alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

    M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies
        
        JPME Master's Degree

    Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time)

    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  News
 UC2 Advisory Council UC2
 The UC4 team hosted the initial meeting of the UC2 Advisory Council via Microsoft Teams. The council’s goals include attracting a wide scope of input on future RFI topics, judging the responses to the RFIs, and soliciting support, including funding for research or grants, from DoD agencies. Members of the council will also have a role at UC2 presentation workshops, where they will solicit the best ideas from the academic community, and determine which proposals are the most beneficial to their agencies.
 SHARE
 PRINT
 Previous Story
 Next Story
 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
§ 22.719 Additional channel policy for rural radiotelephone stations. The rules in this section govern the processing of applications for central office stations that request a rural radiotelephone channel pair when the applicant has applied for or been granted an authorization for other rural radiotelephone channel pairs in the same area. The general policy of the FCC is to promote effective use of the spectrum by encouraging the use of spectrum-efficient technologies (i.e. BETRS) and by assigning the minimum number of channels necessary to provide service. ( a ) *Transmitters in same area.* Any central office station transmitter on any channel pair listed in § 22.725 is considered to be in the same area as another central office station transmitter on any other channel pair listed in § 22.725 if the transmitting antennas are located within 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) of each other.
( b ) *Initial channel pairs.* The FCC does not assign more than two channel pairs for new central office stations, unless there are more than eight rural subscriber stations to be served. Stations are considered to be new if there are no authorized transmitters on any channel listed in § 22.725 controlled by the applicant in the same geographic area.
( c ) *Additional channel pairs.* Applications for central office station transmitters to be located in the same area as an authorized central office station controlled by the applicant, but to operate on a different channel pair(s) are considered as requests for additional channel pair(s) for the authorized central office station. The FCC may grant applications for additional channel pairs provided that the need for each additional channel pair (after the first two) is established and fully justified in terms of achieving the required grade of service (blocking probability), and the applicant demonstrates that there will still be adequate spectrum available in the area to meet realistic estimates of current and future demand for paging, two-way mobile and rural radiotelephone services. In the case of conventional rural radiotelephone central office stations, an explanation must be provided as to why BETRS technology is not being used instead of additional channel pairs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GOLDEN SKY DBS, INC. AS OF JUNE
30, 1999 AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          14,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (728)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,505
<PP&E>                                          10,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,518)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 341,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,090
<BONDS>                                        334,989
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (42,676)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   341,586
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,425
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,303
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (55,976)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (55,976)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,935)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,911)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           BD

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jan-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 Feb-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Oct-31-2000
<CASH>                                         16,950,645
<RECEIVABLES>                                  910,083
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                          0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            153,616
<PP&E>                                         711,127
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,333,246
<SHORT-TERM>                                   103,748
<PAYABLES>                                     1,828,604
<REPOS-SOLD>                                   0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                            0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             1,731
<LONG-TERM>                                    124,365
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       114,763
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,671,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,333,246
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              321,067
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           758,184
<COMMISSIONS>                                  12,040,084
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                  0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             35,230
<COMPENSATION>                                 5,301,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,511,737
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     2,511,737
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,541,885
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.13



</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. OM A R C ENTENO-SEPULVEDA, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50135

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-03561-JAH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. Houston, Distric

t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 25, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, GR AB ER , a nd C H RISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Om ar C e nte no-Se pulve da a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 21-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for im porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960. W e 

# FIL ED N OV 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we va c ate and re m and for re se nte nc ing. C e nte no-Se p ulve da

argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing a m inor role re duc tion to his ba se offe nse le ve l unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b). Afte r C e nte noSe pulve d a

wa s se nte n c e d, the Unite d State s Se nte nc ing C om m ission issue d Am e ndm e nt 794 (“ the Am e ndm e nt” ), whic h am e nde d the c om m e nta ry to the m inor role Guide line . The Am e ndm e nt is re troa c tive to c a se s pe nding on dire c t a ppe a l. Se eUnite d State

s v . Quinte ro-Le

y v a , 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th C ir. 2016). The Am e ndm e nt c la

rifie d tha t, in a sse s sing whe the r a

de fe nda nt should re c e ive a m inor role a djustm e nt, thec ourt should c om pa re him to the othe r pa rtic i pa nts in the c rim e , rathe r tha n to a hy pothe tic a l a

ve ra ge pa rtic ipa nt. Se e U.S.S.G. App. C . Am e nd. 794; Quinte ro-Le y v a , 823 F.3d a

t 523. In a ddition, the Am e ndm e nt c la

rifie d tha t “ [t] he fa c t tha

t a de fe nda nt pe rform s a

n e sse ntia l or indispe nsa

ble role in thec rim ina l a c tivity is not de te rm inative .” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 c m t. n.3(C ) (2015). Fina lly , the Am e ndm e nt a dde d a non-e xha ustivelist of fa c tors that a c ourt “ should c onside r” in de te rm ining whe the r to a pply a m inor role re duc t ion. Se eid. B e c a

use we c annot de te rm ine from the re c ord whe the r the distric t c o urt followe d

the guida nc e of the Am e ndm e nt’ s c la rify ing la n gua g e and c onside re d a ll of thenow-re le va nt fa c tors, we va c ate C e nte n o-Se pulve da ’ s
1 5 - 5 0 1 3 5 2se nte nc e and re m and for re s e nte nc ing unde r the Am e ndm e nt. Se eQuinte ro-Le y v a , 823 F.3d a

t 523-24. VACAT E D and RE M ANDE D for r e se nte nc i ng.

1 5 - 5 0 1 3 5 3
A V E N U E B

C O 2 3 R D S T S

A V E N U E F

A V E N U E A

S A V E N U E E

C O 2 3 R D S T S C O 2 3 R D S T S

S A V E N U E B

B O R D E R R D

C O 2 4 S T

B O R D E R R D

B O R D E R R D

C O 2 2 1 /2 S T S

A V E N U E H

ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

YUMA CO

Gadsden

OE S

South of

Somerton

Gadsden Somerton Yuma

SE

Southeast

of Somerton

35

3587

86

35

3588

89

3590

35

35

91

96

85

94

35

95

93

35

92

35

35

97

35

35

87

86

35

35

35

35

90

88

35

94

35

35

93

92

35

35

35

96

95

97

91

35

35

85000m

713

35

N

98

714 715 716 7 19 7

7

17 7

13

22 000m 712 18 7 720 721 723

712 7 14 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 000m

400 000 FEET

25'

27'

42'

27'30"

FEET

30"

540

FEET

42'

25'

000

30"

114°

45'

30"

114°

45'

32°

114°

30'

37'30"

32°22'30" 32°22'30"

3598000mN

510000

40'

3589

32°30'

430000 FEET

114°37'30" 40'

E

E

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ARIZONA

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

SOUTH OF SOMERTON, AZ-SON

2011

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

SOUTH OF SOMERTON QUADRANGLE

ARIZONA-SONORA

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Imagery......................................................NAIP, July 2010

Roads................................................©2006-2011 TomTom

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2011

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010

Contours.............................National Elevation Dataset, 2008

Boundaries..............Census, IBWC, IBC, USGS, 1972 - 2010

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 11S

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Arizona Coordinate System of 1983 (west

zone)

This map was produced to conform with the

National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.1

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0

MILES

1

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

QR

11S

×

Ù

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2011 MAGNETIC NORTH

DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 14 ́

22 MILS

11° 33 ́

205 MILS
No. 10-10742.

#### Daugherty *v.*Manone et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 54.1502 Geographic areas eligible for Stage 2 fixed support.

High-cost universal service support may be made available for Stage 2 of the fixed Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the fixed Connect USVI Fund for all areas of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, respectively, as announced by public notice.
Compressors/Engines 

Dehydrators 

Pipelines 

Pneumatics/Controls 

Tanks 

Valves 

Wells 

Other 

PRO Fact Sheet No. 301 

Convert Pneumatics 

to Mechanical 

Controls Partner Reported Opportunities (PROs) 

for Reducing Methane Emissions 

Technology/Practice Overview 

Description 

Remote, non-electrified gas production, processing, 

transmission, and distribution sites often use natural gas 

powered pneumatic controllers for automatic process 

control, resulting in significant methane emissions to the 

atmosphere. Some partners have reported converting 

these controls to mechanical devices. 

The most common mechanical control device is a level 

controller, which translates the position of a liquid-level float 

to the drain valve position with mechanical linkages. There is 

no gas usage in either the process measurement or valve 

actuation, and reliability is very high. 

Operating Requirements 

External mechanical linkages must be maintained and well lubricated. 

Applicability 

This technology is applicable to all gas-powered pneumatic controllers where the process measurement can be close to the 

flow control valve. 

Methane Emissions Reductions 

The mechanical device eliminates both the process controller bleed and the valve actuation vent emissions. A rule of thumb 

for evaluating gas emissions from process controls is one scf per minute of gas for each control loop, consisting of the 

process measurement and valve actuator. 

Applicable sector(s): 

Production Processing Transmission and Distribution 

Partners reporting this PRO: ExxonMobil Production Company 

Other related PROs: Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls to Instrument Air 

Methane Savings: 500 Mcf per year 

Costs 

Capital Costs (including installation) 

<$1,000 $1,000 – $10,000 >$10,000 

Operating and Maintenance Costs (annual) 

<$100 $100-$1,000 >$1,000 

Payback (Years) 

0–1 1–3 3–10 >10 

Benefits 

Reducing methane emissions was a primary justification for the project. 
Economic Analysis 

Basis for Costs and Savings 

Methane emissions savings of 500 Mcf per year are associated with modifying one liquid-level 

control loop, consisting of the process measurement and valve actuation, assuming a methane 

content in the natural gas of 95 percent. 

Discussion 

This technology can pay back quickly. The cost of a mechanical process control system involves 

both the process measurement equipment and the valve mechanical actuator. This cost may also 

require some piping modifications to bring the control valve into close proximity with the process 

measurement, or alternatively, to bring the process measurement (e.g., pressure) close to the flow 

control valve. 

Last updated: September 2004
No. 11-5341.

#### Elizondo-Ramos, aka Elizondo, aka Francisco Elizondo *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-10805.

#### Ascencio-Toribio *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-10039 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ROBERTO CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CR-130-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Roberto Castro has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Ca l if o r n i a , 386 U

. S

. 7 3 8 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castro has not filed a response. We have revie w e d c o u n s e l ’s brief and the relevant portio n s o f the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r l e ave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 16 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-10039 Document: 00512020882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2012No. 12-10039

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R . R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-10039 Document: 00512020882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2012
No. 11-8790.

#### Hearne *v.*Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
546 S.E.2d 748

#### Paul Trevor ASBY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 0176-00-1.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

May 29, 2001.

J. Barry McCracken (Cook *&*McCracken, on brief), Norfolk, for appellant.

Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Before FITZPATRICK, C.J., and BENTON, WILLIS, ELDER, BRAY, ANNUNZIATA, BUMGARDNER, FRANK, HUMPHREYS and CLEMENTS, JJ.

UPON A REHEARING EN BANC

Upon a rehearing *en banc,*the stay of this Court’s January 9, 2001 mandate is lifted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with the majority opinion of a panel of this Court in *Asby v. Commonwealth,*34 Va.App. 217, 539 S.E.2d 742 (2001).

BENTON and CLEMENTS, JJ., dissent for those reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of the panel. *See id.*at 224-31, 539 S.E.2d at 745-48.

This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.
No. 11-9375.

#### Mentor *v.*New York State Division of Parole et al.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
#### § 32.2114 Tools and other work equipment.

This account shall include the original cost of special purpose vehicles and the original cost of tools and equipment used to maintain special purpose vehicles and items included in Accounts 2112 and 2113. This account shall also include the original cost of power-operated equipment, general purpose tools, and other items of work equipment.

[64 FR 50007, Sept. 15, 1999]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7284

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REGINALD JEROME STOWE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-96-46, CA-98-238-3-V) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Jerome Stowe, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Reginald Jerome Stowe appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Stowe , Nos. CR-96-46; CA-98-238-3-V (W.D.N.C. filed May 30, 2001, entered June 21, 2001; filed July 9, 2001, entered July 10, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED