alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Commission of Fine Arts
 Listed below is the schedule of meetings of the Old Georgetown Board for 2007. The Commission's office is located at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20001-2728. The Old Georgetown Board meetings are held on the 1st Thursday of each month, excluding August. Items of discussion affecting he appearance of Georgetown in Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials. Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site: 
                    *http://www.cfa.gov.*
                     Inquiries regarding the agenda and request to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date. Dated in Washington, DC, August 3, 2006. Thomas Luebke, Secretary.
 Commission meetings
Submission deadlines4 January
14 December 20061 February
11 January1 March
8 February5 April
15 March3 May
12 April7 June
17 May5 July
14 June6 September
16 August4 October
13 September1 November
11 October6 December
15 November


[FR Doc. 06-6800 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45am] BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
{"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":"21-1747: MID CONTINENT STEEL & WIRE v. US [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RWlhi9vNae\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/04-21-2022-21-1747-mid-continent-steel-wire-v-us-opinion-21-1747-opinion-4-21-2022_1939570\/\">21-1747: MID CONTINENT STEEL & WIRE v. US [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/04-21-2022-21-1747-mid-continent-steel-wire-v-us-opinion-21-1747-opinion-4-21-2022_1939570\/embed\/#?secret=RWlhi9vNae\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1747: MID CONTINENT STEEL & WIRE v. US [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"RWlhi9vNae\" 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":"OPINION Posted: MID CONTINENT STEEL & WIRE v. US [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1747 Origin: CIT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 32.6410 Cable and wire facilities expenses.

Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6411 through 6441.

[82 FR 20842, May 4, 2017]
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

#### § 36.506 Net current deferred operating income taxes—Account 4100, Net noncurrent deferred operating income taxes—Account 4340.

(a) Amounts in these accounts are maintained by plant account and are apportioned among the operations on the basis of the separations of the related plant accounts.
344P15

#### State v. Dymond Jevon-Demetrius Moore

Def’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Decision of COA (COA15-52)

Denied
Exhibit 32.2

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 Team Health Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q (Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David P.
Jones, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/S/    DAVID P.
JONESDavid P. Jones Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date:
November 9, 2010
Exhibit 31.2

I, Matthew Roberts, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of E-LOAN, Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2003

/s/ Matthew Roberts 		  Matthew Roberts
     Chief Financial Officer

---
# CYBERCOM Symposium

/ Published Oct. 11, 2022
November 17th, 2022, 
On 17 November 2022, U.S. Cyber Command and the National Defense University (NDU) College of Information and Cyberspace (CIC) are co-hosting a day of academic presentations and panel discussions to consider the role of cyberspace operations in integrated deterrence during competition, crisis and conflict to create tactical, operational, and strategic effects to enable Joint Force success. The attendees of this event will include DoD leaders, policy makers, and academic experts.

**FOR REGISTRATION CLICK HERE**

**FIND THE AGENDA HERE**
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-2885-001]

Take notice that on June 29, 2000, Cedar Breaks I, L.L.C. (Cedar Breaks), tendered for filing an amendment to its proposed FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, filed with the Commission on June 19, 2000 in the above-referenced docket. The amendment clarifies language concerning the prohibition on sales to affiliates with franchised service territories.

Cedar Breaks intends to engage in wholesale electric power and energy purchases and sales.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before July 10, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-17054 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-5307.

#### Sturdza *v.*United Arab Emirates et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1











Section 1350


CERTIFICATION








The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended June 27, 2010 as to which this Certification is an exhibit 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 (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.




Signed August 5, 2010.







/s/ John C. FanningJohn C. FanningChairman and Chief Executive Officer
§ 27.1509 Emission limits. The power of any emission outside a licensee's frequency band(s) of operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) in watts by at least the following amounts: ( a ) For 900 MHz broadband operations in 897.5-900.5 MHz band by at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB.
( b ) For 900 MHz broadband operations in the 936.5-939.5 MHz band, by at least 50 + 10 log (P) dB.
( c ) Compliance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. However, in the 100 kHz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee's band, a resolution bandwidth of at least 1 percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. The emission bandwidth is defined as the width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter power.
( d ) The measurements of emission power can be expressed in peak or average values, provided they are expressed in the same parameters as the transmitter power.
( e ) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require greater attenuation than specified in this section.
.::=,- 

### Martin, Michael 

## (OSn From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject: Attachments: Everyone: Martin, Michael (OSn Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:40 PM Shaun Germolus (shaun@rangeregionalairport.com); mayorjugovich@yahoo.com; 'rcannata@ci.hibbing.mn.us' Brad Rawson Essential Air Serviceat Chisholm/Hibbing SkyWest proposal - HIB-January 2014.pdf

Iwould like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS)situation atChisholm/Hibbing, and give you anopportunity to offer any comments on the record before we submit arecommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. We issued Order 2013-11-24 (November 26,2013), requesting proposals from airlines interested in providing EASfor anew term. In response to our request, SkyWest, the incumbent, was the only airline to submit a proposal. I have attached SkyWest's proposal for your review. Iexpect the proposal to be uploaded on www.regulations.gov by noon tomorrow. Irequest that you review the proposal and submit any comments you may have assoon aspossible, but no later than Friday. January 24. Pleasesend your comments directly to me via e-mail at michael.f.martin@dot.gov. Also, please forward this e-mail to all relevant parties that I have not included on this email. Ifyou have any questions, feel free to contact me. Regards,

Michael Martin United States Department ofTransportation Essential AirService (EAS)and Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) (202) 366-6494
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 First Community Bank Corporation of America (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Kenneth P. Cherven, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | 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.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |     |  |                                  
|----------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------
|Date: May 8, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth P. Cherven           
|                  |  |     |  | Kenneth P. Cherven, President and
|                  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
No. 11-9354.

#### Light *v.*Martel, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Louis Shaddock *et ux. vs.*Thomas F. Barry, *Sheriff.*

JUNE 18, 1948.

Present : Flynn, C. J., Capotosto, Baker, Condon and O’Connell, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent as the sheriff of the county of Kent in this state to carry out the orders and directions contained in a certain execution issued by the district court of the fourth judicial district.

The respondent contended that he was prevented from carrying out such commands by virtue of the provisions of public laws 1948, chapter 1985, sec. 6. That statute purported to stay automatically the service of certain executions in trespass and ejectment cases even where, as here, the execution had been issued prior to the passage of that statute. The petitioners contended that, at least as to such execution, a certain portion of sec. 6 was unconstitutional.

The case was recently argued and was not of a character which required preferential disposition. The determinative question which was submitted to this court was whether a certain portion of sec. 6, *supra,*was contrary to specified provisions of the constitutions of this state and of the United States. An examination of the statute shows that by its ex*190press terms it was not to be effective beyond June 1,1948. At the present time, therefore, the statute is inoperative and has no bearing on the rights of the parties. It is settled that this court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute unless such action is unavoidable. *Sackett*v. *Paine,*46 R. I. 439.

*Michael DeCiantis, Leo L. Jacques,*for petitioners.

*John H. Nolan, Attorney General, Guillaume L. Parent, Assistant Attorney General,*for respondent.

In our opinion no rights of the petitioners are now prejudiced by the section of the statute in question. In the circumstances, therefore, the case in effect has become moot and does not require at this time a decision upon the constitutionality of that statute.

The petition accordingly is denied and dismissed.
Ames, Angelia (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Hi All, 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:11 PM 

Gabriel! Kimbrell; Greg Kahltorf (greg@pacificwings.com); 

Henry.P.Bruckner@Hawaii.gov; Kamuela, Mayor (Big Island), 2013; 

kawehi@mokulele.com; KimoKamuela@USA.net; Makani Kai, Richard Schuman; Pacific 

Wings, Greg Kahlstorf; Ron Hansen (ron.hansen@mokulelehawaii.com) 

Devany, Dennis (OST); Ames, Angelia (OST) 

Request for Comment re Three Proposals for EAS at Kamuela 

Proposal of Pacific Wings.pdf; Proposal of Mokulele Airlines.pdf; Proposal of Makani 

Kai.pdf 

Attached above are copies ofthe three timely-filed proposals for Essential Air Service (EAS) at Kamuela, submitted by 

Pacific Wings, Mokulele Airlines, and Makani Kai. We are currently reviewing those proposals. The attached proposals 

are directly from the carriers and will soon be reflected in the Docket, which you may access through Regulations.gov at 

DOT-OST-1997-2833, along with other pertinent information on this proceeding .. 

The next step in the carrier-selection process is for us to receive community comments, a critically important element in 

our carrier-selection decision, especially the comments of civic officials. Ac.cordingly, I ask that everyone get back to us, 

preferably by email, no later than June 20, 2013. We will docket this email, as well as any replies. 

In brief, look at the three proposals, and if you have any questions, call me, and get back to us by the deadline, June 20. 

Kevin Adams 

202-366-1047 

1