alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 32.6560 Depreciation and amortization expenses.

Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6561 through 6565.

[82 FR 20843, May 4, 2017]
§ 30.202 Power limits. ( a ) For fixed and base stations operating in connection with mobile systems, the average power of the sum of all antenna elements is limited to an equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) density of +75dBm/100 MHz. For channel bandwidths less than 100 megahertz the EIRP must be reduced proportionally and linearly based on the bandwidth relative to 100 megahertz.
( b ) For mobile stations, the average power of the sum of all antenna elements is limited to a maximum EIRP of +43 dBm.
( c ) For transportable stations, as defined in § 30.2, the average power of the sum of all antenna elements is limited to a maximum EIRP of +55 dBm.
( d ) For fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint limits see § 30.405.
§ 6.1 Applicability. The rules in this part apply to: ( a ) Any provider of telecommunications service;
( b ) Any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or customer premises equipment;
( c ) Any telecommunications carrier;
( d ) Any provider of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service, as that term is defined in § 9.3 of this chapter; and
( e ) Any manufacturer of equipment or customer premises equipment that is specially designed to provide interconnected VoIP service and that is needed for the effective use of an interconnected VoIP service.
[64 FR 63251, Nov. 19, 1999, as amended at 72 FR 43558, Aug. 6, 2007]
§ 64.1507 Prohibition on disconnection or interruption of service for failure to remit pay-per-call and similar service charges. No common carrier shall disconnect or interrupt in any manner, or order the disconnection or interruption of, a telephone subscriber's local exchange or long distance telephone service as a result of that subscriber's failure to pay: ( a ) Charges for interstate pay-per-call service;
( b ) Charges for interstate information services provided pursuant to a presubscription or comparable arrangement; or
( c ) Charges for interstate information services provided on a collect basis which have been disputed by the subscriber.
[58 FR 44773, Aug. 25, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 46770, Sept. 12, 1994]
§ 52.25 Database architecture and administration. ( a ) The North American Numbering Council (NANC) shall direct establishment of a nationwide system of regional SMS databases for the provision of long-term database methods for number portability.
( b ) All telecommunications carriers shall have equal and open access to the regional databases.
( c ) The NANC shall select a local number portability administrator(s) (LNPA(s)) to administer the regional databases within seven months of the initial meeting of the NANC.
( d ) The NANC shall determine whether one or multiple administrator(s) should be selected, whether the LNPA(s) can be the same entity selected to be the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, how the LNPA(s) should be selected, the specific duties of the LNPA(s), the geographic coverage of the regional databases, the technical interoperability and operational standards, the user interface between telecommunications carriers and the LNPA(s), the network interface between the SMS and the downstream databases, and the technical specifications for the regional databases.
( e ) Once the NANC has selected the LNPA(s) and determined the locations of the regional databases, it must report its decisions to the Commission.
( f ) The information contained in the regional databases shall be limited to the information necessary to route telephone calls to the appropriate telecommunications carriers. The NANC shall determine what specific information is necessary.
( g ) Any state may opt out of its designated regional database and implement a state-specific database. A state must notify the Wireline Competition Bureau and NANC that it plans to implement a state-specific database within 60 days from the release date of the Public Notice issued by the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, identifying the administrator selected by the NANC and the proposed locations of the regional databases. Carriers may challenge a state's decision to opt out of the regional database system by filing a petition with the Commission.
( h ) Individual state databases must meet the national requirements and operational standards recommended by the NANC and adopted by the Commission. In addition, such state databases must be technically compatible with the regional system of databases and must not interfere with the scheduled implementation of the regional databases.
( i ) Individual carriers may download information necessary to provide number portability from the regional databases into their own downstream databases. Individual carriers may mix information needed to provide other services or functions with the information downloaded from the regional databases at their own downstream databases. Carriers may not withhold any information necessary to provide number portability from the regional databases on the grounds that such data has been combined with other information in its downstream database.
[61 FR 38637, July 25, 1996. Redesignated at 61 FR 47353, Sept. 6, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 13226, Mar. 21, 2002]
No. 11-1222.

#### Flint *v.*Simpson, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5801.

#### Anderson *v.*Fizer et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Alfred C. Marks and Louis A. Marks, Respondents, *v.*Martin N. O’Donnell, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

February, 1910.)

Brokers — Compensation: • Fraud, illegality and waiver oí right — Fraud or misrepresentations and negligence — Secret employment or compensation by opposite party — Upon exchange of properties: Actions -r- Evidence — Admissibility.

It is not a defense to an action by a broker for commissions for effecting an exchange of real estate that he received commissions from both sides.

*148In an action by a broker to recover commissions from one of the parties to such a transaction, it is error to admit evidence on the part of the defendant that he did not know the other party was to pay commissions to the broker.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, ninth district, borough of Manhattan, setting aside a verdict of a jury in favor of the defendant and ordering a new trial.

Michael J. Sullivan (Louis O. Van Doren and J. Philip Van Kirk, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles Weishaupt (S. M. Freedman, of counsel), for respondents.

Dayton, J.

Action for broker’s commissions on exchange of real estate. Answer a general denial. Jury rendered a verdict for defendant. The court granted motion for new trial. Defendant appeals. The evidence clearly shows that Mr. Welch and defendant met through the introduction of plaintiffs; that all the substantial terms of a contract for the exchange were agreed upon and that such contract was drawn. Mr. Welch was ready to execute it, but defendant declined. Plaintiffs’ claim was sought to be defeated on the ground that they claimed commissions from both sides without defendant’s knowledge. Plaintiffs’ testimony showed that defendant knew of this. Defendant denied such knowledge; but, as plaintiffs were middlemen in the transaction, they were not bound to inform defendant of their employment by Mr. Welch. Knauss v. Krueger B. Co., 142 N. Y. 70. Indeed, it may be said that defendant might reasonably assume that, in an exchange of property, a broker receives commissions from both sides. In his elaborate memorandum the trial court comments upon his charge on this point as conflicting with the rule in Knauss V. Kreuger B. Co., *supra.*Where the broker receives commissions from the buyer as well as the seller in the purchase of a piece of real estate, without the knowledge of both parties, he cannot recover; but that is not the question here. Another ground stated by *149the trial judge was the commission of possible error in allowing defendant to show that he had no knowledge that Mr. Welch was to pay commissions, under a general denial, citing Duryee v. Lester, 75 N. Y. 442. In a measure this involves the former proposition; hut, if erroneous, it may have influenced the jury against plaintiffs.

The order granting the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Gtegerich and Lehman, JJ., concur in result.

Order affirmed, with costs.
§ 73.506 Classes of noncommercial educational FM stations and channels. ( a ) Noncommercial educational stations operating on the channels specified in § 73.501 are divided into the following classes: ( 1 ) A Class D educational station is one operating with no more than 10 watts transmitter power output.
( 2 ) A Class D educational (secondary) station is one operating with no more than 10 watts transmitter power output in accordance with the terms of § 73.512 or which has elected to follow these requirements before they become applicable under the terms of § 73.512.
( 3 ) Noncommercial educational FM (NCE-FM) stations with more than 10 watts transmitter power output are classified as Class A, B1, B, C3, C2, C1, or C depending on the station's effective radiated power and antenna height above average terrain, and on the zone in which the station's transmitter is located, on the same basis as set forth in §§ 73.210 and 73.211 for commercial stations.
( b ) Any noncommercial educational station except Class D may be assigned to any of the channels listed in § 73.501. Class D noncommercial educational FM stations applied for or authorized prior to June 1, 1980, may continue to operate on their authorized channels subject to the provisions of § 73.512.
[43 FR 39715, Sept. 6, 1978, as amended at 49 FR 10264, Mar. 20, 1984; 52 FR 47569, Dec. 15, 1987; 54 FR 16367, Apr. 24, 1989; 54 FR 19374, May 5, 1989]
No. 11-5784.

#### Stamps *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### § 68.214 Changes in other than “fully protected” premises wiring that serves fewer than four subscriber access lines.

Operations associated with the installation, connection, reconfiguration and removal (other than final removal) of premises wiring that serves fewer than four subscriber access lines must be performed as provided in § 68.215(c) if the premises wiring is not “fully protected.” For this purpose, the supervisor and installer may be the same person.

[66 FR 7584, Jan. 24, 2001]
Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan

– July 2015

Appendix A Page 1 APPENDIX A

SCAQMD Network DepictionsAir Quality Monitoring Network Plan

– July 2015

Appendix A Page 2 Figure 1 SCAQMD Ozone Monitoring LocationsAir Quality Monitoring Network Plan

– July 2015

Appendix A Page 3 Figure 2 SCAQMD PM10 Monitoring LocationsAir Quality Monitoring Network Plan

– July 2015

Appendix A Page 4 Figure 3 SCAQMD Monitoring Locations for Nitrogen DioxideAir Quality Monitoring Network Plan

– July 2015

Appendix A Page 5 Figure 4 SCAQMD Monitoring Locations for Ca rbon MonoxideAir Quality Monitoring Network Plan

– July 2015

Appendix A Page 6 Figure 5 SCAQMD Monitoring Locations for Sulfur DioxideAir Quality Monitoring Network Plan

– July 2015

Appendix A Page 7 Figure 6 SCAQMD Source and Ambient Particulate Lead Monitoring LocationsAir Quality Monitoring Network Plan

– July 2015

Appendix A Page 8 Figure 7 SCAQMD PAMS Monitoring LocationsAir Quality Monitoring Network Plan

– July 2015

Appendix A Page 9 Figure 8 SCAQMD PM2.5 Monitoring LocationsAir Quality Monitoring Network Plan

– July 2015

Appendix A Page 10 Figure 9 SCAQMD 2013 Ai r Quality Data Summary
Hillsborough

No. 81-276

#### Leslie Ann Krueger v. James Alan Krueger

June 11, 1982

*Roger L. Gauthier,*of Nashua, waived brief, for the plaintiff.

*Rinden Professional Association,*of Concord *(Paul A. Rinden*on the brief), by brief for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

This case involves the continuing controversy over the defend*542ant’s child support obligation. The defendant, who fell in arrears in his child support payments, was ordered to sell his 1981 Corvette sports car and apply the proceeds to the arrearage. Because he failed to obey the court’s order, he was found in contempt and ordered to be incarcerated. The order was stayed pending appeal to this court. We have reviewed the matter and the briefs and find no reversible error.

*Affirmed.*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 94-60826

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MOISES ESCAMILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

_________________________________________________________________ December 1, 1995 Before KING, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Moises Escamilla appeals the two-year term of imprisonment imposed by the district court when it revoked his supervised release. Escamilla recognizes that this court (together with all other circuit courts that have addressed the issue) has consistently held that the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines are merely advisory and that a court only need consider them in rendering a decision. See, e.g. , United States v. Mathena , 23 F.3d 87, 92 (5th Cir. 1994). Escamilla argues, however, that after the amendment of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4) by the Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act of1 Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1976 (Sept. 13, 1994). 2 1994, 1 the statute now requires that a district court sentence a supervised release violator within the sentencing range prescribed by the Sentencing Commission's "policy" statements concerning violations of probation and supervised release, even though the Sentencing Commission itself states that these policy statements are not mandatory. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed and rejected this argument in a well-reasoned opinion by Chief Judge Merritt in United States v. West , 59 F.3d 32 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , No. 95-6370, 1995 WL 625069 (U.S. Nov. 13, 1995). We too reject this argument for the reasons set out in West . Unless and until the Sentencing Commission issues guidelines for Chapter 7 or changes the policy statements to guidelines or Congress unequivocally legislates that the policy statements in Chapter 7 are binding, this court will not reduce the flexibility of the district courts in sentencing supervised release violators. Escamilla's sentence is hereby AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4620 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4620

   To provide that the costs relating to repairs correcting seepage 
        problems at Twin Buttes Dam, Texas, are nonreimbursable.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 1994

   Mr. Stenholm (for himself and Mr. Smith of Texas) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide that the costs relating to repairs correcting seepage 
        problems at Twin Buttes Dam, Texas, are nonreimbursable.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the costs relating 
to repairs correcting seepage problems at Twin Buttes Dam, Texas, shall 
be nonreimbursable under Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17, 1902 
(32 Stat. 388), and Acts supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof). 
Such repairs shall include the design and construction of a positive 
cut-off trench, foundation treatment, drainage, and instrumentation 
work.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Celadon  Group,  Inc.
Registration  Statement  333-14641 on Form S-8  pertaining to the Employee Stock
Purchase Plan dated October 23, 1996,  Registration  Statement 333-42209 on Form
S-8 pertaining to the Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan dated December 12,
1997, and Registration Statements 333-42207 and 333-31164 on Form S-8 pertaining
to the 1994 Stock  Option Plan dated  December  12, 1997 and  February 25, 2000,
respectively, of our report dated July 29, 2004 with respect to the consolidated
financial  statements and schedule of Celadon Group, Inc. included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
September 10, 2004
§ 61.87 Cancellation of tariffs. ( a ) An issuing carrier may cancel an entire tariff. Cancellation of a tariff automatically cancels every page and supplement to that tariff except for the canceling Title Page or first page. ( 1 ) If the existing service(s) will be provided under another carrier's tariff, then ( i ) The issuing carrier whose tariff is being canceled must revise the Title Page or the first page of its tariff indicating that the tariff is no longer effective, or
( ii ) The issuing carrier under whose tariff the service(s) will be provided must revise the Title Page or first page of the tariff to be canceled, using the name and numbering shown in the heading of the tariff to be canceled, indicating that the tariff is no longer effective. This carrier must also file with the Commission the new tariff provisions reflecting the service(s) being canceled. Both filings must be effective on the same date and may be filed under the same transmittal.
( 2 ) If a carrier canceling its tariff intends to cease to provide existing service, then it must revise the Title Page or first page of its tariff indicating that the tariff is no longer effective.
( 3 ) A carrier canceling its tariff, as described in this section, must comply with §§ 61.54(b)(1) and 61.54(b)(5), as applicable.
( b ) When a carrier cancels a tariff as described in this section, the canceling Title Page or the first page of the canceled tariff must show where all rates and regulations will be found except for paragraph (c) of this section. The Title Page or first page of the new tariff must indicate the name of the carrier and tariff number where the canceled material had been found.
( c ) When a carrier ceases to provide service(s) without a successor, it must cancel its tariff pursuant to the notice requirements of § 61.58, as applicable, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission.
[64 FR 46591, Aug. 26, 1999, as amended at 76 FR 43216, July 20, 2011]
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
 DoD UC2 Workshop UC2
 On April 28, 2022, the DoD University Consortium for Cybersecurity Coordination Center (UC4) at the National Defense University College of Information and Cyberspace (NDU CIC) hosted the first UC2 Workshop. The physical location of the event was the Lincoln Hall Auditorium (Room #1230) on the first floor of Lincoln Hall at Fort McNair. Attendees included high-level Department of Defense officials and staff members, the NDU CIC Chancellor, the NDU CIC UC4 team, and presenters from seven universities with a National Security Agency (NSA) Center of Academic Excellence (CAE) designation.
 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
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4869 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4869

 To amend the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands to provide for 
      the appointment of a United States marshal by the President.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 1994

 Mr. de Lugo (for himself, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Torres, Mr. 
   Serrano, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Mazzoli, Mr. 
Velazquez, Mr. Tejeda, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Underwood, and Ms. 
Roybal-Allard) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands to provide for 
      the appointment of a United States marshal by the President.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 24(c) 
of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1614(c)) is 
amended by striking ``Attorney General'' and inserting ``President''.
    (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to 
appointments of United States marshal for the Virgin Islands made after 
the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```