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.

§ 74.1263 Time of operation. ( a ) The licensee of an FM translator or booster station is not required to adhere to any regular schedule of operation. However, the licensee of an FM translator or booster station is expected to provide a dependable service to the extent that such is within its control and to avoid unwarranted interruptions to the service provided.
( b ) An FM booster or FM Translator station rebroadcasting the signal of an AM, FM or LPFM primary station shall not be permitted to radiate during extended periods when signals of the primary station are not being retransmitted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, FM translators rebroadcasting Class D AM stations may continue to operate during nighttime hours only if the AM station has operated within the last 24 hours.
( c ) The licensee of an FM translator or booster station must notify the Commission of its intent to discontinue operations for 30 or more consecutive days. Notification must be made within 10 days of the time the station first discontinues operation and Commission approval must be obtained for such discontinued operation to continue beyond 30 days. The notification shall specify the causes of the discontinued operation and a projected date for the station's return to operation, substantiated by supporting documentation. If the projected date for the station's return to operation cannot be met, another notification and further request for discontinued operations must be submitted in conformance with the requirements of this section. Within 48 hours of the station's return to operation, the licensee must notify the Commission of such fact. All notification must be in writing.
( d ) The licensee of an FM translator or booster station must notify the Commission of its intent to permanently discontinue operations at least two days before operation is discontinued. Immediately after discontinuance of operation, the licensee shall forward the station license and other instruments of authorization to the FCC, Washington, DC for cancellation.
( e ) Failure of an FM translator or booster station to operate for a period of 30 or more consecutive days, except for causes beyond the control of the licensee or authorized pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, shall be deemed evidence of discontinuation of operation and the license of the station may be cancelled at the discretion of the Commission. Furthermore, the station's license will expire as a matter of law, without regard to any causes beyond control of the licensee or to any authorization pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, if the station fails to transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive 12-month period, notwithstanding any provision, term, or condition of the license to the contrary.
[55 FR 50699, Dec. 10, 1990, as amended at 61 FR 28768, June 6, 1996; 74 FR 45130, Sept. 1, 2009; 85 FR 35574, June 11, 2020; 86 FR 37061, July 14, 2021]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAREEM BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (4:17-cr-00113-MSD-RJK-1)

Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kareem Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kareem Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an extension 

of time to appeal his criminal judgment. Upon review, we conclude that the district court 

correctly determined that it was unable to extend the time for filing a timely notice of appeal 

of the criminal judgment because Brown filed his motion after the expiration of the 

excusable neglect period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Brown, No. 4:17-cr-00113-MSD-RJK1 (E.D. Va. July 18, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in thefollowing Registration Statements:

1)              RegistrationStatements on Form S-3 (No. 333-66843, No. 333-53486,No. 333-66688, No. 333-86542, No. 333-104956, No. 333-108973,No. 333-121891 and No. 333-130510) and in the relatedProspectuses of Depomed, Inc.,

2)              RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (No. 333-66923, No. 333-85419,No. 333-54982, No. 333-101796 and No. 333-105994)pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan, as amended, of Depomed, Inc.,

3)              RegistrationStatement on Form S-8 (No. 333-116697) pertaining to the2004 Equity Incentive Plan and the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Depomed, Inc.,

of ourreports dated March 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Depomed, Inc., Depomed, Inc. management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Depomed, Inc.,included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2006.
|  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|--|--------------------------------|--------|

 

Palo Alto, CaliforniaMarch 15, 2007

----
§ 90.169 Construction prior to grant of application. Applicants may construct facilities prior to grant of their applications, subject to the provisions of this section, but must not operate such facilities until the Commission grants an authorization. If the conditions stated in this section are not met, applicants must not begin to construct facilities. ( a ) *When applicants may begin construction.* An applicant may begin construction of a facility thirty-five (35) days after the date of the Public Notice listing the application for that facility as acceptable for filing.
( b ) *Notification to stop.* If the Commission for any reason determines that construction should not be started or should be stopped while an application is pending, and so notifies the applicant, orally (followed by written confirmation) or in writing, the applicant must not begin construction or, if construction has begun, must stop construction immediately.
( c ) *Assumption of risk.* Applicants that begin construction pursuant to this section before receiving an authorization do so at their own risk and have no recourse against the United States for any losses resulting from: ( 1 ) Applications that are not granted;
( 2 ) Errors or delays in issuing Public Notices;
( 3 ) Having to alter, relocate, or dismantle the facility; or
( 4 ) Incurring whatever costs may be necessary to bring the facility into compliance with applicable laws, or Commission rules and orders.
( d ) *Conditions.* Except as indicated, all pre-grant construction is subject to the following conditions: ( 1 ) The application is not mutually exclusive with any other application;
( 2 ) No petitions to deny the application have been filed;
( 3 ) The application does not include a request for a waiver of one or more Commission rules;
( 4 ) For any construction or alteration that would exceed the requirements of § 17.7 of this chapter, the licensee has notified the appropriate Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA Form 7460-1), filed a request for antenna height clearance and obstruction marking and lighting specifications (FCC Form 854) with the Commission;
( 5 ) The applicant has indicated in the application that the proposed facility would not have a significant environmental effect, in accordance with §§ 1.1301 through 1.1319 of this chapter; and,
( 6 ) Under applicable international agreements and rules in this part, individual coordination of the proposed channel assignment(s) with a foreign administration is not required.
§ 61.72 Public information requirements. ( a ) Issuing carriers must make available accurate and timely information pertaining to rates and regulations subject to tariff filing requirements.
( b ) Issuing carriers must, at a minimum, provide a telephone number for public inquiries about information contained in its tariffs. This telephone number should be made readily available to all interested parties.
( c ) Any issuing carrier that is an incumbent local exchange carrier, and chooses to establish an Internet web site, must make its tariffs available on that web site, in addition to the Commission's web site.
[64 FR 46592, Aug. 26, 1999]
EXHIBIT
10.26


MATERIAL
TERMS OF SCOTT A. FRIEDMAN  EMPLOYMENT 

EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 22, 2006


·                     Hired
as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer effective September 22, 2006. 


·                     Annual
salary of $200,000. 


·                     Eligible
for a performance-based annual bonus pursuant to a company-wide employee bonus
plan. 


·                     Was granted an option to purchase
30,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, at an exercise price equal to the
common stock’s market price on the date of grant of $3.93. The option vests in
equal installments over a five year period, beginning on the first anniversary
of the September 22, 2006 grant date and continuing on each subsequent
anniversary date until fully vested.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 6, 2015

NO. 03-14-00046-CR

Willie Lee Ockletree, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ briefs, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial 

court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
**Exhibit 23**

 

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form S-4 Numbers 33-56303, 333-18863 and 333-73800; Form S-3 Numbers 2-87794, 33-23264, 33-34273, 33-11461, 33-42237, 33-51359, 333-84254, 333-84258 and 333-103983; Form S-8 Numbers 2-64887,2-91834, 33-42627, 333-11861, 33-15841, 333-23441, 333-20385, 333-64315, 333-61827, and 333-82377) of Toys “R” Us, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our reports dated April 28, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Toys“R” Us, Inc. and Subsidiaries, Toys “R” Us, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Toys“R” Us, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 29, 2005. 

 

 

/s/    Ernst & Young LLP 

 

New York, New York 

April 28, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<MULTIPLIER>                            1000
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1
<CASH>                                            0
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1
<PP&E>                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,767
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  41
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              41
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                     41
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0


</TABLE>
{"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":"Restricting Court Access To The National Courts Building Through October 31, 2021 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pWO5s9Eiaq\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/restricting-court-access-to-the-national-courts-building-through-october-31-2021\/\">Restricting Court Access To The National Courts Building Through October 31, 2021<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/restricting-court-access-to-the-national-courts-building-through-october-31-2021\/embed\/#?secret=pWO5s9Eiaq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Restricting Court Access To The National Courts Building Through October 31, 2021” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"pWO5s9Eiaq\" 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":"The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States Court of Federal Claims have entered a new joint order extending their prior administrative order of July 30, 2021, concerning access to the National Courts Building complex in Washington, D.C.\u00a0 Courthouse access will continue to be limited to court staff and […]"}
No. 11-64.

#### Francarl Realty Corp. et al. *v.*Town of East Hampton, New York.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-15-0247 SAT Date: 2/10/2015 Print Date: 2/27/2015

Related cases : Yes Health related cases: Ecotox related cases: Similar Case

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 1 1 PMN 3 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Hyd Pdt neg Keywords : Keywords: MUTA; SENS-L,S; IRR-L,M Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-15-0247 FATE: with 1.71% < 500 and 6.01% < 1000 Solid S = Reacts Hydrolysis half-life = hr-da VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 °C (E) BP > 400 °C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Hyd Pdt > moSorption to soils/sediments = Hyd Pdt v.strong PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P3B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = Hyd Pdt negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes as the neat material ( p che m ); p oor all routes for the low molecular weight fractions (2% <500, 6% <1000) if in solution ( p che m ); expected to react, especially in the lung. Concern for mutagenicity based on ; respiratory and dermal sensitization and lung and mucous membrane irritation based on the moiety.

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value *
algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for SAR chemical class = with 6.0% < 1000 and 1.7% < 500; solid with mp unknown (P); S = reacts with water at 20 °C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and <2.0 mg/L;
Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *

SARs SAR Class Ecotox Category
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            College of Information and Cyberspace
                    National Defense University
                CIC
        Search
                    Search CIC:
                        Search
                Search CIC:
                    Search
    Home

    About 
        Mission & Vision

    Faculty & Staff

    Fact Sheet

    Alumni

    Internships

    FAQ

    Admissions 
        Eligibility Requirements

    Admissions Calendar

    Application Instructions

    Apply Online

    International Students

    Academics 
        Graduate Catalog

    M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies
        
        JPME Master's Degree

    Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time)

    Leadership Development Programs

    Graduate Certificates

    Academic Partners

    Current Students 
        JPME II  Incoming Students

    LDP Incoming Students

    Student Registration

    Bring Your Own Device

    IA Compliance

    Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts

    Student Services and Resources

    Events
    
        Cyber Beacon

    Cyber PME Colloquium

    Hopper Award

    Lecture Series

    CYBERCOM Symposium

    NEWS

    UC2
    
        About

    Events

    Work With Us

    Center for Cybersecurity
    
        About

    Cybersecurity Center POC

    Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty

    CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program

    Cybersecurity Trending News

    Cyber Labs
        
        Ethical Hacking

    Critical Infrastructure - SCADA

    Cyber Exercises
        
        Tabletop Exercise

    Cyber Competitions

    Cyber Resources and Awareness

    Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council

    Contact 
        Contact Us

    Directions

    Access to Ft. McNair

    Map of Ft. McNair  Home
  NEWS
  News & Announcements
 News & Announcements Download
 Details
 Share
 News
 Chancellor's Lecture Series 2023 Chancellor's Lecture Series
 The National Defense University community is invited to attend the Chancellor's Lecture Series featuring Dr. Chris Miller author of Chip War. The event will take play from 2-3:15pm Thursday February 23, 2023. In-person attendance in Lincoln Hall auditorium is encouraged. There will be a remote viewing option available through the Sunday Skim.
 SHARE
 PRINT
 National Defense University


College of Information and Cyberspace

300 Fifth Ave., Bldg. 62
Fort Lesley J. McNair
Washington, DC 20319-5066

202-685-6300
                    Stay Connected
                
                
                DOD Privacy & Security
 DOD Links Disclaimer
 DOD Social Media Policy
 DOD Web Policy
 FOIA
 NDU System of Records Notice
 NDU Privacy & Security Notice
 No FEAR Act
 Open GOV
 Plain Writing Act
 Section 508
 Small Business Act
 USA.gov
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2086

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD FALTAS, MD, MPH, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versusTHE STATE NEWSPAPER, in its corporate capacity; KATHERINE GRAY, individually and as agent of The State Newspaper; CLAUDIA SMITH BRINSON,individually and as agent of The State Newspaper; PATRICK BLANCHAT, individually as agent of The State Newspaper; THOMAS N. MCLEAN,individually and as agent of The State Newspaper; WILLIAM RHONE, individually and as agent of The State Newspaper; CHRIS RILEY; UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-3324-3-17) Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Marie Therese Assa’ad Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Jay Bender, BAKER, BARWICK, RAVENEL & BENDER, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina; Peter John Tepley, TURNIPSEED & ASSOCIATES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Dr. Marie Therese Assa’ad Faltas appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Defendants and denying her motion for reconsideration in this action alleging defamation,tortious interference with an employment contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and reckless endangerment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Assa’ad Faltas v. State Newspaper , No. CA-95-3324-3-17 (D.S.C. July 5, 1996). We deny Appellant’s motionfor reconsideration of the denial of her motion to file a supplemental informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED