alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 76.1509 Syndicated program exclusivity. ( a ) Sections 76.101 through 76.110 shall apply to open video systems in accordance with the provisions contained in this section.
( b ) Any provision of § 76.101 that refers to a “cable community unit” shall apply to an open video system.
( c ) Any provision of § 76.105 that refers to a “cable system operator” or “cable television system operator” shall apply to an open video system operator. Any provision of § 76.105 that refers to a “cable system” or “cable television system” shall apply to an open video system except § 76.105(c) which shall apply to an open video system operator. Open video system operators shall make all notifications and information regarding exercise of syndicated program exclusivity rights immediately available to all appropriate video programming provider on the system. An open video system operator shall not be subject to sanctions for any violation of the rules in §§ 76.101 through 76.110 by an unaffiliated program supplier if the operator provided proper notices to the program supplier and subsequently took prompt steps to stop the distribution of the infringing program once it was notified of a violation.
( d ) Any provision of § 76.106 that refers to a “cable community” shall apply to an open video system community. Any provision of § 76.106 that refers to a “cable community unit” or “community unit” shall apply to an open video system or that portion of an open video system that operates or will operate within a separate and distinct community or municipal entity (including unincorporated communities within unincorporated areas and including single, discrete unincorporated areas). Any provision of §§ 76.106 through 76.108 that refers to a “cable system” shall apply to an open video system.
( e ) Any provision of § 76.109 that refers to “cable television” or a “cable system” shall apply to an open video system.
( f ) Any provision of § 76.110 that refers to a “community unit” shall apply to an open video system or that portion of an open video system that is affected by this rule.
[83 FR 7630, Feb. 22, 2018]
#### The City of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Frederick Dietz, William H. White and Samuel McMillan, Trustees, Estate of Robert E. Dietz for Anna Dietz, Defendants.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

March, 1910.)

Judgment: General rules —Death of party before judgment: Rendi-

tion— Parties — Judgment against party not served.

Taxes — Persons, objects and interests taxable — In general — Trustees.

The liability of the trustees of an estate for the personal tax under Laws of 1896, eh. 90S, § 8, is a several liability; and, in an action to collect the tax, eaeli trustee is liable only for the share of the estate in his hands. ,

Where, at the commencement of a suit against three trustees of an estate to collect the personal t'ax due therefrom, it appears that one of the defendants was dead,, the action must be dismissed as to him; and no judgment can be rendered against one of the other defendants. who was not served with the summons and complaint.

Motion to dismiss complaint,

*629Daniel Nason, for petitioners.

Archibald R. Watson (George O’Reilly, of counsel), for City of New York.

Gebaed, J.

¡Motion for order dismissing the complaint, without costs, and directing the cancellation of the tax. Frederick Dietz, William H. White and Samuel McMillan were trustees of the estate of Bobert E. Dietz, for Anna Dietz. The city of ¡New York commenced suit to collect from them as residents of the borough of the Bronx the personal tax owing from the above named estate. This suit was instituted by the service of a summons and complaint on defendant Dietz. It appears that defendant White is dead, and the corporation counsel agrees that the action against defendant Dietz be dismissed for the reason that he was not a resident of the borough in which .the assessment was made. In the complaint served on Dietz the city prays for judgment for the whole amount of the tax on said estate, and asks this court to hind ¡McMillan, a defendant who had never been served, for the amount claimed to be due in the complaint served on Dietz, and which complaint must- of necessity be dismissed as against Dietz. There are two questions to be decided. *First,*Does service on one defendant bind all in an action of this nature ? and, *second,*can one trustee in an action of this nature he hound for the entire amount of the tax due? As to the first question I am of the opinion that section 8, chapter 908 of the Laws of 1896, clearly indicates that the statute contemplates a separate liability, and as to the second question I am of the opinion that each trustee in an action of this nature is liable only for the share of the estate in his hands. People ex rel. Moller v. O’Donnel, 183 N. Y. 9.

Ordered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Warren CUNNINGHAM, Appellant.

No. 03-3047.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 19, 2004.

Roy Wallace McLeese, III, Thomas Sinclair Rees, John Robert Fisher, Matthew G. Olsen, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Roscoe Conklin Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gregory Bruce English, English & Smith, Alexandria, VA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and RANDOLPH and ROBERTS, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record from the United States District Court and on the briefs of the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the sentence imposed by the district court be affirmed. Cunningham contends the court erred because it did not *sua sponte*convene an evidentiary hearing regarding the Government’s proposed two-level sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice. Because Cunningham neither requested an evidentiary hearing nor objected to the court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing, we review the sentence imposed by the district court only for plain error. *See United States v. Mendez-Cruz,*329 F.3d 885, 886 (D.C.Cir.2003). We may vacate the sentence only if there is (1) an error (2) that is plain, which (3) “affects substantial rights” of the defendant, and (4) which “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” *Johnson v. United States,*520 U.S. 461, 462, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997); *see United States v. Olano, 507*U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

The district court did not err; it was well within its broad discretion to decide whether the sentence enhancement was warranted based upon the evidence in the affidavits and submissions of both parties, without holding an evidentiary hearing. *See United States v. Rodriguez,*336 F.3d 67, 70 (1st Cir.2003); *United States v. Berndt,*127 F.3d 251, 257 (2d Cir.1997); *United States v. Gaviria,*116 F.3d 1498, 1527 (D.C.Cir.1997). Furthermore, even if there was an error it was not “plain error” because the need for an evidentiary hearing was not “obvious” to the district court given the evidence and the arguments before it. *See United States v. Washington,*115 F.3d 1008, 1010 (D.C.Cir.1997) (“[E]ven for sentencing, ‘obvious’ means obvious; the district court is not required to have second-sight”). Nor did any error affect Cunningham’s substantial rights; Cunningham has made no showing he was actually prejudiced by the failure to hold an evidentiary hearing. *See Johnson,*520 U.S. at 462; *Olano,*507 U.S. at 732.

In light of the record as a whole — the submissions of the parties, the documentary evidence, and the oral argument before the district court — that court was justified in enhancing Cunningham’s sentence for obstruction of justice.

*2Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for' rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
No. 11-5449.

#### Oliver *v.*Kanan et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.

#### Henry Brash agt. Jacob Wielarsky.

The *non-filing of an affidavit*in the clerk’s office, upon which an *attachment*is issued, does not affect the warrant or the proceedings thereunder.

*Special*Term, *December*14, 1868.

*Before*Jones, *Justice.*

Order to show cause.

On the attachment issued in this action, a copy of which is hereto annexed, and on the annexed certificate of the clerk of the city and county of New York, and on the annexed certified copy affidavit filed in this action, November 21st, 1868, let the plaintiff show cause before me at special term, at chambers of this court, at the city hall New York city, on December 5th, 1868, at 11 a. m., or as’ soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why the attachment in this action should not be set aside for irregularity in that the affidavit, upon which the same was granted, was not filed in the office of the clerk of New York county, pursuant to section 229 of the Code of Procedure. And also on the ground that the affidavit for attachment upon which the same was granted, filed in the clerk’s office of this court does not show facts sufficient to establish that the defendant was about to fraudulently remove and dispose of his property with intent to cheat or defraud his creditors or any other ground for an-attachment, and why such other or further relief should not be granted to the defendant as to the court shall seem proper, besides the costs of this motion ; and in the meantime and until the hearing and determination of this motion, let the plaintiff be stayed from entering judgment in this action, and from further proceedings under the attachment.

December 4, 1868.

JOHN H. McCUNN,

*Justice.*
§ 80.179 Unattended operation. The following unattended transmitter operations are authorized: ( a ) EPIRB operations when emergency conditions preclude attendance of the EPIRB transmitter by a person.
( b ) Automatic use of a transmitter during narrow-band direct-printing (NB-DP) operations in accordance with § 80.219.
( c ) Automatic use of a transmitter during selective calling operations in accordance with § 80.225.
( d ) Automatic use of a transmitter when operating as part of the Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS), an automated multi-station system for which provisions are contained in this part, or an automated public coast station.
( e ) Automatic use of a VHF transmitter to send brief digital communications relating to the condition or safety of vessels while moored when all of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The equipment must be using DSC in accordance with ITU-R M.493-13 and ITU-R M.541-9 (both incorporated by reference, see § 80.7), as modified by this section.
( 2 ) Sensors must automatically activate the transmitter only under one or more of the following conditions: ( i ) Fire, explosion;
( ii ) Flooding;
( iii ) Collision;
( iv ) Grounding;
( v ) Listing, in danger of capsizing;
( vi ) Sinking;
( vii ) Disabled and adrift; and
( viii ) Undesignated condition related to ship safety.
( 3 ) The “ROUTINE” DSC category must be used.
( 4 ) Communications must be selectively addressed to an individual station.
( 5 ) Transmitter output power must not exceed one watt.
( 6 ) The call must employ a fixed format and must be in conformity with Recommendation 493 as follows: Format specifier: Individual call—symbol 120 sent twice. Address: 9 digit maritime mobile service identity of called station. Category: Routine—symbol 100. Self-identification: 9 digit ship station identity. Message 1: Telecommand symbol 126 sent twice. Message 2: Telecommand symbol 126 sent 6 times. End of sequence: Symbol 127. Error-check character: Check sum.
( 7 ) Such transmissions are permitted only on channel 70 and the transmitter must be inhibited automatically whenever there is another call in progress on Channel 70.
( 8 ) The call sequence for any one alarm must not be repeated until after an interval of at least five seconds. Further repetition is permitted only after intervals of at least fifteen minutes each. Repetitions following fifteen-minute waiting intervals must not exceed three.
[54 FR 10008, Mar. 9, 1989, as amended at 62 FR 40305, July 28, 1997; 68 FR 46962, Aug. 7, 2003; 73 FR 4481, Jan. 25, 2008; 76 FR 67611, Nov. 2, 2011]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

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
March 23, 2015

Mr. Johnathon Choate

540 Howard Street

Kalona, IA 52247

Dear Mr. Choate:

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 January 29, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

0258), 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.

• 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
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 159 (Thursday, August 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47490-47491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6982]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Industrial 
Structure for Transformation will meet in closed session on August 30, 
2006, at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 4001 N. 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. This meeting will characterize the degree 
of changes needed in industry due to the changing nature of DoD and the 
industrial Base. It will also examine the effectiveness of existing 
mitigation measures and make recommendations to ensure future 
competition and innovation throughout all tiers of the defense 
industrial base. The briefings will contain proprietary material and 
ensuing discussions will be at the collateral secret level.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of

[[Page 47491]]

Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
& Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the 
Defense Science Board Task Force will: Describe the defense industry 
required to cope with the international security environment in the 
21st century. Additionally the task force will address the implications 
for the industrial base of increased DoD acquisition of services, as 
well as the implications for the financial viability of the defense 
industrial base as the sector adapts to changing DoD needs for defense-
related products and services.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the 
meetings will be closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MAJ Chad Lominac, USAF, Defense 
Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-
3140, via E-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9bf8f3fae9f7fee8b5f7f4f6f2f5faf8dbf4e8ffb5f6f2f7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="75161d14071910065b191a181c1b1416351a06115b181c19">[email protected]</span></a>, or via phone at (703) 571-
0081.

    Dated: August 10, 2006.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 06-6982 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Electronic Game Card, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Bentley,
President of the Company, 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 and belief:

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

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





                               /s/ John R Bentley
                               -------------------------------------
                                   John R Bentley
                                   President and Chief Executive Officer
                                   (Principal Executive Officer)


Date : May 14, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       24
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS41481 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
No. 10-10533.

#### Baney *v.*Merit Systems Protection Board.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *informa pauperis*denied and leave to proceed as a veteran granted. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-419-CV

IN RE WILLIAM COBB RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and

emergency motion to stay enforcement of temporary injunction and is of the

opinion that relief should be denied.

2 Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus and emergency motion to stay are denied.

Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let

execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: November 25, 2009

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 2008);

Tex. R. App. P. 28, 29; In re Gorman, 1 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth 1999, orig. proceeding).
No. 11-5049.

#### Smith *v.*Veterans Administration et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.