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-P241Racial Reconciliation, Truth-Telling, and Police LegitimacyRacial Reconciliation, Truth-Telling, and Police Legitimacy discusses issues raised at the executive session hosted by the COPS Office and the National Network for Safe Communities in Washington, D.C. on January 11, 2012. This publication gives police executives the chance to hear from their own colleagues why engaging in the process of racial reconciliation is not only morally but also functionally and operationally critical. The concepts of police legitimacy, legal cynicism, and informal social control introduced here provide the theoretical underpinning that helps to explain in practical terms how police who actively and sincerely engage with their communities of color will find they can do their job better and more effectively. Citizens are more likely to obey the law, cooperate with the police, believe in the legitimacy of the formal justice system, and set internal community norms that reinforce lawful behavior. This collectively results in achieving the primary goals of law enfoBy Zoe MentelCategories: Ethics and IntegrityLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p241Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Aug 2012Search 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 02:14 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
No. 11-5600.

#### Atkinson *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 76.1202 Availability of navigation devices.

No multichannel video programming distributor shall by contract, agreement, patent right, intellectual property right or otherwise prevent navigation devices that do not perform conditional access or security functions from being made available to subscribers from retailers, manufacturers, or other vendors that are unaffiliated with such owner or operator, subject to § 76.1209.
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-P251Engaging Police in Immigrant CommunitiesLaw enforcement faces many barriers to policing new immigrant communities and cultivating partnerships with these groups. Language barriers, immigrants' reluctance to report crime for fear of deportation, fear of police, federal immigration enforcement, and cultural differences, can lead to misunderstandings between law enforcement and community members. The Engaging Police in Immigrant Communities (EPIC) project highlights promising practices that law enforcement agencies nationwide are using to build effective police-immigrant relations. This guidebook is accompanied by podcasts on the same topic, as well as a website with additional materials and resources available through www.vera.org/epic.By Pradine Saint-Fort, Noelle Yasso, Susan ShahCategories: New Immigrant CommunitiesLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p251Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFBook • Oct 2012Search 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 01:08 (UTC-5) in 0.20 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
§ 54.602 Health care support mechanism. ( a ) *Telecommunications Program.* Eligible rural health care providers may request support for the difference, if any, between the urban and rural rates for telecommunications services, subject to the provisions and limitations set forth in §§ 54.600 through 54.602 and 54.603 through 54.606. This support is referred to as the “Telecommunications Program.”
( b ) *Healthcare Connect Fund Program.* Eligible health care providers may request support for eligible services, equipment, and infrastructure, subject to the provisions and limitations set forth in §§ 54.600 through 54.602 and 54.607 through 54.618. This support is referred to as the “Healthcare Connect Fund Program.”
( c ) *Allocation of discounts.* An eligible health care provider that engages in both eligible and ineligible activities or that collocates with an ineligible entity shall allocate eligible and ineligible activities in order to receive prorated support for the eligible activities only. Health care providers shall choose a method of cost allocation that is based on objective criteria and reasonably reflects the eligible usage of the facilities.
( d ) *Health care purposes.* Services for which eligible health care providers receive support from the Telecommunications Program or the Healthcare Connect Fund Program must be reasonably related to the provision of health care services or instruction that the health care provider is legally authorized to provide under the law in the state in which such health care services or instruction are provided.
Exhibit 10.9



Medical Retiree Program



This policy outlines the criteria and benefits for Staktek employees who retire from Staktek employment as set forth below.



Program criteria

An employee of Staktek is eligible for the medical retirement benefits set forth below if all of the following conditions are met:



| | 1) | The employee must be a department director or a member of senior management;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2) | The employee must be at least 60 years of age when retiring from Staktek;
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 3) | The employee must have at least five years of active service with Staktek, either continuous or cumulative; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 4) | The employee must be an active employee of Staktek who is retiring from employment with Staktek.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Retirement benefits

Staktek will
provide medical, dental and vision coverage to employees who retire (retirees) and their dependents eligible under this Policy. The Company will pay the same amount per month towards the cost of this coverage as the monthly amount the
Company paid for the retirees medical, dental and vision coverage in the last month of retirees employment with the Company. The retiree will be responsible for paying the remaining cost of the coverage. Coverage will terminate when the
retiree reaches age 65 and becomes eligible for Hospital Insurance and the Supplementary Medical Insurance of the US Governments Medicare plan, or the retiree is employed elsewhere and is covered by another group program.



Ineligibility

If a retiree fails to make his or her monthly premium, or if the payment is received after the 10thof the following month, coverage will terminate at midnight on the last day of the month a premium was made and the retiree will not be eligible for reinstatement.



Survivor benefits

Should a Staktek
retiree pass away before reaching age 65, group coverage will end on the last day of the month for any surviving dependents. The surviving dependents will be eligible for COBRA under rules adopted by the Federal government.
§ 9.23 Designation of acceptable obligations or expenditures for purposes of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Division FF, Title IX, section 902(c)(1)(C). ( a ) Acceptable purposes and functions for the obligation or expenditure of 911 fees or charges for purposes of section 902 are limited to: ( 1 ) Support and implementation of 911 services provided by or in the State or taxing jurisdiction imposing the fee or charge; and
( 2 ) Operational expenses of public safety answering points within such State or taxing jurisdiction.
( b ) Examples of acceptable purposes and functions include, but are not limited to, the following, provided that the State or taxing jurisdiction can adequately document that it has obligated or spent the fees or charges in question for these purposes and functions: ( 1 ) PSAP operating costs, including lease, purchase, maintenance, replacement, and upgrade of customer premises equipment (CPE) (hardware and software), computer aided dispatch (CAD) equipment (hardware and software), and the PSAP building/facility and including NG911, cybersecurity, pre-arrival instructions, and emergency notification systems (ENS). PSAP operating costs include technological innovation that supports 911;
( 2 ) PSAP personnel costs, including telecommunicators' salaries and training;
( 3 ) PSAP administration, including costs for administration of 911 services and travel expenses associated with the provision of 911 services;
( 4 ) Integrating public safety/first responder dispatch and 911 systems, including lease, purchase, maintenance, and upgrade of CAD hardware and software to support integrated 911 and public safety dispatch operations; and
( 5 ) Providing for the interoperability of 911 systems with one another and with public safety/first responder radio systems.
( c ) Examples of purposes and functions that are not acceptable for the obligation or expenditure of 911 fees or charges for purposes of section 902 include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Transfer of 911 fees into a State or other jurisdiction's general fund or other fund for non-911 purposes;
( 2 ) Equipment or infrastructure for constructing or expanding non-public safety communications networks (*e.g.,* commercial cellular networks); and
( 3 ) Equipment or infrastructure for law enforcement, firefighters, and other public safety/first responder entities that does not directly support providing 911 services.
( d ) If a State or taxing jurisdiction collects fees or charges designated for “public safety,” “emergency services,” or similar purposes that include the support or implementation of 911 services, the obligation or expenditure of such fees or charges shall not constitute diversion provided that the State or taxing jurisdiction: ( 1 ) Specifies the amount or percentage of such fees or charges that is dedicated to 911 services;
( 2 ) Ensures that the 911 portion of such fees or charges is segregated and not commingled with any other funds; and
( 3 ) Obligates or expends the 911 portion of such fees or charges for acceptable purposes and functions as defined under this section.
Exhibit 10.1


    Exhibit
      10.1 Notice of Default

     

    


    March
      8,
      2007

     

    Sequiam
      Corporation

    300
      Sunport Lane

    Orlando,
      FL 32809

    Attention:
      Mark Mroczkowski

     

    Re:
      Second Amended, Restated and Consolidated Senior Secured Term Note dated
      November 1, 2005 made by Sequiam Corporation 

     

    Dear
      Sirs:

     

    Biometrics
      Investors, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (“Note Holder”) has
      acquired from Stephen A. Ross, as authorized agent for the Trust Under the
      Will
      of John Svenningsen (the "Seller"), that Second Amended, Restated and
      Consolidated Senior Secured Term Note dated November 1, 2005 (the "Note") made
      by the Company in the amount of $3,650,000 payable to Lee Harrison Corbin,
      Attorney-In-Fact for the Trust under the Will of John Svenningsen. Terms defined
      in the Note are used with the same meanings in this letter. 

     

    Note
      Holder has also acquired the interests of Seller in the Related Agreements
      and
      in that Forbearance Agreement dated as of November 22, 2006 made by the Company
      and the Seller (the "Forbearance Agreement"). 

     

    You
      are
      hereby advised that an Event of Default occurred under the Note when the Company
      failed to pay amounts due under the Note as of October 10, 2006, and you are
      further advised that the Forbearance Termination Date under the Forbearance
      Agreement has passed. Note Holder hereby declares an Event of Default under
      the
      Note and the Loan Documents (as defined in the Forbearance Agreement). Note
      Holder will provide you with notice of the UCC sale which Note Holder will
      schedule to liquidate the collateral for the Note. 

     

    
      	 	 	
              BIOMETRICS
                INVESTORS, L.L.C.,
                a
                Delaware limited liability company 

               

              By:____________________________________

              Name:
                Roger Brown

              Title:
                Manager
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4985 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4985

  To prohibit aircraft from flying over The Ballpark in Arlington, in 
               Arlington, Texas, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 18, 1994

 Mr. Barton of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
          to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit aircraft from flying over The Ballpark in Arlington, in 
               Arlington, Texas, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

    Except in the case of an in-flight emergency, flights for purposes 
of providing law enforcement or medical assistance, and for flights of 
aircraft, carrying members of the media, which flights are authorized 
by the mayor of Arlington, Texas or the authorized agent of the mayor, 
aircraft are prohibited from flying at less than 2,000 feet above mean 
sea level over, and within 2,000 feet horizontal distance of, The 
Ballpark in Arlington, located in Arlington, Texas. The Administrator 
of the Federal Aviation Administration shall provide for the depiction 
and publication of such prohibition on appropriate charts in order to 
provide notice to airmen of such prohibition.

SEC. 2. VIOLATIONS.

    A violation of the provisions of this Act shall be treated as a 
violation of chapter 441 of title 49, United States Code, is treated 
for purposes of civil penalty and certificate enforcement action by the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The provisions of this Act shall take effect 120 days after the 
date of its enactment.
                                 <all>
```
###### 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.

#### § 74.534 Power limitations.

(a) *Transmitter output power.*

(1) Transmitter output power shall be limited to that necessary to accomplish the function of the system.

(2) In the 17,700 to 19,700 MHz band, transmitter output power shall not exceed 10 watts.

(b) In no event shall the average equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP), as referenced to an isotropic radiator, exceed the values specified in the following table. In cases of harmful interference, the Commission may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, order a change in the equivalent isotropically radiated power of this station.

| Frequency band (MHz) | Maximum Allowable1 EIRP (dBW) |
| --- | --- |
| 944 to 952 | + 40 |
| 17,700 to 18,600 | + 55 |
| 18,600 to 19,700 | + 35 |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 Stations licensed based on an application filed before April 16, 2003, for EIRP values exceeding those specified above, may continue to operate indefinitely in accordance with the terms of their current authorizations, subject to periodic renewal. | |

(c) The EIRP of transmitters that use Automatic Transmitter Power Control (ATPC) shall not exceed the EIRP specified on the station authorization. The EIRP of non-ATPC transmitters shall be maintained as near as practicable to the EIRP specified on the station authorization.

[[68 FR 12766](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/68-FR-12766), Mar. 17, 2003]
No. 11-5751.

#### Edwards *v.*Oregon.

Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10178.

#### Slade *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Richard Gottfried, Defendant.

Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County,

August 20, 1970.

*Kramer, Lowenstem, Nessen & Kamen (Robert Heller*of counsel), for defendant.

Martin B. Stecher, J.

It is charged (and admitted) that on the afternoon of March 7, 1970, at the northeast corner of 72nd Street and Central Park West in the Borough of Manhattan, the defendant solicited the signatures of passers-by to a petition calling upon the Assembly of the State of New York to repeal the abortion laws then in effect. The Park Department Begulations (art. 3, § 13) prohibit such solicitation (and a variety of other conduct) in the public parks of the City of New York and on abutting public streets unless a permit has first been obtained from the Commissioner of Parks.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that ££ Congress shall make no law * * * abridging * * * the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances and the State Constitution contains a similar provision (art. I, §9).

*306While the orderly administration of the parks requires the Commissioner to make reasonable rules and regulations concerning the use of the parks and perhaps even the adjoining streets, in view of the importance given to the right to petition ‘ ‘ for a redress of grievances ” I can only conclude that it was not the intent of the framers of the regulation to prohibit persons such as the defendant from approaching people on public highways and asking that they join him in making such a request to a branch of their State government. There is no contention here that there was any disorder or that traffic was impeded or that the defendant did other than seek signatures to his petition. I do not consider the defendant’s conduct less worthy of protection than flying a kite carrying a political message within the park grounds *(People*v. *Yolen,*49 Misc 2d 470) or disseminating political tracts in a park *(People*v. *Kaufman,*47 Misc 2d 1074).

For the constitutional reasons above cited and because of the interpretation given by me to the regulation *(People*v. *Barber,*289 N. Y. 378, 385), it would appear that the defendant is not guilty of the violation charged and I so find.
#### § 80.701 Scope of service.

There are two classes of Alaska Fixed stations. Alaska-public fixed stations are common carriers, open to public correspondence, which operate on the paired duplex channels listed in subpart H of this part. Alaska-private fixed stations may operate on simplex frequencies listed in subpart H of this part to communicate with other Alaska private fixed stations or with ship stations, and on duplex frequencies listed in subpart H of this part when communicating with the Alaska-public fixed stations. Alaska-private fixed stations must not charge for service, although third party traffic may be transmitted. Only Alaska-public fixed stations are authorized to charge for communication services.