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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3024 

To suspend temporarily the duty on formulated products containing mixtures 

of the active ingredient 2-chloro-N-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin2yl) amino]carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide and application adjuvants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 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 formulated products 

containing mixtures of the active ingredient 2-chloroN-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2yl) 

amino]carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide and application adjuvants. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•HR 3024 IH 

1 SECTION 1. FORMULATED PRODUCTS CONTAINING MIX2 TURES OF THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT 2-

3 CHLORO-N-[[(4-METHOXY-6-METHYL-1,3,5-

4 TRIAZIN-2YL) AMINO]CARBONYL] 

5 BENZENESULFONAMIDE AND APPLICATION 

6 ADJUVANTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

9 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

10 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.08.02 Formulated products containing mixtures of the active ingredient 2-chloro-N-

[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-

triazin-2yl) amino]carbonyl] 

benzenesulfonamide and application adjuvants (CAS 

No. 64902–72–3) (provided 

for in subheading 

3808.30.15) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

13 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

14 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### § 18.17 Depositions.

Depositions for use at a hearing may, with the consent of the parties in writing or the written approval of the hearing examiner, be taken by either the Director General or the respondent or their duly authorized representatives. Depositions may be taken upon oral or written interrogatories. There shall be at least 10 days written notice to the other party. The requirement of a 10-day written notice may be waived by the parties in writing. When a deposition is taken upon written interrogatories, any cross-examination shall be upon written interrogatories. Copies of such written interrogatories shall be served upon the other party with the notice, and copies of any written cross-interrogation shall be mailed or delivered to the opposing party at least 5 days before the date of taking the depositions, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. Expenses in the reporting of depositions shall be borne by the party at whose instance the deposition is taken.
§ 72.27 Export of cultural property; handling other property when export, possession, or import may be illegal. ( a ) A consular officer should not ship, or assist in the shipping, of any archeological, ethnological, or cultural property, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 2601, that the consular officer is aware is part of the personal estate of a United States citizen or non-citizen national to the United States in order to avoid conflict with laws prohibiting or conditioning such export.
( b ) A consular officer may refuse to ship, or assist in the shipping, of any property that is part of the personal estate of a United States citizen or non-citizen national if the consular officer has reason to believe that possession or shipment of the property would be illegal.
Elevated Images, Photography Business Doylestown, PA USA - Section 333 Petition to Revise Granted Exemption

Page 1 of 1

October 21, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for a revision to granted Exemption Request, Exemption number 11425

Dear Sir or Madam,

I, Elisabeth Bisschops, owner of Elevated Images, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 and the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, to request a revision to our 

granted exemption. On April 24, 2015, Elevated Images, a photography business specializing in 

Community Outreach and Real Estate, was exempted from select applicable Federal Aviation 

Regulations (“FARs”) so that we may operate a small ultra-lightweight unmanned aircraft system

(“sUAS”) commercially in airspace regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration . The exemption 

number was 11425.

The exemption specifically specifies the use of a DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ "V1.0" Quadcopter with FPV HD 

Video Camera to operate it for commercial aerial photography / videography. At the time this was the 

most advanced model in the Phantom line of sUAS vehicles. Elevated Images has acquired a new version 

of the DJI Phantom, the DJI Phantom 3 Professional Quadcopter. This newer model is essentially the 

same flying machine with the same flying characteristics, and includes an upgraded camera and 

enhanced flight control software. This new version of the Phantom platform provides added features 

that enhance the safety and security of our sUAS operation without adding complexity and without the 

need for significant additional training. Elevated Images is doing flight testing with the Phantom 3, and 

would like to start commercial operations as soon as possible to take advantage of the improved safety 

and camera features. 

I, Elisabeth Bisschops, owner of Elevated Images, request the existing exemption, number 11425, to be 

revised to include the use of the Phantom 3 Professional Quadcopter. 

Respectfully submitted,

Elisabeth Bisschops, Photographer / Videographer, Owner

Elevated Images

4515 Scenic View Circle

Doylestown PA 18902

Phone: 215.588.7735

Liesbeth@elevated-images.com

Attachment A – Phantom 2 Vision + and Phantom 3 Professional side by side comparison
CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 FalconTarget,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

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

and

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

FalconTarget, Inc.

Date: September 30, 2008

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner

Thomas Kirchner

Chief Executive Officer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 15.1



|     |  |     
|---- |  | ----
|LOGO |  | LOGO

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-177612) of Ku6 Media Co., Ltd. of our report dated
March 29, 2012 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian CPAs Limited Company

Shanghai, the Peoples Republic
of China

March 29, 2012

普华永道中天会计师事务所有限公司

PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian CPAs Limited Company, 11/F PricewaterhouseCoopers Center

2 Corporate Avenue, 202 Hu Bin Road, Luwan District, Shanghai 200021, PRC

T: +86 (21)
2323 8888, F: +86 (21) 2323 8800, www.pwccn.com
(February 23, 1978)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francis Dumblewski, Sr., Defendant, and Roberta Dumblewski et al., Appellants.

Appeal from judgments of the County Court of Fulton County, rendered April 21, 1976, upon verdicts convicting: (1) Roberta Dumblewski and Francis Dumblewski, Jr., of the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree and obstructing governmental administration; and (2) Timothy Dumblewski of criminal contempt in the second degree. In addition to what we conclude are technical and harmless errors advanced by defendants in seeking a reversal of their convictions, it further appears that they have waived any right to challenge the indictment on the grounds presently asserted. It is their contention that the first count was duplicitous (CPL 200.30), that the second count was not sufficiently precise (CPL 200.50), and that a misjoinder of defendants occurred (CPL 200.40). Historically, these matters, which all relate to defects appearing on the face of an indictment, had to be raised by way of a demurrer, but modern practice allows such *876issues to be resolved in the context of a motion to dismiss the indictment (CPL 210.25, subd 1; 210.20, subd 1, par [a]). Nevertheless, the statutes regulating this procedure still insist that the motion be made within prescribed time limits (CPL 210.20, subd 2; 255.20) and the instant record discloses that the only motion defendants addressed to the indictment was that legally sufficient evidence had not been presented to the Grand Jury (see CPL 210.20, subd 1, par [b]). Their failure to advance these other contentions before sentence, even if it is assumed that some good cause existed therefor, constitutes a waiver of such defects and forecloses consideration of them (CPL 255.20, subd 2). We have examined defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Judgments affirmed. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
### §1474a. Emergency Department of the Interior Firefighting Fund; amounts considered "emergency requirements"

On and after November 13, 1991, beginning in fiscal year 1993, and in each year thereafter, only amounts for emergency rehabilitation and wildfire suppression activities that are in excess of the average of such costs for the previous ten years shall be considered "emergency requirements" pursuant to section 901(b)(2)(D) 1 of title 2, and such amounts shall on and after November 13, 1991, be so designated.

(Pub. L. 102–154, title I, Nov. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 991.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 901 of title 2, referred to in text, was amended by Pub. L. 105–33, title X, §10203(a)(4), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 699, and by Pub. L. 112–25, title I, §101, Aug. 2, 2011, 125 Stat. 241. As so amended, section 901(b)(2)(D) of title 2 no longer refers to "emergency requirements".

1 See References in Text note below.
§ 35.120 Options. ( a ) *Standard treatments.* Where interim controls are required by this part, the designated party has the option to presume that lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards or both are present throughout the residential property. In such a case, evaluation is not required. Standard treatments shall then be conducted in accordance with § 35.1335 on all applicable surfaces, including soil. Standard treatments are completed only when clearance is achieved in accordance with § 35.1340.
( b ) *Abatement.* Where abatement is required by this part, the designated party may presume that lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards or both are present throughout the residential property. In such a case, evaluation is not required. Abatement shall then be conducted on all applicable surfaces, including soil, in accordance with § 35.1325, and completed when clearance is achieved in accordance with § 35.1340. This option is not available in public housing, where inspection is required.
( c ) *Lead hazard screen.* Where a risk assessment is required, the designated party may choose first to conduct a lead hazard screen in accordance with § 35.1320(b). If the results of the lead hazard screen indicate the need for a full risk assessment (e.g., if the environmental measurements exceed levels established for lead hazard screens in § 35.1320(b)(2)), a complete risk assessment shall be conducted. Environmental samples collected for the lead hazard screen may be used in the risk assessment. If the results of the lead hazard screen do not indicate the need for a follow-up risk assessment, a risk assessment is not required.
( d ) *Paint testing.* Where paint stabilization or interim controls of deteriorated paint surfaces are required by this rule, the designated party has the option to conduct paint testing of all surfaces with non-intact paint. If paint testing indicates the absence of lead-based paint on a specific surface, paint stabilization or interim controls are not required on that surface.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7527
PAUL GRAHAM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DISTRICT COURT, for Baltimore County, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cv-02038-CCB) Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 23, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Paul Graham appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint. The district court stated that the document was a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) complaint, but because Graham is not challenging a conviction or sentence, the claim is more properly construed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Nonetheless, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Graham v. District Court , No. 1:06-cv-02038-CCB (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2006). We deny Graham’s motions for appointment of counsel and oral argument. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-03-366-CV

LANA WILSON SCOGGIN					    	        APPELLANT

	V.

MIDFIRST BANK  	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On April 1, 2004, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as required by rule 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a).  We stated we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  We have not received any response.

	Because appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

								PER CURIAM 		

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 27, 2004
### §1214. Separability

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this chapter and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(Pub. L. 97–468, title VI, §616, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2578.)
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO S

. 02 - 12 - 00013 - CR NOS. 02 - 12 - 0001 4 - CR

BYRON PINCKNEY APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT CO URT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPI NION 1

---------- Appellant Byron Pinckney filed pro se notices of appeal in these cases following his plea of guilty to criminal mischief in trial court cause number 1249140D and his plea of true to the State’s motion to adjudicat e guilt for possession o f more than one but less than four grams of cocaine in trial court
cause number 1074269D

. The trial court sentenced Appellant to six months in

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

state jail in cause number 1249140D and three years ’ confinement in cause
number 1074269D

. Subsequently, howeve r, Appellant orally expressed at a hearing in the trial court on January 18, 2012, that he understood that he could not appeal following his guilty plea in cause number 1249140D and that, because he could not appeal in cause number 1249140D, he no longer w ished to appeal
either case. Accordingly, on our own initiative, we suspend the requirements of rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure, and we dismiss the se appeal s

. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 42.2(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, a nd MCCOY, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: February 16, 2012
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      Steven
      Walin, Chief Executive Officer of GVI Security Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”),
      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(i)
      The
      Company’s accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
      March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(ii)
      The
      information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
                Steven WalinSteven
                WalinChief
                Executive OfficerDated:
                May 13, 2008
7/28/2015 Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­1879

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABFvqQJAFf5SI8crGhIsEIyBwD3qfMUO7BCQ74YBi9P12... 1/1

Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­1879

9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions (FAA)

Sent:Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:23 AM

To: jakemshealy@gmail.com

Dear Mr. Shealy:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA­2015­1879).

This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

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 8/11/15. 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) 267­4264.

Sincerely,

Dan Ngo

FAA Office of Rulemaking
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-41166

Summary Calendar

 

HECTOR CAVAZOS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-94-CV-219

- - - - - - - - - -

November 13, 1997

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Cavazos appeals the district court’s judgment

affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s determination

that Cavazos is not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits and

Supplemental Security Income benefits. Cavazos argues that the

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in failing to give

controlling weight to the opinion of the treating physician over

the opinion of the non-examining medical advisor. We conclude

that the ALJ did not err, as a matter of law, in crediting the
No. 96-41166

-2-

opinion of the non-examining medical advisor, which was supported 

by the evidence, over the opinion of Cavazos’s treating

physician. See Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th

Cir. 1981). Cavazos also argues that the ALJ failed to consider

adequately his subjective complaints of pain. The record

reflects that the ALJ found the medical evidence more persuasive

than Cavazos’s own testimony in deciding that he was capable of

performing light work, which is precisely the kind of

determination that the ALJ is best suited to make. See Falco v.

Shalala, 27 F.3d at 160, 163-64 (5th Cir. 1994). Finally,

notwithstanding Cavazos’s contrary assertion, substantial

evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that he has the

residual functional capacity to perform the full range of light

work. See Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir.

1990). 

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Mary Hlafter, appellee, v. John Wlodovich, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,385.

Bastardy charge. Defendant found guilty. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. J. F. Haas, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 2, 1923.

Rehearing denied October 15, 1923.

Peden, Graydon, Kahn *&*Murphy, for appellant. Julius L. Kahn, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Piara SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71407.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 15, 2007.

Kuldip S. Dhariwal, Esq., Fremont, CA, Inna Lipkin, Esq., Law Offices of Inna Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robbin K. Blaya, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Kartik K. Raman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Piara Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for political asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8.U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

We review for substantial evidence the decisions of the IJ and the BIA and will reverse only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. *See Singh-Kaur v. INS,*183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999).

Singh challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. A review of the record does not compel a contrary result. *See id.*at 1149.

Because the asylum claim fails, Singh’s claim for withholding of removal, which requires a higher standard of proof, fails as well. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.2003). Singh’s claim for protection under CAT also fails because Singh relied upon the same statements which the IJ determined not to be credible. See *id.*at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.