alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

                  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

        I, Jayme Dorrough, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Techlabs, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Techlabs, Inc.

August 12, 2002

                                 By: /S/JAYME DORROUGH
                                     ------------------
                                 Name: Jayme Dorrough
                                 Title: President, Principal Executive
                                        Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

AZIZ M

. MAALI, a.k.a. Ozzi,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 50319

D.C. No. 2:15

- cr

- 00561

- SJO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN , BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Aziz M. Maali appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his

guilty

- plea conviction and 12

- month

- and

- one

- day sentence for s tructu ring

t ransaction s to e vade r eporting r equirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C.
§ 5324(a)(3), (d)(2) . Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 50319

Maali’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along

with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Maali the
opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or
answering brief has been filed.
Maali waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an
appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. Our independent review of
the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no
arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Maali’s plea. We therefore
affirm as to that issue and dismiss the remainder of the appeal of his conviction.
Maali also waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. We

dismi ss Maali’s sentencing appeal as to those aspects of his sentence that are
covered by the waiver and affirm as to all other issues except as to the three
supervised release conditions, standard conditions five, six, and fourteen, which

are unconstitutionall y vague

. See United States v. Evans , 883 F.3d 1154, 1162

- 64
(9th Cir. 2018); s ee also United States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2009) (an
appeal waiver does not bar a constitutional challenge to a supervised release
condition)

. We remand for the di strict court to modify these conditions consistent
with our opinion in Evans

.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part ; REMANDED with

instructions

.
#### § 27.1510 Unacceptable interference to narrowband 900 MHz licensees from 900 MHz broadband licensees.

See 47 CFR 90.672.
## AD Grid Sheet 

# 02-30 Docket No,: PAA-2014-*'**"' Directorate Identifier: 2013 -NM - 242-AD AD 

### Action: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

### (NPRM) This action applies to certain Airbus Model A300 .84-600 . B4-600R , and F4-600R serie airplanes, and Model A300 C4.-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model**A3'1lL-~~~ j-!.**  series airplanes). Ifthis draft is acceptable , please legibly sign the grid to the right with your first initial and full last name to show**~oncurrence** with this AD .

f)IIT!:
§ 61.28 International dominant carrier tariff filing requirements. ( a ) Any carrier classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation under § 63.10 of this chapter shall file tariffs for those services pursuant to the notice and cost support requirements for tariff filings of dominant domestic carriers, as set forth in subpart E of this part.
( b ) Other than the notice and cost support requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part.
[66 FR 16881, Mar. 28, 2001]
793 A.2d 713

#### JOANE BROWN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND PETER PRYOR, LENORE BENEFIELD, AND ERIC PRYOR, PLAINTIFFS, v. FELIX GARCIA M.D., COOPER HOSPITAL/UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, MARY ELIZABETH PALKON-KRYTZER, R.N., SANDRA BALDWIN, R.N., STEPHEN G. SCHULTZ, R.N., KARLA SANGATALDO, R.N., LISA O’LEARY, R.N., JOSEPH HEETHER, M.D., JOEL LORENZ, CRNA AND THOMAS CARRIG, M.D., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

December 14, 2001.

ORDER

This matter having been duly considered and the Court having determined that certification was improvidently granted;

It is ORDERED that the within appeal be and hereby is dismissed.
§ 5.57 Who may sign applications. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, applications, amendments thereto, and related statements of fact required by the Commission shall be personally signed by the applicant, if the applicant is an individual; by one of the partners, if the applicant is a partnership; by an officer or duly authorized employee, if the applicant is a corporation; or by a member who is an officer, if the applicant is an unincorporated association. Applications, amendments, and related statements of fact filed on behalf of eligible government entities, such as states and territories of the United States and political subdivisions thereof, the District of Columbia, and units of local government, including incorporated municipalities, shall be signed by such duly elected or appointed officials as may be competent to do so under the laws of the applicable jurisdiction.
( b ) Applications, amendments thereto, and related statements of fact required by the Commission may be signed by the applicant's attorney in case of the applicant's physical disability or of his/her absence from the United States. The attorney shall in that event separately set forth the reason why the application is not signed by the applicant. In addition, if any matter is stated on the basis of the attorney's belief only (rather than his/her knowledge), he/she shall separately set forth reasons for believing that such statements are true.
( c ) Only the original of applications, amendments, or related statements of fact need be signed; copies may be conformed.
( d ) Applications, amendments, and related statements of fact need not be submitted under oath. Willful false statements made therein, however, are punishable by fine and imprisonment, U.S. Code, title 18, Sec. 1001, and by appropriate administrative sanctions, including revocation of station license pursuant to Sec. 312(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
( e ) “Signed,” as used in this section, means an original handwritten signature; however, the Office of Engineering and Technology may allow signature by any symbol executed or adopted by the applicant with the intent that such symbol be a signature, including symbols formed by computer-generated electronic impulses.
#### Marshall Impeachment Case.

*328Argued November 22, 1949.

Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson, Stearne and Jones, JJ.

*349
      *Edwin P. Rome,*with him *Franklin Poul, William A. Gray*and *Gray, Anderson, Schaffer A Rome,*for appellant.

*Bryan A. Hermes,*with him *James P. Schellenger*and *Michael von Moschzisker,*for appellee.

November 23, 1949:

Opinion

pee Curiam,

The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Francis Siiunk Brown, Jr., P. J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4910

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PAUL FRANKLIN HOOVER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CR-96-21-BO)

Submitted: June 8, 1999 Decided: January 20, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, Edwin C. Walker,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Franklin Hoover appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eighteen months

of imprisonment. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. See United States v.

Hoover, No. CR-96-21-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 1998). Accordingly, we

affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Professors Hurley and McGibbon Publish in Federal Computer Week

/ Published March 4, 2015

Congratulations to Professors John Hurley and Mark McGibbon for publishing an excellent article on the Sony hacking case.  The direct link to the Federal Computer Week article is  http://fcw.com/articles/2015/03/03/comment-sony-hack-lessons.aspx, and it can also be found on the homepage in the "Opinion that Matters" section.   Short summary: The cyber security hack suffered by Sony Pictures Entertainment late last year was a significant event in terms of that company's reputation, financial concerns and cybersecurity readiness posture. Regardless of the perpetrator(s) behind the cyber breach, Sony revealed to the world how vulnerable it was to a cyber intrusion. This begs the question: What other major organizations could suffer the same type of attack?

There are common-sense steps that any organization can encourage so that employees don't compromise systems' security (more listed in the article):
      - Use only updated firewalls and intrusion detection systems (IDS). Password-protect and encrypt all files in storage. 
      - Encrypt all sensitive emails before sending. 
      - Overwrite deleted data with a program that truly erases all data placed into the computer’s trash, such as the software programs: CCleaner (Windows), Eraser (Windows) or Secure Empty Trash (Apple)

**J. S. Hurley, Ph.D. (EE)** is currently a faculty member at the National Defense University Information Resources Management College (NDU iCollege). Dr. Hurley served previously as Senior Manager, Distributed Computing in the Networked Systems Division, The Boeing Company, Bellevue, WA. Dr. Hurley was Professor of Electrical Engineering and Director of three research centers (Scalable and Embedded Applications Center, Materials Processing Assessment and Characterization Center, and Avalon Scalable Embedded Computing Center) and Co-Director, Army Center of Excellence in Electronic Sensors and Combat at Clark Atlanta University, in Atlanta, GA. 

**H. Mark McGibbon, Ph.D., D.B.A**. serves as the Lockheed Martin Visiting Chair at the National Defense University Information Resources Management College (NDU iCollege). He has also served as a visiting and adjunct professor at several U.S. and European universities at the undergraduate, graduate and doctoral levels. Dr. McGibbon holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration, Doctorate in Business Administration (D.B.A.), M.S. in Information Technology, M.S. in Strategic Leadership, 16 Master’s Certificates in multiple CXO disciplines, an online teaching certificate, and a B.S. in U.S. pre-Law. He is a graduate of the Harvard University Senior Executive Fellows (SEF) Program.
Revised Schedule for Spring/Summer - Several Courses Cancelled
 
  The college is currently undergoing a strategic reflection to more efficiently and effectively deliver content to its students and stakeholders. This effort requires cancellation of many of our late spring and summer sections. Students have been notified and informed on the next sections available. 
The following sections have been cancelled: ARC Section 07 (DL)
            COO Section 05 (DL)
            CYI Section 05 (DL)
            IPC Section 02 (DL)
            IPL Section 04 (DL)
            ITP Section 07 (DL)
            PRI Section 02 (DL)
            RIA Section 03 (DL)
            SPB Section 07 (DL)
            WGV Section 04 (DL)
            COO Section 06 (eRes)
            ATO Section 04 (eRes)
            IPC Section 03 (eRes)
            MAC Section 06 (eRes)
            TCC Section 02 (eRes)
            AII Section 06 (eRes)
            CBL Section 04 (eRes)
            LDC Section 06 (eRes) Please refer to the revised March-June 2016 schedule for specifics and other course options.  
For any questions, please contact the Office of Student Services at 202-685-6300 or iCollegeOSS@ndu.edu.
§ 27.602 Lease agreements. Guard Band licensees may enter into spectrum leasing arrangements under part 1, subpart X of this chapter regarding the use of their licensed spectrum by spectrum lessees, subject to the following conditions: ( a ) The spectrum lease agreement between the licensee and the spectrum lessee must specify in detail the operating parameters of the spectrum lessee's system, including power, maximum antenna heights, frequencies of operation, base station location(s), area(s) of operation, and other parameters specified in Commission rules for the use of spectrum identified in § 27.5(b)(1) and (b)(2).
( b ) The spectrum lease agreement must require the spectrum lessee to use Commission-approved equipment where appropriate and to complete post-construction proofs of system performance prior to system activation.
[72 FR 27713, May 16, 2007]
# Waiving Prohibition on United States Military Assistance With Respect to Lesotho

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                    Consistent with the authority vested in me by section 2007 of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 (the “Act”), title II of Public Law 107-206 (22 U.S.C. 7421*et seq*.), I hereby:                

                    You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress, and to arrange for its publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 06-6839

Billing code 4710-10-P
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4455 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4455

  To authorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States to provide 
  financing for the export of nonlethal defense articles and defense 
  services the primary end use of which will be for civilian purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 1994

 Mr. Bereuter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
            Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States to provide 
  financing for the export of nonlethal defense articles and defense 
  services the primary end use of which will be for civilian purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR THE EXPORT OF NONLETHAL 
              DEFENSE ARTICLES AND DEFENSE SERVICES THE PRIMARY END USE 
              OF WHICH WILL BE FOR CIVILIAN PURPOSES.

    Section 2(b)(6) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
635(b)(6)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(I) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a sale of defense 
articles or services if the Bank determines that--
            ``(i) the defense articles or services are nonlethal; and
            ``(ii) the primary end use of the defense articles or 
        services will be for civilian purposes.''.

                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Circuit Mediation Office Statistics 

2021 Calendar Year

(January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021)

Appeals settled: 4

• Patent: 1

• Non-patent: 3

Appeals not settled; mediation terminated: 6

• Patent: 5

• Non-patent: 1

Success rate - overall (of appeals selected for mediation): 40%

• Patent: 16%

• Non-patent: 75%
#### § 27.904 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.

An entity that acquires a portion of a 1670-1675 MHz band licensee's geographic area or spectrum subject to a geographic partitioning or spectrum disaggregation agreement under § 27.15 must function as a 1670-1675 MHz licensee and is subject to the obligations and restrictions on the 1670-1675 MHz license as set forth in this subpart.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.40002 Referral of applications, petitions, and other filings with reportable foreign ownership to the executive branch agencies for review. ( a ) The Commission will refer any applications, petitions, or other filings for which it determines to seek executive branch review by placing the application, petition, or other filing on an accepted for filing public notice that will provide a comment period for the executive branch to seek deferral for review for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns.
( b ) ( 1 ) The executive branch agency(ies) must electronically file in all applicable Commission file numbers and dockets associated with the application(s), petition(s), or other filing(s) a request that the Commission defer action until the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector (Committee) completes its review. In the request for deferral the executive branch agency must notify the Commission on or before the comment date and must state whether the executive branch: ( i ) Sent tailored questions to the applicant(s), petitioner(s), and/or other filer(s);
( ii ) Will send tailored questions to the applicant(s), petitioner(s), and/or other filer(s) by a specific date not to be later than thirty (30) days after the date on which the Commission referred the application to the executive branch in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section; or
( iii ) Will not transmit tailored questions to the applicant(s), petitioner(s), and/or other filer(s).
( 2 ) The executive branch agency(ies) must electronically file in all applicable Commission file numbers and dockets associated with the application(s), petition(s), or other filing(s) a request by the comment date if it needs additional time beyond the comment period set out in the accepted for filing public notice to determine whether it will seek deferral.
( c ) If an executive branch agency(ies) does not notify the Commission that it seeks deferral of referred application(s), petition(s), and/or other filing(s) within the comment period established by an accepted for filing public notice, the Commission will deem that the executive branch does not have any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or trade policy concerns with the application(s), petition(s), and/or other filing(s) and may act on the application(s), petition(s), and/or other filing(s) as appropriate based on its determination of the public interest.
§ 959.24 Exceptions to initial decision or tentative decision. ( a ) A party in a proceeding presided over by an Administrative Law Judge, except a party who failed to file an answer, may appeal to the Judicial Officer by filing exceptions in a brief on appeal within 15 days from the receipt of the Administrative Law Judge's written initial decision.
( b ) A party in a proceeding presided over by the Judicial Officer, except one who has failed to file an answer, may file exceptions within 15 days from the receipt of the Judicial Officer's written tentative decision.
( c ) When an initial or tentative decision is rendered orally at the close of the hearing, the presiding officer may then establish and orally give notice to the parties participating in the hearing of the time limit within which exceptions must be filed.
( d ) Upon receipt of the brief on appeal from an initial decision of an Administrative Law Judge, the Recorder shall promptly transmit the record to the Judicial Officer. The date for filing the reply to a brief on appeal or to a brief in support of exceptions to a tentative decision by the Judicial Officer is 10 days after the receipt thereof. No additional briefs shall be received unless requested by the Judicial Officer.
( e ) Briefs on appeal or in support of exceptions and replies thereto shall be filed in triplicate with the Recorder, and contain the following matter in the order indicated: ( 1 ) A subject index of the matters presented, with page references; a table of cases alphabetically arranged; a list of statutes and texts cited, with page references.
( 2 ) A concise abstract or statement of the case.
( 3 ) Numbered exceptions to specific findings of fact or conclusions of law of the presiding officer.
( 4 ) A concise argument clearly setting forth points of fact and of law relied upon in support of, or in opposition to, each exception taken, together with specific references to the pertinent parts of the record and the legal or other authorities relied upon.
( f ) Unless permission is granted by the Judicial Officer, no brief on appeal or in support of exceptions shall exceed 50 printed or 100 typewritten pages double spaced.
( g ) The Judicial Officer will extend the time to file briefs only upon written motion for good cause found. The Recorder shall promptly notify the movant of the Judicial Officer's decision on the motion. If a brief is not filed within the time prescribed, the defaulting party will be deemed to have abandoned the appeal or waived the exceptions, and the initial or tentative decision shall become the final decision of the Postal Service.
[39 FR 33213, Sept. 16, 1974, as amended at 63 FR 66052, Dec. 1, 1998]
9 June 2016

070P16

#### State v. Nicolas Olivares Pineda

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-800)

1. Allowed 03/04/2016

Dissolved 06/09/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Denied

3. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Special Order

4. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Denied