alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4773

To eliminate the exemption for the payment by Amtrak of certain costs

relating to pedestrian bridges over Amtrak rights-of-way.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 14, 1994

Mr. WALKER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To eliminate the exemption for the payment by Amtrak of

certain costs relating to pedestrian bridges over Amtrak

rights-of-way.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

4 Section 24301(l)(1) of title 49, United States Code,

5 is amended by inserting ‘‘, or that is required with respect

6 to a pedestrian bridge which, as of July 1, 1994, crosses

7 over a right-of-way owned by Amtrak’’ after ‘‘September

8 10, 1982’’.

Æ
§ 63.602 Additional contents of applications to discontinue, reduce, or impair an existing retail service as part of a technology transition. ( a ) The application shall include: ( 1 ) The contents specified in § 63.505 of this part;
( 2 ) A statement identifying the application as involving a technology transition, as defined in § 63.60(i);
( 3 ) Information regarding the price of the service for which discontinuance authority is sought and the price of the proposed replacement service; and
( 4 ) A certification, executed by an officer or other authorized representative of the applicant and meeting the requirements of § 1.16 of this chapter, that the information required by this section is true and accurate.
( b ) In order to be eligible for automatic grant under § 63.71(f) of this part, an applicant must demonstrate that a service(s) identified pursuant to § 63.505(k)(2) of this part is an adequate replacement for the voice service identified pursuant to § 63.505(k)(1) of this part by either certifying or showing, based on the totality of the circumstances, that one or more replacement service(s) satisfies all of the following criteria: ( 1 ) Offers substantially similar levels of network infrastructure and service quality as the service being discontinued; Note to paragraph ( b
)(1):
For purposes of this section, “substantially similar” means that the network operates at a sufficient level such that it will allow the network platform to ensure adequate service quality for interactive and highly-interactive applications or services, in particular voice service quality, and support applications and functionalities that run on those services.
( 2 ) ( i ) Complies with regulations regarding the availability and functionality of 911 service for consumers and public safety answering points (PSAPs), specifically §§ 1.7001 through .7002, 9.5, 12.4, 12.5, 20.18, 20.3, 64.3001 of this chapter;
( ii ) Offers comparably effective protection from network security risks as the service being discontinued; and
( iii ) Complies with regulations governing accessibility, usability, and compatibility requirements for: ( A ) Telecommunications services and functionalities;
( B ) Voicemail and interactive menu functionalities; and
( C ) Advanced communications services, specifically 47 CFR 6.1 through 6.11, 7.1 through 7.11, 14.1 through 14.21, 14.60 through 14.61; and
( 3 ) Offers interoperability with key applications and functionalities.
[81 FR 62656, Sept. 12, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 84266, Dec. 28, 2020]
###### 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.

#### § 36.371 General.

Customer Operations Expenses are included in the following accounts:

| Marketing | Account 6610. |
| --- | --- |
| Services | Account 6620. |

[69 FR 12552, Mar. 17, 2004, as amended at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018]
#### § 22.857 Channel plan for commercial aviation air-ground systems.

The 849-851 MHz and 894-896 MHz frequency bands are designated for paired nationwide exclusive assignment to the licensee or licensees of systems providing radio telecommunications service, including voice and/or data service, to persons on board aircraft. Air-ground systems operating in these frequency bands are referred to in this part as “commercial aviation” systems.

[70 FR 19310, Apr. 13, 2005]
#### §§ 17.25-17.45 [Reserved]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00577-CV

Lewis S. CHRISTIAN, Jr. M.D.P.A. and Lewis S. Christian, Jr., Individually,

Appellants

v.

Chris SCHUCHART, Independent Executor for the Estate of Tom A. Russell, Deceased,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12170A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 28, 2012

DISMISSED

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that they have 

compromised and settled the issues in dispute. The motion is granted, and this appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1); Caballero v. Heart of Tex. Pizza, LLC, 70 S.W.3d 180, 

181 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.). Costs of appeal are taxed against appellants. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 9, 2016

NO. 03-16-00683-CR

Charles Raymond Lee, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court. Having reviewed the record, it 

appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Therefore, the Court dismisses the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no 

adjudication of costs is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM US SEARCH
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          24,757
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      189
<ALLOWANCES>                                        81
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,623
<PP&E>                                           1,164
<DEPRECIATION>                                     429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,537
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,832
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,490
<SALES>                                         13,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,442
<CGS>                                            5,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,781)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,782)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.61)


</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4558

To enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used by the United

States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 9, 1994

Mr. FROST introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used

by the United States.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. JUST COMPENSATION.

4 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 1498(a) of title 28,

5 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of

6 the first paragraph the following: ‘‘Reasonable and entire

7 compensation shall include the owner’s reasonable costs,

8 including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attor9 neys, in pursuing the action if the owner is an independent

10 inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity that had
2

•HR 4558 IH

1 no more than 500 employees at any time during the 5-

2 year period preceding the use or manufacture of the pat3 ented invention by or for the United States.’’.

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

5 subsection (a) shall apply to actions under section 1498(a)

6 of title 28, United States Code, that are pending on, or

7 brought on or after, January 1, 1993.

Æ
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
 Vice President Biden Speaks at NDU
 http://www.c-span.org/video/?325257-1/vice-president-biden-remarks-us-policy-iraq    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/09/398570880/biden-says-isis-no-longer-on-the-move-in-iraq
 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
#### IN THE MATTER OF HAL W. VAUGHN, JR.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 598)

(387 SE2d 893)

Decided November 22, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Viola S. Drew, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

Vaughn was charged by the investigative panel of the State Bar of Georgia with a violation of Standard 63 of Bar Rule 4-102, in that he failed properly to discharge certain obligations of a client by paying out funds entrusted to him for that purpose.1

He now seeks voluntary discipline by the surrender of his license to practice law. The Special Master recommends such a course, as does the Review Panel.

The petition for voluntary discipline is granted.

*License surrendered.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*584
      *Alan M. Medof,*for Vaughn.

For an earlier appearance of this matter, see *In the Matter of Hal W. Vaughn, Jr.,*259 Ga. 186 (378 SE2d 126) (1989).
#### § 64.802 Applicability.

These rules shall apply to each communication common carrier subject to the whole or part of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36–3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Plaintiff - Appellant, and LEONARD WEINGLASS, ESQ., Plaintiff,
v.NATIONAL GEOSPATIALINTELLIGENCE AGENCY; NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Defendants - Appellees. No. 11-55754 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03375-MMM-JC
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 9, 2013 Pasadena, California 

# FILED
JAN 23 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALSpage 2 Before: KOZINSKI , Chief Judge, McKEOWN and M. SMITH , Circuit Judges. The district court erred in granting summary judgment without requiring the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to submit a classified declaration for in camera review. The government’s unclassified declaration failed to provide “reasonably specific detail” that woul d show why merely acknowledging the existence of records might reveal inte lligence sources or methods, or affect our foreign relations. See Berman v. CIA , 501 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), (3); 50 U.S.C. § 403–1(i)(1); Exec. Order No. 13,526, §§ 1.1, 1.4(c), (d), 75 Fed. Reg. 707 (Jan. 5, 2010). If this were sufficient to support summary judgment, the government would be free to issue a Glomar response in practically every case involving satellite images and records, as well as many other surveillance activities. On remand, the agency shall provide a classified declaration for in camera review by the district court, as it offered at oral argument. The court may then reconsider its summary judgment ruling in light of the information so provided.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.939 Revocation or withdrawal of equipment authorization. ( a ) The Commission may revoke any equipment authorization: ( 1 ) For false statements or representations made either in the application or in materials or response submitted in connection therewith or in records required to be kept by § 2.938.
( 2 ) If upon subsequent inspection or operation it is determined that the equipment does not conform to the pertinent technical requirements or to the representations made in the original application.
( 3 ) If it is determined that changes have been made in the equipment other than those authorized by the rules or otherwise expressly authorized by the Commission.
( 4 ) Because of conditions coming to the attention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant an original application.
( b ) Revocation of an equipment authorization shall be made in the same manner as revocation of radio station licenses, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
( c ) The Commission may withdraw any equipment authorization in the event of changes in its technical standards. The procedure to be followed will be set forth in the order promulgating such new technical standards (after appropriate rulemaking proceedings) and will provide a suitable amortization period for equipment in hands of users and in the manufacturing process.
( d ) Notwithstanding other provisions of § 2.939, to the extent a false statement or representation is made in the equipment certification application (see §§ 2.911(d)(5)-(7), 2.932, 2.1033, and 2.1043), or in materials or responses submitted in connection therewith, that the equipment in the subject application is not prohibited from receiving an equipment authorization pursuant to § 2.903, and the equipment certification or modification was granted, if the Commission subsequently determines that the equipment is covered communications equipment, the Commission will revoke such authorization. ( 1 ) If the Office of Engineering and Technology and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau determine that particular authorized equipment is covered communications equipment, and that the certification application for that equipment contained a false statement or representation that the equipment was not covered communications equipment, they will provide written notice to the grantee that a revocation proceeding is being initiated and the grounds under consideration for such revocation.
( 2 ) The grantee will have 10 days in which to respond in writing to the reasons cited for initiating the revocation proceeding. The Office of Engineering and Technology and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau will then review the submissions, request additional information as may be appropriate, and make their determination as to whether to revoke the authorization, providing the reasons for such decision.
[39 FR 5919, Feb. 15, 1974, as amended at 51 FR 39535, Oct. 29, 1986; 88 FR 7624, Feb. 6, 2023]
### 1 A t tac h m e n t

A tt a c hed are t he c o m me n t s o f t h e U t ili t y A i r R eg u l a t or y G ro u p on E PA ' s P r o po s e d A c t i o n a n d S upp l e m en t a l

S t a t eme n t o f B a s i s R e l a t i ng t o t he P r e v en t i o n o f S i gn i f i c a n t D e t e r i or a t i on P e r m i t f o r t he A v e n a l E ner g y P ro j e c t. If y o u

ha v e a n y q u e s t i on s r ega r d i ng t he s e c omm e n t s

, p l e a s e c o n t a c t m e.

B e s t reg a rd s,

A lli s on D

. W o od

C o un s e l f or

t h e U t ili t y A i r R eg u l a t or y G roup

A l li s o n D

. W ood

H un t on & W il l ia ms L LP

1 900 K S t r ee t, N

. W.

W a s h i ng t on

, D

. C

. 20006

( 2 02 ) 955

- 1 945

a woo d @ hu n t o n

. c om

<< C o m me n t s on A v e n a l P erm i t

. pd f > >



### Co mm e n t s of t h e U t i li t y A i r R e gu l a t ory G roup on t h e A v e n a l E n e rgy P ro j ect

W ood, A ll i s on

t o :

R9 A i r P e r mi t s

04 / 12 / 2011 08 : 58 P M

H i d e D e ta i l s

F ro m : " W ood, A ll i s on " < a w ood @ hun t on. c o m>

T o : R9 A i r P e r m it s @ E PA

H i s t ory : T h i s m e s s a g e h a s b e e n r e p l i e d t o a n d fo r w a rd e d.

C o m m e n t s on A v e n a l P e r m i t

. pdf 

### P a g e 1 o f 1 C o mm e n t s o f t h e U t i lit y A i r R e gu l a t o r y G r oup on t h e A v e n a l E n e r gy P r o j e ct

4 / 15 / 2011 f il e :// C :\ D o c u m e n t s a nd S e tti ng s \ S R I V E R 02 \ L o c a l S e tti ng s \ T e m p \ no t e s B AAA 25 \

~ w e b31

. ..
Board of Taxation

No. 82-150

#### Appeal of Stanley Roketenetz, Jr. (New Hampshire Board of Taxation)

October 12, 1982

*Winer, Pillsbury & Bennett,*of Nashua *(Robert W. Pillsbury*on the brief and orally), for Stanley Roketenetz, Jr.

*Soule, Leslie, Bronstein & Zelin,*of Salem *(Barbara F. Loughman*on the brief and orally), for the Town of Pelham.

Memorandum Opinion

The taxpayer received a property tax bill for his real estate in Pelham on November 21, 1980, and on February 6, 1981, he filed a *870request with his town selectmen for an abatement. Unfortunately and regrettably, as often occurs, the selectmen never acted upon the request and, therefore, on May 26, 1981, the taxpayer appealed to the board of taxation. The appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with the terms of RSA 76:16-a I (Supp. 1981). That statute requires that, if the selectmen “neglect or refuse” to abate the tax, an appeal must be taken to the board of taxation within six months after the date of “notice of such tax.”

Even though the notice of appeal to the board of taxation was filed only five days late, this court has previously held that six months means six months, *Arlington Am. Sample Book Co. v. Board of Taxation,*116 N.H. 575, 576, 364 A.2d 878, 879 (1976), and we see no reason to overrule that case. The case of *Appeal of Wood Flour, Inc.,*121 N.H. 991, 437 A.2d 286 (1981), is clearly inapposite.

*Affirmed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.49

         RELEASE OF SECURITY AGREEMENT COVERING INTERESTS IN TRADEMARKS

         Silicon Valley Bank ("Secured Party"), hereby releases its security
interest in the interests of CONNETICS CORPORATION ("Assignor") in the
trademarked works set forth in that certain INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND SECURITY
AGREEMENT dated, September 24, 1998, executed by Assignor in favor of Secured
Party recorded with the United States Department of Commerce, Patent and
Trademark Office on December 01, 1998, Reel 1823, Frame 0104.

Dated: APRIL 3, 2001

SILICON VALLEY BANK



By:    /s/ D. EDWARD WOHLLEB
       ---------------------
Name:  D. Edward Wohlleb
       ---------------------
Title: Senior Vice President
       ---------------------
No. 11-8877.

#### Santos Mendoza *v.*McDonald, Chief Deputy Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

PAUL J. ABELN, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

MARY J.B. EIDELMAN, ESQUIRE AND 

RICHARD HUNTINGTON PEPPER, 

ESQUIRE, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 325 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

 

PAUL J. ABELN, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

MARY J.B. EIDELMAN, ESQUIRE AND 

RICHARD HUNTINGTON PEPPER, 

ESQUIRE, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 326 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

DATE: December 28, 2018

CASE OF: IN RE: STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL 

CASES - REPORT 2017-11

DOCKET NO.: SC17-2265 OPINION FILED: December 20, 2018

ATTENTION: ALL PUBLISHERS

THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ABOVE 

OPINION:

On p. 11 (Appendix), Instruction 8.16, element #1b – the word “victim” was 

changed to unbolded text.

On p. 12 (Appendix), Instruction 8.16, under the italicized heading “§ 784.08(2),” 

the word “defendant” was changed to unbolded text.

SIGNED: OPINION CLERK

The corrected hard copy will follow.
No. 11-200.

#### Puche et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.