alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MICROTUNE (TEXAS), L.P., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BROADCOM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. *409Microtune (Texas), L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Broadcom Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-1620, 03-1651.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 9, 2004.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Microtune (Texas), L.P.’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal in 03-1651,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

> (1) The motion is granted.

> (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

> (3) The revised official caption in 03-1620 is reflected above.
IIA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4598

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 14 (legislative day, JULY 11), 1994

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical

corrections to maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, and to authorize appropriations to carry

out the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAPS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior

5 shall, before the end of the 30-day period beginning on

6 the date of the enactment of this Act, make such correc7 tions to the maps described in subsection (b) as are nec8 essary to ensure that—
2

•HR 4598 RFS

1 (1) depictions of areas on those maps are con2 sistent with the depictions of areas appearing on the

3 maps entitled Coastal Barrier Resources System,

4 dated June 29, 1994, and on file with the Secretary

5 of the Interior; and

6 (2) the Coastal Barrier Resources System does

7 not include any area that, on the day before the date

8 of the enactment of this Act, was part of unit FL–

9 05P of that System.

10 (b) MAPS DESCRIBED.—The maps described in this

11 subsection are maps that—

12 (1) are included in a set of maps entitled

13 ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System’’, dated October

14 24, 1990; and

15 (2) relate to the following units of the Coastal

16 Barrier Resources System: FL–05P, P11A, P17,

17 P17A, P18P, P19P, FL–15, FL–95P, FL36P,

18 P31P, FL–72P, MI21, NY75, and VA62P.

19 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

20 12 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3510)

21 is amended to read as follows:
3

•HR 4598 RFS

1 ‘‘SEC. 12. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

2 ‘‘There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec3 retary for carrying out this Act $2,000,000 for each of

4 fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4347

To amend title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 to permit the conversion

of wetlands that are one acre or less in size.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 4, 1994

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself, Mr. PENNY, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. FIELDS

of Texas, Mr. EWING, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. POMBO, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr.

ROBERTS, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. DELAY, Mr. BAKER of Louisiana,

Mr. HERGER, and Mr. EVERETT) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 to

permit the conversion of wetlands that are one acre

or less in size.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Bill may be cited as the ‘‘Down To Earth Tiny

5 Wetland Act of 1994’’.
2

HR 4347 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONVERSION OF WETLANDS THAT ARE ONE ACRE

2 OR LESS IN SIZE.

3 Section 1222(b)(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985

4 (16 U.S.C. 3882(b)(2)) is amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph

6 (A);

7 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub8 paragraph (B) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

9 (3) by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(C) a wetland that is one acre or less in

11 size as determined by the Secretary, except that

12 the Secretary shall make a reasonable effort to

13 make an on-site wetland inspection whenever

14 requested by an owner or operator.’’.

Æ
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 annual report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John F. Olmstead, President and Director of CAI Equipment Leasing
V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Partnership.


By:    /s/John F. Olmstead                                Dated: March 30, 2005
       -------------------
       John F. Olmstead
Title: President and Director
§ 54.607 Eligible recipients. ( a ) *Rural health care provider site—individual and consortium.* Under the Healthcare Connect Fund Program, an eligible rural health care provider may receive universal service support by applying individually or through a consortium. For purposes of the Healthcare Connect Fund Program, a “consortium” is a group of two or more health care provider sites that request support through a single application. Consortia may include health care providers who are not eligible for support under the Healthcare Connect Fund Program, but such health care providers cannot receive support for their expenses and must participate pursuant to the cost allocation guidelines in § 54.617(d).
( b ) *Limitation on participation of non-rural health care provider sites in a consortium.* An eligible non-rural health care provider site may receive universal service support only as part of a consortium that includes more than 50 percent eligible rural health care provider sites. The majority-rural consortia percentage requirement will increase by 5 percent for the following funding year (up to a maximum of 75 percent) if the Commission must prioritize funding for a given year because Rural Health Care Program demand exceeds the funding cap.
( c ) *Limitation on large non-rural hospitals.* Each eligible non-rural public or non-profit hospital site with 400 or more licensed patient beds may receive no more than $30,000 per year in Healthcare Connect Fund Program support for eligible recurring charges and no more than $70,000 in Healthcare Connect Fund Program support every five years for eligible nonrecurring charges, exclusive in both cases of costs shared by the network.
§ 51.617 Assessment of end user common line charge on resellers. ( a ) Notwithstanding the provision in § 69.104(a) of this chapter that the end user common line charge be assessed upon end users, an incumbent LEC shall assess this charge, and the charge for changing the designated primary interexchange carrier, upon requesting carriers that purchase telephone exchange service for resale. The specific end user common line charge to be assessed will depend upon the identity of the end user served by the requesting carrier.
( b ) When an incumbent LEC provides telephone exchange service to a requesting carrier at wholesale rates for resale, the incumbent LEC shall continue to assess the interstate access charges provided in part 69 of this chapter, other than the end user common line charge, upon interexchange carriers that use the incumbent LEC's facilities to provide interstate or international telecommunications services to the interexchange carriers' subscribers.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



In connection with Bancshares of Florida, Inc.s (Company)
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 (Report), I certify 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 ended,
March 31, 2004.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 17,
2004



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ DAVID G. WALLACE                    
|David G. Wallace Chief Financial Officer
#### § 303-70.3 Must we pay death-related expenses for an employee who dies while on leave, or who dies on a non-workday, while on temporary duty (TDY) or stationed OCONUS?

Yes, provided the requirements in § 303-70.1 are met. However, payment cannot exceed the amount allowed if death had occurred while on duty at the TDY station or at the official station OCONUS.
§ 30.302 Designated entities and bidding credits. ( a ) *Eligibility for small business provisions.* ( 1 ) A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, have average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the preceding three (3) 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 that are not more than $20 million for the preceding three
( 3 ) 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 a bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) 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 a bidding credit of 25 percent, as specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
( c ) A rural service provider, as defined in § 1.2110(f)(4) of this chapter, who has not claimed a small business bidding credit may use a bidding credit of 15 percent bidding credit, as specified in § 1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.931 Responsibilities. ( a ) The responsible party warrants that each unit of equipment marketed under its grant of certification and bearing the identification specified in the grant will conform to the unit that was measured and that the data (design and rated operational characteristics) filed with the application for certification continues to be representative of the equipment being produced under such grant within the variation that can be expected due to quantity production and testing on a statistical basis.
( b ) - ( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) In determining compliance for devices subject to Supplier's Declaration of Conformity, the responsible party warrants that each unit of equipment marketed under Supplier's Declaration of Conformity will be identical to the unit tested and found acceptable with the standards and that the records maintained by the responsible party continue to reflect the equipment being produced under such Supplier's Declaration of Conformity within the variation that can be expected due to quantity production and testing on a statistical basis.
( e ) For equipment subject to Supplier's Declaration of Conformity, the responsible party must reevaluate the equipment if any modification or change adversely affects the emanation characteristics of the modified equipment. The responsible party bears responsibility for continued compliance of subsequently produced equipment.
[82 FR 50826, Nov. 2, 2017]
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
                                 SUBSIDIARIES OF
                            THE EARTHGRAINS COMPANY

<CAPTION>
NAME                                                           PLACE OF INCORPORATION
(DOING BUSINESS AS NAME[S])                                    OR FORMATION
<S>                                                            <C>
Earthgrains Baking Companies, Inc.                             Delaware

Earthgrains International Holdings, Inc.                       Delaware

EGR Resources, Inc.                                            Delaware

EGR Benefits Management, Inc.                                  Delaware

Earthgrains of West Virginia, L.L.C.                           Delaware
(Heiner's Bakery)

Cooper Smith, Inc.                                             Georgia
(Specialty Baking Company; Smith's Bakery;
Kern's Bakeries; American Bread Company;
Waldensian Bakeries)

EGR Texas General Partner, Inc.                                Delaware

EGR Texas Limited Partner, Inc.                                Delaware

EGR International, Inc.                                        Delaware

Earthgrains Refrigerated Dough Products, L.P.                  Texas

Bimbo, S.A.                                                    Spain

EuroDough, S.A.R.L.                                            France

Earthgrains European Holdings, C.V.                            Holland

Catdes, S.A.                                                   Spain

Pimad, S.A.                                                    Spain

Bimbo-Produtos Alimentares, Limitada                           Portugal

Supan, S.A.                                                    Spain

Bimbo France, S.A.R.L.                                         France

EuroVita, S.A.S.                                               France

EuroRol, S.A.S.                                                France

Euro Maintenance et Hygiene, S.A.R.L.                          France

EuroGourmet, S.A.R.L.                                          France

Earthgrains European Investments, B.V.                         Holland



<PAGE>
<PAGE>

<CAPTION>
                            SUBSIDIARIES OF
                   THE EARTHGRAINS COMPANY, CONTINUED



<S>                                                            <C>
Earthgrains Iberian Investments, S.L.                          Spain

Panaderias Unificadas Santaderinas, S.A.                       Spain

Reposteria Martinez, S.A.                                      Spain

Bolleria Gusten, S.L.                                          Spain

Recartran, S.L.                                                Spain

Seleccion Reposteria, S.L.                                     Spain

Reposteria Martinez Canarias, S.L.                             Spain

Patisserie Martinez, S.A.R.L.                                  France

Marticake de Portugal Produtos de Pasteleria e
Confeitaria, S.A.                                              Portugal
</TABLE>
# Ms. Judy Robertson

### Student Services

### 

###
§ 25.224 Protection of receive-only earth stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS. ( a ) Notwithstanding § 25.209(c) of this part, receive-only earth stations operating in the 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service can claim no greater protection from interference than they would receive if the equivalent antenna diameter were equal to or greater than 45 cm and the antenna meets the co-polar and cross-polar performance patterns represented by the following set of formulas (adopted in Recommendation ITU-R BO.1213-1, dated November 2005) that are valid for D/λ ≥11:
( b ) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry earth stations. Those earth stations are subject to the antenna performance standards of § 25.209(a) and (b) of this part.
[72 FR 50031, Aug. 29, 2007]
CHARGE QUESTIONS:

AEATF-II Removal Efficiency Study Protocol

1. Is this research likely to generate scientifically reliable data, useful for determining the 

removal efficiency of BIT from the hands due to dermal exposure associated with the use of 

latex paint and non-paint liquid solutions containing containing BIT? 

2. Is the research likely to meet the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 26, subparts K and 

L?
§ 54.2002 Eligible recipients. ( a ) *Schools.* ( 1 ) Only schools meeting the definition of “elementary school” or “secondary school”, as defined in § 54.2000, and not excluded under paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section, shall be eligible for discounts on supported services under this subpart.
( 2 ) Schools operating as for-profit businesses shall not be eligible for discounts under this subpart.
( 3 ) Schools with endowments exceeding $50,000,000 shall not be eligible for discounts under this subpart.
( b ) *Libraries.* ( 1 ) Only libraries eligible for assistance from a State library administrative agency under the Library Services and Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9122) and not excluded under paragraph (b)(2) or (3) of this section shall be eligible for discounts under this subpart.
( 2 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, a library's eligibility for discounts under this subpart shall depend on its funding as an independent entity. Only libraries whose budgets are completely separate from any schools (including, but not limited to, elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and universities) shall be eligible for discounts as libraries under this subpart.
( 3 ) Libraries operating as for-profit businesses shall not be eligible for discounts under this subpart.
( 4 ) A Tribal college or university library that serves as a public library by having dedicated library staff, regular hours, and a collection available for public use in its community shall be eligible for discounts under this subpart.
( c ) *Consortia* — ( 1 ) *Consortium Leader.* Each consortium seeking support under this subpart must identify an entity or organization that will lead the consortium (the “Consortium Leader”). The Consortium Leader may be an eligible school or library participating in the consortium; a state organization; public sector governmental entity, including a Tribal government entity; or a non-profit entity that is ineligible for support under this subpart. Ineligible state organizations, public sector entities, or non-profit entities may serve as Consortium Leaders or provide consulting assistance to consortia only if they do not participate as potential service providers during the competitive bidding process. An ineligible entity that serves as the Consortium Leader must pass through the full value of any discounts, funding, or other program benefits secured to the eligible schools and libraries that are members of the consortium.
( 2 ) For consortia, discounts under this subpart shall apply only to the portion of eligible services and equipment used by eligible schools and libraries.
( 3 ) Service providers shall keep and retain records of rates charged to and discounts allowed for eligible schools and libraries on their own or as part of a consortium. Such records shall be available for public inspection.
#### City of Princeton v. Pool.

(Decided February 20, 1917.)

Appeal from Caldwell Circuit Court.

S. D. HODGE, S. HODGE and -R. W. LISANBY for appellant.

MILLER & MORSE and T. L. EDELEN for'appellee.

Response to Petition for Rehearing by

Judge Clarke

Overruling.

For original opinion, see 171 Ky. 638.

It hardly seems necessary that we should say that we did not, by the opinion rendered herein, authorize the taking of appellee’s property, if that should be necessary in the abatement of the nuisance declared to be temporary and not permanent, in any but a legal and constitutional manner, but since counsel for-both appellant and appellee have inferred that we did so hold, we will attempt to explain what we meant to say. In the course of the opinion, we said:

> “Whether this nuisance can be successfully avoided by improving the drainage below the Big Spring, by an extension of a subterranean channel through an artificial sewer beyond the city limits, by some kind of disposal plant to be erected by the city, or otherwise, should have been left to the discretion of the city to be .exercised by it at the risk of subsequent liability to appellee if inadequately or improperly done. ’ ’ By this we meant only that for an inadequate or improper performance of the duty enjoined upon the city, it would be liable for subsequent injury to appellee. We did not decide, say, or mean to infer that appellant has any_ exclusive right in or to the stream or its banks upon appellee’s land, or to any of his property, but did hold that appellant’s right to *use*the stream, as it is, for drainage purposes is sub*186ject to a liability to appellee for injury to this property right. To take any of appellee’s property from him, the city must, of course, first condemn it.

Appellant did, in an amended answer, assert a prescriptive title to the stream and its banks through appellee’s property, but this contention now urged upon us for the first time, in appellant’s response to the petition for rehearing, was not considered upon the hearing, but was assumed to have been abandoned, as there was no evidence of either a continuous or adverse possession, the only evidence of any use by the public being that, upon occasions, members of the public have used the stream upon or near appellee’s property for washing buggies, and in taking water therefrom. Appellant’s allegation of ownership by adverse possession, put in issue appellee’s allegation that he was the owner and in the actual-possession of the described tract of land, and a specific denial of appellant’s assertion of ownership of a part thereof was not necessary.

The petition for rehearing is overruled.
# Mr. Charles McLaughlin 

### Professor of Practice

### Innovation and Disruptive Technology

### 

**Areas of Interest:**

National Security Strategy, innovation and disruptive Technology 

Mr. Charles McLaughlin recently served as a Senior Advisor (SES) at DoS Office of Policy Planning (2020-2021) and Director for Strategic Planning for the National Security Council (2018-2020) with an MBA from MIT (2001), MA from Harvard in Russian and Eurasian Studies (1999), and Master of Strategic Studies from USAWC (2011).  He brings an eclectic background of skills including numerous civilian strategy and consulting positions since 2000 prior to rejoining government service in 2017.  He has credibility with combat, Joint Staff service, teaching overseas for Harvard, teaching at West Point as a reservist, and a CIC guest lecturer.