alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 of ACI Telecentrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q /A for the quarter ended June, 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Russell Jackson,
Principal Accounting 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.




Dated:  /s/ May 29, 2003               By:  /s/ RUSSELL JACKSON
        --------------------                -----------------------------------
                                            Russell Jackson
                                            Principal Accounting Officer




                                       23
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 10:12 AM

To: 'Solomonnieves0014@gmail.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: From Above RC (Docket No. FAA-2015-1289)

July 27, 2015 

Dear Mr. Nieves: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−1289). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process 

your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by 

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and 

remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the 

requested response date listed below. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If 

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by August 

10, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7123

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SINCLAIR ELLIS, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00515-GLR-1)

Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sinclair Ellis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7123 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Sinclair Ellis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial 

of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 

F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, No. 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 

2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion

and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 

181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of

compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7123 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
§ 203.554 Enforcement of late charges. ( a ) A mortgagee shall not commence foreclosure when the only default on the part of the mortgagor is the failure to pay a late charge or charges (§ 203.25), except as provided in § 203.556.
( b ) A late charge attributable to a particular installment payment due under the mortgage shall not be deducted from that installment. However, if the mortgagee thereafter notifies the mortgagor of his obligation to pay a late charge, such a charge may be deducted from any subsequent payment or payments submitted by the mortgagor or on his behalf if this is not inconsistent with the terms of the mortgage. Partial payments shall be treated as provided in § 203.556.
( c ) A payment may be returned because of failure to include a late charge only if the mortgagee notifies the mortgagor before imposition of the charge of the amount of the monthly payment, the date when the late charge will be imposed and either the amount of the late charge or the total amount due when the late charge is included.
( d ) During the 60-day period beginning on the effective date of transfer of the servicing of a mortgage, a late charge shall not be imposed on the mortgagor with respect to any payment on the loan. No payment shall be treated as late for any other purpose if the payment is received by the transferor servicer, rather than the transferee servicer that should receive the payment, before the due date (including any applicable grace period allowed under the mortgage documents) applicable to such payment.
[42 FR 15680, Mar. 23, 1977, as amended at 59 FR 65448, Dec. 19, 1994]
#### § 180.620 Evidence.

The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to the presentation of evidence in hearings under this part.
### §7278a. Availability of funds for energy and water development for multiyear contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements of $1,000,000 or less

Notwithstanding section 301(c) of this Act, none of the funds made available under the heading "Department of Energy—Energy Programs—Science" in this or any subsequent Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies appropriations Act for any fiscal year may be used for a multiyear contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other Transaction Agreement of $1,000,000 or less unless the contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other Transaction Agreement is funded for the full period of performance as anticipated at the time of award.

(Pub. L. 114–113, div. D, title III, §306, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2418.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 301(c) of this Act, referred to in text, means section 301(c) of Pub. L. 114–113, div. D, title III, Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2416, which is not classified to the Code.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, and also as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.
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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK FAHY,

Plaintiff,

    v.

ORPHEOS TARBOX, et al.,

Defendants                                                                      /

No. C-09-1420 MMC

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULEAND HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’SMOTION TO VACATE SETTLEMENT

Before the Court is plaintiff Frank Fahy’s “Notice of Motion and Motion for Order

Vacating Settlement With Defendant Alec Steiner,” filed January 6, 2010.  In said notice,

however, no hearing date is provided.  See Civil L.R. 7-2(b) (requiring all motions be

noticed “on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days

after service of the motion”).

In the interests of having the matter timely resolved, the Court hereby SETS

February 12, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., as the date and time for the hearing of the above-

described motion.  Pursuant to the Local Rules of this District, any opposition or other

response thereto shall be filed no later than January 22, 2010, and any reply shall be filed

no later than January 29, 2010.  See Civil L.R. 7-3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  January 7, 2010                                                   MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01420-MMC   Document 81   Filed 01/07/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T23:20:47-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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

B

R

A

Y

T

O

N

 ̃

P

U

R

C

E

L

L

L

L

P

ATTORNEYS AT LA

W

222 RUSH LA

N

DIN

G RO

A

D

P O BO

X 6169

N

O

V

ATO, CALIFORNIA 94948-6169

(415) 898-1555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOSEPH MURRAY, ROBERT

McMEANS, RICHARD SMID,

RAYMOND DOLMAN, BEVERLEY

JAMES LOWE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 3:08-cv-04461-CRB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

IT IS SO ORDERED. All claims in this Federal case are hereby dismissed, without

prejudice, against all Defendants named in this case pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated: By:

Charles R. Breyer

United States District Judge

1

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Case 3:08-cv-04461-CRB Document 67-1 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 1

July 26, 2016

Case 3:08-cv-04461-CRB Document 68 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 1
### §8811. Biomass energy development plans

#### (a) Plan respecting maximized production and use by December 31, 1982; preparation, transmission, etc.

Not later than 180 days after June 30, 1980, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy shall jointly prepare, and transmit to the President and the Congress, a plan for maximizing in accordance with this subchapter biomass energy production and use. Such plan shall be designed to achieve a total level of alcohol production and use within the United States of at least 60,000 barrels per day of alcohol by December 31, 1982.

#### (b) Comprehensive plan respecting maximized production and use from January 1, 1983, to December 31, 1990, preparation, transmission, etc.

(1) Not later than January 1, 1982, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy shall jointly prepare, and transmit to the President and the Congress, a comprehensive plan for maximizing in accordance with this subchapter biomass energy production and use, for the period beginning January 1, 1983, and ending December 31, 1990. Such plan shall be designed to achieve a level of alcohol production within the United States equal to at least 10 percent of the level of gasoline consumption within the United States as estimated by the Secretary of Energy for the calendar year 1990.

(2) The plan prepared under this subsection shall evaluate the feasibility of reaching the goals set forth in such subsection.

#### (c) Required guidelines

The plans prepared under subsections (a) and (b) shall each include guidelines for use in awarding financial assistance under this subchapter which are designed to increase, during the period covered by the plan, the amount of motor fuel displaced by biomass energy.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title II, §211, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 686.)
### §9662. Limitation on contract and borrowing authority

Any authority provided by this Act, including any amendment made by this Act, to enter into contracts to obligate the United States or to incur indebtedness for the repayment of which the United States is liable shall be effective only to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts.

(Pub. L. 99–499, §3, Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1614.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 99–499, Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1613, known as the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1986 Amendment note set out under section 9601 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and not as part of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 which comprises this chapter.
§ 103.310 Conciliation agreement. ( a ) The terms of a settlement of a complaint will be reduced to a written conciliation agreement. The conciliation agreement shall seek to protect the interests of the aggrieved person, other persons similarly situated, and the public interest. The types of relief that may be sought for the aggrieved person are described in § 103.315. The provisions that may be sought for the vindication of the public interest are described in § 103.320.
( b ) ( 1 ) The agreement must be executed by the respondent and the complainant. The agreement is subject to the approval of the Assistant Secretary, who will indicate approval by signing the agreement. The Assistant Secretary will approve an agreement and, if the Assistant Secretary is the complainant, will execute the agreement, only if: ( i ) The complainant and the respondent agree to the relief accorded the aggrieved person;
( ii ) The provisions of the agreement will adequately vindicate the public interest; and
( iii ) If the Assistant Secretary is the complainant, all aggrieved persons named in the complaint are satisfied with the relief provided to protect their interests.
( 2 ) The General Counsel may issue a charge under § 103.405 if the aggrieved person and the respondent have executed a conciliation agreement that has not been approved by the Assistant Secretary.
§ 35.27 Computation of time. ( a ) In computing any period of time under this part or in an order issued thereunder, the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday observed by the Federal Government, in which event it includes the next business day.
( b ) When the period of time allowed is less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays observed by the Federal Government shall be excluded from the computation.
( c ) Where a document has been served or issued by mail, or by airmail abroad, an additional five days will be added to the time permitted for any response.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.21 Reinsurance of Commissioner held mortgages.

Any mortgage assigned to the Commissioner in connection with payment under a contract of mortgage insurance, or executed in connection with a sale by the Commissioner of any property acquired under any section or title of the Act, may be insured pursuant to provisions of section 223(c) of the Act and such terms and conditions established by the Commissioner.
### §7177. Access to information

(a) The Secretary, each officer of the Department, and each Federal agency shall provide to the Commission, upon request, such existing information in the possession of the Department or other Federal agency as the Commission determines is necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this chapter.

(b) The Secretary, in formulating the information to be requested in the reports or investigations under section 825c and section 825j of title 16 and section 717i and section 717j of title 15 shall include in such reports and investigations such specific information as requested by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and copies of all reports, information, results of investigations and data under said sections shall be furnished by the Secretary to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title IV, §407, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 587.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–91, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 565, known as the Department of Energy Organization Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7101 of this title and Tables.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41124 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ANGEL DE JESUS SARABIA

- SANCHEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11

- CR

- 374

- 1

Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Angel De Jesus Sarabia

- Sanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sarabia

- Sanchez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 1 8 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41124 Document: 00513158254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2015No. 14

- 41124

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-41124 Document: 00513158254 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2015
Phantom 2 Vision-Assistant Software Installation and Configuration - DJI Wiki

http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php/Phantom_2_Vision-Assistant_Software_Installation_and_Configuration [10/16/2015 1:22:39 PM] 

# Phantom 2 Vision-Assistant Software Installation and Configuration
Contents [ hide ] 1 Installing the Driver and Assistant Software 2 Using the PHANTOM 2 VISION Assistant Software on a PC 3 Firmware upgrade of the PHANTOM 2 VISION 4 PHANTOM RC Assistant Software Description 

# Installing the Driver and Assistant Software The PHANTOM 2 VISION Assistant software and the PHANTOM RC Assistant software are used for advanced adjustments of the PHANTOM 2 VISION. Please follow the steps below to install the Driver and Assistant software.



# Using the PHANTOM 2 VISION Assistant Software on a PC Read View source View history Log in 

### Page Discussion

DJI Wiki Main Page DJI Youtube DJI Vimeo DJI Facebook Disclaimer

Phantom Series Phantom 3 Professional Phantom 3 Advanced Phantom 2 Vision+ Phantom 2 Vision Phantom 2 Phantom FC40 Phantom Inspire 1 Series Matrice Series Guidance Series A2 Series WooKong-M Series Spreading Wings Series Aerial Gimbals Handheld Gimbals NAZA Series Flame Wheel Series Ace Series WooKong-H Series Other Products In other languages 中 文 ToolboxPhantom 2 Vision-Assistant Software Installation and Configuration - DJI Wiki

http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php/Phantom_2_Vision-Assistant_Software_Installation_and_Configuration [10/16/2015 1:22:39 PM] 

# Firmware upgrade of the PHANTOM 2 VISION Please follow the procedures to upgrade the software and firmware; otherwise the PHANTOM 2 VISION might not work properly.Phantom 2 Vision-Assistant Software Installation and Configuration - DJI Wiki

http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php/Phantom_2_Vision-Assistant_Software_Installation_and_Configuration [10/16/2015 1:22:39 PM] 

# PHANTOM RC Assistant Software Description Please follow the procedures to finish the configuration of the remote controller.Phantom 2 Vision-Assistant Software Installation and Configuration - DJI Wiki

http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php/Phantom_2_Vision-Assistant_Software_Installation_and_Configuration [10/16/2015 1:22:39 PM] Privacy policy About DJI Wiki Disclaimers This page was last modified on 5 June 2014, at 09:57. This page has been accessed 23,690 times.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7067

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CLARENCE HICKS, a/k/a Bunky, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District 

Judge. (1:98-cr-00259-BEL-9; 1:02-cv-02076-BEL) 

Submitted: November 5, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Clarence Hicks, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Clarence Hicks seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

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

(2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hicks has 

not made the requisite showing. 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
#### Samuel D. Bierman, Respondent, v. Newton D. Bartle, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Onondaga Operating Corporation, Bankrupt, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Judgment and order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Appeal from judgment and part of an order of Onondaga Supreme Court confirming the report of Kingsley, Referee, and awarding plaintiff judgment of foreclosure. The part of the order appealed from relieved plaintiff of furnishing a bill of particulars and granted his motion for summary judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.