alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5711. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title II, §241(c)(1), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 964

Section, Pub. L. 95–501, title VI, §601, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1531, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3687; amended Pub. L. 102–237, title III, §315, Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1856, required Secretary to periodically prepare long-term agricultural trade strategy reports.
Order entered July 3 1 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 01495 - CV IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DORI S L. TIPPS On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR - 13 - 307 2 - 3 

### O RDER We GRANT appellant’s July 29, 2015 fourth motion for extension of time to file combined reply brief and ORDER the brief tendered to the Clerk of the Court July 27, 2015 filed as of the date of this order

. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
08/20/2015

US Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140 Washington, DC 20590

Petition for Exemption to section 333 on behalf of the Petitioner; Submitted by

Attorney Jeral d A. Lavin, Jerald A. Lavin, Ltd 324 Osprey Point Drive Osprey, Florida 34229
941 320 0077 lavin77@comcast.net

Petitioner: Matthew D. Lavin a/k/a Aerography
1350 45th Avenue #B Capitola, CA. 95010
Tel. 917 509

- 3201

DOCKET NUMBER; FAA

- 2015

- 1901

- 0001

AME NDMENT OF ORIGINAL PETITION FILED MAY,12,2015

Discussions with Mr. Rob Pappas of the FAA, required that petitioner Matthew D. Lavin a/k/a Aerography, file an amendment to The previously filed petition relating to identification of the UAS craft seeking th e stated 333 exemption as stated in the original petition.

AMENDMENT TO PETITION:

Docket Number; FAA

- 2015

- 1901

- 0001 “Approval of the exemption for petitioner will allow commercial operation of the Gryphon Dynamics 900.”

AMENDED TO READ:

“GRYPHON DYNA MICS GD

- 6

- HX900F” wherever and whenever the “Gryphon Dynamics 900” is referred to in the initial petition it shall be referred to as “Gryphon Dynamics 900

- GD6

- HX900F” by way of reference to this filed amendment to docket number, FAA

- 2015

- 1901

- 0001.2 AMEN D TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL UAS:

Matthew D. Lavin a/k/a Aerography, Regulatory Docket Number, FAA

- 2015

- 1901

- 0001, for the purpose of conducting unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations for the Photography and Videography, and Construction indus tries, respectfully requests an amendment to the Exemption request to allow the below listed additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the Exemption request.

In addition, Matthew D. Lavin, a/k/a, Aerograph y, wishes to additionally operate a DJI S1000, DJI S900, DJI Inspire, under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption request. The Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM) for the additional UAS are sent under separate cover. All opera tions of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption request. As this is an amendment to an existing Exemption, Matthew D. Lavin, a/k/a Aerography, respectfully submits that good cause exists

so that notice does not need t o be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any question or concerns concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption request.

Thank you for your consideration,

Attorney Jerald A. Lavin, Jerald A. Lavin, Ltd 324 Osprey Point Drive Osprey, Florida 34229
941 320 0077 lavin77@comcast.net

Attachments

DJI Inspire 1 User Manual
DJI S900 User Manual
DJI S1000 User manual
### §1607. Cooperation with other governmental agencies

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with any other department or agency of the Federal Government; or with any State, Territory, District, or possession, or department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or with any producing, trading, or consuming organization, whether operating in one or more jurisdictions, in carrying out the provisions of this chapter.

(Aug. 9, 1939, ch. 615, title IV, §417, 53 Stat. 1289.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

See section 1610 of this title.
1204.502 Policy. ( c ) DOT's preferred policy is to use electronic signatures, records and communication methods in lieu of paper transactions whenever practicable. Before using electronic commerce, the HOA and OA shall ensure that the OA systems are capable of ensuring authentication and confidentiality commensurate with the risk of unauthorized access to or modification of the information.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO.02-03-199-CV

NADINE MCBRIDE, INDIVIDUALLY AND 				     APPELLANTS

AS NEXT FRIEND OF DAMON DALE 

MCBRIDE, DALE LANCE MCBRIDE AND 

DEBORAH MCBRIDE					    

V.

RICK MORALES									   APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 271ST DISTRICT COURT OF WISE COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the “Motion To Dismiss Appeal Of Appellants Nadine McBride, Individually And As Next Friend Of Damon McBride, Dale Lance McBride and Deborah McBride.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

	Costs of this appeal shall be taxed against party incurring same, for  which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM	

PANEL D:	GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and WALKER, J.

DELIVERED: July 15, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Ramirez, Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 804]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John S. Moore, J.), entered on or about August 29, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s challenge to the choice of risk factors made by the Legislature and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders is unavailing *(see People v Bligen,*33 AD3d 489 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 803 [2007]; *People v Joe,*26 AD3d 300 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 703 [2006]). There were no special circumstances warranting a downward departure *(see People v Guaman,*8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
Summary of Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Summary of Director Compensation 
  

										
	 Director Category (applicable to non-employee directors)
	  	Annual
Retainer	  	Compensation
per Meeting
(in-person
only)	  	Number of
Annual Stock
Options*	 
	 Board Members
	  	$	20,000	  	$	1,000	  	Up to 10,000	(1)
	 Audit Committee Members (excluding Chairman)
	  	$	2,500	  	 	None	  	None	 
	 Audit Committee Chairman
	  	$	25,000	  	 	None	  	None	 
	 Compensation Committee Members (including Chairman)
	  	$	2,000	  	 	None	  	None	 
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Members (including Chairman)
	  	$	2,000	  	 	None	  	None	 



	 *	Applicable to all non-employee directors. 


	(1)	If such option is the first option a director has received from the Company for his or her services as a Board member (the “Initial Grant”), then the shares subject to
such option will vest over four (4) years, with 25% of the shares subject to such option vesting upon the one (1) year anniversary of the date of the grant of such option, and 1/48 of the shares subject to such option vesting monthly
thereafter. If such option is not an Initial Grant, then 1/48 of the shares subject to such option would vest monthly over four (4) years.
p.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

91) IV-C-57 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:56 AM Sheet 91 of 232 
P.2 

I S95Z ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

V***£ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

**y "W ^ 

-" • . FEB 2 !98R 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable John G. Rowland 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Rowland: 

This in response to your January 11, 1988 letter relaying 

the concerns of one of your constituents regarding EPA's 

regulatory proposal to require onboard canisters on new 

vehicles to control refueling emissions. Per your request, I 

have enclosed a copy of our proposal for your review. Section 

E (pages 31177-31182) explains EPA's overall rationale for 

proposing onboard controls. If you would like further details 

of our analysis, please contact Mr. Philip Carlson of th* 

Standards Development and Support Branch of the Emissidh 

Control Technology Division, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, tiL 

48105 (FTS 374-8270 or Commercial (313) 668-4270). 

Thank you for your letter. We will place your letter and 

the letter from Mr. Frederick Blasius in our public docket and 

fully consider the comments in the next phase of our rulemaking 

process. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

RICHARD D. WILSON 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

Enclosure 

cc: Docket A-87-11
###### Editorial Note on Part 842

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

#### § 842.125 Who may request.

A proper claimant or authorized agent may request an advance payment.

[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated at 81 FR 83701, Nov. 22, 2016]
#### In the Matter of Samfred Belt Line Corporation, Appellant, v Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered July 6, 1977 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, for a judgment compelling the Comptroller to pay an additional sum of postjudgment interests on a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding damages for the State’s appropriation of petitioner’s real property, and for injunctive relief. Following a judgment entered by the Court of Claims in favor of petitioner on July 14, 1976, the Attorney-General issued his certificate of no appeal on August 12, 1976. Petitioner filed this certificate of no appeal and a certified copy of the judgment with the Department of Audit and Control on January 3, 1977. The satisfaction of judgment and waiver of attorney’s lien, together with title papers from the Department of Transportation, were filed by petitioner on January 10, 1977 and a check was drawn by the Department of Audit and Control on February 3, 1977, which included postjudgment interest from July 14, 1976 until September 1, 1976. The postjudgment calculation of interest was properly computed and thus Special Term correctly dismissed the petition in this proceeding. Interest on judgments of the Court of Claims is allowed from the date of the judgment until 20 days after the Comptroller is "authorized” to issue his warrant for the payment thereof (Court of Claims Act, §20, subd 7). Petitioner argues that the Comptroller was not authorized to make payment until all of the forms required by subdivision 6 of section 20 of the Court of Claims Act were *984requested of him, an event which did not occur until January 4, 1977. We disagree. The purpose behind the 20-day limitation on postjudgment interest is to encourage the prompt presentation of these judgments for payment, rather than letting them indefinitely draw interest against the State *(Matter of Rochester Carting Co. v Levitt,*36 NY2d 264, 269). Thus, it is the petitioner’s responsibility to file the required documents with the Comptroller, who is authorized to issue his warrant for payment when it is determined that no appeal will be brought by the State *(People ex rel. Evers v Glynn,*126 App Div 519, 521). In this case, the State issued its certificate of no appeal through the Attorney-General on August 12, 1976, thereby terminating petitioner’s right to further interest on September 1, 1976. We further agree with the conclusion reached by Special Term that petitioner did not show the existence of a statutory scheme abused by respondents to defeat petitioner’s constitutional guarantee of full compensation. Finally, the recent amendment to subdivision 7 of section 20 of the Court of Claims Act (L 1978, ch 295, § 1) has rendered moot petitioner’s demands for injunctive relief. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
600

G L ID D E N D R

Sh ive ring Sands Creek

L A K E M I C H I G A N

Institute

Jacksonport

SW

Jacksonport

Sturgeon

Bay East

Algoma NE

30"

45'

710 000 4

49

49

44°

52'

30"

2

10'

49

4

4

87° 30"

FEET

E

86 E

49

4

49

4

67

69

49

49

49

87°

52'

000

47'

82 89 2

000m

000

63 63

69

87

49 N

65

58

4

FEET

FEET

000m

12'

12'

FEET

87°

44°

84

45'

000

65

68

47'

49

4

49

4

390

49

49

49

49

690 87

84

60

44°

49

4

57

4

15'

87°

30"

50'

4

49

83

4

350

000m

61

62

58

N

49

15'

30"

85

56

64

68

66

67

83

49

4

4

64

56

49

49

49

88

61

81 88

81 07' 89

62

44°

30"

07'

50'

30"

49

49

4

000m 4

49

4

49

82

66

57

30" 10' 4

49

49

86

60

59 59

85

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WISCONSIN

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

JACKSONPORT SW, WI

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

JACKSONPORT SW QUADRANGLE

WISCONSIN

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 16T

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Wisconsin Coordinate System of 1983

(central zone)

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2008

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2008

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 1998

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 8 ́

2 MILS

4° 29 ́

80 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

16T

DQ

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
#### (A) Ned R. McDavid et al. v. Murray Sargent, Jr., et al. (B) In the Matter of the Arbitration between Albert Roncey and Robert *616Frenkel. (C) In the Matter of Pauline S. Bresnick et al. v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. (D) Beol, Inc., in Behalf of Itself and Other Judgment Creditors Similarly Situated v. Herman S. Dorf et al.

*615Motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Bastow, JJ. *616[Same decision.] Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ. [Same decision.] Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ. [Same decision.] Concur — Botein, P, J., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
#### § 935.21 Civil rights, powers, and duties.

In any case in which the civil rights, powers, and duties of any person on Wake Island are not otherwise prescribed by the laws of the United States or this part, the civil rights, powers, and duties as they obtain under the laws of the State of Hawaii will apply to persons on Wake Island.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our reports dated April 28, 2006, except as to notes 5, 6, 7, 10, 21 and 23, which are as of June 15, 2006, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Nortel Networks Corporation (“Nortel”) as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2005 appearing in the Current Report on Form 8-K dated June 16, 2006 (which report on the financial statements expressed an unqualified opinion, includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement of the financial statements as of December 31, 2004 and for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 and includes a separate report titled Comments by Independent Registered Chartered Accountants on Canadian-U.S. Reporting Differences referring to changes in accounting principles that have a material effect on the comparability of the financial statements) and our report dated April 28, 2006 relating to management’s report on internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Nortel for the year ended December 31, 2005 (which report on internal control over financial reporting expressed an unqualified opinion on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of Nortel’s internal control over financial reporting and an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of Nortel’s internal control over financial reporting because of material weaknesses). 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

Toronto, Canada
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

THE GENERAL COUNSEL

MEMORANDUM

TO: Assistant General Counsel

Business and Administrative Law Division

FROM: The General Counsel

SUBJECT: Designation as Claims Officer and Delegation of Authority

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in the General Counsel by a delegation of authority from 

the Secretary, delegation EA/EG/40, certified on April 26, 1989, I designate you 

Department’s Claims Officer and delegate to you the authority to perform the 

functions vested in me by the following statutes:

1. The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq.;

2. The Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 1964, 31 

U.S.C. 3701, 3721;

3. 5 U.S.C. 5584, authorizing waiver of claims arising out of erroneous payment 

of pay to employees of the Department.

4. 31 U.S.C. 3702, governing the settlement of claims.

In carrying out the delegated authority, you are authorized to perform all necessary 

administrative functions, including the issuance of procedures and instructions for 

the handling of claims under these statutes and regulations promulgated thereunder.

II. RESERVATIONS

Unless otherwise noted, the following are not delegated: 

1. The authority to promulgate regulations;
Page 2 - The General Counsel

2. The authority to compromise, terminate or suspend collection action on claims 

under the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 as amended, 31 U.S.C. 7511, 

et seq.;

3. The authority to award contracts or discretionary grants; and

4. Unless otherwise provided by law, the authority to submit reports to Congress 

or the President;

III. REDELEGATION

No further redelegation is authorized.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Principal 

Delegations Control Officer and supersedes delegation EG/EGR3/114.

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by the Assistant 

General Counsel, Business and Administrative Law Division, prior to the date of 

certification.

____________/s/________________

 Charles P. Rose

OGC Clearance and Date: /s/ Tracey Sasser, 10/22/2010

Certified Date: 10/22/2010

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EG/EGR3/121
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1*


                           Section 1350 Certification


        I, Richard M. Haddock, the chief executive officer of LaserCard
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), certify pursuant to section
1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to our knowledge:

        (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2005 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and

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


Date: August 8, 2005



/s/Richard M. Haddock
---------------------
Richard M. Haddock


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

*       The material contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is not deemed "filed" with
the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.


                                       37
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


In connection with the Composite Technology Corporation (the "Company")
Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September
30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Benton H Wilcoxon, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

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

/s/ Benton H Wilcoxon
-------------------------
Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Acting Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)

August 8, 2005