alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 69.114 Special access. ( a ) Appropriate subelements shall be established for the use of equipment or facilities that are assigned to the Special Access element for purposes of apportioning net investment, or that are equivalent to such equipment or facilities for companies subject to price cap regulation as that term is defined in § 61.3(ff) of this chapter.
( b ) Charges for all subelements shall be designed to produce total annual revenue that is equal to the projected annual revenue requirement for the Special Access element.
( c ) Charges for an individual element shall be assessed upon all interexchange carriers that use the equipment or facilities that are included within such subelement.
( d ) Charges for individual subelements shall be designed to reflect cost differences among subelements in a manner that complies with applicable Commission rules or decisions.
[48 FR 10358, Mar. 11, 1983, as amended at 48 FR 43019, Sept. 21, 1983. Redesignated at 54 FR 6293, Feb. 9, 1989, as amended at 55 FR 42386, Oct. 19, 1990; 64 FR 46594, Aug. 26, 1999; 83 FR 67123, Dec. 28, 2018]
#### HIGHTOWER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 13310.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 9, 1951.

S. G. Winstead, J. P. Jackson, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner.

Hilbert P. Zarky, Ellis N. Slack, A. F. Prescott, L. W. Post, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., Theron Lamar Caudle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles Oliphant, Chief Counsel, Bernard D. Daniels, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and BORAH and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.

The Commissioner disallowed claimed rentals paid by Midway Liquor Company to Goodie-Goodie Restaurant, Inc.,1 as lessor, in its taxable years 1943 and 1944, allowing in lieu thereof $3,600 per year, and having determined deficiencies accordingly, notified the petitioner thereof as transferee, the two corporations having been dissolved.

The Tax Court, upon a full hearing on transferee’s petition for relief, sustained the determination, and petitioner is here insisting that in doing so it erred in law and in fact. We cannot agree.

The error in law asserted is the view of the Tax Court, in substance that transferee’s control over Midway and its lessor, and not economic reason or necessity, dictated the rent charged, and that, this being so, it cannot be found that the very large rent exacted by transferee through and of his solely owned corporations was an ordinary and necessary expense of Midway. If the facts are as *536found by the Court, this was not an incorrect, it was a correct statement of law.

The error in fact asserted is that the facts do not support the finding on which the opinion and order are based, and the finding and order should, therefore, be set aside as clearly erroneous. We think it quite clear that this is an incorrect ap-praisement of the nature and effect of the evidence upon the record taken as a whole. It shows quite to the contrary that the rents charged were entirely out of line with those fixed by economic compulsions and under the influence of ordinary business conditions and.policies, and that the amount allowed by the Commissioner and by the Tax Court was in line with those conditions and practices.

Petitioner’s reliance on Robinson Truck Lines v. Commissioner, 5 Cir., 183 F.2d 739, will not at all do. There the taxpayer supported his position by disinterested and uncontradicted testimony, credible in itself and not impeached in any way. The Commissioner offered no testimony, and the Tax Court, not upon the evidence but apparently upon its own innate conception of reasonableness, sustained the Commissioner’s determination.

We quite properly held there that this amounted to little more than fiating. :

Here the Commissioner offered abundant evidence to sustain his position, and the Tax Court had ample support in the record for its finding in his favor. Indeed, a contrary finding would be most difficult to sustain. ■

The order appealed from was not affected with error. It is affirmed.

1

. This company was the sole owner of the stock of Midway, its lessee, and its stock in turn was solely owned by the petitioner.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greater Atlantic Financial Corp.
(the "company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carroll E. Amos, President and Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that:

A.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

B.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.





                                By: /s/ Carroll E. Amos
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    Carroll E. Amos
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer


                                Date: August 13, 2007
#### § 64.1605 Effective date.

The provisions of §§ 64.1600 and 64.1602 are effective April 12, 1995. The provisions of §§ 64.1601 and 64.1603 are effective December 1, 1995, except §§ 64.1601 and 64.1603 do not apply to public payphones and partylines until January 1, 1997.

[60 FR 29491, June 5, 1995; 60 FR 54449, Oct. 24, 1995. Redesignated at 76 FR 43205, July 20, 2011]
§ 32.6212 Digital electronic switching expense. ( a ) This account shall include expenses associated with digital electronic switching. Digital electronic switching expenses shall be maintained in the following subaccounts: 6212.1 Circuit, 6212.2 Packet.
( b ) This subaccount 6212.1 Circuit shall include expenses associated with digital electronic switching equipment used to provide circuit switching.
( c ) This subaccount 6212.2 Packet shall include expenses associated with digital electronic switching equipment used to provide packet switching.
[67 FR 5695, Feb. 6, 2002]
No. 11-8729.

#### Harrington *v.*Iowa.

Sup. Ct. Iowa. Certio-rari denied.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-WR-81,751-01

IN RE JUAN DAMAS RODRIGUEZ, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 10-03-15982-A IN THE 106 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM GAINES COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 106 District Court of Gaines County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the th

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Gaines

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Gaines County. Should the

response include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was

served with the habeas application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for

leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: August 13, 2014

Do not publish
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  Home
  NEWS
  News & Announcements
 News & Announcements News
 Vacancy: Assistant/Associate/Professor of Systems, Technology and Management
 CLICK HERE TO APPLY
 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
§ 54.1803 Affordable Connectivity Program support amounts. ( a ) The monthly affordable connectivity benefit support amount for all participating providers shall equal the actual discount provided to an eligible household off of the actual amount charged to such household but not more than $30.00 per month, if that provider certifies that it will pass through the full amount of support to the eligible household, or not more than $75.00 per month, if that provider certifies that it will pass through the full amount of support to the eligible household on Tribal lands, as defined in § 54.1800(s), or not more than $75.00 per month, if that provider certifies that it will pass through the full amount of support to the eligible household in a high-cost area, as defined in § 54.1814(a), and is approved to offer the enhanced high-cost benefit in that high-cost area pursuant to the process in § 54.1814(b).
( b ) A participating provider that, in addition to providing a broadband internet access service subject to the affordable connectivity benefit to an eligible household, supplies such household with a connected device may be reimbursed by an amount equal to the market value of the device less the amount charged to and paid by the eligible household, but no more than $100.00 for such connected device. ( 1 ) A participating provider that provides a connected device to an eligible household shall charge and collect from the eligible household more than $10.00 but less than $50.00 for such connected device;
( 2 ) An eligible household may receive, and a participating provider may receive reimbursement for, no more than one (1) connected device per eligible household;
( 3 ) The eligible household shall not receive such a discount for a connected device, and the participating provider shall not receive reimbursement for providing the connected device at such a discount, if the household or any member of the household previously received a discounted connected device from a participating provider in the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program or in the Affordable Connectivity Program.
[87 FR 8373, Feb. 14, 2022, as amended at 88 FR 60354, Sept. 1, 2023]
#### § 27.201 WCS in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands subject to competitive bidding.

Mutually exclusive initial applications for WCS licenses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.

[67 FR 45373, July 9, 2002]
#### § 25.601 Equal employment opportunities.

Notwithstanding other EEO provisions within these rules, an entity that uses an owned or leased Fixed-Satellite Service or Direct Broadcast Satellite Service or 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service facility (operating under this part) to provide video programming directly to the public on a subscription basis must comply with the equal employment opportunity requirements set forth in part 76, subpart E, of this chapter, if such entity exercises control (as defined in part 76, subpart E, of this chapter) over the video programming it distributes. Notwithstanding other EEO provisions within these rules, a licensee or permittee of a direct broadcast satellite station operating as a broadcaster, and a licensee or permittee in the satellite DARS service, must comply with the equal employment opportunity requirements set forth in 47 CFR part 73.

[72 FR 50033, Aug. 29, 2007, as amended at 78 FR 8431, Feb. 6, 2013; 81 FR 10122, Feb. 29, 2016]
547 S.E.2d 529

#### Danzell PANNELL, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 0274-00-4.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 19, 2001.

Christopher R.K. Leibig, Annandale, for appellant.

Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on briefs), for appellee.

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

*644UPON A REHEARING EN BANC

By opinion dated January 30, 2001, a panel of this Court reversed the judgment of the trial court. *See Pannell v. Commonwealth,*34 Va.App. 287, 540 S.E.2d 527 (2001). Granting the Commonwealth’s petition for rehearing *en banc,*we stayed the mandate of the panel decision.

Upon such rehearing *en banc,*the stay of this Court’s January 30, 2001 mandate is lifted and the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for the reasons stated in the panel’s majority opinion.

Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Benton, Willis, Elder, Bray, Annunziata, Frank, Humphreys and Clements voted to reverse the judgment of the trial court in accordance with the opinion of the panel.

Judge Bumgardner voted to affirm the judgment.

This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.
§ 63.20 Electronic filing, copies required; fees; and filing periods for international service providers. ( a ) Subject to the availability of electronic forms, all filings described in this section must be filed electronically through the International Communications Filing System (ICFS). A list of forms that are available for electronic filing can be found on the ICFS homepage. For information on electronic filing requirements, see §§ 1.1000 through 1.10018 of this chapter and the ICFS homepage at *https://www.fcc.gov/icfs*. Each application shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed in subpart G of part 1 of this chapter. For applications filed electronically it is not necessary to send the original or any copies with the fee payment. For applications and other filings that are not submitted electronically, an original and five (5) copies of the submission must be filed with the Commission. Upon request by the Commission, additional copies shall be furnished.
( b ) No application accepted for filing and subject to the provisions of §§ 63.18, 63.62 or 63.505 of this part shall be granted by the Commission earlier than 28 days following issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such application or any major amendment unless said public notice specifies another time period, or the application qualifies for streamlined processing pursuant to § 63.12 of this part.
( c ) No application accepted for filing and subject to the streamlined processing provisions of § 63.12 of this part shall be granted by the Commission earlier than 14 days following issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such application or any major amendment unless said public notice specifies another time period.
( d ) Any interested party may file a petition to deny an application within the time period specified in the public notice listing an application as accepted for filing and ineligible for streamlined processing. The petitioner shall serve a copy of such petition on the applicant no later than the date of filing thereof with the Commission. The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof. The applicant may file an opposition to any petition to deny within 14 days after the original pleading is filed. The petitioner may file a reply to such opposition within seven days after the time for filing oppositions has expired. Allegations of facts or denials thereof shall similarly be supported by affidavit. These responsive pleadings shall be served on the applicant or petitioner, as appropriate, and other parties to the proceeding.
[61 FR 15732, Apr. 9, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 19065, Apr. 19, 1999; 67 FR 45391, July 9, 2002; 69 FR 29902, May 26, 2004; 70 FR 38798, July 6, 2005; 88 FR 21443, Apr. 10, 2023]
**EXHIBIT 10.8(A)**

**COMPENSATION TERMS FOR AWI DIRECTORS**

**Employee directors.**

Directors who are our employees or consultants do not receive additional remuneration beyond their normal salary for serving on the board of directors. Directors who areour employees or consultants may be granted options to purchase shares of AWI common stock at the discretion of the Board of Directors; any options so granted, however, are taken from the 2001 Stock Option Plan reserved for our employees.

**Non-employee directors.**

Directors who are notour employees or consultants receive a fee of $1,000 per month plus travel expenses. In addition, each Committee Chairman (audit committee, compensation committee, etc.) receives an additional $500 per month for each committee chaired. At thediscretion of the Board of Directors, our non-employee directors may be granted options to purchase shares of AWI common stock; any options so granted are taken from the Director’s Stock Option Plan reserved for our non-employee directors.
No. 11-5498.

#### Richards *v.*Curry, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-10756.

#### Fields *v.*Gundy, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-11203.

#### Graham *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130506 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130506 

 COA: 255449 

Wayne CC: 04-000691

AARON MAURICE HAMILTON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 22, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0619 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2006 

Clerk
Exhibit 32.2

<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 32.2


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


     I, Ernest Cheung,  Chief  Financial  Officer of China  Mobility  Solutions,
Inc.,  certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 as enacted by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2005 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2) information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China
Mobility Solutions, Inc.


         Dated: November 7, 2005             /s/ Ernest Cheung
                                             -----------------------------
                                             Ernest Cheung,
                                             Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to China Mobility Solutions, Inc. and
will be  retained  by  China  Mobility  Solutions,  Inc.  and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<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 for the quarter ended February 28, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (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
April 19, 2006
No. 11-8762.

#### Bota *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-10853.

#### Solliday *v.*Spence.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.