alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT: ASSISTANT/ASSOCIATE/PROFESSOR/ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE/PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE

/ Published Oct. 15, 2018

APPLY HERE →

### Responsibilities

The primary duty of College of Information and Cyberspace faculty is teaching core and elective graduate-level courses for senior leaders from a diverse curriculum that focuses on the information environment and DoD's extensive cyberspace presence from a national security perspective. Other duties include: maintaining academic currency through rigorous scholarship; participating in the development and implementation of the academic program; mentoring students and assessing their academic performance; serving on committees and performing other College leadership duties as assigned; contributing to the professional development of faculty colleagues; and developing and maintaining professional relationships with key stakeholders and decision-makers in Washington, DCand around the world.

### Travel Required

Occasional travel - Seldom, less than 15%

**Supervisory status**

No

**Promotion Potential**

4
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 479 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 479

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that military 
 personnel stationed outside the United States are no longer excluded 
         from the earned income credit, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1993

 Mr. Slattery introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that military 
 personnel stationed outside the United States are no longer excluded 
         from the earned income credit, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. MILITARY PERSONNEL STATIONED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES NO 
              LONGER EXCLUDED FROM EARNED INCOME CREDIT, ETC.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 32(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified child) is amended by 
adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: ``The preceding 
sentence shall not apply during any period during which the taxpayer is 
stationed outside the United States while serving on extended active 
duty (as defined in section 1034(h)(3)) with the Armed Forces of the 
United States.''
    (b) Reporting of Military Earned Income.--Subsection (a) of section 
6051 of such Code (relating to receipts for employees) is amended by 
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8), by striking the period at 
the end of paragraph (9) and by inserting ``, and'', and by inserting 
after paragraph (9) the following new paragraph:
            ``(10) in the case of an employee who is a member of the 
        Armed Forces of the United States, such employee's earned 
        income as determined for purposes of section 32 (relating to 
        earned income credit).''
    (c) Advance Payment of Earned Income Credit Based on Military 
Earned Income.--Paragraph (1) of section 3507(c) of such Code (defining 
earned income advance amount) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
the following new sentence: ``In the case of an employee who is a 
member of the Armed Forces of the United States, the earned income 
advance amount shall be determined by taking into account such 
employee's earned income as determined for purposes of section 32.''
    (d) Effective Dates.--
            (1) Subsection (a).--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.
            (2) Subsections (b) and (c).--The amendments made by 
        subsections (b) and (c) shall apply to remuneration paid after 
        December 31, 1993.

                                 <all>
```
299P15

#### State v. Jessica Rasheeda Jordan

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-1070)

1. Allowed 08/24/2015

Dissolved 11/05/2015

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Denied

3. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Denied
#### § 73.4000 Listing of FCC policies.

The following sections list, solely for the purpose of reference and convenience, certain Policies of the FCC. The present listing of FCC policies and citations thereto should not be relied upon as an all-inclusive list. Failure to include a policy in this list does not affect its validity. In addition, documents listed may be revised by subsequent decisions and the inclusion of a document on this list does not necessarily reflect that it is currently valid. Each section bears the title of one Policy and the citations which will direct the user to the specific document(s) pertaining to that Policy.

[89 FR 7262, Feb. 1, 2024]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 16, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6951]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25009; Airspace Docket No. 06-ACE-7]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Keokuk, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final 
rule which revises Class E airspace at Keokuk, IA.

DATES: Effective Date:
    0901 UTC, September 28, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 
(816) 329-2524.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on June 26, 2006 
(71 FR 36189). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on September 28, 2006. No adverse comments were 
received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule 
will become effective on that date.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO on August 2, 2006.
Donna R. McCord,
Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.
[FR Doc. 06-6951 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### SEBRING TRUCKING CO. v. WHITE.

No. 11121.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 26, 1951.

Davis & Young, Cleveland, Ohio and Paul E. Griffin, Minerva, Ohio, J. J. P. Cor-rigan, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

J. Frank Traynor, Rochester, N. Y. and Don C. Miller, Cleveland, Ohio, J. Frank Traynor, Rochester, N. Y., for appellee.

Before HICKS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was heard upon the record, briefs, and argument of counsel ;

And it appearing that appellant’s complaint that the verdict and judgment in favor of appellee in the amount of $27,500.-00 for personal injuries, property damage and medical expenses arising out of a collision between appellant’s automobile and appellee’s tractor-trailer, is excessive, was considered and rejected by the trial judge in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial;

And such ruling by the trial judge being reviewable only for abuse of discretion, and no such abuse being shown. Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Pratt, 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 193; Spero-Nelson v. Brown, 6 Cir., 175 F.2d 86, 89; Scott v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 61, 64-65.

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 10, 2017

No. 04-17-00358-CR

Cristian YEPEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CRN001641-D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

Court reporter David Laurel has filed a notification of late reporter’s record, requesting 

an extension to September 18, 2017. Laurel’s request is GRANTED. We ORDER David Laurel 

to file the reporter’s record on or before September 18, 2017.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of August, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
#### § 73.4157 Network signals which adversely affect affiliate broadcast service.

See Public Notice, FCC 79-387, dated April 20, 1970. 22 F.C.C. 2d 779.

[45 FR 6403, Jan. 28, 1980]
#### WILLIAM DEARING & CO. v. ANDY SMITH.

General Term, 1893.

*Replevin. Unlawful detention.*

One lawfully in the possession and use of an article does not subject himself to an action of replevin under R. L. s. 1230 as for an unlawful detention by continuing to use the article without reply after receiving a letter from the owner demanding it.

• Replevin. Heard on the report of a referee at the December term, 1892,'Windsor county, Thompson, J., presiding. Judgment on report for the defendant for one dollar damages and costs and return of property. The plaintiff excepts.

*C. P. Tarbell*for the plaintiff.

No demand was necessary. *Moses*v. Rogers, 62 Vt. 85.

*D. C. Denison & Son*for the defendant.

START, J.

The mowing machine in question was sold and delivered by the plaintiffs’ agent to Ira Button. Button was to give a lien in writing when the plaintiffs’ agent should call for the purchase money. The agent never called for the lien. Button died and the probate court assigned the machine to Mrs. Button, widow of Ira Button. The defendant worked for Mrs. Button and was using the machine when it was replevied. The plaintiffs’ attorney wrote a letter to the defendant, demanding the machine. The defendant received the letter but made no reply.

*61R. L. s. 1230 provides that when goods of the value of more than twenty dollars are unlawfully taken, or unlawfully detained, from the owner or the person entitled to the possession thereof, or when goods or chattels of such value, which are attached on mesne process, or taken in execution, are claimed by a person other than the defendant in the suit, or debtor in the execution, such owner or other person may cause them to be replevied. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that their action is properly brought against the defendant under this section. It is not claimed that the defendant unlawfully took the machine, but that he unlawfully detained it from the plaintiffs. The claim is based upon the fact that the plaintiffs’ attorney wrote the defendant a letter, demanding the machine, to which the defendant made no reply. The omission of the defendant to reply to the letter cannot be regarded as an unlawful detaining of the machine. The letter did not call upon him to deliver it at any particular place, and he was' under no obligation to take it to the plaintiffs or their attorney. He might well understand that the plaintiffs would come for it when they wanted it. They did not call on him personally for it; and he has neither refused to deliver it to them, nor asserted any claim to it, nor exercised any control in respect to it that is inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ claimed title and right of possession. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that he has unlawfully-detained the machine. A party cannot be subjected to the expense of a replevin suit unless he has unlawfully taken, or unlawfully detained, property from the owner or the person entitled to the possession thereof. *Bent v.*Bent, 44 Vt. 633.

This view of the case renders it unnecessary to consider the other questions argued by counsel.

*Judgment affirmed.*
# STATEOF LOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO. 

### 2022 KW 0093 

### JAMES DEWITT MCINTOSH, II 

### MARCH 28, 2022 In Re: James Dewitt McIntosh, II, applying for 

### supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

### Tammany, No. 

### 576736. BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. JP+ m WIL EW



### COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### DEPUTY C ERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
§ 32.6422 Underground cable expense. ( a ) This account shall include expenses associated with underground cable.
( b ) Subsidiary record categories shall be maintained as provided in § 32.2422(a) of subpart C.
547 S.E.2d 530

#### Antoine SPAIN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 1434-00-1.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 21, 2001.

Before: BRAY and BUMGARDNER, JJ., and HODGES, Senior Judge.

UPON A PETITION FOR REHEARING

On May 22, 2001 came the appellee, by the Attorney General of Virginia, and filed a petition praying that the Court set aside the judgment rendered herein on May 8, 2001, and grant a rehearing thereof.

On consideration whereof, the petition for rehearing is granted only insofar as it pertains to Issue II raised in the said rehearing petition, the mandate entered herein on May 8, 2001 is stayed pending the decision of the panel, and the appeal is reinstated on the docket of this Court.

The respondent shall file an answering brief within 14 days of the date of entry of this order. No additional oral argument will be heard in this matter.
Exhibit 31
                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Kenneth P. Hamik, President and CFO, of LipidViro Tech, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A-1 of
the Registrant;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this Quarterly 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
Quarterly Report;

     4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
for the Registrant and I have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the Registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within
          those entities, particularly during the period in which this
          Quarterly Report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure
          controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
          filing date of this Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented in this Quarterly Report my conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
          My evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
          internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's
          ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
          and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material
          weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
          other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's
          internal controls.

Dated: November 14, 2005             Signature:/s/Kenneth P. Hamik
                                     Kenneth P. Hamik
                                     President and CEO
                                     President, CFO and Director
#### § 61.132 Method of filing concurrences.

A carrier proposing to concur in another carrier's effective tariff must deliver one copy of the concurrence to the issuing carrier in whose favor the concurrence is issued. The concurrence must be signed by an officer or agent of the carrier executing the concurrence, and must be numbered consecutively in a separate series from its FCC tariff numbers. At the same time the issuing carrier revises its tariff to reflect such a concurrence, it must file one copy of the concurrence electronically with the Commission in accordance with the requirements set forth in § 61.13 through § 61.17. The concurrence must bear the same effective date as the date of the tariff filing reflecting the concurrence. Carriers shall file revisions reflecting concurrences in their tariffs on the notice period specified in § 61.58.

[76 FR 43216, July 20, 2011]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4405

To require a 25-percent reduction in appropriations for the legislative branch

of the Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 12, 1994

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

Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To require a 25-percent reduction in appropriations for the

legislative branch of the Government.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF 25 PERCENT IN APPROPRIA4 TIONS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF

5 THE GOVERNMENT.

6 Notwithstanding any other law, or any rule or other

7 authority, the total of appropriations for the legislative

8 branch of the Government for fiscal year 1995 may not

9 exceed 75 percent of the total of appropriations for the

10 legislative branch of the Government for fiscal year 1994.
2

•HR 4405 IH

Æ
§ 73.404 IBOC DAB operation. ( a ) The licensee of an AM or FM station, or the permittee of a new AM or FM station which has commenced program test operation pursuant to § 73.1620, may commence hybrid IBOC DAB operation with digital facilities which conform to the technical specifications specified for hybrid DAB operation in the (2002) *First Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 99-325, as revised in the Media Bureau's subsequent *Order* in MM Docket No. 99-325. In addition, the licensee of an AM station, or the permittee of a new AM station that has commenced program test authority pursuant to § 73.1620, may, with reasonable notice to listeners, commence all-digital IBOC operation with digital facilities that conform to the requirements set out in the (2020) *Report and Order* in MB Docket No. 19-311 and MB Docket No. 13-249. An AM or FM station may transmit IBOC signals during all hours for which the station is licensed to broadcast.
( b ) In situations where interference to other stations is anticipated or actually occurs, hybrid AM licensees may, upon notification to the Commission, reduce the power of the primary DAB sidebands by up to 6 dB. All-digital AM licensees, may, upon notification to the Commission, reduce the power of the secondary and tertiary sidebands by up to 6 dB, even if doing so results in non-compliance with § 73.1560(a)(1). Any greater reduction of sideband power requires prior authority from the Commission via the filing of a request for special temporary authority or an informal letter request for modification of license.
( c ) Hybrid IBOC AM stations must use the same licensed main or auxiliary antenna to transmit the analog and digital signals.
( d ) FM stations may transmit hybrid IBOC signals in combined mode; *i.e.*, using the same antenna for the analog and digital signals; or may employ separate analog and digital antennas. Where separate antennas are used, the digital antenna: ( 1 ) Must be a licensed auxiliary antenna of the station;
( 2 ) Must be located within 3 seconds latitude and longitude from the analog antenna;
( 3 ) Must have a radiation center height above average terrain between 70 and 100 percent of the height above average terrain of the analog antenna.
[72 FR 45692, Aug. 15, 2007, as amended at 75 FR 17877, Apr. 8, 2010; 85 FR 18151, Apr. 1, 2020; 85 FR 78027, Dec. 3, 2020]
#### Tony GIVENS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. WEST VIRGINIA; Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General; Robert D. Williams, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-1063.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Tony Givens, Appellant pro se.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Tony Givens appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Givens v. West Virginia,*No. CA-03-2267-2 (S.D.W.Va. Dec. 9, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Watts Premier, Inc., Watts Regulator Co., 

and Watts Water Technologies, Inc., 

 

 Appellants,

v.

Texas Farmers Insurance Company as 

Subrogee of Francisco Mercado,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00232-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2016DCV0690)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is the Second Joint Motion to Continue Abatement. The 

motion is GRANTED. We therefore extend the abatement until June 24, 2017. The parties shall 

file their motion to dismiss the appeal or their motion for continuation of abatement on or before 

June 24, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of April, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
No. 10-10818.

#### Kostraba *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.