alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 73.5005 Filing of long-form applications. ( a ) Within thirty (30) days following the close of bidding and notification to the winning bidders, unless a longer period is specified by public notice, each winning bidder must submit an appropriate long-form application (FCC Form 2100) for each construction permit or license for which it was the high bidder. Long-form applications filed by winning bidders shall include the exhibits required by § 1.2107(d) of this chapter (concerning any bidding consortia or joint bidding arrangements); § 1.2110(j) of this chapter (concerning designated entity status, if applicable); and § 1.2112 of this chapter (concerning disclosure of ownership and real party in interest information, and, if applicable, disclosure of gross revenue information for small business applicants).
( b ) The long-form application should be submitted pursuant to the rules governing the service in which the applicant is a high bidder and according to the procedures for filing such applications set out by public notice. When electronic procedures become available for the submission of long-form applications, the Commission may require all winning bidders to file their long-form applications electronically.
( c ) An applicant that fails to submit the required long-form application under this section, and fails to establish good cause for any late-filed submission, shall be deemed to have defaulted and shall be subject to the payments set forth in 47 CFR 1.2104(g).
( d ) An applicant whose short-form application, submitted pursuant to § 73.5002(b), was not mutually exclusive with any other short-form application in the same service, or whose short-form application was mutually exclusive only with one or more short-form applications for a noncommercial educational broadcast station, as described in 47 U.S.C. 397(6), shall submit an appropriate long-form application within thirty (30) days following release of a public notice identifying any such non-mutually exclusive applicants. The long-form application should be submitted pursuant to the rules governing the relevant service and according to any procedures for filing such applications set out by public notice. The long-form application filed by a non-mutually exclusive applicant need not contain the additional exhibits, identified in paragraph (a) of this section, required to be submitted with the long-form applications filed by winning bidders. When electronic procedures become available, the Commission may require any non-mutually exclusive applicants to file their long-form applications electronically.
[63 FR 48629, Sept. 11, 1998, as amended at 67 FR 45375, July 9, 2002; 68 FR 26229, May 15, 2003; 68 FR 43000, July 21, 2003; 69 FR 72044, Dec. 10, 2004; 75 FR 9806, Mar. 4, 2010; 89 FR 7262, Feb. 1, 2024]
#### § 101.207 Suspension of transmission.

Transmission must be suspended immediately upon detection by the station or operator licensee or upon notification by the Commission of a deviation from the technical requirements of the station authorization and must remain suspended until such deviation is corrected, except for transmission concerning the immediate safety of life or property, in which case transmission must be suspended immediately after the emergency is terminated.
{"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":"Notice of Revised Protocols For In-Person Argument - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HyLWOwnRef\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-revised-protocols-for-in-person-argument\/\">Notice of Revised Protocols For In-Person Argument<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-revised-protocols-for-in-person-argument\/embed\/#?secret=HyLWOwnRef\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of Revised Protocols For In-Person Argument” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"HyLWOwnRef\" 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":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued\u00a0Revised Protocols for In-Person Argument (pdf)\u00a0that will apply for the September 2021 court sitting and subsequent sittings until further notice.\u00a0 Based on the Revised Protocols, the court has also updated the\u00a0Certificate of Compliance (pdf)\u00a0required ahead of time for all arguing counsel, as well as implemented […]"}
#### § 69.403 Marketing expense (Account 6610).

Marketing expense shall be apportioned among the interexchange category and all access elements in the same proportions as the combined investment that is apportioned pursuant to § 69.309.
§ 78.15 Contents of applications. ( a ) Applications for authorization in the Cable Television Relay Service shall be submitted on FCC Form 327, and shall contain the information requested therein. Applications requiring fees as set forth at part 1, subpart G of this chapter must be filed in accordance with § 0.401(b) of the rules.
( b ) An application for a CARS studio to headend link or LDS station license shall contain a statement that the applicant has investigated the possibility of using cable rather than microwave and the reasons why it was decided to use microwave rather than cable. Note:
Each applicant filing pursuant to § 78.15 is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of all information in such applications. The provisions of § 1.65 are wholly applicable to applications pursuant to § 78.15, as well as to amendments filed pursuant to § 78.17, and objections filed pursuant to § 78.22, except that where the specific provisins of §§ 78.15, 78.17, 78.22 conflict with the provisions of § 1.65, the specific provisions are controlling, e.g., where requirements for service on specified parties of certain information may vary.
( c ) CARS applicants must follow the procedures prescribed in subpart 1 of part 1 of this chapter (§§ 1.1301 through 1.1319) regarding the filing of environmental assessments unless Commission action authorizing construction of a CARS station would be categorically excluded from the environmental processing requirements under § 1.1306 of this chapter.
[41 FR 3719, Jan. 23, 1976, as amended at 41 FR 32429, Aug. 3, 1976; 42 FR 61864, Dec. 7, 1977; 50 FR 23421, June 4, 1985; 52 FR 10231, Mar. 31, 1987; 55 FR 20398, May 16, 1990]
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Abraham Pierce, President and Chief Executive Officer of Fonecash, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on 10QSB of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Date: January 5, 2005



/s/ Abraham Pierce

_______________________



Abraham Pierce

President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 23.2



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


         As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report on Technology Company Ventures, L.L.C. dated October
14, 1997 included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 1998 into Engineering Animation, Inc.'s previously filed Registration
Statement File Nos. 333-17393, 333-40823, 333-40825, 333-57231, 333-64429 and
333-68159 on Form S-8.


                                                            ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Portland, Oregon,
  February 26, 1999


                                      -74-
§ 69.125 Dedicated signalling transport. ( a ) Dedicated signalling transport shall consist of two elements, a signalling link charge and a signalling transfer point (STP) port termination charge.
( b ) ( 1 ) A flat-rated signalling link charge expressed in dollars and cents per unit of capacity shall be assessed upon all interexchange carriers and other persons that use facilities between an interexchange carrier or other person's common channel signalling network and a telephone company signalling transfer point or equivalent facilities offered by a telephone company. Signalling link charges may be distance-sensitive. Distance shall be measured as airline kilometers between the signalling point of interconnection of the interexchange carrier's or other person's common channel signalling network and the telephone company's signalling transfer point.
( 2 ) Signalling link rates will generally be presumed reasonable if they are based on the interoffice charges for equivalent special access services. Telephone companies that have, before February 18, 1993, tariffed a signalling link service for signalling transport between the interexchange carrier's or other person's common channel signalling network and the telephone company's STP are permitted to use the rates that are in place.
( c ) A flat-rated STP port termination charge expressed in dollars and cents per port shall be assessed upon all interexchange carriers and other persons that use dedicated signalling transport.
[57 FR 54721, Nov. 20, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 41191, Aug. 3, 1993; 58 FR 44950, Aug. 25, 1993; 62 FR 31935, June 11, 1997]
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.1261 Frequency tolerance. ( a ) The licensee of an FM translator or booster station with an authorized transmitter power output of 10 watts or less shall maintain the center frequency at the output of the translator within 0.01 percent of its assigned frequency.
( b ) The licensee of an FM translator or booster station with an authorized transmitter power output greater than 10 watts shall maintain the center frequency at the output of the translator or booster station in compliance with the requirement of § 73.1545(b)(1) of this chapter.
[55 FR 50699, Dec. 10, 1990]
No. 11-8986.

#### Robinson *v.*Coleman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KHALIL PUGH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 348 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of April, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 11-5921.

#### Sexton *v.*United States (two judgments).

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 166 (Monday, August 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 50930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7174]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, FoxP3 Complex.
    Date: September 21, 2006.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817. (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Sujata Vijh, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-594-0985. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#15637c7f7d66557b7c747c713b7b7c7d3b727a63"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="72041b181a01321c1b131b165c1c1b1a5c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 21, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-7174 Filed 8-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 11-8841.

#### Worthington *v.*Advocate Health Care, dba Bethany Hospital.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

                                   EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated April 26, 2006 accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of iDNA, Inc.
and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2006. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration
Statements of iDNA, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 2-93984, effective October 1,
1987, File No. 33-51727, effective December 28, 1993, and File No. 33-58579,
effective May 31, 1995).

/s/ Grant Thornton, LLP
-------------------------------------
Cleveland, Ohio
April 26, 2006
```
#### § 80.1169 [Reserved]
No. 11-9632.

#### Downs *v.*California Board of Prison Terms II et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin*v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U. S. 1 (1992) *(per curiam).*
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2


                        CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 MIV Therapeutics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ending August 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Patrick McGowan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.





/s/ Patrick McGowan
---------------------------
Patrick McGowan
CFO
October 9, 2002
DEC, 8,2010 3:06PM f A A REGIONAL COUNSEL, AEA-7 

To: Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Ronnie A. Yoder 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

To: Paul A Lange, Esq, 

Fax: 212-608-1216 

From: Christian Lewerenz 

Title: Attomey 

Date: 1218/2010 

Pages w/cover. 

NO, 2799 p, 112 

Federal AViation 

Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

718-553-3273 

718-995-5699 

Email: Jeanine,Gonmer 

@faa.gov 

Facsimile 718-995-5699 

o u.s. Department of Tr~nsportlUon 
DEC, 8,2010 3:06PM F A A REGIONAL COUNSEL, AEA-7 NO, 2799 p, 2/2 

U,S, Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Eastern Region 

Regional Counsel 

Telephone Facsimile and First-Class Mall 

December 8, 2010 

( 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S, Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room B12-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.B. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax: 201-366-7536 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Telephone; (718) 553-3273 

Facsimile: (718) 995-5699 

tc; 

t;5 

o 

r"'"l 

('"l 

\ 

(j) 

Re: Agreed Proposed Procedural Schedule, In the Matter of Polar Air Cargo, Inc., 

CP09EA0006 

Judge Yoder: . 

This is to confirm that the parties agree to the filing of an agreed proposed procedural 

schedule, including proposed dates for exchanging exhibits and discovery (January 31, 

2011): and f1ling stipulations, and a list of witnesses, and a summary of their proposed 

testimony (February 28, 2011). The parties agree to propose the hearing site be New 

York, New York. Finally, the parties are engaged in settlement discussions but have not 

agreed to a settlemellt as of this date. 

Sincerely, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By: .i~ J}< ~h J 

ChristIan Lewerenz 

Attorney for Complainant 

Cc; Paul A. Lange, Esq., Fax: 212-608-1215 

c' 

;B~d!~?) ""~- , 

i-r; ,
# Comments on: Updated Federal Circuit Rules of Practice and Electronic Filing Procedures
#### § 76.107 Exclusivity contracts.

A distributor or television station exercising exclusivity pursuant to § 76.101 shall provide to the cable system, upon request, an exact copy of those portions of the exclusivity contracts, such portions to be signed by both the distributor and the television station, setting forth in full the provisions pertinent to the duration, nature, and extent of the exclusivity terms concerning broadcast signal exhibition to which the parties have agreed.
#### ANDREAS H. GOURAUD, Appellant, *v.*PERCEY B. S. TRUST and others, Respondents.

Where an order discontinuing an appeal is made on an *exparte*application, upon an affidavit which omits to state, as required by rule 25, that no other application for the same order has been made, such order will be vacated, if a motion therefor be made on that ground.

*Supreme Court rule XJo.*25 — *order vacated for non-compliance with.*

Appeal from an order made at a Special Term, granting a motion to vacate an *ex parte*order discontinuing an appeal, on the ground that the affidavit, on which said *ex parte*order was entered, did not comply with rule 25 of the General Rules of Practice, in that it omitted to state that no other application for the same order had been made. No other application had in fact been made, and it was claimed that the omission of that statement from the affidavit resulted solely from haste and inadvertence.

The appeal was taken in April, 1878, from a decree of the surrogate of New York county, admitting a will to probate ; the *ex parte*order, discontinuing said appeal, was entered February 14, 1879, and the order vacating said *ex parte*order was entered March 1, 1879. From the last-mentioned order this appeal is taken.

*Francis Howland,*for the appellant.

*W. II. Waring,*for the respondent, Martha B. T. Gouraud.

Daniels, J.:

The order discontinuing this appeal was entered *ex parte,*upon an affidavit which omitted to state that no other application for the same order had been previously made by the appellant. For that reason this motion was made to vacate the order, and an order to that effect was accordingly made in the case. This last order was sanctioned by the plain terms of rule 25, and consequently it was regularly made.

*579It should therefore be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Brady, P. J., and Ingalls, J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
§ 64.6405 Financial responsibility following line separations. ( a ) Beginning on the date on which a covered provider transfers billing responsibilities for and use of telephone number(s) to a survivor following a line separation under § 64.6402(a), the survivor shall assume financial responsibility, including for monthly service costs, for the transferred telephone number(s), unless ordered otherwise by a court. Upon the transfer of the telephone number(s) under § 64.6402(a) to separate the line(s) of the abuser from a shared mobile service contract, the survivor shall have no further financial responsibilities to the transferring covered provider for the services provided by the transferring covered provider for the telephone number(s) or for any mobile device associated with the abuser's telephone number(s).
( b ) Beginning on the date on which a covered provider transfers billing responsibilities for and rights to telephone number(s) to a survivor following a line separation under § 64.6402(a), the survivor shall not assume financial responsibility for any mobile device(s) associated with the separated line(s), unless the survivor purchased the mobile device(s), or affirmatively elects to maintain possession of the mobile device(s), unless otherwise ordered by a court.
( c ) Following a line separation under § 64.6402(a), a covered provider shall maintain any arrears previously accrued on the account with the subscriber who was the primary account holder prior to the line separation.