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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 53670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22152]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday, September 9, 2011.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the 
event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, 
an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the 
meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-22152 Filed 8-25-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
§ 64.2103 Retention of call attempt records. ( a ) Except as described in § 64.2107, each covered provider shall record and retain information about each call attempt to a rural OCN from subscriber lines for which the covered provider makes the initial long-distance call path choice in a readily retrievable form for a period that includes the six most recent complete calendar months.
( b ) Affiliated covered providers may record and retain the information required by this rule individually or in the aggregate.
( c ) A call attempt that is returned by an intermediate provider to the covered provider and reassigned shall count as a single call attempt.
( d ) Call attempts to toll-free numbers, as defined in § 52.101(f) of this chapter, are excluded from these requirements.
( e ) IntraLATA toll calls carried entirely over the covered provider's network or handed off by the covered provider directly to the terminating local exchange carrier or directly to the tandem switch serving the terminating local exchange carrier's end office (terminating tandem), are excluded from these requirements.
( f ) The information contained in each record shall include: ( 1 ) The calling party number;
( 2 ) The called party number;
( 3 ) The date;
( 4 ) The time;
( 5 ) An indication whether the call attempt was handed off to an intermediate provider or not and, if so, which intermediate provider;
( 6 ) The rural OCN associated with the called party number;
( 7 ) An indication whether the call attempt was interstate or intrastate;
( 8 ) An indication whether the call attempt was answered, which may take the form of an SS7 signaling cause code or SIP signaling message code associated with each call attempt; and
( 9 ) An indication whether the call attempt was completed to the incumbent local exchange carrier but signaled as busy, ring no answer, or unassigned number. This indication may take the form of an SS7 signaling cause code or SIP signaling message code associated with each call attempt.
( g ) The provisions of this section shall expire on September 15, 2020.
[78 FR 76239, Dec. 17, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 73227, Dec. 10, 2014; 82 FR 11594, Mar. 4, 2015; 82 FR 19615, Apr. 28, 2017; 84 FR 25706, June 4, 2019]
#### Nelson TAMAYO-OMAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 02-73145.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*997Submitted March 15, 2004.**

Decided March 24, 2004.

Joseph L. Feldun, Esq., Korenberg, Abramowitz & Feldun, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 John Ashcroft is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Nelson Tamayo-Omar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of deportation. This case is governed by the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). *See Alfaro-Reyes v. INS,*224 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir.2000). We have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction, *id.*at 918, and we dismiss the petition.

Pursuant to IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G), no direct appeal is permitted where an alien is deportable by reason of having eommit-ted an offense covered by Immigration and Nationality Act § 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated felonies). *See Alfaro-Reyes,*224 F.3d at 920-21. Petitioner’s conviction under California Penal Code § 288(a) for lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under 14 is an aggravated felony. *See United States v. Baron-Medina,*187 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir.1999). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims, including his constitutional claims. *See Alfaro-Reyes,*224 F.3d at 922.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, James J. McNamara, Chief Executive 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, 2006, 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/ James J. McNamara
-------------------------------------
Name: James J. McNamara
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: May 5, 2006
```
§ 27.1104 Designated Entities in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Eligibility for small business provisions: ( a ) *Small business.* ( 1 ) A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
( 2 ) A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
( b ) *Bidding credits.* A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business as defined in this section or a consortium of small businesses may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business as defined in this section or a consortium of very small businesses may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter.
[78 FR 8270, Feb. 5, 2013, as amended at 80 FR 56816, Sept. 18, 2015]
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION**

** **

In connection withthis annual report of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E.Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of MerrillLynch Alternative Investments LLC, the general partner of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: March 31, 2008 |                 |   |
|---------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|                      |                 |   |
| By                        | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis          |                 |   |
| Chief Financial Officer   |                 |   |
|                           |                      |        |  |

 

----
#### Lazaro Paz PINON-MORENO; et al., Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 02-72313.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 6, 2004.*

Decided March 18, 2004.

Carlos A. Batara, San Diego, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, CAS-Distriet Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Greg D. Mack, Esq., Audrey B. Hemesath, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

We are prohibited by statute from reviewing the INS’s discretionary decision to commence proceedings against an alien. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); *see also Cortez-Felipe v. INS,*245 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.2001). It is also well-established that Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) can be applied to petitioners who presented themselves to the INS prior to the statute’s effective date. *See Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft,*345 F.3d 788, 793 (9th Cir.2003); *Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003); *Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 602 (9th Cir.2002). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the Pinon-Morenos’ claim that the INS should have commenced deportation proceedings against them before the effective date of IIRIRA. And because the Pinon-Morenos’ due process and equal protection claims amount to a challenge to the INS’s decision to commence proceedings, these claims must similarly fail. *See Lopez-Urenda,*345 F.3d at 796; *Vasquez-Zavala,*324 F.3d at 1108-09.

The Pinon-Morenos have not shown affirmative misconduct by the INS; we thus decline equitably to estop the agency from proceeding under IIRIRA. *See Cortez-Felipe,*245 F.3d at 1057; *Mukherjee v. INS,*793 F.2d 1006, 1008-09 (9th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, because the Pinon-*271Morenos’ discovery motions sought information about the INS’s discretionary and unreviewable decision to commence proceedings, the Immigration Judge did not err in denying them. *See Jimenez-Angeles,*291 F.3d at 598-99; *Campos v. Nail,*940 F.2d 495, 497 n. 8 (9th Cir.1991).

The Pinon-Morenos’ motion to supplement the administrative record is denied.

The petition for review is DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1



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-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), I, Kenneth P. Cherven, President and Chief Executive 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. | 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: May 3, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth P. Cherven                                   
|                  |  |     |  | Kenneth P. Cherven, President and Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy M. Comes, Executive Director, 441 G St., NW., Mail Stop 6K17V, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

Authority:Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. No. 92-363.

Dated: August 14, 2006.

Charles Jackson,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 06-6988 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610-01-M
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-0149

LT Case No. 16-2021-CF-6865-A

_____________________________

MARSAI DEVONTA CRUZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Tatiana Salvador, Judge.

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Pamela D. Presnell, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

October 24, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SOUD, MACIVER, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

§ 36.212 Basic local services revenue—Account 5000. ( a ) Local private line revenues from broadcast program transmission audio services and broadcast program transmission video services are assigned to the interstate operation.
( b ) Revenues that are attributable to the origination or termination of interstate FX or CCSA like services shall be assigned to the interstate jurisdiction.
( c ) Wideband Message Service revenues from monthly and miscellaneous charges, service connections, move and change charges, are apportioned between state and interstate operations on the basis of the relative number of minutes-of-use in the study area. Effective July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2024, all study areas shall apportion Wideband Message Service revenues among the jurisdictions using the relative number of minutes of use for the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000.
( d ) All other revenues in this account are assigned to the exchange operation based on their subsidiary record categories or on the basis of analysis and studies.
[52 FR 17229, May 6, 1987, as amended at 66 FR 33206, June 21, 2001; 71 FR 65746, Nov. 9, 2006; 75 FR 30301, June 1, 2010; 76 FR 30841, May 27, 2011; 79 FR 36237, June 26, 2014]
National Security, Military, and Cybersecurity Experts meet about Installation Platform Information Technology
 By Patricia Coopersmith
  Approximately 50 people from the military and various national security agencies met on May 30-31, 2012, at the National
Defense University (NDU) iCollege to advance the cyber security of control
systems at military and government facilities worldwide. The meeting was convened by the Department of Defense (DoD) Under Secretary of Defense for Installations&  Environments Office of Business Enterprise Integration, led by Mr.
Michael Aimone, PE. The focus of the meeting centered on a cross pollination of
efforts to secure the cyber components of industrial control, building
control, and electronic security systems, known collectively as Installation Platform Information Technology (I-PIT), that reside on
military installations and at other government locations. Presentations included: Threat & vulnerability spectrum, research, education & training, control system certification & accreditation, and
device-up-through-regional level intrusion monitoring of control
networks. Participants worked together to produce templates drawn from the
National Institute of Science and Technology's Guide 800-53, "Recommended
Security Controls for Federal Information Systems" to be applied to
control systems. 
Thanks to Dr. John Saunders, Cyber Integration & Information Operations Department, NDU iCollege, for facilitating the meeting.
[Cite as State v. Robinson, 2015-Ohio-3486.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

v. : No. 13AP-563 

 (C.P.C. No. 12CR-1868) 

William L. Robinson, : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on August 27, 2015 

 

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael P. Walton, 

for appellee. 

Jeffrey A. Berndt, for appellant. 

 

ON APPLICATION FOR DELAYED REOPENING 

TYACK, J. 

{¶ 1} William Leslie Robinson, Jr., has filed an application seeking to reopen his 

direct appeal. Robinson's initial appeal begun in 2013 and concluded in 2014. The time 

allowed for him to pursue an App.R. 26(B) application for reopening was 90 days from 

the date the appeal was decided. That 90 days lapsed over one year ago, our judgment 

having been rendered in February 2014. 

{¶ 2} Robinson has not presented a reasonable explanation for his failure to 

comply with the applicable time limit. Stated directly, he has not shown good cause for 

his delay. For that reason alone, his application must be denied. 

{¶ 3} The allegation that Robinson sent a prior application for reopening to the 

Supreme Court of Ohio does not constitute a valid excuse for the delay, assuming the 
No. 13AP-563 2 

allegation is true. Robinson should have known that the application needed to be filed 

with the court which decided his appeal, not some other court. 

{¶ 4} Robinson and his family apparently were having difficulty communicating 

with Robinson's appellate counsel. Part of the difficulty seems to center on the fact that 

Robinson was trying to tell his lawyer how to handle his case. 

{¶ 5} Appellate counsel provided Robinson with copies of the appellate briefs in a 

timely fashion. As a result, if Robinson and his family felt that other issues should be 

raised and argued, they had the opportunity to notify counsel or this court of the 

additional issues before the case was submitted to a panel of the court for a decision. 

{¶ 6} Ineffective assistance of counsel, either trial counsel or appellate counsel, 

can only be shown by meeting the very high standards set by Strickland v. Washington, 

466 U.S. 668 (1984). Robinson was convicted based upon eyewitness testimony 

supported by DNA evidence. Nothing before us indicates that the jury reached the wrong 

result when it found Robinson guilty of aggravated burglary and sexual battery. Nothing 

before us indicates that any of his lawyers rendered ineffective assistance. 

{¶ 7} The application for delayed reopening is denied. 

Application for delayed reopening denied. 

SADLER and HORTON, JJ., concur.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DAVID STRATTON,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D23-255

LT Case No. 2007-CF-1677

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed May 30, 2023

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Duval County,

Meredith Charbula, Judge.

David Stratton, Lake City, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EISNAUGLE, BOATWRIGHT and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
#### § 15.307 [Reserved]
#### § 64.609 Enforcement of related customer premises equipment rules.

Enforcement of §§ 64.607 and 64.608 is delegated to those state public utility or public service commissions which adopt those sections and provide for their enforcement. Subpart G—Furnishing of Enhanced Services and Customer-Premises Equipment by Communications Common Carriers

[56 FR 36731, Aug. 1, 1991. Redesignated and amended at 73 FR 21259, Apr. 21, 2008]