alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"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":"21-1064: CONNOR v. DVA [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=\"ewx8EHPl8C\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/8-12-2021-21-1064-connor-v-dva-opinion-21-1064-opinion-8-12-2021_1818087\/\">21-1064: CONNOR v. DVA [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/8-12-2021-21-1064-connor-v-dva-opinion-21-1064-opinion-8-12-2021_1818087\/embed\/#?secret=ewx8EHPl8C\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1064: CONNOR v. DVA [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"ewx8EHPl8C\" 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: CONNOR v. DVA [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1064 Origin: MSPB Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
§ 20.2 Other applicable rule parts. Other FCC rule parts applicable to licensees in the commercial mobile radio services include the following: ( a ) *Part 1.* This part includes rules of practice and procedure for license applications, adjudicatory proceedings, procedures for reconsideration and review of the Commission's actions; provisions concerning violation notices and forfeiture proceedings; competitive bidding procedures; and the environmental requirements that, together with the procedures specified in § 17.4(c) of this chapter, if applicable, must be complied with prior to the initiation of construction. Subpart F includes the rules for the Wireless Telecommunications Services and the procedures for filing electronically via the ULS.
( b ) *Part 2.* This part contains the Table of Frequency Allocations and special requirements in international regulations, recommendations, agreements, and treaties. This part also contains standards and procedures concerning the marketing and importation of radio frequency devices, and for obtaining equipment authorization.
( c ) *Part 9.* This part contains 911 and E911 requirements applicable to telecommunications carriers and commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers.
[78 FR 21559, Apr. 11, 2013, as amended at 84 FR 66779, Dec. 5, 2019]
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            College of Information and Cyberspace
                    National Defense University
                CIC
        Search
                    Search CIC:
                        Search
                Search CIC:
                    Search
    Home

    About 
        Mission & Vision

    Faculty & Staff

    Fact Sheet

    Alumni

    Internships

    FAQ

    Admissions 
        Eligibility Requirements

    Admissions Calendar

    Application Instructions

    Apply Online

    International Students

    Academics 
        Graduate Catalog

    JPME Master Degree

    Distance Learning Master Degree

    Leadership Development Programs

    Graduate Certificates

    Academic Partners

    Current Students 
        JPME II  Incoming Students

    LDP Incoming Students

    Student Registration

    Bring Your Own Device

    IA Compliance

    Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts

    Student Services and Resources

    Events
    
        Cyber Beacon

    Cyber PME Colloquium

    Hopper Award

    Lecture Series

    CYBERCOM Symposium

    NEWS

    UC2
    
        About

    Events

    Work With Us

    Center for Cybersecurity
    
        About

    Cybersecurity Center POC

    Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty

    CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program

    Cybersecurity Trending News

    Cyber Labs
        
        Ethical Hacking

    Critical Infrastructure - SCADA

    Cyber Exercises
        
        Tabletop Exercise

    Cyber Competitions

    Cyber Resources and Awareness

    Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council

    Contact 
        Contact Us

    Directions

    Access to Ft. McNair

    Map of Ft. McNair  Home
  NEWS
  News & Announcements
 News & Announcements Download
 Details
 Share
 News
 Faculty Spotlight! Howard Gambrill Clark, Ph.D By Faculty Spotlight Series!
 Howard Gambrill Clark, Ph.D. has commanded and advised global influence campaign for over 24 years. His most recent book is called Influence Warfare Volume I: A Blueprint. His podcast (for all practitioners of influence and especially CIC student) is https://howardgambrillclark.podbean.com/. You can read more about him here.
 SHARE
 PRINT
 National Defense University


College of Information and Cyberspace

300 Fifth Ave., Bldg. 62
Fort Lesley J. McNair
Washington, DC 20319-5066

202-685-6300
                    Stay Connected
                
                
                DOD Privacy & Security
 DOD Links Disclaimer
 DOD Social Media Policy
 DOD Web Policy
 FOIA
 NDU System of Records Notice
 NDU Privacy & Security Notice
 No FEAR Act
 Open GOV
 Plain Writing Act
 Section 508
 Small Business Act
 USA.gov
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00209-CV

Alex E. Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC, Appellants

v.

Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, Appellees

FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-18-001835, THE HONORABLE MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

The parties have filed an agreed motion to abate this appeal, requesting that we 

abate so that they can focus on resolving issues in the bankruptcy court that could obviate further 

proceedings in this cause. We grant the motion in part and abate the appeal. Cf. Tex. R. App. P. 

2, 42.1(a)(2)(c). The parties shall submit a status report or a motion to dismiss on or before 

September 16, 2024. The appeal will remain abated until further order of this Court.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Abated

Filed: May 23, 2024
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Palomar Enterprises, Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March
31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Bonenberger, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, 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  result of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  May  14,  2004.

                                     By  /s/Steven Bonenberger
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Steven Bonenberger,
                                       Chief Executive Officer of
                                       Palomar Enterprises, Inc.


<PAGE>
No. 11-9306.

#### Brummett *v.*Clark, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certifications**

I, GregRoth, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of TeamHealth Holdings, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 10, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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  Quarterly Report of Palomar Enterprises, Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2004,  as  filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I, Steven Bonenberger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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  result of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  August 19, 2004.

                                   By  /s/ Steven Bonenberger
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Steven Bonenberger,
                                     Chief Executive Officer of
                                     Palomar Enterprises, Inc.


<PAGE>
#### §§ 27.59-27.62 [Reserved]
#### § 15.507 Marketing of UWB equipment.

In some cases, the operation of UWB devices is limited to specific parties, e.g., law enforcement, fire and rescue organizations operating under the auspices of a state or local government. The marketing of UWB devices must be directed solely to parties eligible to operate the equipment. The responsible party, as defined in § 2.909 of this chapter, is responsible for ensuring that the equipment is marketed only to eligible parties. Marketing of the equipment in any other manner may be considered grounds for revocation of the grant of certification issued for the equipment.
No. 11-9386.

#### Jones *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5505.

#### Smith *v.*Jackson et al.

Sup. Ct. Ill. Certio-rari denied.
#### § 61.66 Scope.

The rules in this subpart apply to all issuing carriers, unless otherwise noted.

[76 FR 43216, July 20, 2011]
#### § 101.83 Modification of station license.

Permissible changes in equipment operating in the band 18.3-19.3 GHz: Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, stations that remain co-primary under the provisions of § 101.147(r) may not make modifications to their systems that increase interference to satellite earth stations, or result in a facility that would be more costly to relocate.

[68 FR 16968, Apr. 8, 2003]
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C.  Section  1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 1350 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  in  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of
Electronic Game Card, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending  September 30,
2005, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report") for electronic Game Card, Inc., (the "Company"),  the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

1)    to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
      requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of
      1934; and

2)    to the best of my  knowledge,  the  information  contained  in the  Report
      fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and
      result of operations of the Company.


May 15, 2006

/S/ LINDEN J. BOYNE
-----------------------------
    LINDEN J. BOYNE
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Exhibit 10.d.77


    Exhibit
      10.d.77

    


    2006
      Management Compensation Plan Description

    


    CEO
      and
      officer compensation includes three components: Base salary is intended to
      be
      set at approximately the 50th
      percentile for base salary compensation at comparable companies. Short-term
      incentive compensation is intended to compensate officers for Company
      performance and is linked to defined Company performance metrics, such that
      if
      performance targets are achieved, officers’ direct compensation (base salary
      plus short-term incentive) would approximate the 40-50th
      percentile of total direct compensation at comparable companies. Performance
      metrics for short-term incentive compensation include customer service (60%),
      based on meeting or exceeding seventeen specified customer service quality
      performance standards in the Company's service quality plan approved by the
      Vermont Public Service Board, and creating value for shareholders (40%), based
      on the Company’s annual consolidated return on equity. The Compensation
      Committee (with respect to the CEO) and the Board of Directors (with respect
      to
      other executive officers) retain discretion to reduce short-term incentive
      compensation in light of events or circumstances that would make it
      inappropriate to award short-term incentive compensation strictly in accordance
      with these performance metrics. Long-term incentive compensation is designed
      to
      provide long-term incentives for future Company performance and is intended
      to
      bring total officer compensation to approximately the 40th
      percentile of total compensation paid to equivalent executives at comparable
      companies, if target performance criteria are met.
311P15

#### State v. Thedford Roy Rorie, Jr.

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-886)

1. Allowed 09/08/2015

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

*2.*
EXHIBIT 10(c)


SUMMARY
OF EMPLOYMENT INDUCEMENT AWARD

TO TIMOTHY P. DORDELL


As of November 7,
2006, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of The Toro Company
awarded 2,620 restricted shares of common stock to Timothy P. Dordell, Toro’s
Vice President and Deputy General Counsel. 
The award terms were approved by committee resolutions, and were not set
forth in a written agreement.


The award shares
will be fully vested on the second anniversary of Dordell’s first day of
employment with Toro.  In the event
Dordell voluntarily terminates his employment with Toro prior to his second
anniversary with Toro for any reason, the entire stock grant will be forfeited
and the shares will be returned to Toro’s treasury account.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS CRAIG CAMPBELL

From Cleveland County

No. 252PA14-2

ORDER

The State’s Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed only as to whether the Court of Appeals erred in invoking Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure under the circumstances of this case. The State’s Petition for Discretionary Review is otherwise denied.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 9th day of June, 2016.

s/Ervin. J.

For the Court

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 10th day of June, 2016.

J. BRYAN BOYD Clerk of the Supreme Court

s/M.C. Hacknev Assistant Clerk
273P15

#### State v. Drew Martin

1. Def’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA14-1375)

1.—

2. Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Denied

3. Def’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of Superior Court of Pitt County

3. Denied

4. State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

4. Allowed
Form 27. Confidential Joint Request to Enter Appellate Mediation Program Form 27

March 2021

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

CONFIDENTIAL JOINT REQUEST TO ENTER 

APPELLATE MEDIATION PROGRAM

Case Number:

Short Case Caption:

We would like the above case considered for entry into the Appellate Mediation 

Program (counsel for all parties must sign). 

Signature of Counsel for: Appellant/Petitioner Cross-Appellant

Appellee/Respondent Intervenor 

Name of Party Represented: 

Law Firm: 

Address: 

Phone Number: Email Address: 

Date: _________________ Signature:

Name:

Signature of Counsel for: Appellant/Petitioner Cross-Appellant

Appellee/Respondent Intervenor 

Name of Party Represented: 

Law Firm: 

Address: 

Phone Number: Email Address: 

Date: _________________ Signature:

Name:

This Joint Mediation Request must be submitted to the Circuit Mediation 

Administrator. Please send the completed form to

Circuit Mediation Administrator

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, NW

Washington, DC 20439
#### Jacksonville Traction Company, a corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. Estelle Chisholm, *Defendant in Error.*

143 So. 881.

Opinion filed September 26, 1932.

Petition for rehearing denied November 4, 1932.

*Doggett, McCollum, Howell & Doggett,*of Jacksonville, for Plaintiff in Error.

*Evan Evans,*of Jacksonville, for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is *727no reversible error in said judgment except that because of the apparent eoutributory negligence of the plaintiff in the court below and because of paucity of the injury suffered, the judgment is excessive. It is therefore the judgment of this court that if the defendant in error here, plaintiff in the court below shall within ten days from the date of the filing of the mandate herein in the court below enter of record a remittitur in the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) judgment for the remainder of the judgment, to-wit two thousand dollars as of the date of the original judgment shall stand affirmed. Otherwise the judgment shall stand reversed and a new trial awarded.

It is so ordered.

Buford, C.J. and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
No. 10-10741.

#### Eaton *v.*North Dakota.

Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION



### November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 4

- 0 0 84 5

- C V

Style: David Lancaster

v

. Barbara Lancaster

Date motion filed * : November 18 , 201 4

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file reporter’s record

Party filing motion: Court reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter’s record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: September 22 , 20 1 4

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested: November 26 , 2014

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: November 26 , 2014

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances

.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 for the Court

Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: November 24 , 2014