alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
24 September 2015

323A92-10

#### Charles Alonzo Tunstall-Bey v. Frank W. Ballance, et al.

1. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of the COA

1. Dismissed

2. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed

3. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

3. Dismissed as moot
EXHIBIT 15.1



Valuation and Qualifying Accounts



|                                 |  |                 |  |                   |  |                       |  |                
|-------------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ----------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ---------------
|VALUATION
ANDQUALIFYINGACCOUNTS  |  | Opening Balance |  | Charged toExpense |  | Charged AgainstIncome |  | Closing Balance
|Deferred tax valuation allowance |  |                 |  |                   |  |                       |  |                
|                                 |  |                 |  |                  
|December 31, 2004                |  | 6,290           |  |                  |  | 262                   |  | 6,028          
|                                 |  |                 |  |                  
|December 31, 2003                |  | 25,038          |  |                  |  | 18,748                |  | 6,290          
|                                 |  |                 |  |                  
|December 31, 2002                |  | 43,070          |  | 12,258            |  | 30,290                |  | 25,038
NOTICE OF APPEAL

– PAGE 1 CAUSE NO. 36865

FRANKIE MARIE MILLER, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Individually and as Represent ative §

of the Estate of T.J. Miller, §

§

Plaintiff, §

v. § 76TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

JOHN B. MULLEN, M.D.and §

TITUS REGIONAL MEDICAL §

CENTER, §

§

Defendants. § TITUS COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Frankie Marie Miller files notice of this appeal to the Sixth District

Court of Appeals at Texarkana from the Final Judgment signed in this case

on June 8

, 2015, and all orders merged into that fina l judgment.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Charles “Chad” Baruch

Texas Bar Number 01864300

T HE L AW O FFICE OF C HAD B ARUCH

3201 Main Street

Rowlett, Texas 75088

Telephone: (972) 412

- 7192

Facsimile: (972) 412

- 4028

Email: baruchesq@aol.com

Attorney for Frankie Marie Miller ACCEPTED

06-15-00059-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

8/28/2015 12:24:15 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKNOTICE OF APPEAL

– PAGE 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of this notice of

appeal was served this 28 th day of July, 2015, upon the following counsel of

record by efiling and email :

Russell W. Schell

Schell Cooley LLP

15455 Dallas Parkway, Suite 550

Addison, Texas 750 01

Trial Counsel for Appellees

rschell@schellcooley.com

Patrick Wigle

Turley Law Firm

6440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1000

Trial C o unsel for Appellant

Dallas, Texas 75206

patrickw @wturley.com

/s/Charles “Chad” Baruch
#### § 101.1409 Treatment of incumbent licensees.

Terrestrial private operational fixed point-to-point licensees in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band which were licensed prior to MVDDS or NGSO FSS satellite stations are incumbent point-to-point stations and are not entitled to protection from harmful interference caused by later MVDDS or NGSO FSS entrants in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, except for public safety stations which must be protected. MVDDS and NGSO FSS operators have the responsibility of resolving any harmful interference problems that their operations may cause to these public safety incumbent point-to-point operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. Incumbent public safety terrestrial point-to-point licensees may only make minor changes to their stations without losing this protection. This does not relieve current point-to-point licensees of their obligation to protect BSS operations in the subject frequency band. All point-to-point applications, including low-power operations, for new licenses, major amendments to pending applications, or major modifications to existing licenses for the 12.2-12.7 GHz band are no longer accepted except for renewals and changes in ownership. See § 1.929 of this chapter for definitions of major and minor changes.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Decker, Malvea ux and Senior Judge Annunziata

MARTA RIVAS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1497-16-4 PER CURIAM FEBRUARY 21, 2017 MOM’S APPLE PIE COMPANY AND TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Thomas F. Hennessy; Virginia Employment and Family Law Office, on brief), for appellant.

(Andrew H.D. Wilson; Stephe n A. Marshall; Two Rivers Law Group, P.C., on brief), for appellees.

Marta Rivas (“claimant”) appeals a decisi on of the Workers’ Compensation Commission

(“the Commission”) finding that she committed a willf ul breach of a workplace safety rule. We

have reviewed the record and the Commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without

merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons st ated by the Commission in its final opinion. See

Rivas v. Mom’s Apple Pie Co., JCN VA00001074330 (Aug. 12, 2016). 1 We dispense with oral

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 While claimant argues that the Commission erred by applying a negligence standard in assessing whether her violation of a workplace safe ty rule precluded the rec overy of benefits, she failed to raise this argument below and therefor e has not preserved it for appeal. See Rule 5A:18. The language from the Commission’s opinion which claimant contends reflected application of a negligence standard was a dire ct quote from the deputy commissioner’s opinion. Claimant did not request review of the deputy commissioner’s opinion on this basis and did not object to the legal standard applied by the Commi ssion or file a motion to reconsider or a motion for rehearing after the Commission rendered its decision. See Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff’s Dep’t, 266 Va. 409, 411, 587 S.E.2d 546, 548 (2003) (“th e requirement that a litigant file a motion for rehearing or reconsideration to pres erve an issue for appeal . . . is not a new requirement”); Hodnett v. Stanco Masonr y, Inc., 58 Va. App. 244, 253, 708 S.E.2d 429, 434 (2011) (refusing to consider an issue on app eal when claimant did not file a motion to reconsider).UNPUBLISHED- 2 - argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the Cour t and argument would not aid the de cisional process. See Code

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
#### § 30.405 Transmitter power limitations.

On any authorized frequency, the average power delivered to an antenna in this service must be the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communications desired. Application of this principle includes, but is not to be limited to, requiring a licensee who replaces one or more of its antennas with larger antennas to reduce its antenna input power by an amount appropriate to compensate for the increased primary lobe gain of the replacement antenna(s). In no event shall the average equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP), as referenced to an isotropic radiator, exceed the following:

Maximum Allowable EIRP

| Frequency band (MHz) | Fixed (dBW) |
| --- | --- |
| 27,500-28,3501 | + 55 |
| 38,600-40,000 | + 55 |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 For Point-to-multipoint user stations authorized in these bands, the EIRP shall not exceed 55 dBw or 42 dBw/MHz. | |
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4572

To amend the definition of disabled veteran in chapter 42 of title 38, United

States Code, for purposes of employment and training benefits.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 13, 1994

Mr. MONTGOMERY (by request) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend the definition of disabled veteran in chapter 42

of title 38, United States Code, for purposes of employment and training benefits.

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

3 That section 4211(3) of title 38, United States Code, is

4 amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(3) The term ‘disabled veteran’ means a per6 son who has a compensable service-connected disabil7 ity under the laws administered by the Department

8 or one whose discharge or release from active duty

9 was for a disability incurred or aggravated in the

10 line of duty.’’.
2

•HR 4572 IH

Æ
§ 24.716 Installment payments for licenses for frequency Block F. *Installment Payments.* Each eligible licensee of frequency Block F may pay the remaining 80 percent of the net auction price for the license in installment payments pursuant to § 1.2110(g) of this chapter and under the following terms: ( a ) For an eligible licensee with gross revenues exceeding $75 million (calculated in accordance with § 1.2110(b) of this chapter and, when applicable, § 24.709(b)) in each of the two preceding years (calculated in accordance with § 1.2110(n) of this chapter), interest shall be imposed based on the rate for ten-year U.S. Treasury obligations applicable on the date the license is granted, plus 3.5 percent; payments shall include both principal and interest amortized over the term of the license;
( b ) For an eligible licensee with gross revenues not exceeding $75 million (calculated in accordance with § 1.2110(b) of this chapter and, when applicable, § 24.709(b)) in each of the two preceding years (calculated in accordance with § 1.2110(n) of this chapter), interest shall be imposed based on the rate for ten-year U.S. Treasury obligations applicable on the date the license is granted, plus 2.5 percent; payments shall include interest only for the first year and payments of interest and principal amortized over the remaining nine years of the license term; or
( c ) For an eligible licensee that qualifies as a small business or as a consortium of small businesses, interest shall be imposed based on the rate for ten-year U.S. Treasury obligations applicable on the date the license is granted; payments shall include interest only for the first two years and payments of interest and principal amortized over the remaining eight years of the license term.
[67 FR 45371, July 9, 2002, as amended at 68 FR 42999, July 21, 2003]
§ 54.1513 Provision of Stage 2 mobile support. ( a ) A recipient of Stage 2 mobile support shall commit to, at a minimum, the full restoration of its pre-hurricane network coverage area, as determined by FCC Form 477 reporting standards, at a level of service that meets or exceeds pre-hurricane network levels and at reasonably comparable levels to those services and rates available in urban areas.
( b ) Each recipient of Stage 2 mobile support shall demonstrate mobile network coverage that is equal to or greater than 66 percent of its pre-hurricane coverage by the end of year two of the Stage 2 term of support, and that is equal to or greater than 100 percent of its pre-hurricane coverage by the end of year three of the Stage 2 term of support.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Gregory C. Talbott is the Executive VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the"Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with thefiling by the Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearended March 31, 2003 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

- the Report fully complies with the requirements of          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934          (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and    
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations          of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the          Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit tothe Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as theReport is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

| June 25, 2003
 

/s/ Gregory C. Talbott
Dated 
Gregory C. Talbott
 

  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# NSA Director Engages with Students

/ Published Jan. 6, 2023
January 4th, 2023, 
General Paul Nakasone (Director of the NSA and Commander of US Cyber Command) came back to NDU and engaged with leadership and students on what the Agency is facing today and what will be needed of them after graduation. This engagement follows a pattern of increased engagement between General Nakasone, his staff, NDU, and CIC in support of their shared interest in the educational mission.
Merrimack

No. 79-255

#### Edward L. Duby, Jr. v. Mark Osgood *& a.*

May 12, 1980

*357*Leslie R. Long,*of Concord, by brief for the plaintiff.

*Hall, Morse, Gallagher & Anderson,*of Concord *(G. Wells Anderson*on the brief) for the defendants.

Memorandum Opinion

The issue in this action for breach of contract is whether the master’s determination that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants had not conveyed a marketable title is supported by the evidence. We hold that the evidence supports the finding of the Master *(William H. Beckett,*Esq.) and overrule the plaintiff’s exceptions which were transferred by *Cann,*J.

In resolving this issue we begin by observing that a master’s findings of fact are binding on this court if supported by the evidence. *Ballou v. Ballou,*118 N.H. 463, 387 A.2d 1169 (1978). Questions regarding the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given testimony are for the master to resolve. *Id.*at 466, 387 A.2d at 1170; *Rousseau v. Rousseau,*116 N.H. 106, 352 A.2d 706 (1976). A review of the transcript indicates that the “Sales Agreement and Deposit Receipt” required that the defendants “furnish a duly executed, good and sufficient marketable deed of the property, free and clear of all encumbrances not specifically excepted in this agreement.” According to the plaintiff’s own testimony, the defendants tendered a quitclaim deed at the closing which Duby accepted and recorded. In addition, both defendants testified that at no time prior to the execution and delivery of the deed to the plaintiff did they make any representations or warranties regarding the property. The record also reveals that the plaintiff failed to introduce any testimony from a title examiner regarding the marketability of the title. Although a tax deed was part of the chain of title, no such deed was introduced into evidence. Nor was there any testimony regarding the effect of RSA 80:39 on the validity of the tax deed. The fact that prior to this action the plaintiff instituted a “Petition To Quiet Title” does not itself satisfy his burden of proof in this case.

We conclude that the master’s determination is supported by the evidence.

*Exceptions overruled.*
§ 54.1903 Ineligible entities. ( a ) In addition to any participant restrictions in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted at 2 CFR 6000.1, the following entities may not receive awards, either as Grantees, Pass-through Entities, or Subrecipients under the Outreach Grant Program: ( 1 ) Broadband providers (including municipal broadband providers), their affiliates, subsidiaries, contractors, agents, or representatives; and
( 2 ) Broadband industry groups and trade associations that represent broadband providers.
( b ) For municipal broadband providers, the exclusion of broadband providers and their affiliates, subsidiaries, or representatives from eligibility does not extend to separate arms of the municipality that do not maintain, manage, or operate the municipal broadband network.
#### § 301.10 Cross-reference.

The Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management (hereinafter referred to as the “NTIA Manual”) issued by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, is incorporated by reference in § 300.1 of this chapter and available online at *http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/redbook/redbook.html.* Annex O of the NTIA Manual, as revised, contains information, policies and procedures applicable to Federal agencies that implement the statutory provisions referenced in § 301.1 of this subpart with regard to such agencies that operate authorized U.S. Government stations in Eligible Frequencies and that incur relocation costs or sharing costs because of planning for an auction or the reallocation of such frequencies from Federal use to exclusive non-Federal use or to shared use. The NTIA Manual applies only to Federal agencies and does not impact the rights or obligations of the public. Accordingly, this cross reference is for information purposes only.
```

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 151 (Monday, August 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44634-44637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6727]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 06-44]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 06-44 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

    Dated: August 1, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 44635]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.017

[[Page 44636]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.018

[[Page 44637]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU06.019

[FR Doc. 06-6727 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-O
```
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

*Commercial/financial information may be entitled to confidential treatment* 
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
 

______________________________________________________________ 

Page is not included in this copy. 

Pages 59 through 60 are not included in this copy. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

The material not included contains the following type of 

information: 

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients. 

__ __ Identity of product impurities. 

__ __ Description of the product manufacturing process. 

__ __ Description of quality control procedures. 

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients. 

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. 

_____ A draft product label. 

__X__ The product confidential statement of formula. 

_____ Information about a pending registration action. 

__ __ FIFRA registration data. 

__ __ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _ . 

_____ The document is not responsive to the request. 

__ __ Internal deliberative information. 

__ __ Privileged attorney-client communication. 

__ __ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the 

 Agency. 

 
61
62
 

______________________________________________________________ 

Page is not included in this copy. 

Pages 63 through 67 are not included in this copy. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

The material not included contains the following type of 

information: 

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients. 

__ __ Identity of product impurities. 

__ __ Description of the product manufacturing process. 

__ __ Description of quality control procedures. 

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients. 

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. 

_____ A draft product label. 

__X__ The product confidential statement of formula. 

_____ Information about a pending registration action. 

__ __ FIFRA registration data. 

__ __ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _ . 

_____ The document is not responsive to the request. 

__ __ Internal deliberative information. 

__ __ Privileged attorney-client communication. 

__ __ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the 

 Agency.
EXHIBIT 32.1


              Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection  with the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended  December
31, 2004 (the "Report"), by SPAR Group, Inc. (the "Registrant"), the undersigned
hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



                                           /s/ Robert G. Brown
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Robert G. Brown
                                           Chairman, President and
                                           Chief Executive Officer

                                           April 12, 2005

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to SPAR Group,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by SPAR Group,  Inc.,  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






                                      Ex-3
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3304

___________

James Christopher VanDolah, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Linda Sanders, Warden, *

FCI-Forrest City, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 11, 2008

Filed: December 16, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal prisoner James VanDolah appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Following de novo review, see Hill v. Morrison, 349

F.3d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the district court’s decision was

proper, and we decline to consider VanDolah’s newly raised constitutional claims, see
-2-

Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 545 v. Hope Elec. Corp., 380 F.3d 1084,

1096 (8th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________