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

AEROVIEW 

v - -

v 

Mr. Jim Williams 

VAS Integration Office 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

June 25[11 2015 

' 

Re: Re: Docket FAA 2015-0630, Petition for Amendment to Exemption No. 11666 

Dear Mr. Williams: 

AeroView Services, LLC received FAA Exemption No. 11666 on May 22, 2015 

authorizing AeroView Services, LLC (AeroView) under section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to operate an unmanned aircraft system 

("UAS"), the Trimble Navigation UX5, for various commercial purposes. In this 

present petition for an amendment to Exemption No. 11666, AeroView seeks to 

operate the Trimble UX5 hp UAS for the same purposes. 

The requested amendment to add the UX5 hp to exemption 11666 is consistent with 

amendment 11110A granted to Trimble Navigation to include the UX5 hp. See 

exemption 11110A (May 7, 2015; docket FAA-2014-0367). 
A 

AEROVIEW 

S E 1 I '-

v 

The UX5 hp, has a minimal weight and power increase to allow for an increase in 

payload. This allows the UX5 hp to carry a slightly larger camera. The larger 

camera will provide higher resolution for the finished survey product. The power 

increase will allow for better performance in high altitude areas of the country and 

flexibility to increase payload in the future. The physical dimensions and operating 

characteristics of the UX5 hp are the same as the UX5 model approved in exemption 

11666. 

AeroView Services, LLC will comply with all of the conditions and limitations 

imposed in Exemption 11666 except that condition/limitation number one wilJ need 

to be revised to include the Trimble UX5 hp UAS. Other than this revision, there 

will be no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public safety that were the 

basis for the initial grant of exemption. 

Supporting documents listed as exhibits one through five were emailed to 

333exemptions@faa.gov on June 25, 2015. Trimble has requested that the 

proprietary information in exhibits one through five remain confidential in our 

amendment submission. Please note that the UX5 hp has the same operating and 

safety characteristics as the UX5. Exhibits one through four are the same as 

submitted in support of exemption 11666. The official documentation has not yet 

been updated to include the UX5 hp. Exhibit 5 is the UX5 hp data sheet containing 

the updated weight and power specifications. Physical dimensions are the same as 

the UXS. 

As the requested amendment will not set a new precedent or otherwise raise any 

novel issue, Aero View Services, LLC seeks to begin these operations without delay, 

Aero View Services, LLC respectfully requests the FAA to determine that good cause 
A 

AEROVIEW 

!3::C'1viCES 

v 

exists to dispense with publication of the summary of this petition in the Federal 

Register and grant the requested amendment expeditiously by summary means. 

Thank you for your consideration of this petition. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Ryan Murguia 

President 

Aero View Services, LLC 

Encl: 

cc: Zach Pieper
Exhibit 99.2



The following certification accompanies Dynamics Research Corporations Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2003 and is not filed as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8212, 34-47551 and IC-25967 dated March 21, 2003.



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Dynamics
Research Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the Company), for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



(1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and



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



By:

/s/    DAVID KELEHERDavid KeleherVice President and Chief Financial Officer




May 12, 2003



---



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Dynamics Research Corporation and will be retained by Dynamics
Research Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

June 5, 2019

s0529 

# Order

Clerk June 5, 2019

157762

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157762

COA: 336332

Wayne CC: 16

- 006549

- FC

DERRIN TOREY ABBOTT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of December 4, 2018, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer

the application for leave to appeal the April 12, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals.

On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to

app eal is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to

appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals to address whether Offense

Variable 12 (OV 12), MCL 777.42 was properly scored. In making this determination,

the Court of Appeals shall consider whether the defendant committed three or more

felonious criminal acts within 24 hours of the sentencing offense and whether the

predicate offenses for the defendant’s conviction of conducting a criminal enterprise

constitute “the sentencing offense” or can be considered as contemporaneous felonious

criminal acts for the purpose of scoring OV 12. In all other respects, leave to appeal is

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be

reviewed by this Court.
§ 536.12 Commanding General, U.S. Army Medical Command. ( a ) After consulting with the Commander USARCS on the selection of medical claims attorneys, the Commander of the U.S. Army MEDCOM, the European Medical Command, or other regional medical command, through his or her SJA/Center Judge Advocate, shall ensure that an adequate number of qualified MCJAs or medical claims attorneys and medical claims investigators are assigned to investigate and process medical malpractice claims arising at Army medical centers under the Commander's control. In accordance with an agreement between TJAG and The Surgeon General, such personnel shall be used primarily to investigate and process medical malpractice claims and affirmative claims and will be provided with the necessary funding and research materials to carry out this function.
( b ) Upon request of a claims judge advocate or claims officer, shall provide a qualified health care provider at a medical treatment facility (MTF) to examine a claimant for his injuries even if the claimant is not otherwise entitled to care at an MTF (See AR 40-400, Patient Administration, paragraph 3-47).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7547
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JON ROBERT ZIMNICK, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-181, CA-97-652-2) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jon Robert Zimnick, Appellant Pro Se. Carol M. Marx, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Zimnick , Nos. CR-92-181; CA-97-652-2 (Sept. 12, 1997). 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6720

ASHLEY W. CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. TODD LEE, False Prophet; RODNEY K. PRITCHARD, FBI Agent in Columbia; MARTIN D. BROWN, FBI Agent in Greenville; MARK MOORE, Assistant United States Attorney; WILLIAM CATOE, United States Magistrate Judge; DAVID PLOWDEN, Assistant Federal Public Defender in Greenville; JOHN H. HARE, Assistant Federal Public Defender in Columbia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-779-2-20-AJ) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 29, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ashley W. Carter, Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Ashley W. Carter appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Carter v. Lee , No. CA-02-779-2-20-AJ (D.S.C. Apr. 17, 2002). We also deny Carter’s motions to recuse Judges Herlong and Catoe and for sanctions. 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
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30772 Summary Calendar

IVORY THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-1885

-------------------- January 28, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ivory Thomas appeals the district court’s judgment reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security and remanding his case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. Thomas argues that the district court abused its discretion in remanding his case to the Commissioner for further proceedings without deciding the issue whether he waived his right to representation. He contends that the determination of this issue constitutes “law of the case” that should accompany the district court’s order on remand. In any event, ThomasNo. 01-30772 -2- asserts that his IQ score of 53 constitutes evidence of a per se severe impairment which entitles him to benefits as a matter of law, and that the district court therefore erred in remanding his case for additional proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and hold that the district court did not err in remanding Thomas’ case for further administrative proceedings. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan , 501 U.S. 89, 97-99 (1991); Istre v. Apfel , 208 F.3d 517, 519 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
<Page 1>

                 NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
PLEASE MARK VOTE IN OVAL IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER USING DARK INK
ONLY

1996  A Vote FOR Items 1, 2, and 3
      is recommended by the Board
  P   Board of Directors

                                                          For All
     1. Election of Directors -          For   Withheld   Except
  R     Nominees:  William F. Andrews,
        Andrew F. Brimmer and 
        John D. Correnti                 ___     ___      _________
                                        
  O
     2. Ratification of Appointment      For   Against    Abstain
        of Independent Public
        Accountants                      ___     ___        ___
  X
     3. Adoption of Amendment to the     For   Against    Abstain
        Navistar 1988 Non-employee
        Director Stock Option Plan and   ___     ___        ___
  Y     Increase in the Percentage
        of Non-employee Directors' Fees 
        Payable in Restricted
        Shares of Common Stock.
        

                                         MARK HERE TO HAVE YOUR
                                         VOTE REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL
    
  
                                  Dated___________________, 1996
                                   X_____________________________
                                   Signature
THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED IN        X_____________________________
ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION      Signature
MADE.  IF NO CHOICES ARE            
INDICATED, THIS PROXY WILL BE      NOTE:  Please sign exactly as
VOTED FOR ITEMS 1, 2, and 3        name appears hereon.  For Joint 
                                   accounts both owners should   
                                   sign.  When signing as        
                                   executor, administrator,
                                   trustee or guardian, etc.
                                   please sign your full title.


               NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
       PROXY FOR ANNUAL MEETING TO BE HELD MARCH 20, 1996
   This Proxy is Solicited on Behalf of the Board of Directors

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPOINTS JAMES C. COTTING, JOHN R. HORNE AND
ROBERT A. BOARDMAN, AND EACH OF THEM, PROXIES, WITH POWER OF
SUBSTITUTION, TO VOTE ALL STOCK OF THE UNDERSIGNED, AT THE ANNUAL
MEETING OF NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION TO BE HELD MARCH 20,
1996, AND AT ANY ADJOURNMENT THEREOF, ON ANY BUSINESS THAT MAY
PROPERLY COME BEFORE THE MEETING, INCLUDING: THE PROPOSALS SHOWN
BELOW, WHICH ARE REFERRED TO BY THE SAME PROPOSAL NUMBER IN THE
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING SET FORTH IN THE PROXY STATEMENT.
**Exhibit 32.B****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe period ending September 30, 2005, of El PasoNatural Gas Company (the “Company”) as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Greg G. Gruber, Senior VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify(i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Greg G. Gruber           Greg G. Gruber *Senior Vice President, Chief Financial* *Officer and Treasurer* *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)*      November 4, 2005A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to El Paso Natural GasCompany and will be retained by El Paso Natural Gas Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
```

EXHIBIT 32.1
------------

          Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,  Raymond N.  Joeckel,  the  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of Eagle
Exploration Company,  (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1)  the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal  quarter
     ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
     of  Section  13 (a) or 15 (d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15
     U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  February 11, 2005

                                              /s/  Raymond N. Joeckel
                                              -----------------------
                                              Name: Raymond N. Joeckel
                                              Title: President and Chief Financial Officer
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22D0138. MARION D. CALHOUN v. CARLOTTA HARRELL.

On October 13, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying Marion D.

Calhoun’s motion to lift a stalking protective order. On November 15, 2021, Calhoun

filed this application for discretionary appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the judgment or trial court order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). “The

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this court cannot accept an

application for appeal not made in compliance therewith.” Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.

App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). See also Gable v. State, 290 Ga. 81, 82 (2) (a)

(720 SE2d 170) (2011) (noting that this Court “has held that the failure to meet the

statutory deadline for filing a discretionary application is a jurisdictional defect”).

Calhoun filed this application 33 days after entry of the order she wishes to appeal. 

Thus, the application is untimely, and it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 07, 2021

12/07/2021
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                                    FORM 6-K

                            REPORT OF FOREIGN ISSUER
                      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OF
                       THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                          For the month of October 2004

                          (Commission File No. 1-14728)

                                Lan Airlines S.A.
                  (Translation of registrant's name in English)

                        Avenida Americo Vespucio Sur 901
                                     Renca,
                                 Santiago, Chile
                    (Address of Principal Executive Offices)


                 (Indicate by check mark whether the registrant
                     files or will file annual reports under
                        cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F.)

                             Form 20-F X    Form 40-F
                                      ---            ---

                       (Indicate by check mark whether the
                    registrant by furnishing the information
                     contained in this form is also thereby
                        furnishing the information to the
                      Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b)
                        under the Securities Exchange Act
                                    of 1934.)

                                  Yes          No X
                                     ---         ---


<PAGE>


                                  MATERIAL FACT
                                  -------------


Santiago, October 14, 2004

Mr. Alejandro Ferreiro Y.
Superintendent of Securities and Insurance
Present
-------

To whom it may concern:

In accordance with Article 9 and the second paragraph of Article 10 of Law
18,045, I inform you of the temporary suspension of the domestic and
international operations of our subsidiary Lan Peru S.A. This suspension was
ordered by the judge of the Fourth Civil Court of Arequipa, Peru, and will
become effective at 0:00 hrs. on October 15, 2004.


Considering the contingency plans implemented and foreseeing a possible
suspension of five days, we estimate that the impact of this situation on our
results will not be significant.


Sincerely,


Alejandro de la Fuente
Vice President of Finance
Lan Airlines S.A.

cc.    Bolsa de Comercio de Santiago
       Bolsa de Comercio de Valparaiso
       Bolsa Electronica de Chile


<PAGE>


                                    SIGNATURE


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


Date:  October 15, 2004



                                              Lan Airlines S.A.

                                              /s/ Alejandro de la Fuente Goic
                                              -------------------------------
                                              By: Alejandro de la Fuente Goic
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
#### § 238.1 Purpose.

This part establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for DoD assistance to non-Government entertainment media productions such as feature motion pictures, episodic television programs, documentaries, and electronic games.