alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Low Country RC Flight Manual

December 14, 2014

The safe operation of the UAS will be the responsibility of the Pilot in 

Command (PIC). The following procedures are to be reviewed before each 

flight. 

1. Prior to operations, the PIC must have accumulated and logged, a minimum of twenty hours as 

UAS pilot operating the make and model of UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption 

and three take-offs and three landings in the preceding 90 days. Training, proficiency, 

experience-building, and take-off and landing currency flights can be conducted under this grant 

of exemption to accomplish the required flight time and 90 day currency. During training, 

proficiency, experience-building, and take-off and landing currency flights all persons not 

essential for flight operations are considered non-participants, and the PIC must operate the UA 

with appropriate distance from non-participants.

2. Pre-flight inspection of battery condition/level in both the transmitter and UAS. The binding/link 

feature will not let the UAS start if communication is not established.

3. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the 

inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from 

operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a 

condition for safe flight. The Ground Control Station, if utilized, must be included in the preflight 

inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft records.

4. Always fly the UAS within visual eye contact at an altitude of not more than 400 ft above ground.

5. Flights should be in Class G of the airspace. Uncontrolled airspace or Class G airspace is the 

portion of the airspace that has not been designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E. It is therefore 

designated uncontrolled airspace. Class G airspace extends from the surface to the base of the 

overlying Class E airspace. Pilots should review and observe the visual flight rule (VFR) 

minimums which apply to Class G airspace.

6. Never encroach on restricted flight areas such as airports, military bases, and other 

restricted National Airspace System. Refer 

to:http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/p

hak%20-%20chapter%2014.pdf

7. Never directly above crowds or public places. 

8. Never fly at night, keep UAS within line of sight of the Pilot in Command.

9. Have a separate safety observer at all times in communication with the PIC 

10. Check for power-lines, antennas and other overhead objects.

11. Monitor wind conditions. Do not fly if wind conditions exceed 20 knots. 

12. The orientation of flights will be such that the pilot in command (PIC) always has a visual on the 

rear mounted LED flight Indicator. 

13. Log all flights including training in Pilot’s Log Book.
252.225-7004 Report of Intended Performance Outside the United States and Canada—Submission after Award.       As prescribed in                 225.7204              (b), use the following clause:          REPORT OF INTENDED PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA—SUBMISSION AFTER AWARD ( OCT 2020 )          (a) *Definition*. “United States,” as used in this clause, means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas.          (b) *Reporting requirement.* The Contractor shall submit a report in accordance with this clause, if the Contractor or a first-tier subcontractor will perform any part of this contract outside the United States and Canada that—          (1) Exceeds the threshold specified in Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement 225.7201             (a); and          (2) Could be performed inside the United States or Canada.          (c) *Submission of reports*. The Contractor—          (1) Shall submit a report as soon as practical after the information is known;          (2) To the maximum extent practicable, shall submit a report regarding a first-tier subcontractor at least 30 days before award of the subcontract;          (3) Need not resubmit information submitted with its offer, unless the information changes;          (4) Shall submit all reports to the Contracting Officer; and          (5) Shall submit a copy of each report to: Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting (Contract Policy), OUSD(A&S) DPC/CP , Washington, DC 20301-3060.          (d) *Report format*. The Contractor—          (1) Shall submit reports using—          (i) DD Form 2139, Report of Contract Performance Outside the United States; or          (ii) A computer-generated report that contains all information required by DD Form 2139; and          (2) May obtain copies of DD Form 2139 from the Contracting Officer or via the Internet at *https://www.esd.whs.mil/​Directives/​forms/* .          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 252.225 RESERVED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2010 

s0322 

Order 

 

March 29, 2010 

140019 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140019 

 COA: 285640 

Macomb CC: 2007-003158-FC 

WILLIAM AERRON BRADY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 900.23 Procedures following receipt of a proposal.

Within 30 days of receipt of a proposal to amend a Federal milk marketing agreement order under § 900.3 of this part, USDA shall either: Issue a notice providing an action plan and expected timeframes for the different steps in the formal rulemaking process for completion of the hearing not more than 120 days after the date of the issuance of the notice; request additional information from the person submitting the proposal to be used in deciding whether a hearing will be held. If the information requested is not received within a specified timeframe, the request shall be denied; or deny the request. Notice of the action plan will be made on the Dairy Programs, AMS Web site and through program releases to interested persons.
#### § 52.1004 Ascertaining the grade.

In addition to considering other requirements outlined in the standards, the following quality factors are evaluated:

(a) *Factor not related by score points.*

(1) Varietal requirement.

(b) *Factors rated by score points.* The relative importance of each factor which is scored is expressed numerically on the scale of 100. The maximum number of points that may be given such factors are:

| | Points |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Color | 20 |
| (2) Uniformity of size | 10 |
| (3) Absence of defects | 30 |
| (4) Character | 40 |
| Total score | 100 |
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 2:06cr169-WKW

)

DARNELL MONTREZE BROWN )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANT DARNEL MONTREZE BROWN

The undersigned, Charles E. Vercelli, Jr., hereby files this notice of appearance on

behalf of Defendant Darnell Montreze Brown. Please forward all pleadings to the attention

of the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted this the 14 day of May, 2007. th

s/ C. E. Vercelli, Jr._________________________

 CHARLES E. VERCELLI, JR. (VER003)

OF COUNSEL:

VERCELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

1019 S. Perry Street

Montgomery, AL 36104-5049

TEL: 334-834-8805

FAX: 334-834-8807

cvercelli@vercelli-law.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 14, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, using the

CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the United States Attorney

and to all counsel of record. 

s/ C. E. Vercelli, Jr.___________________

Of Counsel

535-07\Not of Appear CEV.wpd

Case 2:06-cr-00169-WKW-SRW Document 254 Filed 05/14/2007 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 801.10 [Reserved]
November 26, 2014

Michelle Ferritto
Airmen and Airspace Rules Division
Federal Aviation Administration
490 L'Enfant Plaza #3200 Washington, DC 20024

RE: Request for Additional Information: Aerial Media Systems, Petitions for Exemption , Docket

Number FAA

- 2014

- 0957

.

Dear Mrs. Ferritto

Below, is the response to the letter sent November 24, 2014 requesting more information per 11.81 (D) The reasons why granting y our request would be in the public interest; that is, how it

would benefit th e public as a whole.

Granting Aerial Media System exemption request furthers the public interest in many ways

. Congress has pronounced that it is in the public's interest to integrate commercially flown UASs
int o the national airspace system. Aerial Media Systems will conduct research into safe UAS operations every time it flies one of its UASs. Flight data, visual inspections, recorded observations and flight analyses are compiled to further enhance current safety procedures

. Allowing Aerial Media Systems to fly commercially, will allo w real world experience to help develop better and more robust safety procedures. T he public has an interest in reducing the danger and emission associated with current aerial cinematic capture methods, namely, full size helicopters. Aerial Media Systems U ASs are battery powered and create no emissions. If an Aerial Media Systems UAS crashes

, there is no fuel to ign ite and cause significant damage or injury . The impact of Aerial Media Systems lightweight UASs is far less than a full size helicopter or current aerial platforms . Although, the noteworthy safety re cord of full size helicopters used in the motion picture industry currently is impeccable . The public's interest is
furthered

, by minimizing ecological and crash impacts

, by permitting motion picture capture through Aerial Media Systems lightweight UASs. Aerial Medial Systems has been analyzing flight data and other information in to novel safety protocols . These procedures and lessons will be implemented into flight operations manual that exceeds currently accepted means and methods of safe flight . Aerial Media Systems and Brian Walk through years of command experience on large cabin corporate aircraft , have based their Fl ight operations manual

, off of an IBAO stage II manual
for a manned aircraft , which Brian Walk is the author of

. Con gress mandated the integration of
UASs into our national airspace system, in part, to achieve progression in this field

. Permitting Aerial Media Systems to immediately fly within the United States furthers these goals. Whether it is the scientific discoveries applicable to feature film making to advancements in publicly usable technologies

, or advancements in equipment available to law enforcement personnel I first responders that does not cost millions of dollars , granting Aerial Media Systems exemptionrequest substantially furthers the public's interest in w ays known and currently unknown and

unquantified.

Sincerely,

Brian M

. Walk
§ 63.112 Conflict of interest. ( a ) *In general.* Members of the Board shall not vote on any particular matter pending before the Board in which, to the knowledge of the member, an interest is held by the member, any spouse of the member, any child of the member, any partner of the member, any organization in which the member is serving as an officer, director, trustee, partner, or employee; or any person with whom the member is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment or with whom the member has a financial interest, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Validity of action.* An action by a member of the Board that violates § 63.112 (a) shall not impair or otherwise affect the validity of any otherwise lawful action by the Board.
( c ) *Disclosure.* If a member of the Board makes full disclosure of an interest and, prior to any participation by the member, the Board determines, by majority vote, that the interest is too remote or too inconsequential to affect the integrity of any participation by the member, the member may participate in the matter relating to the interest, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section. A member that discloses an interest under section § 63.112(a) shall not vote on a determination of whether the member may participate in the matter relating to the interest.
( d ) *Remands.* The Secretary may vacate and remand to the Board for reconsideration any decision made if the Secretary determines that there has been a violation of this section or any conflict of interest provision of the bylaws of the Board with respect to the decision. ( 1 ) In the case of any violation and remand of a funding decision to the Board, the Secretary shall inform the Board of the reasons for the remand.
( 2 ) If a decision with respect to the matter is remanded to the Board by reason of a conflict of interest faced by a Board member, the member may not participate in any subsequent decision with respect to the matter.
#### COLE, Respondent, v. TOWN OF TIOGA, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 1, 1914.)

Action by Daniel H. Cole against the Town of Tioga.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-21-00194-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1695168

Before Walker, J., Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr. J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

BRYAN SCOTT THOMPSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to dismiss his appeal. Because we have not yet decided 

this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 11, 2022
O R D E R

In its p etition for d isciplinary or r emedial a ction , the Attorney Grievance

Commission allege d that respondent had been found guilty of a serious crime and

that he had engaged in professional misconduct as that term is defined in Rule 19

-

701(r). Respondent was disbarred by the Court of Appeals of the District of

Columbia for violation of Rule 8.4 of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional

Conduct and Maryland Rule 19

- 308.4

. Upon the filing of the petition and pur suant

to Rule s 19

- 737 and 19

- 738 , the Court issued an order requiring the respondent to

show cause why corresponding discipline should n o t be imposed. Respondent did

not respond to the order to show cause

. Accordingly, it is this 24th day of September

202 4

, by the Supreme Court of Maryland,

ORDERED that , pursuant to Rule 19

- 737(f), corresponding discipline is

imposed and, effective immediately, Respondent, Brian David O’Neill

, is disbarred

from the practice of law in the State of Maryland ; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Brian David

O’Neill from the register of attorneys in this Court and certify that fact to the Trustees

of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.

BRIAN DAVID O’NEILL *

*

*

*

*

* IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

AG Docket No. 5

September Term, 20 2 42

tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19

- 761

.

/s/ Matthew J. Fader

Chief Justice
52.247-25 Government-Furnished Equipment With or Without Operators.       As prescribed in 47.207-8(a)(2)(i), insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts for transportation or for transportation-related services when the Government furnishes equipment with or without operators:          Government-Furnished Equipment With or Without Operators (Apr 1984)          The Government will provide ____ [*insert equipment; e.g.,forklifts*] with or without operators at ____ [*strike out "with" or "without," as applicable, and insert origin, destination, or both*] to assist in ____ *[insert loading, unloading, or both*], when required.          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
December 22 ,	2015

Docket	Operations,	M - 30 U.	S.	Department	of	Transportation 1200	New	Jersey	Ave.	SE. Room	W12 - 140,	West	Building	Ground	Floor Washington	DC	20590 - 0001 Re: Amendment	to Docket No. FAA- 2015 - 7163 Dear	Sir	or	Madam; Vantage	Aerial	Media is requesting an amendment	to	its	petition	for	exemption ( Docket	No.	FAA- 2015 - 7163 ,	dated	September	30,	2015) to allow	commercial operation	of	small	unmanned	aerial	systems	for	the	purpose	of	inspection, monitoring,	mapping	and	photographing	equipment	and	engineering	studies . Vantage	Aerial	Media he reby	requests	an	amendment to its	petition	to include the following additional sUAS :

 DJI Phantom	2  DJI	Phantom	2	Vision  DJI	Phantom	2	Vision+  DJI	Phantom	3  DJI	Phantom	3	Professional  DJI Phantom	3	Advanced  DJI	S1000+  DJI	S900  DJI	Inspire 1  DJI	Matrice	100  SenseFly	eBee	RTK  SenseFly	eBee	Ag  SenseFly	eXom  AgEagle	Aerial	Systems	AgEagle  Lumenier	QAV250  Lumenier	QAV 540G This	amendment	request	is	based	on	information	provided	in	this	petition	and	the User	Manuals	for Vantage	Aerial	Media’s DJI	(Phantom	2,	Phantom	2	Vision, Phantom	2	Vision+,	Phantom	3,	Phantom	3	Advanced,	Phantom	3	Professional, S1000+, S 900,	Inspire	1,	Matrice	100) ,	AgEagle	Aerial	Systems	(AgEagle) , senseFly (eBee	Ag,	eBee	RTK,	eXom) ,	and	Lumenier	(QAV250	and	QAV540G) sUAS (collectively,	the	“Manuals”),	copies	of	which	are	already	on	file	with	the	FAA .		See, e.g.,	Grant of	Exemption 11398	(DJI	Phantom	2,	D JI	Phantom	2	Vision+,	DJI	Inspire1) ,	Exemption	11373A	(DJI	Phantom	2	Vision,	SenseFly	eXom), Exemption	11956

(SenseFly	eBee	RTK),	Exemption	11956	(SenseFly	eBee	Ag), Exemption 12378A	(DJI Matrice	100,	DJI	Phantom	3),	Exemption	12700	(DJI	Phantom	3	Profess ional), Exemption	12706	( DJI	Phantom	2,	DJI	Phantom	2	Vision+,	DJI	Phantom	3	Advanced, DJI	Phantom	3	Professional,	DJI	S900,	DJI	Inspire	1),	Exemption	12698	(DJI	Phantom 3,	DJI	Phantom	2,	DJI	Inspire	1,	DJI	S1000+) ,	Exemption	12039	(AgEagle), Exemption	110 62A (Lumenier). The	findings,	rationale	and	conclusions	contained	in	the petition	for	exemption ( Docket	No.	FAA- 2015 - 7163 ,	dated	September	30,	2015) apply	without	modification to	this	application	to	include	the	additional s UAS. All	operations	of	the	additional s UAS	will	be	in	full	compliance with	the	terms	of	the	Exemption and	the	Manuals . T he	added	sUAS	are comparable	in	type,	size,	weight,	speed	and	operating capabilities	to	those	in	the	original petition . Please	contact	the	undersigned	should	you have	any	questions	concerning	this request	for	an	amendment. Thank	you	for	your	consideration Ryan	Baker,	Director	of	sUAS	Flight	Operations Vantage	Aerial	Media
§ 767.1 Introduction. ( a ) *Purpose.* This part describes the Agency's policies for: ( 1 ) Managing inventory property;
( 2 ) Selling inventory property;
( 3 ) Leasing inventory property;
( 4 ) Managing real and chattel property the Agency takes into custody after abandonment by the borrower;
( 5 ) Selling or leasing inventory property with important resources, or located in special hazard areas; and
( 6 ) Conveying interest in real property for conservation purposes.
( b ) *Basic policy.* The Agency maintains, manages and sells inventory property as necessary to protect the Agency's financial interest.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antoine Nobel SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-7192.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 22, 2007.

Decided: Sept. 6, 2007.

Antoine Nobel Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antoine Nobel Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S. Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 11, 2006. Giving Smith the benefit of *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), the notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on June 26, 2006. Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the ap*830peal. 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.*
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 13, 2021.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 13, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21A0786. TVPX AIRCRAFT SOLUTIONS, INC. AS TRUSTEE FOR PRIME 

AVIATION PTY, LTD. v. GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion the hereby GRANTED, and 

jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
401.000 Scope of part.

This part presents basic policies and general information about the Department of Agriculture's

(USDA) Acquisition Regulation, subsequently referred to as the AGAR. The AGAR is an integral part

of the Federal Acquisition Regulations System.

Parent topic: PART 401 - AGRICULTURE ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM