more competitive bidding position than non-minority-owned subcontractors. Adarand would control this case if the Commission’s regulations put minority job applicants in a better position than non-minority applicants. But the regulations do no such thing. Indeed, they do not even offer incentives for licensees to prefer minority over non-minority job applicants. Stations with inadequate outreach programs cannot protect themselves from enforcement actions by preferring minorities in order to meet the 50% parity goal. See In re Kelly Communications, Inc., 12 F.C.C.R. 17,868 ¶¶ 11-13 (1997). And stations with adequate outreach programs face no sanctions for failing to reach specific numerical levels of minority hiring. See In re Louisiana Broadcast Stations, 7 F.C.C.R. 1503 ¶¶ 16-19 (1992) (<HOLDING>); In re Miami Broadcast Stations, 5 F.C.C.R.
holding that by failing to move for continuance defendant waived relief under rule 16g  by not making timely efforts to mitigate or eliminate the prejudice caused by the prosecutors conduct holding that whether attorney complied with fiduciary duty to disclose all material information was question of fact holding that the defendant waived any argument on the issue by failing to oppose a motion to dismiss holding defendants were entitled to a decision on the merits on rule 11 sanctions where they substantially complied with rule 11c1a by sending a letter rather than serving a motion holding that station complied with eeo rule based on its minority recruitment efforts despite failing to hire any minorities