alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 30th, 2015

From: Danny Haws

616 Hacienda Drive

Camarillo, CA 93012

Cell; (805) 444-4625

Email; hawsstudios@gmail.com

Re: Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act

 Docket ID: FAA-2015-3462

To Whom It May Concern,

Today, 10/29/2015, I received a letter advising that you are unable to process my request for an 

exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), stating that I must provide the reasons 

why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is how it would benefit the public as a 

whole. The following response is how I feel granting me this exemption would directly benefit the 

public’s interest and the community around me:

The use of an UAS in the real estate industry provides both buyers and sellers a higher level of service. It 

is able to capture images that allow for a higher level of marketing and advertising. This in turn makes 

the property appealing to more buyers, resulting in a quicker sale of their home. Quicker home sales 

also help accelerate the economy as a whole. Property Buyers experience the benefit of encompassing a 

whole property, sometimes several acres, in one photo or a short video. Not only does this benefit the 

specific home seller or home buyer, but it benefits the general public because it is much more efficient 

than traditional ways of using a plane or helicopter to achieve the same result. We can now provide this 

level of service while being conservative with fuel, time, emissions, noise, and other resources. 

Considering size, weight, speed, and absence of combustible fuels, my UAS will have much less of a 

safety concern for the general public when compared to larger manned aircraft.

If you have any further questions, or would like to speak to me personally please contact me at the 

above listed information.

Respectfully,

Danny Haws
# Official Journal C 7/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 7 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5012 January 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 7

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5012 January 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 007/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 007/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 007/02 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 007/02

Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL AND COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 007/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4489 — 3i/Countrywide) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 4 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL AND COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2007/C 007/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4489 — 3i/Countrywide) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### § 300.15 Evaluation.

*Evaluation* means procedures used in accordance with §§ 300.304 through 300.311 to determine whether a child has a disability and the nature and extent of the special education and related services that the child needs.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1414(a) (c))
#### §§ 303.311-303.319 [Reserved]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Amilcar GOMEZ-SALAMANCA, a/k/a Amilcar Jose Salamanca, a/k/a Amilcar Gomez Salamanca, a/k/a Amilcar Hernandez, a/k/a Amilcar Cruz, a/k/a Jose Amilcar Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4806.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 16, 2002.

Decided: May 20, 2002.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Elizabeth Pearl Raman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Odessa P. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jose Amilcar Gomez-Salamanca pled guilty to one count of unauthorized reentry of a deported alien after conviction of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (West 1999). He appeals his sentence, contending that the district court erred in finding that it lacked authority to depart downward pursuant to *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 2L1.2, cmt. n. 5 (2000). A district court’s refusal to grant a downward departure is not renewable unless the court based its decision on the mistaken belief that it lacked authority to do so. *United States v. Matthews,*209 F.3d 338, 352-53 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*531 U.S. 910, 121 S.Ct. 260, 148 L.Ed.2d 188 (2000). The existence of a district court’s authority to depart under USSG § 2L1.2 is a legal determination that is reviewed de novo. *United States v. Hall,*977 F.2d 861, 863 (4th Cir.1992).

Gomez-Salamanca takes issue with the district court’s finding that he was ineligible for the departure in question because the term of imprisonment imposed for his prior aggravated felony exceeded one year. Gomez-Salamanca contends that because two years of the three-year term he received for the aggravated felony were suspended, the “term of imprisonment” imposed was actually one year, rendering him eligible for the departure under Application Note 5.

After review, we conclude that the district court did not misapprehend its authority to depart and properly determined that Gomez-Salamanca was not in fact eligible for the departure at issue. *See United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela,*170 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir.1999) (holding, in context of potential USSG § 2L1.2 departure under Application Note 5, that “term of imprisonment” for prior aggravated felony was five years even though the sentence was stayed and the defendant placed on probation on condition he serve 45 days in jail); *United States v. Yanez-Huerta,*207 F.3d 746, 748-49 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*531 U.S. 981, 121 S.Ct. 432, 148 L.Ed.2d 440 (2000).

*879We accordingly affirm Gomez-Salamanca’s sentence. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 52 

### CFR Correction 

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52 (§§ 52.01 to 52.1018), revised as of July 1, 2010, on page 252, in § 52.220, paragraph (c)(345)(i)(D) is added to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 

* * * * *

(c)  * * * 

(345)  * * * 

(i)  * * * 

(D) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 

                            (                            *1*) Rule 201, “Exemptions,” adopted on September 5, 1974 and revised on January 23, 2006.                         

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2011-7432 Filed 3-28-11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
g:\blm\buttermp\AMS\FinalFigures\fig2-23_roadandtransportation.mxd 

Elkhorns Broadwater County 

WSA Townsend £¤12 

Boulder 

Anaconda 

§ ̈¦90 

Deerlodge County 

287 

Butte

Whitetail-Pipestone
 

Motorized Open Areas
 

£¤

Motorcycle 

Silverbow County Warmup Motorcycle 

Area Hillcli Gallatin County

Area 

mb 

§ ̈¦15 

Blacksage

WSA 

Whitehall 

Humbug Spires Three Forks 

WSA 

Belgrade 

Bozeman 

Madison County 

I Wilderness Study Area (WSA) - Closed to Travel 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land - Area Availability for Motorized Travel 

0 Miles 10 Open to Limited Travel Butte Field Office - EIS

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land - Open to Travel RMP Planning Area, Montana No warranty is made by the Bureau of Map

Land Management (BLM) for use of Location FIGURE 2-23b 

data for purposes not intended by BLM.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 2, 2017

s0424

Order 

Clerk

May 2, 2017

153792(26)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153792

COA: 330717

Ottawa CC: 10-035009-FC

SAGE GERADAS LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

30, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was enter erroneously.
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

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 552

 564

 558

 632

 612

 605

 611

 630

 674

 676

 672

 650

 665

 661

 699

 743

 724

 705

 716

 717

 679

 681

 605

 688

 695

 720

 718

 713

 700

 707

 671

 517

 538

 529

 536

 543

 535

 551

 594

 591

 613

 626

 626

 624

 642

 653

 699

 677

 646

 633

 611

 611

 561

 546

 539

 656

 646

 694

 701

 665

 659

 655

 534

 551

 544

 571

 577

 563

 583

 616

 637

 644

 649

 642

 648

 654

 671

 715

 704

 669

 668

 663

 643

 622

 576

 615

 670

 684

 708

 708

 681

 690

 663

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2022 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 4, 2022

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 346

 357

 352

 369

 373

 364

 376

 397

 410

 414

 417

 413

 416

 420

 431

 458

 451

 429

 429

 426

 413

 400

 372

 396

 430

 439

 454

 454

 437

 442

 426

TOTAL 19,763

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-015-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
6 Campus Drive  1st Floor N.  Parsippany  NJ 07054  (973) 267-9700  FAX (973) 267-9055 

www.Pumps.org  www.PumpLearning.org  www.PumpSystemsMatter.org

December 13, 2012

The Honorable Steven Chu

Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave. SW

Washington DC 20585

Via: ElecMotors‐2010‐STD‐0027@ee.doe.gov, the.secretary@hq.doe.gov

Subject:  Endorsement of the Joint Petition to Adopt Joint Stakeholder Proposal As it  

     Relates to the Rulemaking on Energy Conservation Standards for Electric Motors,  

     Docket No.  EERE–2010–BT– STD–0027

Dear Secretary Chu:

The Hydraulic Institute remains committed to and deeply interested in energy efficiency as a

means of addressing our nation’s energy usage and its continued availability.  Recently, you

received the subject petition.  We wish to lend our support to this petition’s contents and goals.  

The strength of this petition lies in the early, continued collaboration of the many stakeholders

who developed it, its straightforwardness and its feasibility.  We applaud the combined efforts

of manufacturers and energy‐efficiency advocates to advance policy and regulation in a

responsible and meaningful way.  We encourage the DOE to adopt the principles and content of

the petition, so as to begin saving the most energy as soon as feasibly possible.

The Hydraulic Institute endorses the petition and we encourage you to give it your complete

attention and take immediate action to empower these excellent solutions as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Robert K. Asdal

Executive Director

Hydraulic Institute
#### Seely S. Van Ness, Respondent, v. The Erie Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial, granted, with costs to appellant to abide event, unless plaintiff shall within ten days stipulate to modify the order by striking out the provision for the trebling of the damages to certain property and reduce the recovery to the actual damages, viz., $938.75, as of the date of the rendition of the verdict, in which event the order and the judgment are modified accordingly and as so modified are affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Held, that plaintiff is not entitled to recover treble damages against the defendant. All concurred.
### Part B—Joshua Tree National Park
§ 371.14 How does the Secretary evaluate an application? ( a ) The Secretary evaluates each application for a grant, cooperative agreement or contract under this subpart on the basis of the selection criteria chosen from the general selection criteria found in EDGAR regulations at 34 CFR 75.210.
( b ) The Secretary may award a competitive preference consistent with 34 CFR 75.102(c)(2) to applications that include as project personnel in a substantive role, individuals that have been employed as a project director or VR counselor by a Tribal Vocational Rehabilitation unit funded under this part.
( c ) If using a contract to award funds under this subpart, the Secretary may conduct the application process and make the subsequent award in accordance with 34 CFR part 75.
(Authority: Sections 12(c) and Section 121(c) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 741(c))
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2011)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 15209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6720]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 2011 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 15209]]

                Proclamation 8637 of March 16, 2011

                
150th Anniversary of the Unification of Italy, 
                2011

                By the President of the United States of America

                A Proclamation

                On March 17, Italy celebrates the 150th anniversary of 
                its unification as a single state. On this day, we join 
                with Italians everywhere to honor the courage, 
                sacrifice, and vision of the patriots who gave birth to 
                the Italian nation. At a time when the United States 
                was fighting for the preservation of our own Union, 
                Giuseppe Garibaldi's campaign for the unification of 
                Italy inspired many around the world in their own 
                struggles, including the 39th New York Infantry, also 
                known as ``The Garibaldi Guard.'' Today, the legacy of 
                Garibaldi and all those who unified Italy lives on in 
                the millions of American women and men of Italian 
                descent who strengthen and enrich our Nation.

                Italy and the United States are bound by friendship and 
                common dedication to civil liberties, democratic 
                principles, and the universal human rights our 
                countries both respect and uphold. As we mark this 
                important milestone in Italian history, we also honor 
                the joint efforts of Americans and Italians to foster 
                freedom, democracy, and our shared values throughout 
                the world.

                NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the 
                United States of America, by virtue of the authority 
                vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the 
                United States, do hereby proclaim March 17, 2011, as a 
                day to celebrate the 150th Anniversary of the 
                Unification of Italy. I encourage all Americans to 
                learn more about the history of Italian unification and 
                to honor the enduring friendship between the people of 
                Italy and the people of the United States.

                IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
                sixteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord two 
                thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United 
                States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

[FR Doc. 2011-6720
Filed 3-18-11; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3195-W1-P
#### § 33.36 Post-hearing briefs.

The ALJ may require the parties to file post-hearing briefs. In any event, any party may file a post-hearing brief. The ALJ shall fix the time for filing these briefs, not to exceed 60 days from the date the parties receive the transcript of the hearing or, if applicable, the stipulated record. The briefs may be accompanied by proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ may permit the parties to file reply briefs.

(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3803 (g)(1)(2)(E))
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Matthew R. Braley, Appellant, against Walter B. Martin, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

All concur.
### Hydrology of Brookhaven National Laboratory and vicinity, Suffolk County, New York

By: Moultrie Alfred WarrenWallace De LagunaNorbert Joseph Lusczynski

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1156C

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 9**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 10**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

****

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION  1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY   ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report   of Hickok Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending   September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on  the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory M. Zoloty, Chief Financial Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that:

-        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 					materialrespects, the financial condition   and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ G. M. Zoloty

G. M. Zoloty

Chief Financial Officer

December 21, 2005
#### Garrett Edward HUNTER, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.L. HOBBS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-6328.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 23, 2002.

Garrett Edward Hunter, III, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Garrett Edward Hunter, III, appeals the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion for an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation in his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.*