alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0801An Examination of Racial Disparities in Bicycle Stops and Citations Made by the Tampa Police Department: A Technical Assistance ReportIn response to a 2015 newspaper article reporting racial disparities in bicycle stops and citations, the Tampa Police Department (TPD) requested participation in the COPS Office Critical Response Initiative process to assess the allegations. A technical assistance team worked with the TPD through a comprehensive assessment process to conduct interviews and analyze data on bicycle stops, citations, crashes, and calls for service. The team determined that there were racial disparities in bicycle stops and that the patterns of stops were inconsistent with TPD's stated aims of focusing on bicycle safety and bicycle theft. This report provides the findings and recommendations concerning TPD's bicycle stops and citations.By Greg Ridgeway, Ojmarrh Mitchell, Sheila Gunderman, Cedric Alexander, James LettenCategories: Data and Analysis • Ethics and Integrity • Police OperationsLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0801Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Apr 2016Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 00:55 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

July 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131652 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. _________________________________________ Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

IN RE LAURA ANN TACK, Minor. 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 131652 

 COA: 267852

 Oakland CC

JUNE KOTEL,

Respondent-Appellant, 

 Family Division: 05-708384-NA 

and 

THOMAS KOTEL, 

Respondent. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0725 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

July 28, 2006 

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1241

DANIELLE NELSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Theresa C. Buchanan, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-842) Submitted: July 30, 2004 Decided: August 18, 2004 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce K. Billman, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Dennis E. Szybala, Assistant United States Attorney, Lisa De Soto, General Counsel, Thomas Crawley, Deputy General Counsel, Karen J. Aviles, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Danielle Nelson appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nelson v. Barnhart , No. CA-03-842 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 19, 2003, entered Dec. 22, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5066

To amend the Public Health Service Act to modify the eligibility requirements

for appointment as the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 20, 1994

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act to modify the eligibility requirements for appointment as the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service.

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION IN ELIGIBILITY REQUIRE4 MENTS FOR APPOINTMENT AS SURGEON

5 GENERAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.

6 Section 204 of the Public Health Service Act (42

7 U.S.C. 205) is amended in the second sentence by striking

8 ‘‘are members of the Regular Corps,’’ and inserting the

9 following: ‘‘are members of the Regular Corps and have
2

•HR 5066 IH

1 been continuously on active duty as such members for not

2 less than 20 years,’’.

3 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

4 The amendment made by section 1 is effective in the

5 case of any individual holding the position of Surgeon

6 General of the Public Health Service on or after the date

7 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
791 A.2d 218

#### FAIR SHARE HOUSING CENTER, INC., PLAINTIFF-MOVANT, v. TOWNSHIP OF CHERRY HILL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND REALEN-TURNBERRY/CHERRY HILL, L.L.C., INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT.

January 30, 2002.

ORDER

Direct certification is granted, certification to Supreme Court, Law Division, Camden County.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Tammy Fountain

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00704

- CV

Underlying case : In the interest of S.F., a child, No. 2010

- 31997

Underlying court : 309th Distr ict Court of Harris County

We determined that this appeal may be subject to involuntary dismissal for

mootness. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a). The Clerk of the Court so notified the parties,

advising them that i f any party contends that a live controversy r emains for resolution,

that party must so notify the C lerk within 10 days, providing an explanation in light of

the procedural history why the proceedings should continue and relator’s bond should not

be released.

Ten days having elapsed without response, we order this case dismissed and the

bond of relator Tammy Fountain released. See id.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael M a ssengale

Michael Massengale, Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown

Justice Keyes joins this order but would withdraw the December 28, 2012 majority

opinion and dissenting opinion.

Date: June 13 , 2014
###### Editorial Note on [Part 74](/current/title-47/part-74?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at [64 FR 4055](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/64-FR-4055), Jan. 27, 1999.

#### § 74.661 Frequency tolerance.

Stations in this service shall maintain the carrier frequency of each authorized transmitter to within the following percentage of the assigned frequency.

Table 1 to [§ 74.661](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-74.661)

| Frequency band (MHz) | Frequency tolerance (%) |
| --- | --- |
| 2,025 to 2,110 | 1 0.005 |
| 2,450 to 2,483.5 | 2 0.001 |
| 6,425 to 6,525 | 0.005 |
| 6,875 to 7,125 | 1 0.005 |
| 12,700 to 13,250 | 1 0.005 |
| 17,700 to 18,820 | 0.003 |
| 18,920 to 19,700 | 0.003 |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 Television translator relay stations shall maintain a frequency tolerance of 0.002%. | |
| 2 Stations licensed pursuant to an application filed before March 17, 2005, for tolerance values exceeding those specified above, may continue to operate indefinitely in accordance with the terms of their current authorizations, subject to periodic renewal. Existing equipment and equipment of product lines in production before April 16, 2003, authorized via certification or Declaration of Conformity before March 17, 2005, for tolerance values exceeding those specified above, may continue to be manufactured and/or marketed, but may not be authorized for use under station license except at stations licensed pursuant to an application filed before March 17, 2005. Any non-conforming equipment authorized under a station license, and replaced on or after March 17, 2005, must be replaced by conforming equipment. | |

Note 1 to [§ 74.661](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-74.661):

The Declaration of Conformity procedure has been replaced by Supplier's Declaration of Conformity. See [§ 2.950 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-2.950).

[[52 FR 7143](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/52-FR-7143), Mar. 9, 1987, as amended at [68 FR 12772](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/68-FR-12772), Mar. 17, 2003; [82 FR 50836](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/82-FR-50836), Nov. 2, 2017]
{"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":"Change to Electronic Filing Procedures During Weather-Related Closures - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7cvdXtfHIh\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/change-to-electronic-filing-procedures-during-weather-related-closures\/\">Change to Electronic Filing Procedures During Weather-Related Closures<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/change-to-electronic-filing-procedures-during-weather-related-closures\/embed\/#?secret=7cvdXtfHIh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Change to Electronic Filing Procedures During Weather-Related Closures” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"7cvdXtfHIh\" 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":"Effective October 1, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will no longer automatically consider weather-related closures as legal holidays for purposes of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.\u00a0 The full notice, including the new procedure for handling deadlines for electronic and paper filings, is available on the court\u2019s website (pdf)."}
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      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 Interactive Intelligence, Inc. (the
      "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2007 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Donald E. Brown, M.D., Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
      Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1,
                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
                Registrant.








/s/
      Donald E. Brown, M.D.


Donald
      E.
      Brown, M.D.


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


May
      10,
      2007
§ 76.805 Access to molding. ( a ) An MVPD shall be permitted to install one or more home run wires within the existing molding of an MDU where the MDU owner finds that there is sufficient space to permit the installation of the additional wiring without interfering with the ability of an existing MVPD to provide service, and gives its affirmative consent to such installation. This paragraph shall not apply where the incumbent provider has an exclusive contractual right to occupy the molding.
( b ) If an MDU owner finds that there is insufficient space in existing molding to permit the installation of the new wiring without interfering with the ability of an existing MVPD to provide service, but gives its affirmative consent to the installation of larger molding and additional wiring, the MDU owner (with or without the assistance of the incumbent and/or the alternative provider) shall be permitted to remove the existing molding, return such molding to the incumbent, if appropriate, and install additional wiring and larger molding in order to contain the additional wiring. This paragraph shall not apply where the incumbent provider possesses a contractual right to maintain its molding on the premises without alteration by the MDU owner.
( c ) The alternative provider shall be required to pay any and all installation costs associated with the implementation of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, including the costs of restoring the MDU owner's property to its original condition, and the costs of repairing any damage to the incumbent provider's wiring or other property.
[62 FR 61033, Nov. 14, 1997]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4374

To amend the Social Security Act to improve the information made available

in social security account statements and to provide for annual distribution of such statements to beneficiaries.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 10, 1994

Mr. PENNY (for himself, Ms. MARGOLIES-MEZVINSKY, Ms. LONG, Ms. LAMBERT, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MCMILLAN, Mr. MURTHA, and Mr. BARRETT

of Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Social Security Act to improve the information

made available in social security account statements and

to provide for annual distribution of such statements

to beneficiaries.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Access

5 to Information Act of 1994’’.
2

•HR 4374 IH

1 SEC. 2. ANNUAL SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT STATEMENTS

2 TO BENEFICIARIES INDICATING TOTAL BENE3 FITS PAID.

4 Section 1143 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

5 1320b–13) is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘Beginning

7 not later than October 1, 1990, the Secretary’’ and

8 inserting ‘‘The Secretary’’;

9 (2) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by inserting

10 ‘‘, expressed in terms of actual dollars and in terms

11 of current dollars’’ after ‘‘request’’;

12 (3) in subsection (a)(2), by redesignating sub13 paragraphs (B), (C), and (D), as subparagraphs

14 (C), (D), and (E), respectively, and by inserting

15 after subparagraph (A) the following new subpara16 graph:

17 ‘‘(B) the total amount of benefits paid to date

18 to the eligible individual and the total amount of

19 benefits paid to date to all beneficiaries on the basis

20 of the eligible individual’s wages and self-employ21 ment income, expressed in terms of actual dollars

22 and in terms of current dollars;’’;

23 (4) by striking subsection (c)(1) and inserting

24 the following:

25 ‘‘(c)(1) Beginning not later than October 1, 1994, the

26 Secretary shall provide a statement on an annual basis
3

•HR 4374 IH

1 to each eligible individual who has attained at least 60

2 years of age and for whom a current mailing address can

3 be determined through such methods as the Secretary de4 termines to be appropriate.’’; and

5 (5) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ‘‘who is not

6 receiving benefits under title II and’’.

7 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

8 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with

9 respect to social security account statements provided

10 after September 30, 1994, and before January 1, 2016.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4965

To encourage serious negotiations between the major league baseball players

and the owners of major league baseball in order to prevent a strike

by the players or a lockout by the owners so that the fans will be

able to enjoy the remainder of the baseball season, the playoffs, and

the World Series.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 12, 1994

Mr. OWENS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To encourage serious negotiations between the major league

baseball players and the owners of major league baseball

in order to prevent a strike by the players or a lockout

by the owners so that the fans will be able to enjoy

the remainder of the baseball season, the playoffs, and

the World Series.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Baseball Fans Protec5 tion Act of 1994’’.
2

•HR 4965 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO MAJOR

2 LEAGUE BASEBALL IN EXCEPTIONAL AND EX3 TRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

4 The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended

5 by adding at the end the following new section:

6 ‘‘SEC. 27. (a) IN GENERAL.—In the event that a uni7 lateral term or condition is imposed by any party that has

8 been subject to an agreement between the owners of major

9 league baseball and the labor organization representing

10 the players of major league baseball, the antitrust laws

11 shall apply to that term or condition.

12 ‘‘(b) TERMINATION OF EFFECTIVENESS.—Sub13 section (a) shall cease to be effective upon the mutual

14 adoption of an agreement between the owners of major

15 league baseball and the labor organization representing

16 the players of major league baseball to replace the basic

17 agreement between the two parties that expired on Decem18 ber 31, 1993, but subsection (a) shall continue to apply

19 to conduct occurring prior to the adoption of such an

20 agreement.

21 ‘‘(c) DEFINITION.—In this section, ‘term or condi22 tion’ does not include a strike or a lockout.’’.

Æ
- Correction
- Memorial-201401-SC
Document 2
Document 3
Document 4
EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos:
333-61054 and 333-43790 each on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos.
333-82283 and 333-16935 each on Form S-8, of our report dated March 7, 2003
(April 7, 2003 as to the seventh, eighth, and ninth paragraphs of Note 1) on the
consolidated financial statements of BriteSmile Inc. as of and for the year
ended December 28, 2002, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
BriteSmile Inc. for the year ended December 28, 2002.


 /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP



Oakland, California
April 7, 2003
#### § 95.1745 GMRS remote control.

Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control.
March 24, 2015

Mr. Detlev von Kessel

Owner

DK Consulting Group, Inc.

1568 Eastbrook Drive

Sarasota, FL 34231

Dear Mr. von Kessel:

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

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

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your February 23, 2015 exemption request on behalf of DK Consulting Group, 

Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0459), 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 and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• 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) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure