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-W0517Geography and Public Safety Volume 2, Issue 1, May 2009Volume 2, Issue 1 - Sex Offender Residency Restrictions This issue focuses on how mapping and spatial analysis can help jurisdictions understand the effects of restrictions on where sex offenders are allowed to live. Specifically, it discusses how residency restrictions affect recidivism - whether they hamper offenders' reentry process and make it less likely that they will get treatment and services. Articles include a discussion of whether residency restrictions are a good idea, a study of residency restrictions in Minnesota, a report on the use of GPS monitoring for sex offenders in Florida, and a description of a spatial analysis technique for tracking sex offenders piloted by California Department of Corrections data.Categories: Data and AnalysisLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0517Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • May 2009Search 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 02:16 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
Greenville Municipal Court,

No. 4685.

#### State *v.*Rudolph R. Lizotte.

Submitted January 6, 1959.

Decided January 30, 1959.

*Louis C. Wyman,*Attorney General, *Elmer T. Bourque,*Assistant *495Attorney General, and *Conrad Danais,*county attorney, for the State.

*William D. Tribble*and *Walter H. Gentsch*for the respondent.

Duncan, J.

RSA 579:3 provides in part: “If any person shall be guilty of gross lewdness or lascivious behavior such person shall be imprisoned not more than six months or fined not more than two hundred dollars, or both *. ”*The nature of the offense with which the respondent is charged was recently considered and defined in *State*v. *Smith,*98 N. H. 149. “The gist of the offense is lustful conduct, tending by its probable disclosure and shamefulness to debase the standard of public morals.” *Id.,*150. It is an offense “against chastity” (RSA ch. 579, *supra),*consisting of behavior which goes beyond indecency (see *State*v. *Hummer,*128 Iowa 505, 508) and is calculated to arouse, appeal to, or gratify lustful passions and sexual desires on the part of the offender. *State*v. *Kocher,*112 Mont. 511. See also, *State*v. *Johnson,*74 Idaho 269, 275; *Zeiner*v. *Zeiner,*120 Conn. 161, 166. It is not essential that the offense be publicly committed. *State*v. *Smith, supra,*150.

The offense of “indecent exposure” is a separate offense which need only offend “against order and decency.” RSA 570:6. However, it may be committed under circumstances which would also warrant conviction of lascivious behavior. *State*v. *Burgess,*77 N. H. 170; *Faulkner*v. *State,*146 Fla. 769. See Laws 1925, c. 40, *s.*1.

It does not follow that conviction of the latter offense requires proof of indecent exposure. The conduct of which there was evidence before the municipal court could be found to have been lustful and intended to gratify sexual desire, even though it did not extend to exposure of the person. *State*v. *Kocher, supra.*Although evidence of exposure might have further enforced the conclusion, its absence did not preclude it.

In short, indecent exposure is not an element of the offense with which this respondent is charged; his motion is not well founded, and it was properly denied.

*Remanded.*

All concurred.
No. 11-5752.

#### Betancort-Salazar *v.*Arkansas.

Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5911.

#### Bledsoe *v.*Tennessee.

Sup. Ct. Tenn. Cer-tiorari denied.
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 9:35 AM

To: 'corey@nmotionuas.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: NMotion UAS (Docket No. FAA-2015-1239)

August 17, 2015 

Dear Mr. Ingalls: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1239). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If 

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by August 

31, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5072 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5072

                   For the relief of Charmaine Bieda.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 1994

  Mr. Kanjorski (by request) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Charmaine Bieda.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIM.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Charmaine Beida of Nanticoke, 
Pennsylvania, the sum of $10,000,000. The payment required by this 
section shall be in full satisfaction of all claims that Charmaine 
Bieda may have against the United States relating to the murder of her 
daughter, Charlene Michelle Bieda Moore, by Bruce Moore, the husband of 
Charlene Moore, on December 19, 1984, while Charlene and Bruce Moore 
were serving in the United States Army and after Charlene Moore had 
requested that the Army protect her from Bruce Moore and had informed 
their superiors that he was abusing her.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 percent of the 
payment required by section 1 to be paid to or received by any agent or 
attorney for any service rendered in connection with the payment. Any 
person who violates this section shall be guilty of an infraction and 
shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in title 18, United 
States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Director Fee Schedule


    SECRETARY’S
      CERTIFICATE

    OF

    PACIFIC
      CONTINENTAL CORPORATION

    


    I
      hereby
      certify that I am the Secretary of Pacific Continental Corporation (“Company”),
      located in Eugene, Oregon; and that I have been duly elected and am presently
      serving in that capacity in accordance with the Bylaws of the
      Company.

    


    I
      further
      certify that on February 13, 2007, the Board of Directors of the Company held
      a
      meeting in which a quorum of directors was present.

    


    I
      further
      certify that at the meeting of February 13, 2007, the following resolution
      was
      approved by the directors present at the meeting.

    


    Recital:
      In
      accordance with the provisions of the Bylaws of Pacific Continental Corporation,
      Article II, Section 13, Director Compensation, the Board of Directors desire
      to
      change the manner in which directors of the Company are compensated, and that
      such change is to be effective retroactively to January 1, 2007.

    


    Resolved:
      That
      retroactively effective to January 1, 2007 director compensation shall be
      determined as follows:

    


    Board
      of Director Meetings:

    Chairman, $2,400
      per meeting

    Directors,
       $1,900
      per meeting

    


    Committee
      Chair Retainer

    Committee
      chairs receive a quarterly retainer as shown below:

    


    Committee
      Meetings

    


    
      	
               

               

              Committee

            	
              Quarterly

              Chair

              Retainer

            	
               

              Meeting

              Fee

            
	
              Audit
                

              In-person
                meetings

              Scheduled
                telephone meetings

            	
               

              $1,500

            	
               

              $150

              $100

            
	
              ALCO

            	
              $500

            	
              $100

            
	
              Compensation

            	
              $500

            	
              $100

            
	
              Executive

            	
              $0

            	
              $100

            
	
              Governance/Nominating

            	
              $500

            	
              $100

            


    

    


    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature to this instrument on this day,
      the
      13th
      day of
      March 2007.

    


    


    /s/
      Shannon Coffin  

    Shannon
      Coffin, Secretary

    Pacific
      Continental Corporation
No. 11-86.

#### Ciocchetti *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
§ 87.527 Supplemental eligibility. ( a ) Licenses will be granted only upon FAA approval.
( b ) Eligibility for an AWOS, an ASOS, or an ATIS is limited to the owner or operator of an airport or to a person who has entered into a written agreement with the owner or operator for exclusive rights to operate and maintain the station. Where applicable a copy of the agreement between the applicant and owner or operator of the airport must be submitted with an application.
( c ) Only one AWOS, ASOS, or ATIS will be licensed at an airport.
[53 FR 28940, Aug. 1, 1988, as amended at 64 FR 27476, May 20, 1999]
#### Fred Nowling, *Petitioner,*vs. State of Florida, *Defendant.*

143 So. 219.

En Banc.

Decision filed July 21, 1932.

*W. W. Flournoy,*for Petitioner;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *Boy Ca/mpbell,*Assistant, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Circuit Court here on review on writ of certiorari should be quashed on authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Willie Cooper vs. State of Florida, filed this day, and it is so ordered.

Judgment quashed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown, and Davis, J.J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 170 (Friday, September 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 52060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7384]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory 
Committee; Notice of Open Meeting

    The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory 
Committee will meet on September 13, 2006, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. 
Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Pennsylvania & 
Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with 
respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls 
applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.

Agenda

    1. Welcome and Introductions.
    2. Policy Overview.
    3. Regulatory Overview.
    4. Missile Technology Control Regime.
    5. Wassenaar Issues for Discussion at September 06 Multilateral 
Meeting--Call for 2007 Proposals.
    6. Presentation of Papers and Comments by the Public.
    7. Reports on Working Groups.

Commodity Jurisdiction Working Group
Composite Material Working Group

    8. Follow-up on Open Action Items.
    9. Closing Comments.
    The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of 
seats will be available. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent 
time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the 
Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or 
after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public 
presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests 
that presenters forward the public presentation materials to Yvette 
Springer at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4e173d3e3c2720292b3c0e2c273d602a212d60292138"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="055c7675776c6b62607745676c762b616a662b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For more information contact Ms. Springer on (202) 482-4814.

    Dated: August 28, 2006.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-7384 Filed 8-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required
  by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial
  Officer of Jupiter Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) that, to his
  knowledge:

|**·** | the periodic report
        of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005,
        as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
        (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|----- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
|**·** | the information contained
        in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                         
|

|Date: December 19, 2005 | By: | /s/Alexander Chen    
|----------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                        |     | Alexander Chen,        
|                        |     | Chief Financial Officer

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7015** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. RYAN KENNETH GROOMS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2:09

- cr - 00592

- DCN

- 8 )

Submitted : August 27, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER , Circui t Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Ryan Kenneth Grooms, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica, Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ryan Kenneth Grooms appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have review ed the record and find no reversible error
. Accordingly, we af firm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Grooms , No. 2:09

- cr - 00592

- DCN

- 8 (D.S.C. June 5, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 11-10196.

#### Estrada Murillo *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 73.618 Antenna location and principal community coverage.

(a) The TV antenna location shall be chosen so that, on the basis of the effective radiated power (ERP) and antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) employed, the following minimum F(50,90) field strength in dB above one uV/m will be provided over the entire principal community to be served:

| | dBu |
| --- | --- |
| Channels 2-6 | 35 |
| Channels 7-13 | 43 |
| Channels 14-36 | 48 |

Table 1 to Paragraph (a)—Minimum Field Strength Required Over Principal Community

(b) The location of the antenna must be so chosen that there is not a major obstruction in the path over the principal community to be served.

(c) For the purposes of this section, coverage is to be determined in accordance with § 73.619(b). Under actual conditions, the true coverage may vary from these estimates because the terrain over any specific path is expected to be different from the average terrain on which the field strength charts were based. Further, the actual extent of service will usually be less than indicated by these estimates due to interference from other stations. Because of these factors, the predicted field strength contours give no assurance of service to any specific percentage of receiver locations within the distances indicated.

[89 FR 7246, Feb. 1, 2024]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Outlook Group Corp. on Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-44491 and 33-44075) of our reports
dated June 30, 1999, except for the information presented in footnote G for
which the date is August 3, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Outlook Group Corp. and
Subsidiaries as of May 31, 1999 and 1998, and for the years ended May 31, 1999,
1998, and 1997, which reports are included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.








/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Milwaukee, Wisconsin
August 27, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                                          0000006494
<NAME>                     ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          4,703,901
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,901,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                      202,251
<INVENTORY>                                     7,708,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,666,206
<PP&E>                                          2,370,789
<DEPRECIATION>                                    183,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 48,541,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,028,670
<BONDS>                                         1,462,693
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                        6,605,019
<OTHER-SE>                                     35,228,933
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   48,541,280
<SALES>                                         4,664,135
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                4,664,135
<CGS>                                           3,299,316
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,299,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,057,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (75,800)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,744,948)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,744,948)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,744,948)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.13)
        


</TABLE>
#### §§ 95.3169-95.3187 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.15

                              ISLAND PACIFIC, INC.

                              IRVINE LEASE SUMMARY

Lease Date:                     July 1, 1995

Landlord:                       The Irvine Company

Address of Landlord:            19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite190
                                Irvine, CA 92612

Premises:                       Approximately 22,107 square feet

Premises Address:               19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1250
                                Irvine, CA 92612

Term:                           16 Years

Monthly Rent:                   July 1, 2006 - June 30, 2007      $53,057
                                July 1, 2007 - June 30, 2008      $55,268
                                July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009      $57,478
                                July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010      $59,689
                                July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011      $61,900

Estimated Operating Expenses:   $3,900 per month

Tenant's Percentage:            7.49%

Cash Security Deposit:          $15,000