alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

‐ 2016

‐ 1397

AMENDMENT TO

PETITION OF VULCAN INC.

FOR EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 333

OF THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012

AND 14 CFR PART 11

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

David Bunker

Compliance Officer

Vulcan Inc.

505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900

Seattle, Washington 98104

Phone 206

‐ 342

‐ 2116

DavidB@vulcan.com

March 7, 2016 Aaron A. Goerlich

Jason E. Maddux

Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC

1200 New Hampshire Ave NW, Suite 590

Washington, DC 20036

‐ 6802

Phone 202

‐ 776

‐ 3974

agoerlich@ggh

‐ airlaw.com

jmaddux@ggh

‐ airlaw.com

Counsel for Vulcan Inc.1 AMENDMENT TO

PETITION OF VULCAN INC.

FOR EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE

FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 AND 14 CFR PART 11

Vulcan Inc. (Vulcan) hereby amends its petition for exemption dated January 7, 2016, as

follows:

At pp. 3

‐ 4 of the January 7 petition, Vulcan listed four small UAS it intends to operate

under the requested exemption. Vulcan now plans to also operate a fifth small UAS under the

exemption, i.e.:

• 3D Robotics X8+ : The X8+ is an octocopter unmanned aircraft equipped with

eight propellers, each driven by an electric motor powered by a rechargeable

battery. The X8+ measures 13.7 x 20.1 x 11.8 inches, weighs 5.6 pounds

including battery, and has a payload capacity of 1.7 pounds. Additional

information is attached as Exhibit 6 and is available at 3dr.com. 1 Vulcan has

been advised the radio frequency spectrum used for control of the X8+ complies

with Federal Communications Commission requirements.

All other portions of the January 7 petition are unchanged and apply fully to the X8+,

except that Exhibit 5, Paragraph 1 is revised to read as follows:

Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the DJI Phantom

3 Professional, Falcon Unmanned Falcon, UASUSA Tempest, UAV Solutions Talon

120LE, and 3D Robotics X8+ when weighing less than 55 pounds including

payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or

a petition to amend this exemption.

The FAA has previously granted one or more exemptions authorizing use of the 3D

Robotics X8+ UAS. Accordingly, good cause exists to dispense with publication of a summary of

this amendment in the Federal Register. 2

1 Exhibits 1 through 5 are appended to the January 7 petition.

2 While there is no need to publish a summary of the amendment, Vulcan nevertheless provides the

following summary in accordance with FAR 11.81(f): Vulcan Inc. petitions the FAA for exemption from various

requirements of Parts 61 and 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to the extent necessary for the petitioner to

conduct commercial operations consisting of aerial data collection utilizing a small unmanned aerial system (UAS).2 Thank you for your attention to Vulcan’s January 7 petition and this amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

Aaron A. Goerlich

Jason E. Maddux

G AROFALO G OERLICH H AINBACH PC

Counsel for Vulcan Inc.
Exhibit 31.1

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Herb C. Cross, certify that:

|  | (1) |  | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and |
|--|-----|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) |  | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|--|-----|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/Herb C. CrossHerb C. CrossInterim Chief Executive Officer

April 28, 2015

----
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John S. Eldard, Appellant, against J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

Motion for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted. The appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Motion, in all other respects, denied. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
Acknowledgments 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The District wishes to acknowledge the leadership, effort, and innovation 

of those who contributed to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

Project Management and Supervision

Rick McVaigh, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer 

Scott Nester, Director of Planning 

Roger W. McCoy, Director of Administrative Services 

David Warner, Director of Permit Services 

Errol Villegas, Planning Manager 

Samir Sheikh, Permit Services Manager 

Jeff Findley, Emission Reduction Incentive Program Manager 

Tom Jordan, Special Projects Administrator 

Jaime Holt, Public Education Administrator 

Don Hunsaker, Supervising Air Quality Planner 

George Heinen, Supervising Air Quality Engineer 

Stephen K. Shaw, Supervising Air Quality Specialist 

Todd DeYoung, Supervising Air Quality Specialist 

Contributors

Gary Arcemont, Senior Air Quality Specialist

Ross Badertscher, Air Quality Specialist

Lauren Dawson, Air Quality Specialist 

Claudia Encinas, Air Quality Education Representative 

Shawn Ferreria, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Jessica Hafer, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Sandra Lowe-Leseth, Air Quality Engineer

Joe Nazareno, Senior Air Quality Engineer 

David Nunes, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Lucinda Roth, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

James Sweet, Air Quality Project Planner 

Staff of the California Air Resources Board 

Acknowledgments 

2008 PM2.5 Plan
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2916 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2916

       To suspend temporarily the duty on Pymetrozine Technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2005

  Mr. Castle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on Pymetrozine Technical.

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

SECTION 1. PYMETROZINE TECHNICAL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.07.43      Pymetrozine         Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Technical 1,2,4-                                                   31/2008
                         Triazin-3(2H)-
                         one, 4,5-dihydro-
                         6-methyl-4-[(3-
                         pyridinylmethylen
                         e)amino]- (CAS
                         No. 123312-89-0)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2933.69.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 15.205 Method of production of material or provision of testimony. ( a ) Where the Authorized Approving Official has authorized the production of material or provision of testimony, the Department shall produce such material or provide such testimony in accordance with this section and any conditions imposed upon production of material or provision of testimony pursuant to § 15.204(c).
( b ) In any legal proceeding where the Authorized Approving Official has authorized the production of documents, the Department shall respond by producing authenticated copies of the documents, to which the seal of the Department has been affixed, in accordance with its authentication procedures. The authentication shall be evidence that the documents are true copies of documents in the Department's files and shall be sufficient for the purposes of Rules 803(8) and 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Rule 44(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
( c ) If response to a demand is required before the determination from the Authorized Approving Official is received, the U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice Attorney, or such other attorney as may be designated for the purpose will appear or make such filings as are necessary to furnish the court or other authority with a copy of the regulations contained in this subpart and will inform the court or other authority that the demand has been, or is being, as the case may be, referred for prompt consideration. The court or other authority shall be requested respectfully to stay the demand pending receipt of the requested determination from the Authorized Approving Official.
[73 FR 72206, Nov. 26, 2008]
#### BINGHAM, Respondent, v. HENDRICKS et al.. Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 13, 1903.)

Action by George E. Bingham against Albert B. Hendricks and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-2031

_____________________________

CHRISTOPHER DORTLY,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

January 5, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Cliff Wilson, Jr., Public Defender, and Nathan Marshburn, 

Assistant Public Defender, Lake City, for Petitioner.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 200.933 Changes in minimum property standards.

Changes in the Minimum Property Standards will generally be made every three years. Changes will be made in accordance with HUD policy for the adoption of rules and regulations set forth in part 10 of this title. Notice of such changes will be published in the Federal Register. As the changes are made, they will be incorporated into the volumes of the Minimum Property Standards to which they apply. The volumes available for public examination and for purchase will contain all changes up to the date of examination or purchase. An official, historic file of such changes will be available in the office of the Rules Docket Clerk in the HUD Central Office in Washington, DC, and in each HUD Regional, Area, and Insuring Office. A similar copy of the standards will also be maintained in the Office of the Federal Register, Washington, DC.

[39 FR 26895, July 24, 1974, as amended at 58 FR 60250, Nov. 15, 1993]
§ 208.112 Cost. ( a ) The costs of the electronic transmission of the correctly formatted data, including either the purchase and maintenance of computer hardware or software, or both, the cost of contracting for those services, or the cost of centralizing the electronic transmission function, shall be considered project operating costs to be paid from project income, and considered project operating costs for the purpose of processing and approving requests for HUD approval of rent increases.
( b ) At the owner's option, the cost of the computer software may include service contracts to provide maintenance or training, or both. Regardless of whether an owner obtains service contracts to provide maintenance or training or both, the software must be updated to incorporate changes or revisions in legislation, regulations, handbooks, notices or HUD electronic transmission data format requirements.
( c ) The source of funds for the purchase of hardware or software, or contracting for services for electronic transmission, may include current project operating income; an expense item in processing rent increases; a loan from the Reserve for Replacement Account, or a release from the Residual Receipts Account.
( d ) A loan from the Reserve for Replacements Account must be repaid within a five year period from the release date.
( e ) Owners of smaller projects or partially assisted projects with few subsidized units and CAs that administer no more than one project that determine that the purchase of hardware and/or software is not cost effective may contract out the electronic data transmission function to organizations that provide such services, including, but not limited to the following organizations: local management agents, local management associations and management agents with centralized facilities. Owners of multiple projects may centralize the electronic transmission function. However, owners that contract out or centralize the electronic transmission function are required to retain the ability to monitor the day-to-day operations of the project at the project site and be able to demonstrate that ability to the relevant HUD field office.
[58 FR 61022, Nov. 19, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 43475, Aug. 24, 1994]
Case 3:09-cv-00973-MHP Document 41 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-00973-MHP Document 41 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 5
5/27/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN 

OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cv-00973-MHP Document 41 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-00973-MHP Document 41 Filed 05/28/10 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-00973-MHP Document 41 Filed 05/28/10 Page 5 of 5
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Matthews, Also Known as Ronald Britt, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 8, 1976, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. Defendant drove a company car out of his former employer’s parking lot without permission. The next day, he brought the car to a police station and expressed his desire to return it to his former employer. Defendant asked the police to cancel the alarm on the car so that he could return it himself. An important factual issue for the jury to resolve was whether the bringing of the car to the police evinced an intent to use it temporarily, or whether the request to "cancel the alarm” evinced a desire to fraudulently persuade the police to stop their search for the car, thereby permitting him permanent and undetected use. The former, if believed, would make out the crime of unauthorized use of a vehicle; the latter would support a conviction of larceny. The charge to the jury concerning the definition of the word "deprive”, as used in the statute governing the crime of larceny, was inadequate and requires a reversal (see Penal Law, § 155.05, subd 1). The court charged that "deprive” simply means "the withholding or the causing to be withheld of any property from its original owner.” The court omitted from the definition the statutory requirement that the withholding of the property be permanent or for so extended a period of time that the major portion of its economic value is lost (see Penal Law, § 155.00, subds 3, 4). Such an omission could have misled the jury into thinking that *any*withholding, permanent or temporary, constituted larceny. The larceny *1018conviction must therefore be reversed and a new trial ordered. Latham, J. P., Damiani, Suozzi and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FOAD ALOWDI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ABLE BUILDING SERVICES dba ABM,

MANILO GARCIA, ROBERT ESQUADA,

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01258 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S “RE-NOTICE”

OF MOTION TO COMPEL

Counsel were in attendance when the Court at a March 11, 2010, hearing specially set the

hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel for MARCH 25, 2010, AT 8:00 A.M. Please do not move

any court-ordered dates by re-noticing same. Due to a trial taking place at 8:00 a.m., however,

the hearing is RESET for 2:00 P.M.

The parties are to personally meet-and-confer on March 25 from 11:30 a.m.–2:00 p.m.

in the Attorney Lounge on the 18th floor of the federal courthouse. Only those attorneys who

participate in the further meet-and-confer may argue at the hearing at 2:00 p.m. 

Plaintiff’s “re-notice” of the hearing to April 1 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01258-WHA Document 50 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 1
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010-N1\1-279-AD

Costs:

Labor per airplane (1 work homes) x $85/hour)

Parts per airplane

Cost per airplane

Number of u.S.-registered A330 Model airplanes

Number of U.S.-registered A340 Model airplanes

Total fleet cost

$

$

$

$85

Q

85

56

o

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

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 appropliate to include specific

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

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Phillips *v.*The State.

November 13, 1912.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Thomas. Tift superior court. August 17, 1912.

*R. E. Dinsmore,*for plaintiff in error.- *T. 8. Felder, attorney-general,*and J. *A. 'Willces, solicitor-general,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

1. In so far as the request to charge correctly stated the law, it was fully and fairly covered by the instructions given the jury on the subject indicated in the request. Accordingly, the refusal to charge as requested was not cause for a new trial. Among the many decisions so holding are *Owens*v. *State,*120 *Ga.*205 (47 S. E. 513); *Perdue*v. *State,*126 *Ga.*112 (54 S. E. 820).

2. “If the newly discovered evidence [urged as a ground for new trial] is that of witnesses, affidavits as to their residence, associates, means of knowledge, character, and credibility must be adduced.” Civil Code, § 6086. If for no other reason, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial in this- case, in the absence of such affidavits. *Grant*v. *State,*97 *Ga.*789, 791 (25 S. E. 399).

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err *m*refusing a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 1000.432 Can an amendment to an approved guarantee be made? ( a ) Yes. An amendment to an approved guarantee can occur if an applicant wishes to allow a borrower/issuer to carry out an activity not described in the loan or other obligation documents, or substantially to change the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an activity.
( b ) Any changes to an approved guarantee must be approved by HUD.
%0%-IS

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 05-13-01186-CR

Andre D. Berry v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED

OFFENSE: 22.01

COUNTY: Collin

TRIAL COURT: 380th Judicial District Court

DATE: 06/10/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 380-82821-2012

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Andre D. Berry v. The State of Texas

PRO SE. Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

figyv^

DATE: ///? j/^J/S'

JUDGE: S^Uyt^ysYis*

CCA#: gat-/*"

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
#### In the Matter of Bismark Bennett, Jr., Appellant, et al., Petitioners, against Paul D. McGinnis, as Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, Respondent.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person and for assignment of counsel granted to the extent of dispensing with printing and otherwise denied. The appeal will foe heard on the original papers and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his brief and to serve one copy on the Attorney-General. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Skip to main content

National Institutes of Health

sML

        - Home
        - Health Info
        - Research
        - Funding
        - News & Events
        - About Us
        - A–Z Index

HomeHealth InfoResources for EducatorsI Love What I HearI Love What I Hear!

# I Love What I Hear! 

## Teachers guide for grades three through six

The activities on this web site are designed to be used by teachers with children in grades three through six. They may be adapted easily for use with older and younger students.

The activities are designed to:
          - help students build awareness of the importance of hearing conservation and the problem of noise-induced hearing loss, 
          - introduce and reinforce scientific understanding of hearing and the science of sound, and 
          - provide opportunities for children to influence the awareness and understanding of others. 

All of the activities have been used successfully in classroom settings and are based on a print publication of the same name with equivalent content. The materials may be duplicated for educational use—please copy!

## Table of Contents

          - Introduction 
          - Hearing 
          - Activities 
          - Common Sounds 
          - Handouts 
          - Sources 

Top

            - Print this page
            - Order free publications
            - Find other organizations

> 
Nearly 10 million American have hearing problems resulting from living and/or working in noise-polluted environments. Experts estimate that 30 million Americans are regularly exposed to noise that can result in hearing loss.

## Related Topics:

          - I Love What I Hear! Video 

## Also Available In:

          - Spanish