alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DJI Phantom 3 Specs Professional & 

Advanced

Aircraft Weight (Including Battery And Propellers):

1280 g

Diagonal Size (Including Propellers):

590 mm

Max Ascent Speed:

5 m/s

Max Descent Speed:

3 m/s

Hover Accuracy:

• Vertical: +/- 10cm

• Horizontal: +/- 1m

Max Speed:

16 m/s (ATTI mode, no wind)

Max Altitude Above Sea Level:

6000 m

Operating Temperature:

0°C to 40°C

GPS Mode:

GPS/GLONASS

Camera Sensor:

Sony EXMOR 1/2.3” Effective pixels: 12.4 M (total pixels: 12.76 M)

Lens:

FOV 94° 20 mm (35 mm format equivalent) f/2.8, focus at ∞

ISO Range:

100-3200 (video) 100-1600 (photo)

Shutter Speed:

8s -1/8000s

Image Max Size:

4000 x 3000

Still Photography Modes:

• Single Shot

• Burst Shooting: 3/5/7 shots

• Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB): 3/5

• Bracketed Frames at 0.7EV Bias

• Time-lapse

Video Recording Modes

Phantom 3 Professional:
• UHD: 4096x2160p 24/25, 3840x2160p 24/25/30

• FHD: 1920x1080p 24/25/30/48/50/60

• HD: 1280x720p 24/25/30/48/50/60

Phantom 3 Advanced:

• FHD: 1920x1080p 24/25/30/48/50/60

• HD: 1280x720p 24/25/30/48/50/60

Supported SD Card Types:

Micro SD

Max capacity: 64 GB. Class 10 or UHS-1 rating required

Max Bitrate Of Video Storage:

60 Mbps

Supported File Formats:

• FAT32/exFAT

• Photo: JPEG, DNG

• Video: MP4, MOV (MPEG-4 AVC/H.264)

Operating Temperature:

0°C to 40°C

Gimbal Controllable Range:

Pitch -90° to +30°

Stabilization:

3-axis (pitch, roll, yaw)

Vision Positioning Max Velocity:

Less than 8 m/s (when 2 m above ground)

Altitude Range:

30 cm-300 cm

Operating Range:

30 cm-300 cm

Operating Environment:

Surface with clear pattern and adequate lighting (Lux > 15)

Remote Controller Operating Frequency:

2.400 GHz-2.483 GHz

Max Distance:

2000m (outdoors and unobstructed)

Video Output Port:

USB

Operating Temperature:

0°C- 40°C

Battery:

6000 mAh LiPo 2S

Mobile Device Holder:

For tablet or phone
Receiver Sensitivity (1%PER):

-101 dBm ±2 dBm

Transmitter Power (EIRP):

• FCC: 20 dBm

• CE: 16 dBm

Working Voltage:

1.2 A @7.4 V

Battery Charger Voltage:

17.4 V

Rated Power

Phantom 3 Professional:

• 100 W

Phantom 3 Advanced:

• 57 W

Intelligent Flight 

Battery

Capacity:

4480 mAh

Voltage:

15.2 V

Battery Type:

LiPo 4S

Energy:

68 Wh

Net Weight:

365 g

Max Flight Time:

Approximately 23 minutes

Operating Temperature:

-10°C to 40°C

Max Charging Power:

100 W
App / Live View Mobile App:

DJI Pilot

EIRP:

100mW

Live View Working Frequency:

2.4GHz ISM

Live View Quality:

720P @ 30fps (depending on conditions and mobile device)

Latency:

220ms (depending on conditions and mobile device)

Required Operating Systems:

• iOS 8.0 or later

• Android 4.1.2 or later

•
#### § 41.13 Failure to notify.

Failure of the operator to notify the Mine Safety and Health Administration, in writing, of the legal identity of the operator or any changes thereof within the time required under this part will be considered to be a violation of section 109(d) of the Act and shall be subject to penalties as provided in section 110 of the Act.
Exhibit 23.1

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

 

The Plan Trustees

General Communication, Inc.

|   | Qualified Employee Stock Purchase Plan: |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S–8 (No. 333–106453) of General Communication, Inc. of our report dated June 24, 2008, with respect to the statements of net assets available for benefits of the General Communication, Inc. Qualified Employee Stock Purchase Plan as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related statements of changes in net assets available for benefits for the years then ended and the related supplemental schedule of assets (held at end of year) which appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 11–K of General Communication, Inc. Qualified Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

 

(signed) KPMG LLP

 

Anchorage, Alaska

June 24, 2008
### The Foote Creek and Dutton Creek Formations, two new formations in the north part of the Laramie basin, Wyoming

By: Harold J. HydenHarry McAndrewsRobert H. Tschudy

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1194K

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (831 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Cuker Industries, Inc., Respondent, v. William L. Crow Construction Co. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

— Order, entered October 8, 1959, Civil Practice to dismiss the second cause of action in plaintiff’s second amended denying defendants-appellants’ motion pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of *1017complaint, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
Exhibit 4.70
 Cooperation Agreement on Monternet WAP Services dated June 18, 2008
 Cooperation Agreement Between China Mobile Communications
Group Corporation and Monternet WAP Service Provider
Contract Registration No.: 2008110032022374
 Party A: China Mobile Communications Group Corporation
 Party B: Beijing Enterprise Network Technology Co., Ltd.
  I. Cooperation Principle
  II. Cooperation Project
  III. Obligations of the Parties
 (I) Party As Obligations




---



##### 



(II) Party
Bs Obligations




---



##### 



a.
    
    connection success rate during busy hours not less than 98%;b.
    
    networking period (time for round-trip from WTBS Ping SP Server) not
exceeding 0.1 second;c.
    
    SP response time (from the issue of business request from WTBS to the
receipt of the response by WTBS) not exceeding 0.5 second.




---



##### 



IV. Rights of the Parties
 (I) Party As Rights




---



##### 



(II) Party Bs Rights
       V. Confidentiality Clause
 Commercial Secrets disclosing Party receiving Party




---



##### 



VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
    VII. Revenue Sharing and Fee Settlement




---



##### 



VIII. Force Majeure
  Force Majeure
  IX. Breach Liabilities
   X. Dispute Resolution
   XI. Term of this Agreement




---



##### 



XII. Miscellaneous
 Monternet SP Cooperation Administrative Measures, WAP Handbook
   Party A; China Mobile Communications Group Corporation (seal)
   Party B: Beijing Enterprise Network Technology Co., Ltd. (seal)
§ 28.41 Testing requirements; general. ( a ) The open circuit voltage of the test circuit shall be 300 volts d.c., or 600 volts d.c., depending on the voltage rating of the fuse being tested.
( b ) Time constant of the circuit (defined as T = L/R, where T is the time in seconds, L is the inductance in henries, and R is the resistance in ohms) shall be as follows: ( 1 ) For 10,000 amperes and greater currents, T = 0.016 second or more;
( 2 ) For 1,000 amperes to 10,000 amperes, T = 0.008 second or more;
( 3 ) For 100 amperes to 1,000 amperes, T = 0.006 second or more; and
( 4 ) For less than 100 amperes, T = 0.002 seconds or more.
( c ) Test currents shall be as follows: ( 1 ) 200 percent of rated current for fuses having 200 or less ampere rating, or 300 percent of rated current for fuses having greater than 200 ampere rating;
( 2 ) 900 percent of rated current;
( 3 ) 10,000 amperes; and
( 4 ) 20,000 amperes.
( d ) The voltage shall continue to be applied for at least 30 seconds after completion of circuit interruption.
( e ) Five fuses of each case size shall be tested at each test current specified in paragraph (c) of this section, with the value of the fuse being the maximum value for the case size.
( f ) Three of each lot of five fuses shall be preconditioned at 95 ±5 percent RH for not less than 5 days immediately prior to testing; and the other two fuses of each lot of five shall be preconditioned by heating to 90 °C. for 24 hours, and tested within 1 hour after removal from the preconditioning chamber.
( g ) At least three of each lot of five fuses shall be tested in a fuse holder of a trolley-tap type, and the fuse holder shall remain intact and shall readily accept and retain a replacement fuse.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         571,160
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,922,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                   126,944
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,819,900
<PP&E>                                       5,281,554
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,617,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,593,988
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,273,781
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,623,761
<OTHER-SE>                                    (947,177)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,593,988
<SALES>                                      4,688,767
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,668,767
<CGS>                                        2,678,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,487,327
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,522
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                196,918
<INCOME-TAX>                                    74,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            122,118
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   122,118
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        


</TABLE>
J

- S45036

- 19

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JACOB K. AMENUVOR

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 633 EDA 2019 Appeal from th e PCRA Order Entered February 7 , 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 45

- CR

- 0001859

- 1999

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J. *
JUDG MENT ORDER BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED AUGUST 26, 2019 Jacob K . A menuvor (Amenuvor) appeal s pro se from the order entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe Cou nty (PCRA court) , giving notice of its intent to dismiss his third petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 954 1

- 9546, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 907(1). 1 We quash. The record reflects that on November 29, 2000, a jury convicted
Amenuvor of second

- degree murder, aggravated assault, four count s of robbery, firearms not to be carried without a license, two counts of recklessly endangering another person, and criminal trespass. The charges stem from

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 See Pa.R.Crim.P. 907(1).J

- S45036

- 19

- 2

-

Amenuvor’ s fatal shooting of the victim while attempting to recover an alleged debt. On January 31, 2001, the trial court sentenced Amenuvor to a term of life imprisonment, plus an additional term of not less than thirteen and one

half nor more than thirty years’ incarceration. This Court affirmed his judgement of sentence and our Supreme Court deni ed his petition for allowance of appeal on June 26, 2003. Amenuvor thereafter unsuccessfully litigated two PCRA petitions. He filed the instant pro se petition on January 2, 2019. The PCRA court issued i ts Rule 907 notice on February 7 , 2019, and
Amenuv or filed a notice of appeal on March 1, 2019. Initially, we must consider whether we ha ve jurisdiction over this appeal

. See Commonwealth v. Green , 862 A.2d 613, 615 (Pa. Super. 2004) , appeal denied , 882 A.2d 477 (Pa. 2005) ( a ppellate courts may consider issue of jurisdiction sua sponte )

. Generally, appellate courts only have jurisdiction over final orders. See Commonwealth v. Scarborough , 64 A .3d 602, 608 (Pa. 2013); Pa.R.A.P. 341(a )

. In the context of PCRA proceedings , “[a] n order granting, denying, dismissing, or otherwise finally disposing of a petition for post

- conviction collateral relief shall constitute a final order for purposes of appeal. ” Pa.R.Crim.P. 910

. Here, the Rule 907 notice from which Amenuvor appeals is not a final order. The PCRA court has not entered an order finally disposing of his PCRA petition. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Appeal quashed

.J

- S45036

- 19

- 3

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/26/19
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 21, 2016

a0914

Order 

Clerk

September 21, 2016

151849

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151849

COA: 326365

Roscommon CC: 14-007145-FC

DAVID SUTTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 8, 2015 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Roscommon Circuit Court, and we 

REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing. The trial court erred by assigning

50 points under Offense Variable 11, MCL 777.41, for penetrations that did not arise out 

of the particular sentencing offense. People v Johnson, 474 Mich 96 (2006). Because 

correcting the OV score would change the applicable guidelines range, resentencing is 

required. People v Kimble, 470 Mich 305 (2004).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### In the Matter of Stanley B. Epstein, an Attorney, Respondent. Coordinating Committee on Discipline, Petitioner.

First Department,

October 25, 1960.

*Edward J. McCann*for respondent.

*Henry Weiner (Allen Harris*and *Daniel J. McMahon*with him on the brief), for petitioner.

*Per Curiam.*

A Referee has found that seven separate charges of misconduct have been sustained against respondent. These charges included a general practice of knowingly preparing and submitting to insurance carriers and defendants’ attorneys false bills of particulars, false repair bills, false medical and X-ray reports and false affidavits for the purpose of obtaining or increasing settlements of personal injury or property *354damage claims. The Referee properly found that respondent’s attempted explanation of his procedure was not credible. Our review of the extensive record convinces us that the evidence sustains the findings and report of the Referee.

The violation of rule 4-F of the Special Rules Regulating the Conduct of Attorneys in this court (now rule 4, subd. [6], eff. July 1, 1960) was also established. Respondent flagrantly ignored that rule in failing to retain and preserve in the files of personal injury or property damage cases all the pertinent papers and correspondence as to those claims for the requisite period of five years.

The record, therefore, demonstrably establishes respondent’s unfitness to continue as a member of the Bar. Respondent should be disbarred.

Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.
#### Wm. Rosen Monuments, Inc., Respondent, v Phil Madonick Monuments, Inc., et al., Appellants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for libel, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 17, 1977, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from displaying an allegedly tortious sign in their shop window and from making certain allegedly tortious statements regarding plaintiff’s business establishment. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Plaintiff alleges a prima facie tort as the underlying claim in support of the preliminary injunction. However, the affidavits of the opposing parties present conflicting views concerning the key question of evil motive or intent to do harm, proof of which is requisite to the ultimate success of plaintiff’s action (see *Beardsley v Kilmer,*236 NY 80). That issue may not be resolved without a trial at which each side will be able to present evidence. A preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy and should be granted with caution, and only when required by urgent situations or grave necessity, and then upon the clearest evidence *(Russian Church of Our Lady of Kazan v Dunkel,*34 AD2d 799). Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur.
### §415. Receipts applicable to project generally

All moneys heretofore or hereafter refunded or received in connection with operations under the reclamation law, except repayments of construction and operation and maintenance charges, shall be a credit to the appropriation for the project or operation from or on account of which the collection is made and shall be available for expenditure in like manner as if said sum had been specifically appropriated for said project or operation.

(June 12, 1917, ch. 27, 40 Stat. 149.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The reclamation law, referred to in text, is identified in act June 12, 1917, ch. 27, 40 Stat. 147, under the heading "reclamation service", as act June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto. Act June 17, 1902, popularly known as the Reclamation Act, is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of act June 17, 1902, to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.
```

[114th Congress Public Law 309]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 1529]]

Public Law 114-309
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  560 East Pleasant Valley Road, Port Hueneme, California, as the U.S. 
   Naval Construction Battalion ``Seabees'' Fallen Heroes Post Office 
            Building. <<NOTE: Dec. 16, 2016 -  [H.R. 6138]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. U.S. NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION ``SEABEES'' FALLEN 
                              HEROES POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 560 East Pleasant Valley Road, Port Hueneme, California, 
shall be known and designated as the ``U.S. Naval Construction Battalion 
`Seabees' Fallen Heroes Post Office Building''.
    (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 ``U.S. Naval 
Construction Battalion `Seabees' Fallen Heroes Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 16, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6138:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            Nov. 30, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 9, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Exhibit
32.1


The
following certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238.
These certifications shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall they be incorporated
by reference in any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.








Certification
of Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to his knowledge,
that:





(i)  the
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
November 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and





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








Dated:
      January 8, 2010
            By:
            /s/ Bruce J.
      WoodBruce
      J. WoodChief
      Executive Officer








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. and will be retained by Schiff
Nutrition International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.








Certification
of Chief Financial Officer





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. a Delaware,
corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to his knowledge,
that:





(i)  the
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
November 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and





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








Dated:
      January 8, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Joseph W. BatyJoseph
      W. BatyChief
      Financial Officer








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. and will be retained by Schiff
Nutrition International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 20.4 [Reserved]