alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ning Wong

1534 Orchard Drive

Newport Beach, CA 92660

949-439-9709

ning@ningwong.com

February 23, 2016

Petition for Section 333 Exemption

I hereby formally request FAA authorization for NING WONG STUDIOS (hereafter “PETITIONER”) 

to operate a UAS for civil (non-governmental) purposes other than for hobby or recreation.

PETITIONER requests exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 

61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 

and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow PETITIONER to operate a UAS to perform 

aerial data collection, including but not limited to aerial imaging. 

PETITIONER requests this permission to pursue its use of UAS models including DJI Phantom 2, DJI 

Phantom 3, DJI Inspire, 3D Robotics IRIS+, 3D Robotics Solo, 3D Robotics X8+, and 3D Robotics X8-

M, Yuneec Typhoon H, or other similar professionally-manufactured and widely-available UAS 

models.

PETITIONER requests this exemption for its use of UAS both within and without the United States. 

PETITIONER frequently travels abroad for photographic endeavors and seeks to use UAS in 

accordance with all laws of foreign and domestic governmental authorities.

PETITIONER’s use of the UAS will be done in a manner which will minimize the risk to the NAS, 

other persons and spectators, and property. The following procedures will assist in minimizing 

impact: (1) UAS will be given a pre-flight inspection before each flight to examine air-worthiness, 

(2) UAS will not be materially altered from commercial specifications except for battery, prop, and 

other minor alterations, (3) UAS will not be flown over people, (4) UAS will always be flown within 

line of sight to operator(s) pursuant to Section 333(b)(1), (5) UAS will never reach altitudes over 

exceeding those allowed, (6) UAS will never exceed speeds of 50 miles per hour, (7) operator will 

perform a visual inspection of the NAS to locate nearby hazards before taking flight, (8) UAS will be 

checked for flight stability, proper connection to remote control, and proper performance at a very 

low altitude before reaching the NAS, and (9) spectators will be asked to stay a safe distance away 

from the flight path of the UAS and its landing location. PETITIONER has had previous drone flying 

experience since 2014, and understands and complies with safety regulations and rules at all times.

This petition will benefit the public interest. PETITIONER wants to educate and share drone safety 

and handling in this quickly emerging market on PETITIONER’s online blog. Safety is paramount 

and incredibly important, and by sharing and educating as many new drone owners, PETITIONER 
will be able to help teach how to properly go through the rules and regulations in order for others 

to legally and safely fly a UAS. PETITIONER requests to conduct aerial photography and 

cinematography for real estate, corporate, wedding, and commercial use. PETITIONER requests to 

use UAS to benefit first responders who might require assistance.

Please grant the requested exemption.

Ning Wong

Ning Wong Studios
##### 



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Brillian
Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Wayne A. Pratt, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, and
Treasurer 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 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ Wayne A. PrattWayne A. PrattVice President, Chief Financial
Officer, Secretary, and TreasurerAugust 12, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

             Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer

         The undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of United
Community Bankshares of Florida, Inc. does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that to the best of my
knowledge, the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of United
Community Bankshares of Florida, Inc.

                                           /s/ David. G. Powers
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           David G. Powers
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 6, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to United Community
Bankshares of Florida, Inc. and will be furnished by United Community Bankshares
of Florida, Inc. to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

                                       18
Fourth Department,

October, 1916.

#### Enoch V. Stoddard, Respondent, *v.*The Post Express Printing Company of Rochester, New York, Appellant.

*Contract*— *action for services.*

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $228.17 damages and costs, entered January 10,1916, in the Monroe county clerk’s office upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order denying the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial upon the minutes of the court entered January 12, 1916.

Per Curiam:

"Under the charge of the court the jury could and apparently did find the plaintiff’s recollection of the conversation between himself and defendant’s president in which the contract for plaintiff’s employment to send contributions to defendant’s newspaper was made was more correct and accurate than the recollection of defendant’s president, and, hence, that the agreement was that plaintiff was to receive seven dollars and fifty cents per column for such of his communications as were accepted and printed; also that when defendant’s check for seventy-one dollars was sent to plaintiff as payment in full for contributions to March 18, 1916, there had been no dispute or controversy between the parties in reference to the rate per column which plaintiff was to receive, and at the time plaintiff cashed the cheek he was not aware that its amount was at the rate of four dollars per column instead of seven dollars and fifty cents; that from the time of plaintiff’s employment until some time after plaintiff cashed the cheek there was no communication whatever between plaintiff and any one representing defendant on the subject of the rate per column plaintiff was entitled to receive for contributions; that at the time plaintiff cashed the check he had no knowledge or information as to how many of plaintiff’s contributions had been accepted by defendant and printed in its newspaper, and, hence, had no reason to suppose that the amount of the check was based upon a rate of four dollars per column instead of seven dollars and fifty cents per *906column; that when plaintiff accepted and cashed the check he did not observe or read the clause on the face of the check: “In full for contributions to March 18, 1915,” or the printed clause on the back of the cheek: “Endorsement by the payee is acknowledgment of full payment and satisfaction of the within account.” We think there was evidence sufficient to permit these facts to be found, and that they are sufficient to suppdrt the verdict in plaintiff’s favor which is based upon the contract as claimed by plaintiff. We think there was no error in the ruling of the trial court to the effect that if the jury found the facts as claimed by plaintiff the acceptance of the check by plaintiff and collecting the money thereon was not an accord and satisfaction. The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concurred. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
-----Daniel Rotunno <DRotunno@naeslcf.com> wrote: ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: Daniel Rotunno <DRotunno@naeslcf.com> 

Date: 08/12/2010 03:43PM 

cc: Tom Wotherspoon <twotherspoon@naesfnt.com>, Gary Gust <ggust@naesfnt.com> 

Subject: Fortistar Time extension request 

Alicea, 

Fortistar North Tonawanda plant ID 05090, formally requests a time extension to 

complete the Steam Electric Power Plant 

Questionnaire. Due to recent resignations from our staff members who complete your 

type of requests, it is taking us considerable amounts of time to ensure we are 

providing accurate data for your questionnaire. If it is at all possible to grant 

us the longest allowable time extension it would be greatly appreciated. 

Please call me direct at 716-570-6365 if you have any additional questions and we 

are looking forward to your response. 

Warm Regards, 

Daniel Rotunno 

Plant Manager 

Cell - 716-570-6365 

Email - drotunno@naeslcf.com 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Tom Wotherspoon [mailto:twotherspoon@naesfnt.com] 

Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:49 PM 

To: Daniel Rotunno 

Cc: Dave Day 

Subject: FW: Time extension possibility 

Dan: FYI: 

 This is the correspondance regarding this so far. 

 

 

Tom Wotherspoon 

Senior Power Plant Specialist 

 

 

 NAES 

Fortistar North Tonawanda 

 (716) 694-9874 Work 

 (716) 694-8363 Fax 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:15 AM 

To: Tom Wotherspoon 

Cc: Gary Gust 

Subject: Re: Time extension possibility 

Greetings Tom, 

Page 1 of 3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C652056DO... 8/24/2011
The extension request time period ended, however we still considering extension 

requests on a case by case basis. Please send an email with your request as soon 

as possible, indicating the plant's name and ID. 

We should be able to provide a quick response to your request. 

Sincerely, 

(Embedded image moved to file: pic00041.jpg) 

 

 

 From: "Tom Wotherspoon" <twotherspoon@naesfnt.com> 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 

 Cc: "Gary Gust" <ggust@naesfnt.com> 

 

 

 Date: 08/11/2010 02:05 PM 

 

 

 Subject: Time extension possibility 

 (Embedded image moved to file: pic18467.gif) 

 Jezebele Alicea: 

 Is it possible to still file a request for a time 

 extension to complete the Steam Electric Power Plant 

 Questionnaire? Please advise on how best to accomplish that 

 process at the moment. 

 Thank you for your time & consideration. 

 Regards: 

 Tom Wotherspoon 

 Senior Power Plant Specialist 

 NAES 

 Fortistar North Tonawanda 

 (716) 694-9874 Work 

 (716) 694-8363 Fax 

Page 2 of 3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C652056DO... 8/24/2011
§ 232.303 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) The following documents shall not be incorporated by reference into an electronic filing: ( 1 ) Any document filed in paper in violation of mandated electronic filing requirements;
( 2 ) Any document filed in paper pursuant to a hardship exemption for which a required confirming electronic copy has not been submitted.
( 3 ) For a registered investment company or a business development company, documents that have not been filed in electronic format, unless the document has been filed in paper under a hardship exemption (§ 232.201 or 232.202 of this chapter) and any required confirming copy has been submitted.
( b ) If a filer incorporates by reference into an electronic filing any portion of an annual or quarterly report to security holders, it must also file the portion of the annual or quarterly report to security holders in electronic format as an exhibit to the filing, as required by Regulation S-K Item 601(b)(13) (§ 229.601(b)(13) of this chapter). If a foreign private issuer incorporates by reference into an electronic filing any portion of an annual or other report to security holders, or of a Form 6-K report (§ 249.306 of this chapter) filed or submitted in paper, it also must file the incorporated portion in electronic format as an exhibit to the filing. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply to incorporation by reference by an investment company from an annual or quarterly report to security holders.
[58 FR 14670, Mar. 18, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 67762, Dec. 30, 1994; 62 FR 36457, July 8, 1997; 64 FR 27895, May 21, 1999; 65 FR 24800, Apr. 27, 2000; 67 FR 36700, May 24, 2002; 84 FR 12722, Apr. 2, 2019]
### §18601. Definitions

In this chapter:

#### (1) Department

The term "Department" means the Department of Energy.

#### (2) Director

The term "Director" means the Director of the Office of Science of the Department, except as otherwise indicated.

#### (3) National Laboratory

The term "National Laboratory" has the meaning given that term in section 15801 of this title.

#### (4) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy.

(Pub. L. 115–246, §2, Sept. 28, 2018, 132 Stat. 3130.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 115–246, Sept. 28, 2018, 132 Stat. 3130, known as the Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out below and Tables.

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 115–246, §1(a), Sept. 28, 2018, 132 Stat. 3130, provided that: "This Act [see Short Title notes below and Tables for classification] may be cited as the 'Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act'."

Pub. L. 115–246, title I, §101, Sept. 28, 2018, 132 Stat. 3131, provided that: "This title [enacting subchapter I of this chapter and amending sections 16352 and 16391 of this title] may be cited as the 'Laboratory Modernization and Technology Transfer Act'."

Pub. L. 115–246, title II, §201, Sept. 28, 2018, 132 Stat. 3134, provided that: "This title [enacting subchapter II of this chapter and section 16358 of this title, amending sections 16357 and 16538 of this title, and repealing section 16358 of this title] may be cited as the 'Department of Energy Research Coordination Act'."

Pub. L. 115–246, title III, §301, Sept. 28, 2018, 132 Stat. 3140, provided that: "This title [enacting subchapter III of this chapter and amending sections 2053, 7139, 16313, 16315, 16316, and 16321 of this title, sections 5541 and 5542 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, and provisions set out as a note under section 5501 of Title 15] may be cited as the 'Department of Energy Office of Science Policy Act'."
```

[115th Congress Public Law 374]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 5111]]

Public Law 115-374
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
332 Ramapo Valley Road in Oakland, New Jersey, as the ``Frank Leone Post 
            Office''. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2018 -  [H.R. 6428]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Frank Leone Post 
Office Act.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Frank Leone Post Office Act''.
SEC. 2. FRANK LEONE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 332 Ramapo Valley Road in Oakland, New Jersey, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Frank Leone Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Frank Leone 
Post Office''.

    Approved December 21, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6428:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Nov. 29, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 12, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 304.6 Marking requirements for imitation numismatic items. ( a ) An imitation numismatic item which is manufactured in the United States, or imported into the United States for introduction into or distribution in commerce, shall be plainly and permanently marked “COPY”.
( b ) The word “COPY” shall be marked upon the item legibly, conspicuously, and nondeceptively, and in accordance with the further requirements of these regulations. ( 1 ) The word “COPY” shall appear in capital letters, in the English language.
( 2 ) The word “COPY” shall be marked on either the obverse or the reverse surface of the item. It shall not be marked on the edge of the item.
( 3 ) An imitation numismatic item of incusable material shall be incused with the word “COPY” in sans-serif letters having a vertical dimension of not less than two millimeters (2.0 mm) or not less than one-sixth of the diameter of the reproduction, and a minimum depth of three-tenths of one millimeter (0.3 mm) or to one-half (1 ⁄ 2) the thickness of the reproduction, whichever is the lesser. The minimum total horizontal dimension of the word “COPY” shall be six millimeters (6.0 mm) or not less than one-half of the diameter of the reproduction.
( 4 ) An imitation numismatic item composed of nonincusable material shall be imprinted with the word “COPY” in sans-serif letters having a vertical dimension of not less than two millimeters (2.0 mm) or not less than one-sixth of the diameter of the reproduction. The minimum total horizontal dimension of the word “COPY” shall be six millimeters (6.0 mm) or not less than one-half of the diameter of the reproduction.
[40 FR 5496, Feb. 6, 1975, as amended at 53 FR 38942, Oct. 4, 1988]
### §1703. "Contractor with the United States" defined

As used in this subchapter, the term "contractor with the United States" includes any subcontractor or subordinate subcontractor with respect to the contract of such contractor.

(Dec. 2, 1942, ch. 668, title I, §103, 56 Stat. 1031.)
#### Victor Grossman, Doing Business under the Name of Victor Experimental Company, Respondent, v. Brooklyn Hospital Equipment Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

The order of September 15, 1948, transferring the case from the jury to the nonjury trial calendar, is a bar to the order appealed from, there having been no change of circumstances. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Moshe Canty, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 896]

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J), entered September 27, 2004, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CEL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court rendered November 18, 1999, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*1044Ordered that the order is affirmed.

In deciding a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, the trial court need not hold a hearing if the parties’ submissions are sufficient to render a determination *(see*CPL 440.30 [1], [4]; *People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]; *People v Demetsenare,*14 AD3d 792, 793 [2005]). The defendant must show that a hearing would establish material nonrecord facts that would entitle him to relief *(see People v Satterfield, supra; People v Demetsenare, supra).*The defendant made no showing that his trial counsel’s failure to contact additional alibi witnesses prejudiced his case and deprived him of meaningful representation *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712-714 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). At trial, defense counsel presented an alibi defense and made forceful arguments that the defendant had been misidentified. Counsel made various pretrial motions, vigorously cross-examined the People’s witnesses, and gave a cogent summation highlighting potential infirmities in the People’s evidence *(see People v Taylor,*1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; *People v Ryan,*90 NY2d 822, 823 [1997]; *People v Cabezudo,*303 AD2d 596 [2003]; *People v McDonald,*255 AD2d 688 [1998]). Under these circumstances, counsel’s alleged errors, as raised by the defendant in his moving papers, were insufficient to constitute a deprivation of meaningful representation *(see Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]; *People v Baldi, supra).*Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
### §14044g. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14044g was editorially reclassified as section 20709 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 1500.270 Granting of authorization. ( a ) When authorization contemplated by § 1500.269 is granted, the area office director shall notify the applicant in writing, specifying: ( 1 ) The procedure to be followed:
( 2 ) That the operations are to be carried out under the supervision of an officer of the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the Bureau of Customs, as the case may be;
( 3 ) A time limit, reasonable in the light of the circumstances, for completion of the operations; and
( 4 ) Such other conditions as are necessary to maintain adequate supervision and control over the article.
( b ) Upon receipt of a written request for extension of time to complete such operations, containing reasonable grounds therefor, the area office director may grant such additional time as he deems necessary.
( c ) An authorization may be amended upon a showing of reasonable grounds therefor and the filing of an amended application for authorization with the area office director.
( d ) If ownership of a hazardous substance covered by an authorization changes before the operations specified in the authorization have been completed, the original owner will be held responsible, unless the new owner has executed a bond and obtained a new authorization. Any authorization granted under this section shall supersede and nullify any previously granted authorization with respect to the article.