alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.604 Interference avoidance. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) Where two or more licensees are assigned a common channel for TV pickup, TV STL, or TV relay purposes in the same area and simultaneous operation is contemplated, they shall take such steps as may be necessary to avoid mutual interference, including consultation with the local coordination committee, if one exists. If a mutual agreement to this effect cannot be reached, the Commission must be notified and it will take such action as may be necessary, including time sharing arrangements, to assure an equitable distribution of available frequencies.
( c ) For those interference disputes brought to the Commission for resolution, TV broadcast auxiliary channels will have the following priority for purposes of interference protection: ( 1 ) All fixed links for full service broadcast stations and cable systems.
( 2 ) TV and CARS pickup stations.
( 3 ) Fixed or mobile stations serving translator or low power TV stations.
( 4 ) Backup facilities; TV pickup stations used outside a licensee's local service area.
( 5 ) Any transmission, pursuant to § 74.631(f), that does not involve the delivery of program material to a licensee's associated TV broadcast station.
( d ) Interference between two stations having the same priority shall be resolved in favor of the station licensed first on a particular path.
[48 FR 17091, Apr. 21, 1983, as amended at 68 FR 12769, Mar. 17, 2003]
#### Morris Feldman and his wife Rose Feldman, and C. P. Jackson and his wife Elizabeth Jackson, *Appellants,*vs. H. L. Knight, *Appellee.*

142 So. 821.

Divisioin A.

Decision filed July 8, 1932.

*D. G. Campbell,*for Appellant;

*A. D. McNeill,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to' the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Bupord, C.J., and Ellis, and Brown, J.J., concur.
```

[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Notices]               
[Page 8646]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-42]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

 
Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Hampshire Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, that the New Hampshire Advisory Committee will 
convene a briefing meeting and planning meeting at 9 a.m. on Friday, 
March 12, 2010, at the Legislative Office Building, Room 207 Concord, 
New Hampshire 03301. The purpose of the briefing meeting is to receive 
presentations from experts on whether New Hampshire correctional 
facilities provide services to female prisoners similar to that of male 
prisoners. Experts will include government officials, correctional 
officials, academicians, and advocates on these gender disparities. The 
purpose of the planning meeting is for the Committee to consider its 
next steps.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office by April 12, 2010. The 
address is the Eastern Regional Office, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 
740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or 
who desire additional information should contact Alfreda Greene, 
secretary, at 202-376-7533 or by e-mail to: ero@usccr.gov.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above 
e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations 
of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, February 22, 2010.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010-3804 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
No. 11-5514.

#### Nance *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

FORM OF RULE 13a-14(a)

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Michael Baker, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ArthroCare Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



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



4. The registrants other certifying officer and 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 have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
and



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrants internal control.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                    
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/    MICHAEL A.
BAKER                            
|                     |  |     |  | Michael A. Baker President, Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch

,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

Ju ly 9 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk Ju ly 9 , 2021

16 3184 ( 37 )

TIM MADSEN

,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant

, SC: 163184

v COA: 35 2974

Genesee CC : 1 8

- 112040

- C Z

KOHL’S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.

, and KIMBERLY SCHRADE,

Defendant s

- Appellees

.

_______ ______________________________ _ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants

- appellees to extend the time

for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer

will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before August 18 , 2021

.
September 12, 2013

The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen

United States Senate

520 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Rob Portman

United States Senate

338 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senators Shaheen and Portman:

As the Senate continues its consideration of The Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness 

Act (S. 1392), the undersigned parties jointly propose the attached amendment to Section 325(e) of 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)) to mitigate the concerns of some 

stakeholders regarding the potential impact of the April 2010 energy efficiency standard for water 

heaters by allowing for the manufacture of certain large-volume grid-enabled electric resistance 

water heaters. We appreciate your consideration of this amendment. 

Sincerely,

A.O. Smith Corporation

Air-Conditioning Heating and Refrigeration Institute

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

American Public Power Association

Edison Electric Institute

General Electric Company

HTP, Inc.

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

Natural Resources Defense Council

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

PVI Industries, LLC

Rheem Manufacturing Company

Steffes Corporation

Vaughn Thermal Corporation

Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc.

Cc: The Hon. Ron Wyden

The Hon. Lisa Murkowski

The Hon. John Hoeven

The Hon. Mark Pryor
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GUS MASSEY JR.,

Appellant,

v.

EL PASO, TEXAS CITY ATTORNEY’S 

OFFICE,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00090-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law Number Three

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2021-CCV00636)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. It appearing to this Court that 

Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court makes no other order with respect to costs. 

This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
No. 11-9791.

#### Delestre *v.*Rhode Island.

Sup. Ct. R. I. Certiorari denied.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 24 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH RAY FULLER,

Petitioner-Appellant,
v. RON CHAMPION and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 99-6207 (D.C. No. CIV-98-312-L) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY , ANDERSON , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining petitioner’s brief and the appellat e record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument.-2-

Petitioner Kenneth Ray Fuller appeals from the district court ’s denial of his habeas petition, filed pro se pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to commit unlawful deliveryof a controlled dangerous substance and delivery of a controlled dangerous su bstance (cocaine), and is serving two, 200-year, concurrent sentences. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Und er the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, peti tioner must obtain a certificate of appealability before his appeal can proceed before this court. See id. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Petitioner must demonstrate “a su bstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” before a certific ate of appealability can issue. See id. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner also seeks leave to proc eed on appeal in forma pauperis; that request is granted. In his habeas application, petitioner claimed 1) pr osecutorial misconduct, 2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, 3) doub le jeopardy, 4) insufficient evidence of conspiracy, 5) excessive sentences, 6) trial court error in refusing to remove jurors for cause, and 7) trial court error i n denying a motion for the jury to view the premises. The magistrate judge recomme nded that these issues be rejected. After objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the petition.-3-

On appeal from the district court ’s ruling, petitioner raises and argues the same seven issues. Our review of the district court’s disposition in light of petitioner’s arguments and the applicable law convi nces us that, for substantially the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge ’s findings and recommendation, see R. Vol. I, doc. 18, petitioner has not demonstratedthe denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we DENY petitioner a certificate of appealability and DISMISS this appeal. The mandate shall issue forth with.

Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby Circuit Judge
# International Military Brazilian Delegation Meet with iCollege Leadership and Get a Tour of the Cyber Labs

/ Published Dec. 12, 2011

On December 6, 2011, the NDU iCollege leadership team and iLabs faculty welcomed an international military Brazilian delegation, including  LTG Jose Carlos dos Santos, MG Walter Souza Braga Netto and six high-level staff members from Brazil to discuss Cyber education and tour the college’s laboratories.  They were accompanied by several Pentagon and other US Government representatives from the International Information Assurance Program, Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information Office (CIO), the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and US Southern Command.  Dr. Robert D. Childs, Chancellor of the iCollege, gave a briefing to the delegation regarding the college’s international projects and conferences.  Demonstrations on Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), Attack/Defend principals in Cyberspace, and Information Operations and Assurance were led by Dr. Mike Piller, Professor Jay Holcomb and Dr. John Saunders.  The Brazilian visit supports the NDU iCollege’s international education outreach program.
June 11, 2015 

Mr. Nephi Richardson 

Dear Mr. Richardson: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 29, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2013), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
#### Earle B. Allison, *Appellant,*vs. Handy Andy Community Stores, Inc., a Florida corporation, *Appellee.*

143 So. 263.

Division B.

Opinion filed July 26, 1932.

*MoreoocJe Weintraub,*for Appellant;

*Grady G. Harris*and *Marslvburn, Mendenhall & McDonald,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to a bill of complaint and -refusing to dissolve a temporary injunction restraining the enforcement of a judgment of a law court, it being alleged that a false return was made on a *pluries summons ad res,*and that the complainant, the defendant in the law court, had not been served with process and had no knowledge of the action until after judgment had been rendered.

No fraud of the defendant, the plaintiff, in the law action, or other ground of equitable cognizance is alleged, and as the complainant had adequate remedy at law by appellate procedure or under sections 4515 (2828), 4516 (2829) C. G. L. or by action on the officers bond, and injunction in equity is not a proper remedy. See Robinson et al. vs. Yon et al., 8 Fla. 350; Dibble v. Truluck, 12 Fla. 185; Barnett v. Hickson, 52 Fla. 457, 41 So. 606; *275Lewter v. Hadley, 68 Fla. 131, 66 So. 567; Sutton et al. v. Bank of Mulberry, 83 Fla. 4, 90 So. 539. See also Clinton v. Colclough., 54 Fla. 520, 44 So. 878; Southern Home Ins. Co. v. Faulkner, 57 Fla. 194, 49 So. 542. In Edenfield v. Sayre et al., 81 Fla. 367, 88 So. 607, the inequitable conduct of the plaintiff in the law action afforded a ground for equitable relief.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P.J., and Tebbell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.742 Place of filing, fees, and number of copies.

All applications which do not require a fee shall be filed electronically through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System if practicable. Applications which must be filed in hard copy format should be submitted according to the procedures set forth on the web page of the FCC's Office of the Secretary, *https://www.fcc.gov/secretary.* Hand-delivered applications will be dated by the Secretary upon receipt (mailed applications will be dated by the Mail Branch) and then forwarded to the Wireline Competition Bureau. All applications accompanied by a fee payment should be filed in accordance with § 1.1105, Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the wireline competition services.

[83 FR 2556, Jan. 18, 2018]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 11, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 11, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0180. GEORGIA HOME APPRAISERS, INC. v. TRINTEC PORTFOLIO 

SERVICES, LLC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

16CV1408
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  Download
 Details
 Share
 News
 2022 Cyber Beacon Conference Hosted by CIC. By National Defense University, Ft McNair, Washington D.C
 Our 2022 Cyber Beacon will be held on October 6, 2022 starting at 0700 as an in-person event only. All students are invited to attend. We look forward to seeing everyone there and having a great event! **REGISTRATION CAN BE FOUND HERE** **THE AGENDA CAN BE FOUND HERE** **OUR PROMOTIONAL VIDEO CAN BE FOUND HERE**
 SHARE
 PRINT
 Previous Story
 Next Story
 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