alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 17.1 Basis and purpose. ( a ) The rules in this part are issued pursuant to the authority contained in Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which vest authority in the Federal Communications Commission to issue licenses to radio stations when it is found that the public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served thereby, and to require the painting, and/or illumination of antenna structures if and when in its judgment such structures constitute, or there is reasonable possibility that they may constitute, a menace to air navigation.
( b ) The purpose of this part is to prescribe certain procedures for antenna structure registration and standards with respect to the Commission's consideration of proposed antenna structures which will serve as a guide to antenna structure owners.
[61 FR 4362, Feb. 6, 1996, as amended at 79 FR 56984, Sept. 24, 2014]
{"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":"23-122: In Re ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"89UD6FABCf\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-01-2023-23-122-in-re-asustek-computer-inc-order-23-122-order-3-1-2023_2088102\/\">23-122: In Re ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-01-2023-23-122-in-re-asustek-computer-inc-order-23-122-order-3-1-2023_2088102\/embed\/#?secret=89UD6FABCf\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-122: In Re ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"89UD6FABCf\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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":"ORDER Posted: In Re ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC. [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-122 Origin: RIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 64.5001 Reporting and certification requirements.

On a quarterly basis, every prepaid calling card provider must submit to the Commission a certification with respect to the prior quarter, signed by an officer of the company under penalty of perjury, stating that it is making the required Universal Service Fund contribution. This provision shall not apply to any prepaid calling card provider that has timely filed required annual and quarterly Telecommunications Reporting Worksheets, FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q, during the preceding two-year period.

[82 FR 48778, Oct. 20, 2017]
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable William T. Hart, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NEW FORM, INC., DBA Laguna Films, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. TEKILA FILMS, INC.; MARCO INIGUEZ, an individual, Defendants - Appellants. No. 08-56001 D.C. No. 2:02-cv-02296-FMC-E
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 6, 2009 ** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD and BEA, Circuit Judges, and HART, *** Senior District Judge. 

# FILED
NOV 12 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Tekila Films, Inc. and Marco Iniguez (“ Tekila Films”) bring this appeal after a jury trial in which they were found to have willfully infringed fifteen of New Form’s copyrights to Mexican films. Before trial, the district court rejected Tekila Films’s proposed jury instruction de fining “statutory damages” under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). Tekila Films appeals that ruling, and claims that the jury’s subsequent award of $1,312,500 in statutory damages to New Form was excessive. We have jurisd iction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to adopt Tekila Films’s proposed jury instruction that woul d direct the jury to measure statutory damages in relation to actual damages using the “fair market value” of the infringed works. A statutory damages award within the limits prescribed by Congress is appropriate “[e]ven for uni njurious and unprofitable invasions of copyright.” F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc. , 344 U.S. 228, 233 (1952). We have consistently held and stated that statutory damages are recoverable without regard to the existe nce or provability of actual damages. See, e.g. , Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc. , 259 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir. 2001); L.A. News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd. , 149 F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 1998); Peer Int’l Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc. ,3 909 F.2d 1332, 1337 (9th Cir. 1990). There is no required nexus between actual and statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). Accordingly, the district court did not err in refusing Tekila Films’s pr oposed instruction, which itself would have been a misstatement of the law. Tekila Films also alleges that the jury awarded excessive damages because the statutory award was “far in excess of and disproportionate to the actualdamages” New Form suffered. This argument is a retooled version of the juryinstruction argument above. Tekila Films’s excessive-verdict claim turns on the incorrect premise that statutory damages must be tethered to actual damages. Because there is no such requirement, the jury’s verdict cannot be deemed excessive on that basis. AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439

JARRETT B. PERLOW CLERK’S OFFICE

CLERK OF COURT 202-275-8000

Information Sheet

Filing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

There is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from 

judgments of the Federal Circuit. Instead, a party must file a petition for a writ of

certiorari which the Supreme Court will grant only when there are compelling reasons. See

Supreme Court Rule 10.

Time. The petition must be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States within 90 days 

of the entry of judgment in this Court or within 90 days of the denial of a timely petition for 

rehearing. The judgment is entered on the day the Federal Circuit issues a final decision in 

your case. The time does not run from the issuance of the mandate. See Supreme Court

Rule 13.

Fees. Either the $300 docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with 

an affidavit in support thereof must accompany the petition. See Supreme Court Rules 38 

and 39.

Authorized Filer. The petition must be filed by a member of the bar of the Supreme Court 

of the United States or by the petitioner as a self-represented individual. 

Format of a Petition. The Supreme Court Rules are very specific about the content and

formatting of petitions. See Supreme Court Rules 14, 33, 34. Additional information is 

available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx. 

Number of Copies. Forty copies of a petition must be filed unless the petitioner is

proceeding in forma pauperis, in which case an original and ten copies of both the petition 

for writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be filed. 

See Supreme Court Rule 12.

Filing. Petitions are filed in paper at Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States, 1 First 

Street, NE, Washington, DC 20543. 

Effective November 13, 2017, electronic filing is also required for filings submitted by 

parties represented by counsel. See Supreme Court Rule 29.7. Additional information

about electronic filing at the Supreme Court is available at

https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx. 

No documents are filed at the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit provides no

information to the Supreme Court unless the Supreme Court asks for the information. 

Revised July 1, 2023
No. 11-8836.

#### Slay v. Bank of America Corp.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 109-40.103-3 International transportation. See 49 U.S.C. 41102 for a certificate required in nonuse of U.S. flag vessels or U.S. flag certificated air carriers. ( a ) U.S.-flag ocean carriers. Arrangements for international ocean transportation services shall be made in accordance with the provisions of section 901(b) of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1241(b)) concerning the use of privately owned U.S.-flag vessels.
( b ) U.S.-flag certificated air carriers. Arrangements for international air transportation services shall be made in accordance with the provisions of section 5(a) of the International Air Transportation Fair Competition Practices Act of 1974 (49 U.S.C. 40118), which requires the use of U.S.-flag certificated air carriers for international travel of persons or property to the extent that services by these carriers is available.
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
 Watch CIC Professor George Trawick Present at AUSA Cyber Pavilion
 
 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
No. 11-5622.

#### Lewis *v.*Meko, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 154 (Thursday, August 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 45862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6857]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


President's Committee on the National Medal of Science; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: President's Committee on the National Medal of Science 
(1182).
    Date and Time: Monday, October 2, 2006, 8:30 a.m.--1:30 p.m.
    Place: Room 1235, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Ms. Mayra Montrose, Program Manager, Room 1282, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: 703-292-4757.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations to the 
President in the selection of the 2006 National Medal of Science 
recipients.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The nominations being reviewed include 
information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute 
unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. These matters are exempt 
under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: August 8, 2006.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-6857 Filed 8-8-06; 12:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
# Mr. Domenic Savini

### Visiting Professor and FASAB Chair

### Cost and Managerial Accounting, Teaching and Tutoring

### 

**Areas of Interest:**

Accounting and Auditing, cost and managerial accounting, teaching and tutoring

Mr. Domenic Savini is an Assistant Director of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and serves as a Visiting Professor and FASAB Chair supporting the CFO Academy within the College of Information and Cyberspace.

With over 30 years of federal service, Mr. Savini began his federal career at the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) where he served as a Supervisory Auditor and was selected to participate in DCAA Director’s Fellowship Program.  He then served as financial analyst and contract negotiator at the Navy’s Military Sealift Command where he was responsible for the financial management of its Maritime Pre-positioning Ship Program.  He later served as Director of the Finance Division of the Public Housing Authority within the Housing and Urban Development’s Real Estate Assessment Center, and immediately prior to joining FASAB, he served as the Director of Finance and Administration for the Smithsonian Institution’s Sackler/Freer Galleries of Art.  Mr. Savini’s prior military experience includes service as a Marine and as an Officer in the U.S Army Reserves.   

Mr. Savini has a bachelor’s degree in accounting from Kean University, a master’s degree in general administration from Central Michigan University, and is licensed as a Certified Public Accountant CPA in New Jersey and Virginia.  Mr. Savini is regularly invited to speak at conferences focused on federal financial management, has published several articles in professional journals, and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants.
#### Joel MORALES-CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-73919.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2004.*

Decided March 24, 2004.

Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Attorney at Law, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Lagu-*998na Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Francesco Isgro, Attorney, David M. McConnell, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, ' and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Joel Morales-Campos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s order denying his motion to terminate removal proceedings and for relief under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”). We have jurisdiction to review Morales-Campos’s contention that NACARA section 202(b) violates equal protection, and we review this constitutional claim de novo. *See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.

“ ‘Line drawing’ decisions made by Congress ... in the context of immigration and naturalization must be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose,” *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001), and “[cjhallengers have the burden to negate ‘every conceivable basis which might support [a legislative classification] ... whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record.’ ” *Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting *Heller v. Doe,*509 U.S. 312, 320-21, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993)). Morales-Campos has not met this burden, because a rational basis exists for distinguishing groups of aliens from Mexico from those from Nicaragua or Cuba based on conditions in their home countries. *See Jimenez-Angeles,*291 F.3d at 597. Moreover, we have specifically held that NACARA section 203 does not violate equal protection. *See Ram,*243 F.3d at 517 (Congress’s decision to favor aliens from specific war-torn countries “stems from a rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in the United States.”).

The Clerk is directed to stay the mandate pending the resolution of *Desta v. Ashcroft,*No. 03-70477 and further order of this Court.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4642 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4642

To provide for the restoration of Washington Square in Philadelphia and 
for its inclusion within Independence National Historical Park, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 1994

Mr. Foglietta introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the restoration of Washington Square in Philadelphia and 
for its inclusion within Independence National Historical Park, 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. RESTORATION OF WASHINGTON SQUARE.

    (a) Restoration.--The Secretary of the Interior (acting through the 
Director of the National Park Service) is authorized to provide a grant 
to the City of Philadelphia to undertake the restoration of the area 
known as Washington Square, as depicted on the map numbered       , and 
dated       . Such grant may not be used to fund more than 66.6 percent 
of the costs of such restoration. The grant shall be conditioned on the 
conduct of such restoration in accordance with such standards as may be 
established by the Secretary in order to facilitate the inclusion of 
the square in Independence National Historical Park pursuant to section 
2 of this Act.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for the purposes of this section not more than $2,600,000 
for the fiscal year 1995.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION WITHIN INDEPENDENCE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

    Upon completion of the restoration, pursuant to section 1, of 
Washington Square (as depicted on the map referred to in section 1), 
the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to enter into a lease 
agreement with the city of Philadelphia for the lease of such area to 
the National Park Service, and the Secretary is authorized to modify 
the boundaries of Independence National Historical Park to include such 
area within such boundaries, and to provide for the administration of 
such area as part of such Park.

                                 <all>
```
794 A.2d 180

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. LAWRENCE A. BARLOW, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

March 20, 2002.

Petition for certification is granted and summarily remanded to the Appellate Division to reconsider in the light of *State v. Johnson,*166 *N.J*523, 766 A.2d 1126 (2001).
No. 11-9136.

#### Lohner *v.*Prosper, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to 10 U.S.C.  Section  1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 1350 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  in  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of
Electronic Game Card, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report") for Electronic  Game Card,  Inc.,  (the  "Company"),  the  undersigned
hereby certifies that:

(1)      to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

(2)      to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         result of operations of the Company.

April 6, 2006


/S/ LINDEN J. BOYNE
---------------------------
    LINDEN J. BOYNE
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER