alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25522]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket No. 13-184; FCC 14-99]


Modernization of the Schools and Libraries ``E-Rate'' Program

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors in the supplementary information 
section of a Federal Register document regarding the Commission taking 
major steps to modernize the E-rate program (more formally known as the 
schools and libraries universal service support mechanism). The 
Commission sought further comment on meeting the future funding needs 
of the E-rate program in light of the goals it adopted for the program 
in an accompanying Report and Order. The Commission acknowledges that 
modernizing a program of this size and scope cannot be accomplished at 
once and so it will continue to seek public input and additional ideas 
to bring 21st Century broadband to libraries and schools throughout the 
country. The document was published in the Federal Register on August 
19, 2014.

DATES: The proposed rule published August 19, 2014 (79 FR 49036) is 
corrected as of November 18, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Bachtell or Kate Dumouchel, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 
at (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2014-18936, beginning on page 49036 
(August 19, 2014), make the following corrections in the Supplementary 
Information section.
    1. On page 49037, in the first column, in paragraph 3, thirtieth 
line, remove the word ``programs'' and add in its place the word 
``program's.''
    2. On page 49039, in the third column, in paragraph 19, fifth line, 
remove the words ``E-rate Modernization Order'' and add in its place 
the words ``Report and Order.''
    3. On page 49040, in the first column, in paragraph 22, remove the 
word ``5000'' and add in its place the word ``5,000.''
    4. On page 49041, in the second column, in paragraph 33, twelfth 
line, remove the word ``we.''

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25522 Filed 11-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
CIPHER HOLDING CORP
                                  EXHIBIT 99(b)

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Cipher Multimedia,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the year quarter  ended  September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof,  I, Corey Conn,  Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  that to my knowledge:  (1) the quarterly  report fully  complies with the
requirements  of section 13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)
the  information  contained in the  quarterly  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



Date:   November 12, 2004


/s/ Corey Conn
Chief Financial Officer,


A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Freddie L. Woods,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03401-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/23/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8459 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8459 Filed 10/30/17 Page 2 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Carlos Yanez Peyron, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Chris Moody, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00414-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau that recommends denying Petitioner’s Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 21.) 

 A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any objections to the 

Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. As such, the 

Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. 

 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Rateau’s 

recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley 

v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability 

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying 

the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of 

Case 4:15-cv-00414-JGZ Document 22 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

appealability or state why a certificate should not issue." Additionally, 28 U.S.C. 

§2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court 

must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A 

substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among 

reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves 

further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review 

of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court 

concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable 

among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is accepted and 

adopted; 

2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED; 

3. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 Dated this 7th day of March, 2017. 

Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00414-JGZ Document 22 Filed 03/07/17 Page 2 of 2
#### Anna R. McGrath, respondent, *v.*William F. Norcross, appellant.

[Argued July 1st, 1913.

Decided November 17th, 1913.]

On appeal from an order of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Learning, whose opinion is reported in *78 N. J. Fq. (8 Buck.) 120.*

*Mr. Thomas F. French ¡*for the appellant.

Messrs. *Collins &*Corbin, for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from will be' affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion hied in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Learning.

*For*affirmance—Ti-ra Ciiier-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenci-iard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, VrkdbnBURGH, CONGDON, Wl-IITB, TERIIUNE, HbPPBNI-IEIMER—13.

*For*reversal—None.
#### Abner Davis *v.*N. C. Powell.

Judgment — Clerical Misprision — How Corrected — Affirmance—Conclusioness.

A clerical misprision must be corrected, by motion, in the tribunal where made. The legal effect of an affirmance of a judgment by the court of appeals, is that there is no error, clerical or judicial.

APPEAL FROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT (NO. 1).

December 2, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The alleged error in the opinion of the circuit court as to boundary, could not be consistently decreed a clerical misprision. But if it had been the mistake of the clerk and not an error of the judge, it was correctable by the same tribunal on motion, before the case came here for revision. When it was affirmed by this court the legal effect of the affirmance was that there was *421no error, clerical or judicial. And that judgment is now conclusive on the parties and cannot be altered by this court or revived by the circuit court for the imputed error.

Bush, *for appellant.*

Hughes, *for appellee.*

Wherefore, the judgment of the circuit court disregarding the opinion and mandate of this court and changing the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the appellee’s motion to alter the judgment.

*See vol. 2 Kentucky Opinion's 137.*
-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Daimeon Mosley, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Angry Crab Shack BBQ, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. CV-15-02287-PHX-NVW 

ORDER

Before the court is the parties’ Stipulation to Dismissal (Doc. 13). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the parties’ Stipulation (Doc. 13). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set 

for April 8, 2016. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action, including all of plaintiff’s claims 

herein, be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice and on the merits, and without 

awarding attorneys’ fees, costs or disbursements to any party. 

 Dated this 2nd day of March, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19-0680
CITY OF BOZEMAN,

Petitioner and Appellant,
v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION, an agency ofthe State ofMontana, and UTILITY SOLUTIONS,LLC,

Respondents and Appellees. 

# FILED MAR 1 9 2020 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of kilontana ORDER

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for oral argument before the Court sitting en banc and is hereby set for argument on Wednesday, June 17, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court,Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to M.R. App. P. 17(3), oral argument times in this cause number shall be forty (40) minutes for the Appellant and thirty (30) minutes for the Appellees. Counsel should be mindful ofthe provisions ofM.R.App.P. 17(6). The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Rienne McElyea,District Judge. DATED this j gi% ofMarch,2020. For the Court,
By ChiefJustice 03/19/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0680
_____________ No. 96-2349EM

_____________ In re: Luther E. Oliver * Debtor *

____________________ * * Luther E. Oliver, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Appellant, * District of Missouri. * v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * Charles W. Riske, * * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: December 11, 1996 Filed: March 7, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Havingsearched the record and considered the parties’ briefs, w e findno merit in Luther E. Oliver’s contentions. We affirm the judgment of the di strict court for the reasons set forth in the district court’ s order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6437

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TERRENCE J. WHITE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CR-01-190; CA-03-732)

Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 2, 2004

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence J. White, Appellant Pro Se. S. David Schiller, Brian Lee

Whisler, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Terrence J. White seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

the district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

(2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that White has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"First NASA Mars Analog Crew Passes Mission Halfway Mark","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"0XpAX4dJwZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/analog-field-testing\/chapea\/first-nasa-mars-analog-crew-passes-mission-halfway-mark\/\">First NASA Mars Analog Crew Passes Mission Halfway Mark<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/analog-field-testing\/chapea\/first-nasa-mars-analog-crew-passes-mission-halfway-mark\/embed\/#?secret=0XpAX4dJwZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“First NASA Mars Analog Crew Passes Mission Halfway Mark” — NASA\" data-secret=\"0XpAX4dJwZ\" 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","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/chapea-crew-2024.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
1 The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-1290

___________ Robert Davis, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 19, 2004 Filed: December 1, 2004

___________ Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Davis appeals the district court’s 1 decision upholding the Commissioner’s denial of supplemental security income benefits after a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) and after the Appeals Council denied review. Having reviewed the record, we find that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Hilkemeyer v.-2- Barnhart , 380 F.3d 441, 445 (8th Cir. 2004). In particular, the ALJ considered Davis’s impairments in combination, made sufficient credibility findings, considered the side effects of his medications, fully developed the record, adopted a hypothetical posed to the vocational expert which included all of Davis’s limitations that were supported by the record, and considered the disability findings of the Veteran’s Administration in making his decision. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned officer of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 6, 2008



/s/ Douglas O. HartDouglas O. HartSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this certification
is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 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.