDS licensee within the same ten day period specified in paragraph (b) of this section whether the proposed MVDDS transmitting site is acceptable at the proposed location.
( d ) Nothing in this section shall preclude NGSO FSS and MVDDS licensees from entering into an agreement to accept MVDDS transmitting antenna locations that are shorter-spaced from existing NGSO FSS subscriber receivers than the distance set forth in § 101.129 of this chapter.
[67 FR 43037, June 26, 2002, as amended at 68 FR 43945, July 25, 2003]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.4



                   SECOND MODIFICATION TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Second Modification to Employment Agreement (this "Agreement") is
made and entered into effective as of May 5, 2000, by and between SCB Computer
Technology, Inc., a Tennessee corporation (the "Company"), and Ben C. Bryant,
Jr. (the "Executive").

         WHEREAS, the Executive is currently employed by the Company pursuant to
the terms of an Employment Agreement dated as of November 1, 1998, as amended by
the First Modification to Employment Agreement dated as of November 1, 1999
(collectively, the "Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to modify the Employment
Agreement as set forth herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises hereof and of the
mutual promises and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto, intending
to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

         1. Section 3.a of the Employment Agreement is amended to read as
follows:

                  a. Base Salary. The Executive shall receive a base salary at
            the rate of $425,000 per annum during the period from November 1,
            1998, to January 31, 2000, the rate of $600,000 per annum during the
            period from February 1, 2000, to May 4, 2000, and the rate of
            $300,000 per annum from May 5, 2000, to the Expiration Date (as
            adjusted, the "Base Salary"), payable in substantially equal
            periodic payments, which shall be made no less frequently than
            monthly during the period of the Executive's employment hereunder.

         2. As so amended, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and
confirmed.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this
Agreement as of the date first written above.


                                          SCB COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, INC.



                                          By:  /s/ Gordon L. Bateman
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Gordon L. Bateman
                                               Chief Administrative Officer



                                          /s/ Ben C. Bryant, Jr.
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Ben C. Bryant, Jr.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60501

Summary Calendar

 

THOMAS MALLORY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LINDA STONE, Supreme Court Clerk,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:95-CV-780-BN

- - - - - - - - - -

September 22, 1998

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Mallory, Mississippi state prisoner # EF354378, seeks

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. By moving

for IFP, Mallory is challenging the district court’s

certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal

because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v.

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Mallory has

not demonstrated that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on 
No. 96-60501 

-2-

appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. See Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Mallory’s motions for the

appointment of counsel and for time to engage in discovery also

are denied. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

A prisoner may not

bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in

a civil action or proceeding under this

section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more

prior occasions, while incarcerated or

detained in any facility, brought an action

or appeal in a court of the United States

that was dismissed on the grounds that it is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted,

unless the prisoner is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). In addition to the district court’s

dismissal of the instant civil rights complaint as frivolous and

to this court’s dismissal of this appeal as frivolous, Mallory

has had at least five additional civil rights complaints

dismissed as frivolous. See Mallory v. Herring, No. 97-CV-59

(N.D. Miss. Oct. 10, 1997); Mallory v. Riley, No. 95-CV-170 (N.D.

Miss. Dec. 11, 1997); Mallory v. Riley, No. 95-CV-171 (N.D. Miss.

Nov. 4, 1997); Mallory v. Riley, No. 95-CV-163 (N.D. Miss. Nov.

4, 1997). Because Mallory has more than three “strikes,” except

for cases involving an imminent danger of serious physical

injury, Mallory is barred from proceeding further under § 1915. 

See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). 

He may proceed in subsequent civil cases under the fee provisions

of § 1911-14.
No. 96-60501 

-3-

IFP DENIED; MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND FOR

ADDITIONAL TIME TO ENGAGE IN DISCOVERY DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED;

§ 1915(g) SANCTION IMPOSED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Depomed, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John F. Hamilton,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
|        | Date: March 15, 2007 |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | /s/ John F. Hamilton      |
|   | John F. Hamilton          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

----
{"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":"Court Sessions Calendars - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"y8VzL45U3T\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/oral-argument\/calendar-of-sessions\/\">Court Sessions Calendars<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/oral-argument\/calendar-of-sessions\/embed\/#?secret=y8VzL45U3T\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Court Sessions Calendars” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"y8VzL45U3T\" 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":"Court Sessions Calendar – FY 2024 (pdf) Court Sessions Calendar – FY 2025 (pdf)"}