alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Petition ID: FAA

- 2015

- 4030 01/04/16

Dear Sir or Madam

,

I, William J. Camp wish to amend my petition to omit and proceed without the inclusion of “CLOSED SET

FILMING” in the proposed operating usage of my Unmanned Aerial System (UAS ). On Page 4, item entitled

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER and thus eliminating the requirement to provide a

Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) as required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter

8, Section 1.

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER originally stated:

 General aerial still photos

 Commercial Media Applications i.e. Wedding Videography and Business Promotional Video

 Wildlife population surveys

 Real Estate marketing

 Aerial inspections of public and pri vate structures.

I would like to amend this section to now read as follows:

The objective of WILLIAM J CAMP and his aerial operations is to safely provide high quality imaging for a

variety of commercial, public, and residential uses, specifically target ing:

This exemption request, once granted would allow the petitioner to operate a

small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAVs), unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to

conduct bridge Inspections, flare stack inspection, utility

- power generation

system inspections and pa trolling, aerial inspection, photography and

videography of residential and commercial real estate, weddings, and wedding

events, aerial inspection, photography and videography of utility

infrastructure including but not limited to electrical power lines, wind

turbines and cell towers, pipeline inspection and patrolling, filmmaking,

cinematography, and videography, precision agriculture with on board

sensors, wildlife and forestry monitoring and mosquito and insect control,

aerial surveying, construction si te inspection and monitoring, public entity

support operations, Aerial imaging for safety, monitoring and comparing work

efforts and completion percentages, and security of controlled environment

of various sites, aerial video and live video feed to assist with search and

rescue operations under the authority and support of local authority

officials, aerial video and photography for public and private use including

television, public events, and cinematography live feed and live

newsgathering, training to p ersons individually or belonging to both private

and public organizations to increase awareness and improve safety for

current and future UAS operations within the NAS, special events: including

high schools. Colleges, professional sports, open air events and fairs,

research, risk management and assessment, surface mining, disaster and catastrophe events.

I appreciate your further consideration on this matter and I’ve included my contact information below if

there are any further concerns.

Respectfully

,

William J. Camp

wjcamp@gmail.com



### 305

- 879

- 8243
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Appellant, and General Electric Company, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [193 Mise. 146.] [See *post,*p. 1035.]
5337.7401 Policy       (c) See MP5301.601(a)(i).     **Parent topic:** Subpart 5337.74 – SERVICES AT INSTALLATIONS BEING CLOSED
#### § 995.29 Limitation on endorsements.

By certifying compliance with this part, NOAA does not automatically, directly, or indirectly endorse any product or service provided, or to be provided, by distributor or value added distributor or its successors, assignees, or licensees. The distributor or value added distributor shall not in any way imply that this certification is an endorsement of any such product or service without separate, written permission from NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 



### ~aomthl in alo 8?-



### Jlproruont ,&o11 'dwul7 one of the 8?Oremmlu1mtonao or the In eotlaostlon **im dirt+ed**  **ta**



### 80 hwo ouofully rod theArtialearoiemd to ia the oteutoo. ?I107 gliro rcrtor oontrolmnd'irprorameat dir trlatm rlmemt ploaury parorm- Uqueotioambl~. **moh** a distriofnonorable C. 8. Clark - page 2

orgalxed and **ore8ted** under **the provldoaa**  **oi** maid atatute8 **would h8re**  

### and **does hare**  **8uthorit7 to**  **oonstruot** and PrIntala ]ereem and flood control **projeotm ,**  **and pnrohrse**  **the neoesa8r7**  **rightbof-r87 therefor**  If the7 did **not h8ro**  **these rl&htm,**  the dlatriota aould **not, of**  oourme , awry out the 

### purposes l ndo bjeotm

**for** 

### which areated.


### In **8nmwer** to 7our seoond question, Artlole T860-4, to **rhiah** ~du refer, prorldoa mpeolflo8117 **thC ’** **8** dlmtrlot orpinlzed under the prorlmloa8 of'a8ld Ch8pterk87 lnolude the **area of**  **on7 oount7**  **or oountioa,**  **or 8x17** portion **thereof,** l l l pmvlded **th8t no**  dlmtrlat prowlded 

### for in thlm Aot mh811 e+ bnao 

### tottltetydtuated **In man**  **tbm one**  **aewxty uoept**  **by 8**  **mrJorit7** tote of tbe 

### propertytu-paying **rotor8 tedding**  

### ritbin thebttitety in .oaahoounty **moaght** 

### ta **be** embreoed within mid **dlmtrict*****’**

Ot oourme, 8 w8ter-oontrol and **hproremnt** dimttlot **ateated** would be ableat to 8ad lidfed **by** the rlghto of 8a7 and **all other**  dlsttlotm or rgonoioo tb8t h8d been otg8nlred or oreetedr and which emblroed the 

### 18ndr or 8x17portion thete

### of, nmued In **the** 18st Qlsttiof olu8t8d. In **othot** worda, **the** Juaiot distrlot ore8ted would not **be** 8uthorlsed to outkll, or in 8n7 ~87 laterfore wltb prior dlmtrlotm th8f b8d been ore8ted **uader** and **In** virtue of eld l t8tutem.

Fet7 tml7 7eur8 ATlWNBT OENBRAL **OF TBXAS**
#### In the Matter of New York State Guernsey Breeders’ Co-operative, Inc., Petitioner, against C. Chester Du Mond, as Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

*684Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.
§ 456.1 Definitions. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 60774 , July 26, 2024.
( a ) A *patient* is any person who has had an eye examination.
( b ) An *eye examination* is the process of determining the refractive condition of a person's eyes or the presence of any visual anomaly by the use of objective or subjective tests.
( c ) *Ophthalmic goods* are eyeglasses, or any component of eyeglasses, and contact lenses.
( d ) *Ophthalmic services* are the measuring, fitting, and adjusting of ophthalmic goods subsequent to an eye examination.
( e ) An *ophthalmologist* is any Doctor of Medicine or Osteopathy who performs eye examinations.
( f ) An *optometrist* is any Doctor of Optometry.
( g ) A *prescription* is the written specifications for lenses for eyeglasses which are derived from an eye examination, including all of the information specified by state law, if any, necessary to obtain lenses for eyeglasses.
#### Teodomiro Reyes VALDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-70190.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 4, 2007 *.

Filed June 12, 2007.

*405Teodomiro Reyes Valdez, Azusa, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Margaret K. Taylor, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioners’ applications for cancellation of removal.

Upon review of the record, respondent’s motion to dismiss is also construed as a motion for summary disposition with respect to petitioner Angel Emanuel Reyes Valdez, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

We have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and we conclude that petitioners Teodomiro Reyes Valdez, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], and Antonia Valdez de Reyes, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. *See Torres-Aguilar v.*INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is granted with respect to petitioners Teodomiro Reyes Valdez and Antonia Valdez de Reyes. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioner Angel Emanuel Reyes Valdez has presented no *406evidence that he has a qualifying relative as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). *See Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA therefore correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted with respect to petitioner Angel Emanuel Reyes Valdez because the questions raised as to him are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication *and*is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §13726c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13726c was editorially reclassified as section 60104 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §15545. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15545 was editorially reclassified as section 21145 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
#### Rael Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc., Plaintiff, v Schaefer Agency, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

[821 NYS2d 118]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated April 4, 2005, which upon, in effect, treating the motion of the third-party defendant Utica Mutual Insurance Company pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it as a motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against it, granted the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Compliance with an insurance policy notice provision is a condition precedent to coverage, and the failure to comply vitiates the policy *(see White v City of New York,*81 NY2d 955, 957 [1993]; *Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp.,*
      *83631 NY2d 436, 440 [1972]; *Quality Invs., Ltd. v Lloyd’s London, England,*11 AD3d 443 [2004]; *Yarar v Children’s Museum of Manhattan,*4 AD3d 420, 421 [2004]). The insured has the burden of demonstrating a reasonable excuse for the delay in providing notice *(see White v City of New York, supra*at 957; *Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., supra*at 441).

Here, the respondent insurer established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by presenting evidence demonstrating that the appellant, its insured, became aware of an alleged “wrongful act” under its Agents and Brokers Errors and Omissions Insurance policy approximately 21 months before notifying the insurer of it. The policy contained a provision obligating the insured to notify the insurer “in writing as soon as practicable of any ‘wrongful act’ which may result in a ‘claim.’ ” Thus, the insured failed to fulfill a condition precedent to coverage.

In opposition, the insured failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Quality Invs., Ltd. v Lloyd’s London, England, supra; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the insurer’s motion.

The insured’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3914 

To amend the Export Apple Act to permit the export of apples to Canada 

in bulk bins without certification by the Department of Agriculture. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2012 

Mr. OWENS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Export Apple Act to permit the export of 

apples to Canada in bulk bins without certification by 

the Department of Agriculture. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. BULK SHIPMENT OF APPLES TO CANADA. 

4 (a) BULK SHIPMENT OF APPLES TO CANADA.—The 

5 Export Apple Act is amended by inserting after section 

6 4 (7 U.S.C. 584) the following new section: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 4A. Notwithstanding any other provision of 

8 this Act, apples may be shipped to Canada in bulk bins 

9 without complying with the provisions of this Act.’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3914 IH

1 (b) DEFINITION OF BULK BIN.—Section 9 of the Ex2 port Apple Act (7 U.S.C. 589) is amended by adding at 

3 the end the following new paragraph: 

4 ‘‘(5) The term ‘bulk bin’ means a bin that con5 tains a quantity of apples weighing more than 100 

6 pounds.’’. 

7 (c) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 60 days after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agri9 culture shall issue regulations to carry out the amend10 ments made by this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §1466. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title I, §115, as added Aug. 10, 1965, Pub. L. 89–117, title I, §106(a), 79 Stat. 457; amended May 25, 1967, Pub. L. 90–19, §6(b), 81 Stat. 21; Aug. 1, 1968, Pub. L. 90–448, title V, §503, 82 Stat. 521; Dec. 24, 1969, Pub. L. 91–152, title II, §205, 83 Stat. 387, which related to rehabilitation grants, was omitted pursuant to section 5316 of this title which terminated authority to make grants or loans under this subchapter after Jan. 1, 1975.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Amendment of Contracts Executed Prior to Enactment of Section

Pub. L. 89–117, title I, §106(b), Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 458, provided that any contract with a local public agency executed under this subchapter before Aug. 10, 1965, could be amended to provide for grants authorized by this section.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of North American Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Achron, 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:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of all the Company.





/s/ Richard Achron



Richard Achron

Chief Financial Officer

July 7, 2004
§ 10.84 Initial decision. ( a ) *When initial decision is required.* The Administrative Law Judge shall make an initial decision in any proceeding in which a hearing is required to be conducted in conformity with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, as codified, 5 U.S.C. 557. He shall make an initial decision in other proceedings in which the Commission directs him to make such a decision.
( b ) *Filing of initial decision.* After the parties have been afforded an opportunity to file their proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law and supporting briefs pursuant to § 10.82, the Administrative Law Judge shall prepare upon the basis of the record in the proceeding and shall file with the Proceedings Clerk his or her decision, a copy of which shall be served by the Proceedings Clerk upon each of the parties.
( c ) *Effect of initial decision.* The initial decision shall become the decision of the Commission 30 days after service thereof, except: ( 1 ) The decision shall not become final as to any party who shall have filed a notice of appeal pursuant to § 10.102 of these rules; and
( 2 ) The decision shall not become final as to any party to the proceeding if, within 30 days after the initial decision and order, the Commission itself shall have placed the case on its own docket for review or stayed the effective date of the decision.
In the event that the initial decision becomes the final decision of the Commission with respect to a party, that party shall be duly notified thereof by the Proceedings Clerk. The notice shall state that the time for filing a notice of appeal by the party has expired, that the Commission has determined not to review the initial decision on its own initiative and shall specify the date on which a final order in the proceeding shall become effective as against that party. [41 FR 2511, Jan. 16, 1976, as amended at 60 FR 54802, Oct. 26, 1995; 61 FR 21954, May 13, 1996; 63 FR 55794, Oct. 19, 1998]
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

#### § 200.55 Statutory obligations.

In administering the law, members of this Commission should vigorously enforce compliance with the law by all persons affected thereby. In the exercise of the rulemaking powers delegated this Commission by the Congress, members should always be concerned that the rulemaking power be confined to the proper limits of the law and be consistent with the statutory purposes expressed by the Congress. In the exercise of their judicial functions, members shall honestly, fairly and impartially determine the rights of all persons under the law.
June 12, 2015 

Mr. Nicholas Ogle 

2403 Royal Palm Court 

Leagye City, TX 77573 

Dear Mr. Ogle: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 1, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2020), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Certification**

**Pursuant      to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the**

**United      States Code as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906**

**of      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

| (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),                as                applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,                and |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:           |                                     |
|------------------|------------------------------------------|
| October 31, 2007 | /s/ Larry W.                Denney  |
|             | Name:                               | Larry W. Denney |
|             | Title:                                   | Chairman, President and Chief Executive                  Officer (principal executive                  officer) |

----
CERTIFICATION OF
                          CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB OF TWIN
VENTURES LTD. FOR THE QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003, I, DAVID DEERING, CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF TWIN VENTURES LTD. HEREBY
CERTIFY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THAT:

     1.   Such quarterly report of Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
          30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended September 30, 2003, fairly represents in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TWIN
          VENTURES LTD.

Dated:    October 23, 2003

TWIN VENTURES LTD.


By:  /s/ David Deering
-----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
[Criminal Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, and 57.]

#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, v. CAPTAIN JACK and other Indians, Appellants.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. William W. Porter, Judge.

Owen T. Rouse, United States District Attorney, for the United States.

H. N. Alexander, and L. H. Chalmers, for Appellants.

PORTER, A. J.

On the authority of the matter of *habeas corpus*of Gon-shay-ee- in the supreme court of the United States, 130 U. S. 343, 32 Law. Ed. 973, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 542, this ease is reversed.

Barnes, A. J., concurs.