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

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12760-12761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5237]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

[Docket No. RM 2010-10]

Section 302 Report

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office published in the Federal Register of

[[Page 12761]]

March 3, 2011, a Notice of Inquiry seeking comments for a report to 
Congress addressing possible recommendations for phasing out the 
statutory licensing requirements in Section 111, 119, and 122 of the 
Copyright Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Golant, Assistant General Counsel, 
or Tanya M. Sandros, Deputy General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 
70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 
707-8366 or by electronic mail at bgol@loc.gov.

Correction

    In Notice of Inquiry RM 2010-10 make the following corrections in 
the DATES section. On page 11816 in the 2nd column correct the DATES 
caption to read:

    DATES: Written comments must be received in the Office of the 
General Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than April 18, 
2011. Reply comments must be received in the Office of the General 
Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than May 18, 2011.

    Dated: March 3, 2011.
Tanya M. Sandros,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-5237 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
```
§ 80.289 Requirements for radio direction finder. ( a ) The radio direction finding apparatus must: ( 1 ) Be capable of receiving signals A1A, A2B and R2B emission, on each frequency within the band 285-515 kHz assigned by the Radio Regulations for distress and direction finding and for maritime radio beacons, and be calibrated to take bearings on such signals from which the true bearing and direction may be determined; and
( 2 ) Possess a sensitivity, sufficient to permit the taking of bearings on a signal having a field strength of 50 microvolts per meter.
( b ) The calibration of the direction finder must be verified by check bearings or by a further calibration whenever any changes are made in the physical or electrical characteristics or the position of any antennas, and whenever any changes are made in the position of any deck structures which might affect the accuracy of the direction finder. In addition, the calibration must be verified by check bearings at yearly intervals. A record of the calibrations, and of the check bearings made of their accuracy and the accuracy of the check bearings must be kept on board the ship for a period of not less than 1 year.
[51 FR 31213, Sept. 2, 1986, as amended at 63 FR 29660, June 1, 1998. Redesignated at 68 FR 46973, Aug. 7, 2003]
§ 65.105 Discovery. ( a ) Participants shall file with each rate of return submission copies of all information, including studies, financial analysts' reports, and any other documents relied upon by participants or their experts in the preparation of their submission. Information filed pursuant to this paragraph for which protection from disclosure is sought shall be filed subject to protective orders which shall be duly granted by the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, for good cause shown.
( b ) Participants may file written interrogatories and requests for documents directed to any rate of return submission and not otherwise filed pursuant to § 65.105(a). The permissible scope of examination is that participants may be examined upon any matter, not privileged, that will demonstrably lead to the production of material, relevant, decisionally significant evidence.
( c ) Discovery requests pursuant to § 65.105(b), including written interrogatories, shall be filed within 14 calendar days after the filing of the rate of return submission to which the request is directed. Discovery requests that are not opposed shall be complied with within 14 calendar days of the request date.
( d ) Oppositions to discovery requests made pursuant to § 65.105(b), including written interrogatories, shall be filed within 7 calendar days after requests are filed. The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, shall rule upon any such opposition. Except as stayed by the Commission or a Court, any required response to a discovery request that is opposed shall be provided within 14 calendar days after release of the ruling of the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
( e ) An original and 4 copies of all information described in § 65.105(a) and all requests, oppositions, and responses made pursuant to § 65.105 (a), (b) and (d) shall be filed with the Secretary.
( f ) Service of requests, oppositions, and responses made pursuant to § 65.105 (b) and (d) shall be made upon all participants who have filed a designation of service notice pursuant to § 65.100(b). Service of requests upon participants who have filed designation of service notices pursuant to § 65.100(b) shall be made by hand on the filing dates thereof.
[60 FR 28544, June 1, 1995, as amended at 67 FR 13229, Mar. 21, 2002]
#### § 73.6019 Class A TV station protection of low power TV and TV translator stations.

An application to change the facilities of a Class A TV station will not be accepted if it fails to protect authorized low power TV and TV translator stations in accordance with the requirements of § 74.793(b) through (d) and (h) of this chapter. This protection must be afforded to applications for changes filed prior to the date the Class A station application is filed.

[89 FR 7263, Feb. 1, 2024]
§ 73.1665 Main transmitters. ( a ) Each AM, FM, TV and Class A TV broadcast station must have at least one main transmitter which complies with the provisions of the transmitter technical requirements for the type and class of station. A main transmitter is one which is used for regular program service having power ratings appropriate for the authorized operating power(s).
( b ) There is no maximum manufacturer-rated power limit for AM, FM, TV or Class A TV station transmitters.
( c ) A licensee may, without further authority or notification to the FCC, replace an existing main transmitter or install additional main transmitter(s) for use with the authorized antenna if the replacement or additional transmitter(s) has been approved with Supplier's Declaration of Conformity. Within 10 days after commencement of regular use of the replacement or additional transmitter(s), equipment performance measurements, as prescribed for the type of station are to be completed.
Note 1 to paragraph ( c
):
The verification procedure has been replaced by Supplier's Declaration of Conformity. Transmitters previously authorized under subpart J of this chapter may remain in use. See § 2.950 of this chapter.
Note 2 to paragraph ( c
):
Pending the availability of AM broadcast transmitters that are authorized for use in the 1605-1705 kHz band, transmitters that are approved or verified for use in the 535-1605 kHz band may be utilized in the 1605-1705 kHz band if it is shown that the requirements of § 73.44 have been met. Equipment authorization for the transmitter will supersede the applicability of this note.
[43 FR 53741, Nov. 17, 1978, as amended at 47 FR 8590, Mar. 1, 1982; 47 FR 28388, June 30, 1982; 49 FR 4000, Feb. 1, 1984; 51 FR 18451, May 20, 1986; 56 FR 64872, Dec. 12, 1991; 63 FR 36604, July 7, 1998; 65 FR 30004, May 10, 2000; 82 FR 50835, Nov. 2, 2017; 87 FR 15344, Mar. 18, 2022]
#### AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CO., Inc. v. U. S. OFFICERS & NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS CLUB, EUROPEAN THEATER et al.

No. 10503.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 26, 1950.

Decided Jan. 11, 1951.

Mr. John R. Fitzpatrick, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Edward J. Lynch and I. Irwin Bolotin, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, submitted on the brief for appellant.

Mr. Joseph F. Goetten, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, submitted on the brief for appellees.

Before EDGERTON and WILBUR K. MILLER Circuit Judges, and ROBERT N. WILKIN, District Judge, retired (sitting by designation).

PER CURIAM.

Appellees are “U. S. Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers Club, European Theater,” which is an unincorporated association of certain Army personnel as described by its title, and certain alleged “supervisory agents” of the Club, including the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Under Secretary of the Army, the Quartermaster General, and other officers. Appellant sued appellees for breach of contract. However, appellant’s brief states that the “individual defendants were named solely for the purpose of acquiring jurisdiction over the defendant association. Judgment is sought only against the defendant association and not against the individual defendants.”

 Like post exchanges, the appellee Club is organized, under Army regulations, for the benefit of army personnel. The Supreme Court has said that post exchanges “are integral parts of the War Department, share in fulfilling the duties entrusted to it, and partake of whatever immunities it may have under the constitution and federal statutes.” Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 316 U.S. 481, 485, 62 S.Ct. 1168, 1170, 86 L.Ed. 1611. It would seem to follow that appellee Club is an integral part of the War Department’s sue-*92cessor, the Department of the Army, and partakes of its immunity to suit without the consent of the United States. But we need not decide that question, for even if the Club is not immune to suit it is not within the jurisdiction of the courts in this suit. It operates in Germany and carries on no activities in the District of Columbia. None of the individuals named as defendants, or served with process, has any authority to sue or be sued, or accept service, on the Club’s behalf. Accordingly the complaint was rightly dismissed.

Affirmed.
172P15-3

#### State v. Mohammed Nadder Jilani

Defs *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Dismissed
EXHIBIT
32.02  Section 1350
Certification
  In
connection with this annual report of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”),
I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative
Investments LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
  1.  This
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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.
  
 
 Date:
March 2, 2010
 
 By /s/ BARBRA E.
KOCSIS
 Barbra E.
Kocsis
 Chief
Financial Officer
 (Principal
Financial Officer)
§ 64.1501 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions shall apply: ( a ) *Pay-per-call service* means any service: ( 1 ) In which any person provides or purports to provide: ( i ) Audio information or audio entertainment produced or packaged by such person;
( ii ) Access to simultaneous voice conversation services; or
( iii ) Any service, including the provision of a product, the charges for which are assessed on the basis of the completion of the call;
( 2 ) For which the caller pays a per-call or per-time-interval charge that is greater than, or in addition to, the charge for transmission of the call; and
( 3 ) Which is accessed through use of a 900 number;
( 4 ) Provided, however, such term does not include directory services provided by a common carrier or its affiliate or by a local exchange carrier or its affiliate, or any service for which users are assessed charges only after entering into a presubscription or comparable arrangement with the provider of such service.
( b ) *Presubscription or comparable arrangement* means a contractual agreement in which: ( 1 ) The service provider clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer all material terms and conditions associated with the use of the service, including the service provider's name and address, a business telephone number which the consumer may use to obtain additional information or to register a complaint, and the rates for the service;
( 2 ) The service provider agrees to notify the consumer of any future rate changes;
( 3 ) The consumer agrees to use the service on the terms and conditions disclosed by the service provider; and
( 4 ) The service provider requires the use of an identification number or other means to prevent unauthorized access to the service by nonsubscribers;
( 5 ) Provided, however, that disclosure of a credit, prepaid account, debit, charge, or calling card number, along with authorization to bill that number, made during the course of a call to an information service shall constitute a presubscription or comparable arrangement if an introductory message containing the information specified in § 64.1504(c)(2) is provided prior to, and independent of, assessment of any charges. No other action taken by a consumer during the course of a call to an information service, for which charges are assessed, can create a presubscription or comparable arrangement.
( 6 ) Provided, that a presubscription arrangement to obtain information services provided by means of a toll-free number shall conform to the requirements of § 64.1504(c).
( c ) *Calling card* means an identifying number or code unique to the individual, that is issued to the individual by a common carrier and enables the individual to be charged by means of a phone bill for charges incurred independent of where the call originates.
[61 FR 39087, July 26, 1996]
No. 10-10864.

#### Sealed Defendant *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
PCA Meeting 9-15-11 Monitoring Presentation

9-15-11
No. 10-10899.

#### Pankey *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"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":"22-1037: INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"lBZzXo7dj8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-13-2023-22-1037-intel-corporation-v-pact-xpp-schweiz-ag-opinion-22-1037-opinion-3-13-2023_2093578\/\">22-1037: INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-13-2023-22-1037-intel-corporation-v-pact-xpp-schweiz-ag-opinion-22-1037-opinion-3-13-2023_2093578\/embed\/#?secret=lBZzXo7dj8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1037: INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"lBZzXo7dj8\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1037 Origin: PTO Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**


**THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b)**


**OF
      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Robert L. Long,
      Chief Executive Officer of Transocean Inc., a Cayman Islands company (the
“Company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:





(1)
            the
                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
                2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





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






Dated:August
              1,
              2007
            
            /s/
                Robert L. LongName:
            Robert
                L. LongChief
                Executive Officer




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
      63
      of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
      or
      as a separate disclosure document.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Transocean Inc. and will be retained by Transocean Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 69.805 Prohibition on certain non-disclosure agreement conditions. ( a ) In markets deemed non-competitive, buyers and sellers of business data services shall not enter into a tariff, contract-based tariff, or commercial agreement, including but not limited to master service agreement, that contains a non-disclosure agreement as defined in § 69.801(g), that restricts or prohibits disclosure of information to the Commission, or requires a prior request or legal compulsion by the Commission to effect such disclosure.
( b ) Confidential information subject to a protective order as defined in § 0.461 of this chapter in effect as of the effective date of a tariff, contract-based tariff, or commercial agreement must be submitted pursuant to the terms of that protective order or otherwise pursuant to the Commission's rules regarding submission of confidential data in §§ 0.457(d) and 0.459.
§ 76.980 Charges for customer changes. ( a ) This section shall govern charges for any changes in service tiers or equipment provided to the subscriber that are initiated at the request of a subscriber after initial service installation.
( b ) The charge for customer changes in service tiers effected solely by coded entry on a computer terminal or by other similarly simple methods shall be a nominal amount, not exceeding actual costs, as defined in paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) The charge for customers changes in service tiers or equipment that involve more than coded entry on a computer or other similarly simple method shall be based on actual cost. The actual cost charge shall be either the HSC, as defined in Section 76.923 of the rules, multiplied by the number of persons hours needed to implement the change, or the HSC multiplied by the average number of persons hours involved in implementing customer changes.
( d ) A cable operator may establish a higher charge for changes effected solely by coded entry on a computer terminal or by other similarly simple methods, subject to approval by the franchising authority, for a subscriber changing service tiers more than two times in a twelve month period, except for such changes ordered in response to a change in price or channel line-up.
( e ) Downgrade charges that are the same as, or lower than, upgrade charges are evidence of the reasonableness of such downgrade charges.
( f ) For 30 days after notice of retiering or rate increases, a customer may obtain changes in service tiers at no additional charge.
Note 1 to § 76.980 :
Cable operators must also notify subscribers of potential charges for customer service changes, as provided in § 76.1604.
[58 FR 29753, May 21, 1993, as amended at 65 FR 53617, Sept. 5, 2000]