alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 64.710 Operator services for prison inmate phones. ( a ) Each provider of inmate operator services shall: ( 1 ) Identify itself and disclose, audibly and distinctly to the consumer, at no charge and before connecting any interstate, non-access code operator service call, how to obtain the total cost of the call, including any surcharge or premises-imposed-fee. The oral disclosure required in this paragraph shall instruct consumers that they may obtain applicable rate and surcharge quotations either, at the option of the provider of inmate operator services, by dialing no more than two digits or by remaining on the line. The phrase “total cost of the call,” as used in this paragraph, means both the variable (duration-based) charges for the call and the total per-call charges, exclusive of taxes, that the carrier, or its billing agent, may collect from the consumer for the call. Such phrase shall include any per-call surcharge imposed by the correctional institution, unless it is subject to regulation itself as a common carrier for imposing such surcharges, if the contract between the carrier and the correctional institution prohibits both resale and the use of pre-paid calling card arrangements.
( 2 ) Permit the consumer to terminate the telephone call at no charge before the call is connected; and
( 3 ) Disclose immediately to the consumer, upon request and at no charge to the consumer— ( i ) The methods by which its rates or charges for the call will be collected; and
( ii ) The methods by which complaints concerning such rates, charges or collection practices will be resolved.
( b ) As used in this subpart: ( 1 ) *Consumer* means the party to be billed for any interstate call from an inmate telephone;
( 2 ) *Inmate telephone* means a telephone instrument set aside by authorities of a prison or other correctional institution for use by inmates.
( 3 ) *Inmate operator services* means any interstate telecommunications service initiated from an inmate telephone that includes, as a component, any automatic or live assistance to a consumer to arrange for billing or completion, or both, of an interstate telephone call through a method other than: ( i ) Automatic completion with billing to the telephone from which the call originated; or
( ii ) Completion through an access code used by the consumer, with billing to an account previously established with the carrier by the consumer;
( 4 ) *Provider of inmate operator services* means any common carrier that provides outbound interstate operator services from inmate telephones.
[63 FR 11617, Mar. 10, 1998, as amended at 67 FR 2820, Jan. 22, 2002]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16824]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart Q During 
the Week Ending June 23, 2000

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 
CFR 302.1701 et seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming 
Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each 
application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: OST-2000-7546.
    Date Filed: June 19, 2000.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: July 10, 2000.
    Description: Application of Swissjet, Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
41102 and subpart. Q, applies for a Certificate of Public Convenience 
and Necessity to authorize Swissjet to engage in foreign charter air 
transportation of persons, property and mail.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7547.
    Date Filed: June 19, 2000.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: July 10, 2000.
    Description: Application of Swissjet Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 
41102 and subpart Q, applies for a Certificate of Public Convenience 
and Necessity to authorize Swissjet to engage in interstate charter air 
transportation of persons, property and mail.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7548.
    Date Filed: June 19, 2000.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: July 10, 2000.
    Description: Application of Continental Airlines, Inc. pursuant to 
49 U.S.C. 41102 and subpart B, applies for renewal of its Route 682 
certificate authorizing Continental to provide scheduled air 
transportation of persons, property and mail between Newark, New 
Jersey, and Lima, Peru, via the intermediate point Bogota, Colombia.

Dorothy Y. Beard,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-16824 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"Internal Operating Procedures - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"L9u6O9VWXT\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/rules-procedures-forms\/internal-operating-procedures\/\">Internal Operating Procedures<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/rules-procedures-forms\/internal-operating-procedures\/embed\/#?secret=L9u6O9VWXT\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Internal Operating Procedures” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"L9u6O9VWXT\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"In addition to the Federal Circuit Rules of Practice, the Federal Circuit also adopts Internal Operating Procedures (available below) concerning the essential procedures relating to the handling and management of cases before the court.  See Fed. R. App. P. 47; Fed. Cir. R. 47(c). Click to open PDF in full screen view. Back to Top"}
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
 Registration is Open for Spring Classes
 The NDU iCollege has opened registration for Spring 2017 classes.  Please visit the Academics page of our website for details or contact the Office of Student Services at iCollegeOSS@ndu.edu or 202-685-6300.
 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
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MDI Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company")on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2005 (the "Periodic report"), I,
Todd A. Spence, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or
            78o(d); 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/ Todd A. Spence

Todd A. Spence
Chief Executive Officer

May 16, 2005

                                        1
#### Mohammad J. HASHEMI; Nahid Hashemi, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.

No. 03-1682.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 6, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

*193Mohammad J. Hashemi, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Nahid Hashemi, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Gilbert Rothenberg, Teresa T. Milton, Charles Bricken, U.S. Department of Justice, B. John Williams, Jr., Chief Counsel, U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before BYE, MCMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mohammad and Nahid Hashemi appeal the tax court’s1 order granting the motion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) for the entry of a decision. The Hashemis admit they have no quarrel with the tax years underlying the Commissioner’s motion, and we agree with the tax court that it lacked jurisdiction over the Hashemis’ challenges involving other tax years. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6214(a), (b) (tax court lacks jurisdiction to determine overpayment or underpayment for years for which notice of deficiency has not been sent to taxpayer); *Spector v. Comm’r,*790 F.2d 51, 52 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (tax court is court of limited jurisdiction), *cert. denied,*479 U.S. 884, 107 S.Ct. 274, 93 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Michael B. Thornton, United ' States Tax Court Judge.
§ 51.613 Restrictions on resale. ( a ) Notwithstanding § 51.605(b), the following types of restrictions on resale may be imposed: ( 1 ) *Cross-class selling.* A state commission may permit an incumbent LEC to prohibit a requesting telecommunications carrier that purchases at wholesale rates for resale, telecommunications services that the incumbent LEC makes available only to residential customers or to a limited class of residential customers, from offering such services to classes of customers that are not eligible to subscribe to such services from the incumbent LEC.
( 2 ) *Short term promotions.* An incumbent LEC shall apply the wholesale discount to the ordinary rate for a retail service rather than a special promotional rate only if: ( i ) Such promotions involve rates that will be in effect for no more than 90 days; and
( ii ) The incumbent LEC does not use such promotional offerings to evade the wholesale rate obligation, for example by making available a sequential series of 90-day promotional rates.
( b ) With respect to any restrictions on resale not permitted under paragraph (a), an incumbent LEC may impose a restriction only if it proves to the state commission that the restriction is reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
( c ) *Branding.* Where operator, call completion, or directory assistance service is part of the service or service package an incumbent LEC offers for resale, failure by an incumbent LEC to comply with reseller unbranding or rebranding requests shall constitute a restriction on resale. ( 1 ) An incumbent LEC may impose such a restriction only if it proves to the state commission that the restriction is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, such as by proving to a state commission that the incumbent LEC lacks the capability to comply with unbranding or rebranding requests.
( 2 ) For purposes of this subpart, unbranding or rebranding shall mean that operator, call completion, or directory assistance services are offered in such a manner that an incumbent LEC's brand name or other identifying information is not identified to subscribers, or that such services are offered in such a manner that identifies to subscribers the requesting carrier's brand name or other identifying information.
No. 11-5121.

#### Anderson *v.*Cate, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Skip Navigation

USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Woods Hole Science Center

##### GIS of Selected Geophysical and Core Data in the Northern Gulf of    Mexico  Continental Slope Collected by the U.S. Geological Survey

----

Skip Navigation
AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey		URL: woodshole.er.usgs.gov/pubs/of2005-1071/htmldocs/acks.htm		Page Contact Information: WHSC Webmaster		This page last modified on Tuesday, 25-Aug-2009 14:54:07 EDT
§ 27.502 Designated entities. Eligibility for small business provisions: ( a ) ( 1 ) A small business is an entity that, together with its controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
( 2 ) A very small business is an entity that, together with its controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
( b ) *Bidding credits.* A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business or a consortium of small businesses as defined in this section may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business or a consortium of very small businesses as defined in this section may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter.
[72 FR 63499, Nov. 9, 2007]
#### Eduardo CRUZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-72420.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2004.*

Decided March 23, 2004.

Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Regina Byrd, Attorney, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Eduardo Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision *983of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

Cruz’s contentions that the BIA’s streamlining regulations violate his right to due process are foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849-51 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the BIA’s streamlining procedure does not violate an alien’s due process rights).

The Clerk is directed to stay the mandate pending the resolution of *Desta v. Ashcroft,*No. 03-70477, and further order of this Court.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### § 304-6.7 Must we report on the Standard Form (SF) 326 any information that is protected from disclosure by statute?

No. Information that is protected by statute from disclosure to the public should not be reported on the SF 326. However, if you omit otherwise reportable information from the SF 326 because the information may not be disclosed, you must notify OGE unless otherwise prohibited by law and, if requested by the Director of OGE, make the information available for inspection by an OGE employee with the requisite clearance.
#### § 212.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to provide specific guidance to Government and private entities who may have requirements for international telecommunication service during wartime emergencies.
No. 11-5290.

#### Foster *v.*Kelly, Warden.

Sup. Ct. Va. Cer-tiorari denied.
2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-21-2010

In Re: William Coleman

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-1276

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: William Coleman " (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1284.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1284
BLD-152 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1276

___________

In re: WILLIAM HENRY COLEMAN,

Petitioner

____________________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to: D.N.J. Civil No. 09-cv-03509)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

March 18, 2010

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.

(Filed May 21, 2010)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM

In July 2009, petitioner William Henry Coleman, a prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed in the District Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

The District Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. On October 27, 2009,

Coleman filed a motion for reconsideration. He filed this pro se mandamus petition on

January 27, 2010, requesting that the District Court act on his motion. 

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases, see In re Diet
2

Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005), as the petitioner must

demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief desired and a

“clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79

(3d Cir. 1996). Although a district court has discretion over the management of its

docket, see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817-18 (3d Cir. 1982), a

federal appellate court “may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that [the district

court’s] undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102

F.3d at 79.

We recognize that approximately five months have elapsed since the date Coleman

filed his motion for reconsideration. However, we cannot conclude that the overall delay

in this matter rises to the level of a denial of due process, and we are confident that the

District Court will enter an order in due course. Accordingly, the petition is denied.
No. 11-5640.

#### Giebel *v.*Bonilla et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 11-9974.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.