alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 32.6999 General.

(a) *Structure of the other income accounts.* The other income accounts are designed to reflect both operating and nonoperating income items including taxes, extraordinary items and other income and expense items not properly included elsewhere.

(b) *Other income accounts listing.*

| Account title | |
| --- | --- |
| Other operating income and expense: | |
| Other operating income and expense | 7100 |
| Operating taxes: | |
| Operating taxes | 7200 |
| Nonoperating income and expense: | |
| Nonoperating income and expense | 7300 |
| Nonoperating taxes: | |
| Nonoperating taxes | 7400 |
| Interest and related items: | |
| Interest and related items | 7500 |
| Extraordinary items | 7600 |
| Jurisdictional differences and non-regulated income items: | |
| Income effect of jurisdictional ratemaking difference—net | 7910 |
| Nonregulated net income | 7990 |

[82 FR 20843, May 4, 2017]
SUPREME COURT — SPECIAL TERM — NEW YORK.

December, I9I9.

#### THE PEOPLE EX REL. VIRGINIUS J. MAYO v. JOHN J. HANLEY, WARDEN.

(109 Misc. 591.)

Habeas corpus—When writ op, dismissed—Indictments—Evidence— Criminal law—Constitutional law—Code Crim. Pro., § 142—Penal Law, §. 342.

Section 342 of the Penal Law, which provides that an indictment for bigamy may be found in the county in which the defendant was arrested, is constitutional.

Where relator was brought before a magistrate upon a warrant charging him with bigamy, it is too late, after indictment found, to raise the point on habeas corpus that there having been no evidence before the magistrate to avoid the bar of the five year Statute of Limitations under section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the issuance of the warrant of arrest was illegal and the writ will be dismissed and relator remanded.

Habeas coepus proceedings.

*J. Sidney Bernstein,*for relator

*Edward Swann, District Attorney (Robert S. Johnstone, Assistant Distinct Attorney,*and *Felix C. Benvenga, Deputy Assistant District Attorney,*of counsel), for defendant.

*168Hendrick, J.:

Relator has been committed for trial upon an indictment of tire Hew York county grand jury alleging bigamy in Kings, county on April 2, 1904. He was arrested upon that charge in this county last March upon a warrant issued by a city magistrate in this county. The Hew York county grand jury’s jurisdiction is claimed by reason of this arrest by virtue of the provisions of Penal Law, section 342, which reads as follows: “ An indictment for bigamy may he found in the county in which the defendant is arrested "x" *

Relator upon habeas corpus contends (1) that this statute is unconstitutional; and (2) that since no evidence to avoid the bar of the five-years’ Statute of Limitations (Code Grim. Pro. § 142) was before the magistrate the grand jury failed to acquire jurisdiction because the warrant upon which he was arrested was illegally issued.

How that relator is under indictment for the crime, I think it is too late to raise a question of the Statute of Limitations iipon habeas corpus and that the mere physical apprehension of relator by the peace officer was enough to confer jurisdiction upon the grand jury. In King v. People, 5 Hun, 297, a prosecution in Rensselaer county for bigamy committed in Washington county, the General Term of the Third Department held that “ whether the warrant was valid or void is immaterial, so long as an officer of the county arrested the defendant for a criminal offense of this character.”

It also seems to me that the Court of Appeals, in Mack v. People, 82 N. Y. 235, has declared the legislature’s power to enact such legislation as Penal Law, section 342, which has its like in England and many states of this country. The writ should he dismissed and relator remanded under the commitment herein.

Writ dismissed.
No. 11-5437.

#### Howe *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
§ 215.1 Background. ( a ) The nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is part of the complex environment produced by nuclear explosions. It consists of transient voltages and currents which can cause malfunctioning and serious damage to electrical and electronic equipment.
( b ) The Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) is the overall technical coordinator for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and DOE laboratories on matters concerning nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons effects, and nuclear weapons testing. It acts as the focal point between the service laboratories and other agencies. The National Communications System (NCS), with the Defense Communications Agency (DCA), maintains a data base for telecommunications. DCA also provides the primary capability for the NCS to conduct telecommunications survivability studies for civil and military departments and agencies.
( c ) In order to disseminate among affected Federal agencies information concerning the telecommunications effects of EMP and available protective measures, and in order to avoid duplication of research efforts, it is desirable to designate a focal point within the Federal Government for telecommunications EMP matters.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41266

 

MARK LEROY O’BRYAN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CV-121

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

April 12, 2000

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA , HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A certificate of appealability was granted to petitionerappellant Mark Leroy O’Bryan with respect to the issue of whether

his trial counsel denied him his right to testify in his own

defense at his criminal trial and as to whether the district

court erred in denying O’Bryan an evidentiary hearing to develop

this claim.

2
Upon a careful review of the record and the briefs, we

AFFIRM the district court’s Order and Final Judgment dated

September 25, 1998, denying O’Bryan’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus, for essentially the reasons set forth by the magistrate

judge and adopted by the district court.

We further find that, as conducting an evidentiary hearing

to explore the issue of whether trial counsel refused O’Bryan his

right to testify would not have aided the district court in the

resolution of his habeas petition, the district court did not

abuse it’s discretion in denying O’Bryan’s request for an

evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 AFFIRMED.
----

----

| LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES |
|----------------------|
|                 |  Company Name | Jurisdictionof Incorporation  |
| 1.                   | Lumenis Holdings Inc.  | Delaware |
| 2.                   | Lumenis Inc.  | Massachusetts |
| 3.                   | Lumenis (Mexico) SA de CV  | Mexico |
| 4.                   | Lumenis do Brasil Produtos Medicos Ltda.  | Brazil |
| 5.                   | Lumenis Holdings (Holland) BV  | Netherlands |
| 6.                   | Lumenis (UK) Limited  | England and Wales |
| 7.                   | Lumenis (Germany) GmbH  | Germany |
| 8.                   | Lumenis (France) SARL  | France |
| 9.                   | Lumenis (Italy) SRL  | Italy |
| 10.                  | Lumenis (HK) Ltd.  | Hong Kong |
| 11.                  | Lumenis (Asia Pacific) Ltd.  | Hong Kong |
| 12.                  | Lumenis Japan Co. Ltd.  | Japan |
| 13.                  | Wuhan Sharplan Chutian Medical Laser Manufacturing Ltd.  | China |
| 14.                  | Ke Yi Ren Medical Laser Equipment Trading (Beijing) Co. Ltd. (also    known as Lumenis Medical Laser Equipment Trading (Beijing) Co. Ltd.)  | China |
| 15.                  | Lumenis India Private Ltd.  | India |

----

----
§ 301.100 Membership. ( a ) *Technical Panel membership.* The Technical Panel established by section 113(h)(3)(A) of the NTIA Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 923(h)(3)(A)) shall be composed of three (3) members, to be appointed as follows: ( 1 ) One member to be appointed by the Director of OMB;
( 2 ) One member to be appointed by the Assistant Secretary, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce; and
( 3 ) One member to be appointed by the Chairman of the Commission.
( b ) *Qualifications.* ( 1 ) Each member of the Technical Panel shall be a radio engineer or a technical expert.
( 2 ) The Assistant Secretary, in consultation with the Director of OMB and the Chairman of the Commission, may impose or suggest additional qualifications for one or more members of the Technical Panel as are necessary pursuant to section 113(g)(6) of the NTIA Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 923(g)(6)), including, but not limited to, the following: ( i ) The member must have the appropriate and current security clearances to enable access to any classified or other sensitive information that may be associated with or relevant to agency Transition Plans;
( ii ) The member should be a Federal employee as defined in 5 U.S.C. 2105(a) or a Special Government Employee as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a); and
( iii ) The member should have the necessary expertise to perform his or her duties.
( c ) *Term.* The term of a member of the Technical Panel shall be eighteen (18) months, and no individual may serve more than one (1) consecutive term.
( d ) *Vacancies.* ( 1 ) Any member of the Technical Panel appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which the member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of that term.
( 2 ) A member of the Technical Panel may serve after the expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken office.
( 3 ) A vacancy shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
( e ) *Compensation.* ( 1 ) No member of the Technical Panel shall receive compensation for service on the Technical Panel.
( 2 ) If any member of the Technical Panel is an employee of the agency of the official that appointed such member to the Technical Panel pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, compensation in the member's capacity as a Federal employee shall not be considered compensation under paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
Cyber Beacon 2020
 
  By Disruption in an Era of Great Power Competition: Pandemic, Infodemic, Space, Cyberspace, and Beyond
  Read the Defense.Gov article  about the event here  Watch the talks by Congressman Jim Langevin here and Jeff Moss here!  0800: Welcome by NDU President, NDU Provost, and CIC Acting Chancellor Morning: Department of Defense Perspectives 0830: Director of Operations at US Cyber Command, Major General Kevin Kennedy 0915: Principal Deputy Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense, John Sherman 1000: 15 min Break 1015: Chief of Technology and Innovation at US Space Force, Major General Kim Crider 1100: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy, Thomas Wingfield, Esq 1145: 30 min Lunch Break and Open Discussion led by Dr. Joseph Schafer Afternoon: Whole of Nation Perspectives 1215: CIC Student Panel: Mr. Mitch Wander (Department of Treasury), Col Michael Bock (German Armed Forces), Lt Col Toby Hlad (US Marine Corps), and (Moderator) Mr. Ian Talbot (Department of the Air Force) 1315: Co-Chair of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, Rep. Jim Langevin 1400: Executive Director of the Cyber Solarium Commission, Retired Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery 1445: 15 min Break 1500: Founder of DEF CON and Black Hat, Jeff Moss 1545: Great Power Competition: Retired Brigadier General Rob Spalding. PhD 1630: Closing Remarks by Dr. Cassandra C. Lewis
No. 11-5367.

#### Grindling *v.*United States District Court for the District of Hawaii et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     9
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1996                           
<CASH>                                        1,583
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        4,077
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              4,428
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                  0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        2,500
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          2,385
<LOANS>                                      75,737
<ALLOWANCE>                                     195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               96,528
<DEPOSITS>                                   72,101
<SHORT-TERM>                                      0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                           1,181
<LONG-TERM>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        162
<OTHER-SE>                                   23,084
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               96,528
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               5,722
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               196
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                756
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              6,674
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                            3,375
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            3,406
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                         3,268
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    55
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                               2,593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 759
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      759
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    459
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.59
<LOANS-NON>                                       0
<LOANS-PAST>                                      0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  0    
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                140
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     0    
<RECOVERIES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               195
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            195
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           0
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 130 (Thursday, July 6, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41620-41621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17046]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA-1417, MM Docket No. 00-117, RM-9810]


Digital Television Broadcast Service; Salem, OR

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Paxson 
Salem License, Inc., licensee of station KPXG(TV), NTSC Channel 22, 
Salem, Oregon, requesting the substitution of DTV Channel 4 for DTV 
Channel 20. DTV Channel 4 can be allotted to Salem, Oregon, in 
compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of 
Section 73.625(a) at coordinates (45-30-58 N. and 122-43-59 W.) with a 
power of 17 (kW) and a height above average terrain (HAT) 455 meters. 
However, since the community of Salem is located within 400 kilometers 
of the U.S. Canadian border, concurrence by the Canadian government 
must be obtained for this proposal.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 21, 2000, and reply 
comments on or before September 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with 
the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel 
or consultant, as follows: Scott S. Patrick, Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, 
1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036-6802 
(Counsel for Paxson Salem License, Inc.).

[[Page 41621]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-117, adopted June 26, 
2000, and released June 29, 2000. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

Federal Communications Commission.
Barbara A. Kreisman,
Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-17046 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 2.404 Resumption of operation after distress.

No station having been notified to cease operation shall resume operation on frequency or frequencies which may cause interference until notified by the station issuing the original notice that the station involved will not interfere with distress traffic as it is then being routed or until the receipt of a general notice that the need for handling distress traffic no longer exists.
§ 101.69 Transition of the 1850-1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, and 2160-2200 MHz bands from the fixed microwave services to personal communications services and emerging technologies. Fixed Microwave Services (FMS) in the 1850-1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, and 2160-2200 MHz bands have been allocated for use by emerging technology (ET) services, including Personal Communications Services (PCS), Advanced Wireless Services (AWS), and Mobile Satellite Services (MSS). The rules in this section provide for a transition period during which ET licensees may relocate existing FMS licensees using these frequencies to other media or other fixed channels, including those in other microwave bands. ( a ) ET licensees may negotiate with FMS licensees authorized to use frequencies in the 1850-1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, and 2160-2200 MHz bands, for the purpose of agreeing to terms under which the FMS licensees would: ( 1 ) Relocate their operations to other fixed microwave bands or other media; or alternatively
( 2 ) Accept a sharing arrangement with the ET licensee that may result in an otherwise impermissible level of interference to the FMS operations.
( b ) - ( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) Relocation of FMS licensees in the 2110-2150 and 2160-2200 MHz band will be subject to mandatory negotiations only. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, mandatory negotiation periods are defined as follows: ( 1 ) Non-public safety incumbents will have a two-year mandatory negotiation period; and
( 2 ) Public safety incumbents will have a three-year mandatory negotiation period.
( e ) Relocation of FMS licensees by Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) licensees will be subject to mandatory negotiations only. ( 1 ) The mandatory negotiation period for non-public safety incumbents will end December 8, 2004.
( 2 ) The mandatory negotiation period for public safety incumbents will end December 8, 2005.
( f ) AWS licensees operating in the 1910-1920 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands will follow the requirements and procedures set forth in ET Docket No. 00-258 and WT Docket No. 04-356.
( g ) If no agreement is reached during the mandatory negotiation period, an ET licensee may initiate involuntary relocation procedures. Under involuntary relocation, the incumbent is required to relocate, provided that the ET licensee meets the conditions of § 101.75.
[62 FR 12758, Mar. 18, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 48182, Aug. 7, 2000; 68 FR 3464, Jan. 24, 2003; 68 FR 68253, Dec. 8, 2003; 69 FR 62622, Oct. 27, 2004; 71 FR 29842, May 24, 2006; 78 FR 8271, Feb. 5, 2013; 78 FR 48621, Aug. 9, 2013]
l)ISMISS; Opinion issued September 28, 2012

In The

(!niirt uf qipimhi

ift1i Ditrfrt uf rxas at Ja11ai

No. 05-12-00309-CR

KEVIN DWAYNE I)RAWHORN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th .Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-70367-Q

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Beibre Justices Bridges. Francis, and Lang

Opinion By Justice Bridges

After ajury found Kevin Dvayne Drawborn guilt of aggravated assault resulting in serious

bodily injury/family violence, appellant entered into an agreement with the State regarding

punishment. Pursuant to the agreement, appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs and

the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ imprisonment. Appellant waived his right

to appeal as part of the punishment agreement. See Blanco i’. State, 18 S. W. 3d 218, 218—20 (Tex.

Crirn. App. 2000). The trial court certified that appellant waived his right to appeal. See TEx. R.

App. P.25.2(d); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 6 14—15 (Tex. Crirn. App. 2005).
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

DAVID L. BRIDOLS

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEx. R. App. P. 47

1203 09F.U05
(riitrt uf Apjna1!

Fift1! 1i&trirt uf ixui at Ja11a

JUDGMENT

KEVIN DWAYNE DRAWHORN, Appellant Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

of Dallas County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F] 1-

No. 05-12-00309-CR V. 70367-Q).

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Justices

THE STATE OF TEXAS. Appellee Francis and Lang participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered September 28. 2012.

I 4•

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1

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



<PAGE>





EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CHINA MOBILITY SOLUTIONS, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, Angela Du, President and CEO of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

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

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

                                         /s/ Angela Du
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Angela Du, President/CEO
Dated:  11/19/04