alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 54.1507 Stage 2 public interest obligations for service to fixed locations. ( a ) Recipients of Stage 2 Uniendo a Puerto Rico and the Connect USVI Fund fixed support are required to offer broadband service with latency suitable for real-time applications, including Voice over internet Protocol, and usage capacity that is reasonably comparable to comparable offerings in urban areas, at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates for comparable offerings in urban areas. ( 1 ) For purposes of determining reasonable comparable usage capacity, recipients are presumed to meet this requirement if they meet or exceed the usage level announced by public notice issued by the Wireline Competition Bureau.
( 2 ) For purposes of determining reasonable comparability of rates, recipients are presumed to meet this requirement if they offer rates at or below the applicable benchmark to be announced annually by public notice issued by the Wireline Competition Bureau, or at or below the non-promotional prices charged for a comparable fixed wireline service in urban areas in the state or U.S. Territory where the eligible telecommunications carrier receives support.
( b ) Support recipients are required to offer broadband service meeting the performance standards as proposed in their selected applications, as follows: ( 1 ) Actual speeds of at least 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream, and a minimum usage allowance of 200 GB per month or an amount that reflects the average usage of a majority of fixed broadband customers, using Measuring Broadband America data or a similar data source, whichever is higher, and announced annually by public notice issued by the Wireline Competition Bureau over the 10-year term.
( 2 ) Actual speeds of at least 100 Mbps downstream and 20 Mbps upstream and at least 2 terabytes of monthly usage.
( 3 ) Actual speeds of at least 1 Gigabit per second downstream and 500 Mbps upstream and at least 2 terabytes of monthly usage.
( c ) For each of the tiers in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, support recipients are required to meet one of two latency performance levels: ( 1 ) Low latency recipients will be required to meet 95 percent or more of all peak period measurements of network round trip latency at or below 100 milliseconds; and
( 2 ) High latency recipients will be required to meet 95 percent or more of all peak period measurements of network round trip latency at or below 750 ms and, with respect to voice performance, and to demonstrate a score of four or higher using the Mean Opinion Score (MOS).
No. 11-5578.

#### Bradica *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 MIV Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended February 28, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Patrick
McGowan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.




/s/ Patrick McGowan
--------------------
Patrick McGowan
CFO
December 4, 2007
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Jarrett Perlow","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/perlowj\/","title":"Notice of Change to January 2022 Session - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"FDkezxl0LN\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-change-to-january-2022-session\/\">Notice of Change to January 2022 Session<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-change-to-january-2022-session\/embed\/#?secret=FDkezxl0LN\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of Change to January 2022 Session” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"FDkezxl0LN\" 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":"Due to changing public health conditions impacting the National Capital Region, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will now be conducting all scheduled arguments for the January 2022 session by telephonic hearing. The Clerk\u2019s Office will be individually notifying counsel scheduled for the January session of this change and providing additional instructions."}
#### In Re: Petition of Angelo D ’Allesandro.

143 So. 660.

Opinion filed September 14, 1932.

*W. D. Bell,*fqr Petitioner;

*Surrency <& Keen,*contra.

*674Terrell, J.

The petitioner by Habeas Corpus seeks relief from the following judgment:

> "A jury having found you guilty, the Court acljudged you to be guilty and it is the sentence of the law and the judgment of the Court that you, Angelo D’Alessandro, for your said offense be imprisoned for a period of five months in the county jail at hard labor, and in addition thereto that you pay a fine of five hundred ($500.00) dollars, and the costs of the Court, and in default of the payment of said fine and costs, that you do be imprisoned an additio'nal six months in the county jail at hard labor.” (124 So. 455).

The petition discloses that the petitioner w,as eonvisted in the County Court of Lee County for having in his possession intoxicating liquors (first offense). The foregoing judgment which was reviewed by this Court in D’Allesandro vs. Tippins, 98 Fla. 853, 124 So. 455 and 102 Fla. 10, 137 So. 231, was imposed on him.

The County Judge is Judge of the County Court wherever established and its jurisdiction in Lee County, there being no criminal Court of Record in that County, extends to all misdemeanors. Section Eighteen, Article Five of the Constitution and Section 5985 Revised General Statutes of 1920 (Section 8278 Compiled General Laws of 1927).

Having in one’s possession intoxicating liquors (first offense) is a misdemeanor punishable "by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. ’ ’ ■ Section 5486 Revised General Statutes of 1920 (Section 7630 Compiled General Laws of 1927).

On authority of Lyle vs. Walter, 100 Fla. 1457, 131 So. 383, the additional six months imprisonment in the County jail for failure to pay the fine and imprisonment imposed in the first place was in excess of the jurisdiction of the judge of the County Court and was without *675effect. For this reason the petitioner must be remanded for proper sentence. The judgment in Lyle vs1. Walter was imposed by the County Judge but the penalty for the offense charged is the same whether imposed by the County Court or the County Judge’s Court.

Petition remanded.
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 News
 University of Texas at San Antonio - Cybersecurity Manufacturing Innovation Institute First Place
 Paper info.
 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
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel MATTHEW J. CRAWFORD and JOHN J. DEMPSEY, Respondents, *v.*OLIVER DE CAMP, Appellant.

*Summm'y*proceedings— *omission of venue in affida/oit*— affidavit *of service*— • *sufficiency of.*

In summary proceedings to dispossess tenants, the landlord’s affidavit had no venue, nor did it appear where the justice of the peace who took it resided. *Held,*that the affidavit failed to show facts essential to the jurisdiction of the justice, and that there having been no appearance by the tenants such defects were not waived.

The affidavit of service in such proceedings alleged that the constable “ served the within summons on the tenants therein named by leaving a true copy of the same with a person of mature age,” etc. *Held,*that the service should have been made on each; that, in fact, it was not made upon either, and that this was also a jurisdictional defect in the proceedings.

Appeal from an. order reversing an adjudication in summai-y proceedings by a justice of tbe peace, dispossessing tbe relators of certain premises known as St. Mark’s hotel, New Brighton.

Tbe respondent rented tbe premises in question to tbe relators. Tbe rent was not paid. Summary proceedings were taken to dispossess tbe relators’ there was no appearance bv them in such *379proceedings, and judgment was given for the recovery of the premises by the landlord.

Upon review at Special Term, on *cerbiora/ri,*the judgment was reversed.

*Hatch & Vcm Allen,*for the appellants.

TF. *T. B. MilViken,*for the respondent.

Barnard, P. J.:

There are two fatal errors in the proceedings to dispossess relators. The landlord’s affidavit has nó venue, and it does not appear therein where it was sworn to nor where the justice of the peace who appears to have taken it resides. *(Cook*v. *Staats,*18 Barb., 407; *Lane*v. *Morse*6 How., 394.) Jurisdiction depended on the affidavit, and if it lacked an essential requisite all subsequent proceedings were void unless the defect was waived. There being no appearance before the justice there could be no waiver. The summons was not properly served on the relators. The tenants were absent from the premises in question upon which they resided, and the service was made on both tenants by leaving one copy with a person of mature age and discretion. The service must be made upon each ; it has been made upon neither. This is also a jurisdictional defect. Without proof of the service of the summons upon the tenants the court could not proceed to dispossess them.

The proceedings were properly reversed, and the order should be affirmed, with costs.

Dvr-wan, J., concurred, Gilbert, J., not acting.

Order reversing judgment, of justice affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Steve Bonenberger, certify that:

1.   I  have  reviewed  this   quarterly   report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  Palomar
     Enterprises, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge,  this  quarterly  report does not contain any untrue
     statement of a material fact, or omit to 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 quarterly report; and

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
     information  included  in this  quarterly  report,  fairly  present  in all
     material respects the financial position,  results of operations,  and cash
     flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
     report.

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
     procedures for the issuer and have:

     (i)  Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure  that
          material  information  relating  to the  issuer  is made  known to me,
          particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are being
          prepared;
     (ii) Evaluated the  effectiveness of the issuer's  disclosure  controls and
          procedures as of September 30, 2003; and
     (iii)Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
          disclosure  controls and  procedures  based on my evaluation as of the
          Evaluation Date;

5.   I have  disclosed,  based on my most  recent  evaluation,  to the  issuer's
     auditors  and the audit  committee  of the board of  directors  (or persons
     fulfilling the equivalent function):

     (i)  All  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely  affect the issuer's ability to record,
          process,  summarize and report  financial data and have identified for
          the issuer's  auditors any material  weaknesses  in internal  controls
          (none were so noted); and
     (ii) Any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in the  issuer's  internal
          controls (none were so noted); and

6.   I have  indicated  in the  report  whether  or not there  were  significant
     changes in internal  controls or in other factors that could  significantly
     affect  internal  controls  subsequent  to  the  date  of our  most  recent
     evaluation,  including any  corrective  actions with regard to  significant
     deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 10, 2003

/s/ Steve Bonenberger
---------------------------
President and CEO
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.

§ 36.376 All other. ( a ) For apportionment purposes this classification must be divided into three categories: ( 1 ) Category 1—Local Business Office Expense.
( 2 ) Category 2—Customer Services Expense.
( 3 ) Category 3—All Other Customer Services Expense.
§ 51.331 Notice of network changes: Timing of notice. ( a ) An incumbent LEC shall give public notice of planned changes at the make/buy point, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, but at least 12 months before implementation, except as provided below: ( 1 ) If the changes can be implemented within twelve months of the make/buy point, public notice must be given at the make/buy point, but at least six months before implementation.
( 2 ) If the changes can be implemented within six months of the make/buy point, public notice may be given pursuant to the short term notice procedures provided in § 51.333.
( b ) For purposes of this section, the *make/buy point* is the time at which an incumbent LEC decides to make for itself, or to procure from another entity, any product the design of which affects or relies on a new or changed network interface. If an incumbent LEC's planned changes do not require it to make or to procure a product, then the make/buy point is the point at which the incumbent LEC makes a definite decision to implement a network change. ( 1 ) For purposes of this section, a *product* is any hardware r software for use in an incumbent LEC's network or in conjunction with its facilities that, when installed, could affect the compatibility of an interconnected service provider's network, facilities or services with an incumbent LEC's existing telephone network, facilities or services, or with any of an incumbent carrier's services or capabilities.
( 2 ) For purposes of this section a *definite decision* is reached when an incumbent LEC determines that the change is warranted, establishes a timetable for anticipated implementation, and takes any action toward implementation of the change within its network.
[61 FR 47352, Sept. 6, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 52305, Sept. 2, 2003; 69 FR 77954, Dec. 29, 2004; 80 FR 63371, Oct. 19, 2015]
#### Miami Beach Railway Company, a Florida corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. Pearl Perkins, by her son and next friend, C. C. Williams, *Defendant in Error.*

143 So. 297.

En Banc.

Decision filed August 10, 1932.

Petition for rehearing denied August 31, 1932.

*Frank Smathers,*of Miami, for Plaintiff in Error;

*Penney Sumner,*of Miami, 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 *455and inspected, the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to' the Court that there is no error in said judgment. It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# SUMMARY:

The Foundation modified a permit to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541; Code of Federal Regulations Title 45, Part 670).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

## Description of Permit and Modification

                        1. On September 21, 1999, the National Science Foundation issued a permit (ACA #2000-001) to Dr. Steven D. Emslie after posting a notice in the August 17, 1999                         **Federal Register.**                         Public comments were not received. A request to modify the permit was posted in the                         **Federal Register**                         on April 11, 2000. No public comments were received. The modification, issued by the Foundation on May 16, 2000, allows for entry into additional Antarctic Specially Protected Areas for the purpose of conducting surveys and excavations by surveying ice-free areas to locate evidence of a past or modern breeding penguin colony. Access to the Antarctic Specially Protected Areas will be on an opportunity basis only depending upon vessel cruise tracks and schedules.                    

## Location

ASPA 104—Sabrina Island, Balleny Island

ASPA 105—Beaufort Island

ASPA 107—Dion Islands

ASPA 108—Green Island, Berthelot Islands

ASPA 112—Coppermine Peninsula, Robert Island

ASPA 115—Lagotellerie Island, Marguerite Bay

ASPA 116—New College Valley, Caughley Beach, Cape Bird

ASPA 117—Avian Island, Northwest Marguerite Bay

ASPA 126—Byers Peninsula, Livingston Island

ASPA 133—Harmony Point, Nelson Island

ASPA 134—Cierva Point, Danco Coast

ASPA 149—Cape Shirref, Livingston Island

ASPA 150—Ardley Island, King George Island

ASPA 154—Cape Evans, Ross Island

### Dates

January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2005.

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-17062  Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
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.

§ 36.353 Network operations expenses—Account 6530. ( a ) This account includes the expenses associated with the provisions of power, network administration, testing, plant operations administration, and engineering.
( b ) The expenses in this account are apportioned among the operations based on the separations of Account 2210, Central Office Switching, Account 2220 Operator Systems, Account 2230 Central Office Transmission, Account 2310, Information Origination/Termination and Account 2410, Cable and Wire Facilities, Combined.