alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL IMFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PICTURETEL'S
BALANCE SHEET & INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          51,276
<SECURITIES>                                    50,553
<RECEIVABLES>                                  136,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,036)
<INVENTORY>                                     33,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,447
<PP&E>                                          95,365
<DEPRECIATION>                                (53,570)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 341,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,735
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           336
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     240,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   341,732
<SALES>                                        342,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               342,385
<CGS>                                          177,408
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  177,408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               133,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,150
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,278
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,278
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,872
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .69
        

</TABLE>
Docket No. FAA-2015-2336 Addendum

Description of Aircraft Systems: DJI Phantom Series, DJI Inspire, DJI S800, DJI S900 

and DJI S1000 UASs

The following is provided per 13 August 2015 email request from Mr. Dan Ngo 

(FAA Office of Rulemaking) to the Goodwyn Group LLC requesting the following 

information:

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e. fixed wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should 

include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be 

located in the aircraft manual(s).

The Goodwyn Group, LLC seeks an exemption to operate DJI systems for 

compensation or hire within the NAS. The DJI Phantom Series, DJI Inspire 1, DJI S800, 

DJI S900 and DJI S1000 are vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aircraft 

(UA) with a Ground Control Station (GCS) utilizing a radio transmitter, electronic tablet 

or smart phone systems. 

The DJI Phantom Series (quadcopter) has a maximum gross weight (with 

payload) of 2 pounds 11 ounces, a length of 23 inches (prop tip to prop tip, designed in 

an X configuration), a height of 8 inches and a maximum speed of approximately 29 

knots. 

The DJI Inspire 1 (quadcopter) has a maximum gross weight (with payload) of 6 

pounds 7.5 ounces, a length of 17.3 inches, a width of 17.7 inches, a height of 11.8 

inches, and a maximum speed of approximately 42 knots. 

The DJI Phantom Series and DJI Inspire UAs are equipped with four main rotors; 

driven by Lithium Polymer battery powered electric motors.

The DJI S800 (hexacopter) has a maximum gross weight (with payload) of 17 

pounds 6 ounces, a diameter of 39.75 inches, a height of 12.7 inches high and a 

maximum speed of approximately 30 knots. The payload is a Sony Nex 7 camera or 

similar device, stabilized by a three axis gimbal.
The DJI S900 (hexacopter) has a maximum gross weight (with payload) of 18 

pounds 1 ounce, a diagonal width of 43.7 inches, a height of 14.1 inches and a maximum 

speed of approximately 30 knots. The payload is a Sony Nex 7 camera or similar device, 

stabilized by a three axis gimbal.

The DJI S800 and S900 are equipped with six main rotors; driven by Lithium 

Polymer battery powered electric motors.

The DJI S1000 (Octocopter) has a maximum takeoff weight (with payload) of 

24.25 pounds, a diagonal width of 54 inches, a height of 12.4 inches and a maximum 

speed of approximately 45 knots. The payload is a Canon 5D Mark III camera or similar 

device, stabilized by a three axis gimbal.

The DJI S1000 is equipped with eight main rotors; driven by Lithium Polymer 

battery powered electric motors.

The DJI Phantom Series, DJI Inspire, DJI S800, DJI S900 and DJI S1000 UASs 

that will be operated by The Goodwyn Group, LLC and will be registered in accordance 

with 49 U.S.C. 44103, Registration of Aircraft, as well as 14 C.F.R Part 47, Aircraft 

Registration, and marked in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Identification and 

Registration Marking.
** **

**Exhibit3.1**

AMENDMENT  NO. 4TO THELIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTOFTWC HOLDING LLC

This Amendment No.4 (this “Amendment”) to the Limited Liability Company OperatingAgreement of TWC Holding LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”),is entered into and shall be effective as of March 31, 2006, by and between TheVeritas Capital Fund II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Veritas”),and the Person listed as Relinquishing Class B Member on the signature pagehereof (the “Relinquishing Class B Member”).

WHEREAS, theCompany was formed pursuant to that certain Limited Liability Company OperatingAgreement dated as of June 30, 2004 among Veritas and certain named employeesof the Wornick Group, as amended by (i) Amendment No. 1 to the LimitedLiability Company Operating Agreement, dated as of August 18, 2004, amongVeritas and the Members named therein, (ii) Amendment No. 2 to the LimitedLiability Company Operating Agreement, dated as of April 11, 2005, amongVeritas and the Members named therein, and (iii) Amendment No. 3 to the LimitedLiability Company Operating Agreement, dated as of November 11, 2005, amongVeritas and the Members named therein (collectively, the “OperatingAgreement”); and

WHEREAS, Veritasand the Relinquishing Class B Member desire to amend the Operating Agreement toreflect the elimination of the Class B Membership Interest of the RelinquishingClass B Member;

NOW, THEREFORE, inconsideration of the mutual agreements made herein, Veritas and the RelinquishingClass B Member hereby agree to amend the Operating Agreement as follows:

1.   Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalizedterms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Operating Agreement.

2.  Effective as of the date of this Amendment,the Relinquishing Class B Member hereby voluntary relinquishes his entire ClassB Membership Interest for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of whichis hereby acknowledged by the Relinquishing Member.

3.  This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts,and all counterparts so executed shall constitute one agreement, binding on allof the parties hereto, notwithstanding that all of the parties are notsignatory to the original or same counterpart.

----

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of Veritas and theRelinquishing Member has executed this Amendment as of the date first abovewritten.
|        | THE VERITAS CAPITAL FUND II, L.P. |
|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   |                              |
|   |                              |
|   | By:                               | /s/ Robert McKeon |
|   |                              | Authorized Signatory |
|   |                              |
|   |                              |
|   | RELINQUISHING CLASS B MEMBER:     |
|   |                              |
|   |                              |
|   | By:                               | /s/ Kevin Mooi |
|   |                              | Kevin Mooi |
|        |                                   |  |  |

 

2

----
#### § 301.32-9 Costs and charges.

The services of the inspector during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays) will be furnished without cost. The user will be responsible for all costs and charges arising from inspection and other services provided outside normal business hours.
#### Abraham Wolbe, Appellant, v Mordechai Fishman et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 208]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated March 25, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff, who was six years old at the time of the accident, allegedly was injured when the bicycle he was riding out of his family’s driveway collided with the passenger side of a vehicle driven by the defendant Mordechai Fishman and owned by the defendant Emanuel Fishman. The evidence established that the defendant operator was traveling between 10 and 15 miles per hour, his view of the plaintiff’s driveway was obstructed by a vehicle parked in the roadway, and the infant plaintiff entered the roadway without yielding the right of way and rode into the defendants’ vehicle.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant driver was operating his vehicle in other than a prudent and reasonable manner under all of the circumstances *786
      *(see Green v Mower,*302 AD2d 1005 [2003], *affd*100 NY2d 529 [2003]; *Blazer v Tri-County Ambulette Serv.,*285 AD2d 575 [2001]; *Carrasco v Monteforte,*266 AD2d 330 [1999]; *DiCocco v Center for Dev. Disabilities,*264 AD2d 803 [1999]; *Brown v City of New York,*237 AD2d 398 [1997]; *Wright v Morozinis,*220 AD2d 496 [1995]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Adelaide Robinson, Respondent, v. De Silva Contracting Corp. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the employer and its insurance carrier from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed March 6, 1968, which affirmed the award of death benefits. The record contains testimony to support the finding of the board that on March 9, 1965 the deceased was involved in the work of pushing a vehicle known as a “concrete buggy” which weighed about 900 pounds up an incline when he suffered acute heart failure. Such labor obviously supports the finding of “excessive strain”. The testimony of the claimant’s attending physician and the impartial specialist was sufficient to support the finding that such excessive strain caused the “acute heart failure” and that decedent thereby suffered an accidental injury. The contentions of the appellants are without merit. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2371 

To permit the use of certain funds for recovery and mitigation activities 

in the upper basin of the Missouri River, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2006 

Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To permit the use of certain funds for recovery and mitigation activities in the upper basin of the Missouri River, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UPPER BASIN OF MISSOURI RIVER. 

4 (a) USE OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding the Energy 

5 and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public 

6 Law 109–103; 119 Stat. 2247), funds made available for 

7 recovery or mitigation activities in the lower basin of the 

8 Missouri River may be used for recovery or mitigation ac9 tivities in the upper basin of the Missouri River, including 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•S 2371 IS

1 the States of Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and 

2 South Dakota. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The matter under 

4 the heading ‘‘MISSOURI RIVER MITIGATION, MISSOURI, 

5 KANSAS, IOWA, AND NEBRASKA’’ of section 601(a) of the 

6 Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 

7 4143), as modified by section 334 of the Water Resources 

8 Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 306), is amended by 

9 adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary may carry 

10 out any recovery or mitigation activities in the upper basin 

11 of the Missouri River, including the States of Montana, 

12 Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, using funds 

13 made available under this heading in accordance with the 

14 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

15 and consistent with the project purposes of the Missouri 

16 River Mainstem System as authorized by section 10 of the 

17 Act of December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the ‘Flood 

18 Control Act of 1944’) (58 Stat. 897).’’. 

Æ 


rfake on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2


                             CERTIFICATE 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 of NITAR TECH CORP. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jose Gustavo Brasil,
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; and

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



/S/ JOSE GUSTAVO BRASIL
-----------------------
Name: Jose Gustavo Brasil
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: May 25, 2006
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 6.28

    LETTER AGREEMENT FOR CONVERSION OF OUTSTANDING DEBT, DATED MARCH 24, 1997 BY
AND BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND PELLE LEATHER, LTD; GROWTH SCIENCE VENTURES, INC.;
L.E. INTERNATIONAL LTD.; PHILLIP DASCHER; JOSEPH TISCHLER; GERALD EPSTEIN; AND
STUART NEEDLEMAN


<PAGE>   2

                                 March 24, 1997


VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Bruce P. Needleman, Esq.
Needleman & Schulman
21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 1290
Woodland Hills, CA 91367

    RE: KCD HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED ("KCD")

Dear Mr. Needleman:

    This letter will memorialize the proposed agreement reached with KCD
concerning the purchase of KCD common stock in complete satisfaction of
promissory notes dated May 1, 1996 made by KCD in favor of Pelle Leather, Ltd.,
Growth Sciences Ventures, Inc., L.E. International, Ltd., Philip Dascher, Joseph
Tischler, Gerald Epstein, and Stuart Needleman, O.D. (the "Noteholders").

    The terms of the proposed agreement are as follows. KCD will pay interest to
the Noteholders due and payable through March 15, 1997, in cash on or before
March 19, 1997. KCD will issue to the Noteholders restricted common stock (the
"Shares") equivalent to the unpaid balance as of March 31, 1997 on the
promissory notes (the "Balance"). KCD will file the necessary documents to have
the restricted common stock (the "Shares") registered on Form S-3 on or before
May 15, 1997. The stock price upon which the Balance will be converted to the
Shares will be determined as of March 31, 1997. The Balance will be converted to
the Shares at a price twenty-five percent (25%) below the closing bid price of
KCD Shares on March 31, 1997.

    If this letter does not accurately reflect the terms of the agreement,
please contact me immediately. If the terms of the agreement are accurately set
forth herein, please execute this letter and return it to our offices at your
earliest convenience.


<PAGE>   3
                                                                     [LETTERHEAD
                                                                         MANNING
                                                                        MARDER &
                                                                          WOLFE]

    Your cooperation and courtesy extended in this matter is appreciated.

                                          Sincerely,

                                          MANNING, MARDER & WOLFE


                                          CHRISTOPHER A. WILSON

CAW
cc:          Sequester Holdings, Inc.


    Noteholders agree to convert their promissory notes dated May 1, 1996 to the
Shares pursuant to the terms set forth above.


                                          ---------------------------------
                                                  Bruce P. Needleman
                                                  Attorney for Noteholders



                                        2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BAOQING XU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71645

Agency No. A087-612-570

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 20, 2016** 

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Baoqing Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

JAN 26 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards

governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. 

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination based on inconsistencies between Xu’s testimony and written

application regarding when he organized fellow farmers to confront the local

government, Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010)

(change in date of past harm was material and supported adverse credibility

determination), and based on Xu’s inability to provide names of any of the other

farmers with whom he was arrested, see Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse

credibility determination reasonable under the totality of circumstances); see also

Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 966 (9th Cir. 2014) (lack of detail in testimony

supported adverse credibility determination). We reject Xu’s contention that the IJ

failed to properly consider his explanations for the inconsistencies. See Zamanov

v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We do not address Xu’s argument

that the IJ failed to comply with Ren v. Holder 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011),

because the BIA expressly did not reach the IJ’s failure to corroborate finding. In

2 13-71645
the absence of credible testimony, Xu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

We lack jurisdiction over Xu’s CAT claim because he did not exhaust it

before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

Finally, we also lack jurisdiction over Xu’s request for prosecutorial

discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 13-71645
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 quarterly report of Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/
                David LaDukeName:
            David
                LaDukeTitle:
            President,
                Chief Executive Officer, andTreasurer




August
      12, 2008





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Sputnik Enterprises, Inc.
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                            3390
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       87
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3513
<PP&E>                                           31207
<DEPRECIATION>                                    9172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   26734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1245
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       25489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     26734
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5192
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1506
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    906
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                906
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       906
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.82
        

</TABLE>