alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 2 0 , 2016

Exemption No. 12918 A

Regulatory Docket No

. FAA

– 20 15

– 2388

Mr. Matthew Roderick

Matthew Roderick dba Rapid Aerial LLC

10721 Blackhawk Drive

Boise, ID 83709

Dear Mr. Roderick :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated posted to the pu blic docket on July 21, 2016 , you petitioned the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Matthew Roderick dba Rapid Aerial LLC

(hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your current exemption . That

exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) , 91.7(a),

91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a)

and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct

UAS operations

. You requested an amendment to change the company name from Matthew

Roderick to Matthew Roderick dba Rapid Aerial LLC

. 1

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and s afety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, a nd any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

.

1 The petitioner also requested to add aircraft. At this time, the FAA is unable to act on this request. When the

FAA is ready to act, we will proceed accordingly and no further action will be required by the petitioner.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 12918

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to change the operator name

.

The operator shall add th is amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Matthew Roderick dba Rapid Aerial LLC is hereafter referred to

as the operator. All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 12918 remain

in effect

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on September 30, 2017 , unless sooner sup erseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Di rector, Flight Standards Service
§ 1773.8 Audit date. The annual audit must be performed as of the end of the same calendar month each year unless prior approval to change the audit date is obtained, in writing via email, from RUS or its designated representative. ( a ) An auditee may request a change in the audit date by writing via email to RUS at least 60 days prior to the currently approved audit date, providing justification for the change.
( b ) The time period between the prior audit date and the newly requested audit date must be no longer than twenty-three months.
( c ) Comparative financial statements must be prepared and audited for the 12 months ending as of the new audit date and for the 12 months immediately preceding that period.
[88 FR 7564, Feb. 6, 2023]
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*April 27, 2006*

[Cite as *04/27/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2056.]

*1428MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2006-0202.

#### Tarr v. Williams.

In Habeas Corpus. This cause came on for further consideration of petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.
§ 205.402 Review of application. ( a ) Upon acceptance of an application for certification, a certifying agent must: ( 1 ) Review the application to ensure completeness pursuant to § 205.401;
( 2 ) Determine by a review of the application materials whether the applicant appears to comply or may be able to comply with the applicable requirements of subpart C of this part;
( 3 ) Verify that an applicant who previously applied to another certifying agent and received a notification of noncompliance or denial of certification, pursuant to § 205.405, has submitted documentation to support the correction of any noncompliances identified in the notification of noncompliance or denial of certification, as required in § 205.405(e); and
( 4 ) Schedule an on-site inspection of the operation to determine whether the applicant qualifies for certification if the review of application materials reveals that the production or handling operation may be in compliance with the applicable requirements of subpart C of this part.
( b ) The certifying agent shall within a reasonable time: ( 1 ) Review the application materials received and communicate its findings to the applicant;
( 2 ) Provide the applicant with a copy of the on-site inspection report, as approved by the certifying agent, for any on-site inspection performed; and
( 3 ) Provide the applicant with a copy of the test results for any samples taken by an inspector.
( c ) The applicant may withdraw its application at any time. An applicant who withdraws its application shall be liable for the costs of services provided up to the time of withdrawal of its application. An applicant that voluntarily withdrew its application prior to the issuance of a notice of noncompliance will not be issued a notice of noncompliance. Similarly, an applicant that voluntarily withdrew its application prior to the issuance of a notice of certification denial will not be issued a notice of certification denial.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                    5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
                  from Superior Wireless Communications,  Inc. December 31, 1996
                  financial  statements  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
                  reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                    0000793986
<NAME>                   Superior Wireless Communications, Inc.

       

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1996

<CASH>                                     1,197
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,614
<PP&E>                                     232,334
<DEPRECIATION>                             (126,531)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,360,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2,510,436
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      6,005
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,155,936)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,360,905
<SALES>                                    300,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           300,600
<CGS>                                      107,394
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           1,407,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         94,452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,214,564)
<INCOME-TAX>                               1,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,216,364)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.20)
        


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 273
Editorial Notes: 1. OMB control numbers relating to this part 273 are contained in § 271.8. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 273 appear at 84 FR 15093, Apr. 15, 2019.

§ 273.27 General administrative guidelines. ( a ) When a household leaves TANF, MOE, or a SFCA program, a State agency that has elected this option shall freeze the household's benefit allotment for up to 5 months after making an adjustment for the loss of TANF, MOE, or the SFCA. This is the household's transitional period. To provide the full transitional period, the State agency may extend the certification period for up to 5 months and may extend the household's certification period beyond the maximum periods specified in § 273.10(f). Before initiating the transitional period, the State agency, without requiring additional information or verification from the household, must recalculate the household's SNAP benefit amount by removing the TANF payment, MOE payment, or the SFCA payment from the household's SNAP income. At its option, the State agency may also adjust the benefit to account for: ( 1 ) Changes in household income that it learns about from another State or Federal means-tested assistance program in which the household participates; or
( 2 ) Automatic annual changes in the SNAP benefit rules, such as the annual cost of living adjustment, the standard deduction adjustment, and the adjustment to the cap on the excess shelter deduction.
( b ) The State agency must include in its State plan of operation whether it has elected to make these changes: ( 1 ) At the beginning of the transitional period; or
( 2 ) Both at the beginning and during the transitional period.
( c ) When a household leaves TANF, MOE, or SFCA program, the State agency at its option may end the household's existing certification period and assign the household a new certification period that conforms to the transitional period. The recertification requirements at § 273.14 that would normally apply when the household's certification period ends must be postponed until the end of the new certification period. If the transitional period results in a shortening of the household's certification period, the State agency shall not issue a household a notice of adverse action under § 273.10(f)(4) but shall specify in the transitional notice required under § 273.29 that the household must be recertified when it reaches the end of the transitional benefit period or if it returns to TANF, MOE, or SFCA program during the transitional period.
[75 FR 4953, Jan. 29, 2010, as amended at 82 FR 2044, Jan. 6, 2017]
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**  I, Brian Carter, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dirt Motor Sports, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresas of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the“Evaluation Date”); andc) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any materialweaknesses in internal controls; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.     Date:November 2, 2006 /s/ Brian Carter Brian Carter,    Chief Financial Officer  
57
#### BOURQUIN v. BLOOMINGDALE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Municipal Oorfobations (§ 706*)—Collisions on Streets—Negligence-Evidence.

Mere proof that a boy seven years old joined a crowd of boys on the sidewalk, and in endeavoring to escape from another boy running after him collided with a horse and wagon, did not show that the accident was due to negligence of the driver.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 1518; Dec. Dig. § 706.*]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.

Action by Emil Bourquin, an infant, by Paul Bourquin, his guardian ad litem, against Samuel J. Bloomingdale, and others, doing business under the firm name and style of Bloomingdale Bros. From an order setting aside a verdict for plaintiff, he appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.

Joseph H. Freedman (Samuel Deutsch, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Carl Schurz Petrasch, of New York City (Sidney L. Teven, of New York City, of counsel), for respondents.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

SEABURY, J.

This action is brought by an infant through his guardian ad litem to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of one of the employés of the defendants.

The plaintiff is a 'boy of seven years of age. He was preliminarily examined upon the trial as to the consequences of falsehood in this world and the next, children being the only, persons who are still subjected to this catechism in a court of justice. The boy met all the legal tests, stoutly maintaining that if he did not tell the truth he would ‘‘"get arrested,” and that God would “send you to hell.” Having thus satisfied all legal requirements, the plaintiff was, as the record shows, “duly sworn.” From his testimony it appears that he was upon the street with his mother. He left his mother and joined a crowd of boys on the sidewalk. One of the boys in the crowd, who was holding, a mouse by the tail, ran after the plaintiff, who, in endeavoring to escape from him, collided with a horse and wagon of the defendants, and sustained a fracture of the arm. At the close of the case the court reserved decision on the motion to dismiss the complaint, and submitted *99the issues to the jury, who returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $150. The court set aside the verdict and granted the motion to dismiss the complaint. This ruling was clearly correct. No negligence on the part of the defendants was proved. The accident was undoubtedly due to the unfortunate act of the boy in running into the horse and wagon. The accident not having been shown to be due to the defendants’ negligence, there was no basis for the plaintiff’s recovery.

Order affirmed with costs. All concur.
|                                                                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Noble Energy, Inc.                                                                   |
| Calculation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                    |
|                                                                                 |   | Year Ended December 31, |
|                                                                                 |   | 2015 (1) |   | 2014 |   | 2013 |   | 2012 |   | 2011 |
| (millions)                                                                           |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Income From Continuing Operations Before Income Tax and Income From Equity Investees |   | $ | (2,309 | ) |   | $ | 1,540 |  |   | $ | 1,138 |  |   | $ | 1,170 |  |   | $ | 309 |  |
| Add (Deduct)                                                                         |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed Charges                                                                        |   | 435 |  |   | 349 |  |   | 296 |  |   | 288 |  |   | 207 |  |
| Capitalized Interest                                                                 |   | (144 | ) |   | (116 | ) |   | (121 | ) |   | (151 | ) |   | (132 | ) |
| Distributed Income From Equity Investees                                             |   | 77 |  |   | 382 |  |   | 204 |  |   | 204 |  |   | 225 |  |
| Earnings as Defined                                                                  |   | $ | (1,941 | ) |   | $ | 2,155 |  |   | $ | 1,517 |  |   | $ | 1,511 |  |   | $ | 609 |  |
|                                                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net Interest Expense                                                                 |   | 263 |  |   | 210 |  |   | 158 |  |   | 125 |  |   | 65 |  |
| Capitalized Interest                                                                 |   | 144 |  |   | 116 |  |   | 121 |  |   | 151 |  |   | 132 |  |
| Interest Portion of Rental Expense                                                   |   | 28 |  |   | 23 |  |   | 17 |  |   | 12 |  |   | 10 |  |
| Fixed Charges as Defined                                                             |   | $ | 435 |  |   | $ | 349 |  |   | $ | 296 |  |   | $ | 288 |  |   | $ | 207 |  |
|                                                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                                   |   | — |  |   | 6.2 |  |   | 5.1 |  |   | 5.2 |  |   | 2.9 |  |
|                                                                                 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Amount by Which Earnings Were Insufficient to Cover Fixed Charges                    |   | $ | 2,376 |  |   | $ | — |  |   | $ | — |  |   | $ | — |  |   | $ | — |  |
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2188 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2188

    To amend title 37, United States Code, to ensure that footwear 
 furnished or obtained by allowance for enlisted members of the Armed 
  Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces complies with 
                     domestic source requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2013

   Mr. Michaud (for himself and Ms. Pingree of Maine) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 37, United States Code, to ensure that footwear 
 furnished or obtained by allowance for enlisted members of the Armed 
  Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces complies with 
                     domestic source requirements.

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

SECTION 1. COMPLIANCE WITH DOMESTIC SOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF FOOTWEAR 
              FURNISHED OR OBTAINED BY ALLOWANCE FOR ENLISTED MEMBERS 
              OF THE ARMED FORCES UPON THEIR INITIAL ENTRY INTO THE 
              ARMED FORCES.

    Section 418(a) of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2)(A) The footwear prescribed under this section to be furnished 
to, or to be paid for by allowance under this section by, members upon 
their initial entry into armed forces shall comply with the 
requirements of section 2533a of title 10, without regard to the 
applicability of any simplified acquisition threshold under chapter 137 
of title 10 (or any other provision of law) to the use of such 
allowance for such footwear.
    ``(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to athletic footwear 
furnished to, or paid for by allowance by, a member described in that 
subparagraph if such footwear--
            ``(i) is medically required to meet unique physiological 
        needs of the member; and
            ``(ii) cannot be met with athletic footwear that complies 
        with the requirements referred to in that subparagraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 1956

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1956.69 [Reserved]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOEY ARNEZ DONALDSON,

D.O.C. # 372350,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv76–WS/MAF

OFFICER HAWKINS, and

OFFICER BENNETT,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 86) docketed December 6, 2021. The magistrate judge recommends that

Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26) Plaintiff’s claim for

declaratory relief be granted. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the report and

recommendation.

The court has reviewed the record and has determined that the magistrate

judge's report and recommendation should be adopted. 

Case 4:20-cv-00076-WS-MAF Document 88 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 86) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 84) Plaintiff’s claim for

declaratory relief is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief is DISMISSED. 

4. The clerk shall return the case to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of January , 2022.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00076-WS-MAF Document 88 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2