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-P199Police Recruitment and Retention for the New MillenniumThis guidebook summarizes for police practitioners lessons on recruiting and retaining divers, effective workforces. It provides a means for local officials to identify what has been tried elsewhere and what might be applicable in their own communities. It is a broad analysis of issues confronting many agencies and how these have developed over time. Each agency will face unique circumstances that it must consider in workforce planning: this report can provide guidance on relevant lessons learned elsewhere.By Jeremy M. Wilson, Erin Dalton, Charles Scheer, Clifford GrammichCategories: Hiring, Recruitment, and RetentionLanguage: EnglishLow stockPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p199Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFBook • Nov 2010Search 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 02:31 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

CHERNOR M. JALLOH :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2496 Disciplinary Docket No . 3

Board File No. C1

- 17

- 950

(District of Columbia Court of Appeals,

No. 17

- BS

- 265)

Attorney Registration No. 66999

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9 th day of August , 2018, having failed to respond to a Notice and

Order di recting him to provide reasons against the imposition of reciprocal discipline,

Chernor M. Jalloh is transferred to disability inactive status in the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. He shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
No. 11-5959.

#### Moore v. United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UPDATE: REPORT ATTACHED - CYBER BEACON 2014: A Cyber Education and Training Workshop
 By Patricia Coopersmith
  Updated - 10 Sept 2014
Please see the attached report (pdf) for proceedings from Cyber Beacon, and here are some pictures from the session.  Enjoy!REPORT HERE
Pictures below...Cyber Beacon in SessionCyber Beacon in Session
Sponsored byThe NDU iCollege and the Army Cyber Institute (ACI) at West Point National Defense UniversityFort Lesley J. McNairWashington, DC July 15-16, 2014 Cyber Beacon photo
On July 15-16, 2014, the NDU iCollege and the Army Cyber Institute brought together approximately 40 key stakeholders from across the DoD, academic partner institutions, and other government organizations to provide situational awareness on current DoD cyber education programs, identify potential gaps, and map out desired end states. Opening remarks of the workshop were provided by LTG Edward Cardon, USA, Commander, Army Cyber Command, and Russell Quirici, iCollege Dean of Students.  The roadmap for CYBER BEACON 2014 were provided by event co-chairs COL Jon Brickey, Ph.D, USA, Army Cyber Command, and CDR David Di Tallo, iCollege faculty, USN. The workshop focused on the following key areas and questions: What is the difference between Leader Development, Training, & Education?
    What are the Strategic Requirements for the Cyber Workforce?
    What are the Operational Requirements for Cyber Leader Development, Training, and Education?
    How can DoD and the federal government leverage industry and academia for cyber best practices? This was the second annual Cyber Beacon event.  The 2013 event focused on senior leader cyber education needs and training gaps.  The 2014 event was focused on the practitioner level.  The event summary report out will be available soon.
**Exhibit99.1**

 

Interactive Intelligence, Inc.

 

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

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Interactive Intelligence,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Dr. Donald E. Brown, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Donald E. Brown                                           |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Donald E. Brown,                                              |
| Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive  Officer |
| May 14, 2003                                                  |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Interactive Intelligence, Inc. and will beretained by Interactive Intelligence, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
No. 10-1512.

#### DeWeese, Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, Ohio *v.*American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc.

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of Foundation for Moral Law for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*out of time granted. Certiorari denied.
§ 73.858 Attribution of LPFM station interests. Ownership and other interests in LPFM station permittees and licensees will be attributed to their holders and deemed cognizable for the purposes of §§ 73.855 and 73.860, in accordance with the provisions of § 73.3555, subject to the following exceptions: ( a ) A director of an entity that holds an LPFM license will not have such interest treated as attributable if such director also holds an attributable interest in a broadcast licensee or other media entity but recuses himself or herself from any matters affecting the LPFM station.
( b ) A local chapter of a national or other large organization shall not have the attributable interests of the national organization attributed to it provided that the local chapter is separately incorporated and has a distinct local presence and mission.
( c ) A parent or subsidiary of a LPFM licensee or permittee that is a non-stock corporation will be treated as having an attributable interest in such corporation. The officers, directors, and members of a non-stock corporation's governing body and of any parent or subsidiary entity will have such positional interests attributed to them.
No. 11-225.

#### R. O., a Minor, by His Parent and Guardian Ochshorn, et al. *v.*Ithaca City School District et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 76.911 Petition for reconsideration of certification. ( a ) A cable operator (or other interested party) may challenge a franchising authority's certification by filing a petition for reconsideration pursuant to § 1.106. The petition may allege either of the following: ( 1 ) The cable operator is not subject to rate regulation because effective competition exists as defined in § 76.905. Sections 76.907(b) and (c) apply to petitions filed under this section.
( 2 ) The franchising authority does not meet the certification standards set forth in 47 U.S.C. 543(a)(3).
( b ) Stay of rate regulation. ( 1 ) The filing of a petition for reconsideration pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section will automatically stay the imposition of rate regulation pending the outcome of the reconsideration proceeding.
( 2 ) A petitioner filing pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section may request a stay of rate regulation.
( 3 ) In any case in which a stay of rate regulation has been granted, if the petition for reconsideration is denied, the cable operator may be required to refund any rates or portion of rates above the permitted tier charge or permitted equipment charge which were collected from the date the operator implements a prospective rate reduction back in time to September 1, 1993, or one year, whichever is shorter.
( c ) The filing of a petition for reconsideration alleging the presence of effective competition based on frivolous grounds is prohibited, and may be subject to forfeitures.
( d ) If the Commission upholds a challenge to a certification filed pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Commission will notify the franchising authority of the revisions necessary to secure approval and provide the authority an opportunity to amend its certification however necessary to secure approval. *Provided, however,* That pending approval of certification, the Commission will assume jurisdiction over basic cable service rates in that franchise area.
[58 FR 29753, May 21, 1993, as amended at 58 FR 46735, Sept. 2, 1993; 64 FR 35950, July 2, 1999]
§ 80.862 Proof of capacity. ( a ) When directed by the Commission or its authorized representative, the station licensee must prove that the requirements of § 80.861 are met.
( b ) Proof of the ability of a battery used as a main or reserve source to operate continuously for 6 hours can be established by a discharge test over a prescribed period of time, when supplying power at the voltage required for normal and operation to an electrical load as prescribed by paragraph (d) of this section.
( c ) When the reserve power supply is an engine-driven generator, proof of the adequacy of the engine fuel supply to operate the unit contiuously for 6 hours can be established by measuring the fuel consumption for 1 hour when supplying power, at the voltage required for normal operation, to an electrical load as prescribed by paragraph (d) of this section.
( d ) In determining the electrical load to be supplied, the following formula must be used: ( 1 ) One-half of the current of the required transmitter at its rated power output.
( 2 ) One fourth of the current of the automatic radiotelephone alarm signal generator; plus
( 3 ) Current of receiver; plus
( 4 ) Current of emergency light(s); plus
( 5 ) Current of the bridge-to-bridge transceiver when connected.
( e ) At the conclusion of the test specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, no part of the main or reserve power supply must have an excessive temperature rise, nor must the specific gravity or voltage of any battery be below 90 percent discharge point of the fully charged value.
#### § 73.4265 Telephone conversation broadcasts (network and like sources).

See Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 75-1406, adopted December 18, 1975. 57 FCC 2d, 334; 41 FR 816, January 5, 1976.

[44 FR 36389, June 22, 1979]
Director Compensentation Program Summary



 Exhibit 10.43 
 RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE 
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 
 SCOLR Pharma, Inc. 
 December 7,
2006 
 SUMMARY OF SCOLR PHARMA, INC. DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
 Our board of directors, based on competitive data, determined the cash and equity compensation structure as set forth below to be paid to members of the
board of directors and committees of the board of directors who are not employees, effective as of January 1, 2007: 
  

	 	•	 	 each non-employee director (who does not serve as chairman of the board) receives an annual retainer of $25,000 and an annual stock option grant for 17,500 shares
of our common stock; 


  

	 	•	 	 the chairman of the board receives an annual retainer of $35,000 and an annual stock option grant for 22,500 shares of our common stock;



  

	 	•	 	 the chairman of the audit committee receives an additional annual retainer of $5,000; and 


  

	 	•	 	 each non-employee director is reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attendance at board and committee meetings.



 Each new non-employee director receives a pro-rated annual retainer and annual stock option grant upon commencement of
service on the board. The cash retainers to board members are paid on a quarterly basis in arrears. In the case of continuing directors, the stock option awards are automatically granted on the date of the annual stockholder meeting each year, with
all such stock option grants having an exercise price equal to the closing price per share of our common stock as reported on the American Stock Exchange on the last trading day prior to the date of grant. The stock options shall become exercisable
in twelve equal monthly installments following the date of grant if such person is still serving as a director at such time. In the event of a change in control, each outstanding non-employee director option will become immediately vested
exercisable in full. 
 The following table illustrates the total compensation for board service to be received by our directors for 2007:

 2007 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION FOR BOARD SERVICE 
  

												
	 Director
	  	Fees Earned or
Paid in Cash ($)	  	Stock Option
Awards (#)	  	Value of
Option
Awards ($)1	  	Total
Compensation for
Board Service ($)
	 Non-employee director
	  	$	25,000	  	17,500	  	$	63,000	  	$	88,000
	 Chairman of the Board
	  	$	35,000	  	22,500	  	$	81,000	  	$	116,000
	 Audit Committee Chairman
	  	$	30,000	  	17,500	  	$	63,000	  	$	93,000
	 Director who is also an employee
	  	 	—  	  	—  	  	 	—  	  	 	—  



	 1
	 Based on FAS 123R fair value as of December 7, 2006.
From: Bilskis, Patricia A. [mailto:Patricia.Bilskis@alcoa.com] 

Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:33 AM 

To: Putney, David 

Subject: September 2013 test data 

DavidAttached you will find the test data for the comparison of 

traverse and stationary sampling that was performed in 

September of 2013. 

Please let me know if there is any other data that you 

need. 

Thanks, 

Patricia Bilskis 

Intalco Aluminum Corporation 

Environmental Staff, Air Program Administrator 

4050 Mountain View Road 

Ferndale WA, 98248 

Office: 360-384-7267 

Cell: 360-201-3430 

Patricia.bilskis@alcoa.com
#### § 80.931 Test of radiotelephone installation.

Unless normal use of the radiotelephone installation demonstrates that the equipment is in proper operating condition, a test communication on a required frequency in the 1605 to 27500 kHz band or the 156 to 162 MHz band must be made by a qualified operator each day the vessel is navigated. If the equipment is not in proper operating condition, the master must be promptly notified.

[51 FR 31213, Sept. 2, 1986, as amended at 56 FR 19302, Apr. 26, 1991]
§ 24.133 Emission limits. ( a ) The power of any emission shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P), as measured in accordance with § 24.132(f), in accordance with the following schedule: ( 1 ) For transmitters authorized a bandwidth greater than 10 kHz: ( i ) On any frequency outside the authorized bandwidth and removed from the edge of the authorized bandwidth by a displacement frequency (fd in kHz) of up to and including 40 kHz: at least 116 Log10 ((fd + 10)/6.1) decibels or 50 plus 10 Log10 (P) decibels or 70 decibels, whichever is the lesser attenuation;
( ii ) On any frequency outside the authorized bandwidth and removed from the edge of the authorized bandwidth by a displacement frequency (fd in kHz) of more than 40 kHz: at least 43 + 10 Log10 (P) decibels or 80 decibels, whichever is the lesser attenuation.
( 2 ) For transmitters authorized a bandwidth of 10 kHz: ( i ) On any frequency outside the authorized bandwidth and removed from the edge of the authorized bandwidth by a displacement frequency (fd in kHz) of up to and including 20 kHz: at least 116 × Log10 ((fd + 5)/3.05) decibels or 50 + 10 × Log10 (P) decibels or 70 decibels, whichever is the lesser attenuation;
( ii ) On any frequency outside the authorized bandwidth and removed from the edge of the authorized bandwidth by a displacement frequency (fd in kHz) of more than 20 kHz: at least 43 + 10 Log10 (P) decibels or 80 decibels, whichever is the lesser attenuation.
( b ) The measurements of emission power can be expressed in peak or average values provided they are expressed in the same parameters as the transmitter power.
( c ) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require greater attenuation than specified in this section.
( d ) The following minimum spectrum analyzer resolution bandwidth settings will be used: 300 Hz when showing compliance with paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2)(i) of this section; and 30 kHz when showing compliance with paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
[58 FR 59183, Nov. 8, 1993. Redesignated at 59 FR 18499, Apr. 19, 1994, as amended at 59 FR 14119, Mar. 25, 1994; 66 FR 10968, Feb. 21, 2001]
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Subsidiary

State or Country
of Incorporation
or OrganizationArthroCare (Australasia) Pty Ltd. f/k/a TiMax Surgical Pty Ltd.

AustraliaArthroCare (Deutschland) AG f/k/a ArthroCare (Deutschland) GmbH

GermanyArthroCare (Hong Kong) Limited

Hong KongARTHROCARE CANADA LIMITED

CanadaArthroCare Corporation Cayman Islands

Cayman IslandsArthroCare Costa Rica, S.R.L.

Costa RicaArthroCare Europe AB

SwedenArthroCare France SARL

FranceArthroCare India Medical Device Private Limited

IndiaArthroCare Luxembourg, S.à.r.l.

LuxembourgArthroCare Medical Corporation

NevadaArthroCare Danmark ApS f/k/a ARTHROCARE SCANDINAVIA ApS f/k/a Ortoconcept ApS

AustriaARTHROCARE SIGNAPORE PTE. LTD.

SingaporeArthroCare UK Limited f/k/a ATLANTECH MEDICAL DEVICES LIMITED

United KingdomAtlantech Medical Devices (UK) Limited

EnglandAtlantech Medizinische Produkte Vertiebs-GmbH

AustriaDevice Reimbursement Services, Inc.

NevadaDiscoCare, Inc.

DelawareOC Acquisition Sub, LLC

California


---



QuickLinks
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-P273Collaborative Reform Model: A Review of Officer-Involved Shootings in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police DepartmentThe use of deadly force by a police officer against a citizen is the most serious act an officer can take. Citizens expect careful, impartial review and the highest professional standards of accountability when this happens. In January 2012, the COPS Office, in partnership with CNA, examined the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department's (LVMPD) policies and practices as they relate to the use of force and officer involved shootings. The goals of this review and subsequently the reforms identified by both LVMPD and CNA are to: 1. Reduce the number of shootings; 2. Reduce the number of persons killed as a result of OISs; 3. Transform LVMPD's organization and culture as it relates to deadly force; and 4. Enhance officer safety. This report details how CNA implemented a multifaceted approach to the review of LVMPD's policies and practices as it relates to use of force and officer involved shootings.By James K. Stewart, George Fachner, Denise Rodrigues King, Steve RickmanCategories: Police OperationsLanguage: EnglishLow stockPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p273Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFBook • Nov 2013Search 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 00:52 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45581-45582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6779]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Portland Cement Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 20, 2006, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act'', Portland Cement Association 
(``PCA'' has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Humboldt Wedag, Inc., Norcross, GA has become an 
Associate Member.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PCA intends

[[Page 45582]]

to file additional written notification disclosing all changes to 
membership.
    On January 7, 1985, PCA filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 
5, 1985 (50 FR 5015).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 4, 2006. 
A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) 
of the Act on June 2, 2006 (71 FR 32127).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 06-6779 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M