alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Registered Owner Name:** Crossview Concepts Corporation, Inc. **Registered Owner Address:** 1986 James Gaynor Street Fallbrook, CA 92028 Attn: Kevin R. Adkins **Aircraft Description:** Hexcopter **Aircraft Serial Number:** NA **Aircraft Builder:** YUNEEC **Year Manufactured:** NA **Aircraft Model Designation:** TORNADO H920 **Engine Model: Registered Owner Name:**  Crossview Concepts Corporation, Inc. **Registered Owner Address:** 1986 James Gaynor Street Fallbrook, CA 92028 Attn: Kevin R. Adkins **Aircraft Description:** Quadcopter **Aircraft Serial Number:** NA **Aircraft Builder:** YUNEES **Year Manufactured:** NA **Aircraft Model Designation:**  TYPHOON Q500 Series (4K, +, Pro3) **Engine Model: Registered Owner Name:**  Crossview Concepts Corporation, Inc. **Registered Owner Address:** 1986 James Gaynor Street Fallbrook, CA 92028 Attn: Kevin R. Adkins **Aircraft Description:** Fixed

-wing **Aircraf t Serial Number:**  NA **Aircraft Builder:** SWIFT RADIOPLANES **Year Manufactured:** NA **Aircraft Model Designation:** LYNX M UAS **Engine Model:**

None of our operations would change; we are requesting to add additional Unmanned Aircraft to our exemption for greater flexibility. Crossview Concepts Corporation, Inc. (CCC, Inc.) is requesting to amend that exemption to include five add itional Unmanned Aircraft models : TORNADO H920, TYPHOON Q500 4K, TYPHOON Q500+, TYPHOON q500 Pro3 LYNX M UAS

. All Unmanned Aircraft are less than 55 lbs including payload (s). The following Exemptions have been previously approved or is currently under review by the FAA for the associated SUAS . Listed aircraft under review have had operating manuals and checklist supported by identified petitioners. **SUAS Exemption No.**  **Regulatory Docket No. or Remarks** 

**___________________________________** Lynx M UAS Under Review Swift Rad ioplanes, LLC posted §333 Exemption request 13 Aug 15 Typhoon Q500 Series 11787 FAA

- 2

- 15

-0997 Tornado H920 Under Review D’Avion, LLC posted §333 Exemption request 2 Sep 15 (14 CFR § 11.81(h)) Request authorized sUAS operations for this exemption to su pport the aerial data/photography of a civilian offshore oil rig located in Venezuela in support of civilian logistics company based in Humble, Texas (International Frontier Forwarders )

. Purpose is to create a 3D map and 3D model of the offshore oil rig.
Respectfully,

Kevin R. Adkins President / CEO Crossview Concepts Corporation, Inc. 

### §333 Exemption **Amendment for Crossview Concepts Corporation, Inc.**  **Exemption No. 12073 Regulatory Docket No. FAA** 
**- 2015**  **- 1367**  13 Nov 15
§ 1.149(b)-1 Federally guaranteed bonds. ( a ) *General rule.* Under section 149(b) and this section, nothing in section 103(a) or in any other provision of law shall be construed to provide an exemption from Federal income tax for interest on any bond issued as part of an issue that is federally guaranteed.
( b ) *Exceptions.* Pursuant to section 149(b)(3)(B), section 149(b)(1) and paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to— ( 1 ) Investments in obligations issued pursuant to § 21B(d)(3) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, as amended by § 511 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, or any successor provision; or
( 2 ) Any investments that are held in a refunding escrow (as defined in § 1.148-1).
( c ) *Effective date.* This section applies to investments made after June 30, 1993.
[T.D. 8476, 58 FR 33548, June 18, 1993]
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.1910 Esophageal stethoscope. ( a ) *Identification.* An esophageal stethoscope is a nonpowered device that is inserted into a patient's esophagus to enable the user to listen to heart and breath sounds.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 868.9.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 65 FR 2313, Jan. 14, 2000]
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.3690 Powered wheeled stretcher. ( a ) *Identification.* A powered wheeled stretcher is a battery-powered table with wheels that is intended for medical purposes for use by patients who are unable to propel themselves independently and who must maintain a prone or supine position for prolonged periods because of skin ulcers or contractures (muscle contractions).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards). The powered wheeled stretcher is exempt from premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to § 890.9, and the following conditions for exemption: ( 1 ) Appropriate analysis and nonclinical testing must demonstrate that the safety controls are adequate to ensure safe use of the device and prevent user falls from the device in the event of a device failure;
( 2 ) Appropriate analysis and nonclinical testing must demonstrate the ability of the device to withstand the rated user weight load with an appropriate factor of safety;
( 3 ) Appropriate analysis and nonclinical testing must demonstrate the longevity of the device to withstand external forces applied to the device and provide the user with an expected service life of the device;
( 4 ) Appropriate analysis and nonclinical testing must demonstrate proper environments of use and storage of the device to maximize the longevity of the device;
( 5 ) Appropriate analysis and nonclinical testing (such as outlined in appropriate FDA-recognized consensus standards) must validate electromagnetic compatibility and electrical safety;
( 6 ) Appropriate analysis and nonclinical testing (such as outlined in appropriate FDA-recognized consensus standards) must validate that the skin-contacting components of the device are biocompatible;
( 7 ) Appropriate analysis and nonclinical testing (such as outlined in appropriate FDA-recognized consensus standards) must validate the software life cycle and that all processes, activities, and tasks are implemented and documented;
( 8 ) Appropriate analysis and nonclinical testing must validate that the device components are found to be nonflammable;
( 9 ) Appropriate analysis and nonclinical testing (such as outlined in appropriate FDA-recognized consensus standards) must validate that the battery in the device performs as intended over the anticipated service life of the device;
( 10 ) Adequate labeling is provided to the user to document proper use and maintenance of the device to ensure safe use of the device in the intended use environment; and
( 11 ) Appropriate risk assessment including, but not limited to, evaluating the dimensional limits of the gaps in hospital beds, and mitigation strategy to reduce entrapment.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 85 FR 2020, Jan. 14, 2020]
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-C31, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C31

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of August 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.89    
  


 
 

EXTENSION AGREEMENT    
  


Bank
of America, N.A.,

    as Administrative Agent

Attn: Suzanne Paul

231 South LaSalle Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604 


Ladies
and Gentlemen: 


        The
undersigned hereby agrees to extend, effective April 3, 2002, its Commitment and the Maturity Date under the Credit Agreement dated as of April 3, 2001 among
SOURCECORP, Incorporated, f/k/a F.Y.I. Incorporated, each of the Lenders party thereto, Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and Banc of America Securities LLC, as sole lead arranger and
sole book agent (as the same may be amended or otherwise modified from time to time, the "Credit Agreement") for 364 days to April 2, 2005
pursuant to Section 2.1(d) of the Credit Agreement. Terms defined in the Credit Agreement are used herein as therein defined. 


        This
Extension Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State of Texas. The Extension Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument. 



	

 	
 	
First Union National Bank
	

 	
 	

Name:	

/s/ DANIEL EVANS

	 	 	 	By:	Daniel Evans

	 	 	 	Title:	Managing Director—Leveraged Finance






	

Agreed and Accepted:
	

SOURCECORP, INCORPORATED, f/k/a

F.Y.I. INCORPORATED
	

By:	

/s/ BARRY EDWARDS

	Name:	Barry Edwards

	Title:	EVP & CFO

	

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Administrative Agent
	

By:	

/s/ SUZANNE M. PAUL

	Name:	Suzanne M. Paul

	Title:	Vice President












QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.89


EXTENSION AGREEMENT
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.5700 Eyelid weight. ( a ) *Identification.* An eyelid weight is a prescription device made of gold, tantalum, platinum, iridium, or surgical grade stainless steel that is rectangular in shape and contoured to the shape of the eye. The device is intended for the gravity assisted treatment of lagophthalmos (incomplete eyelid closure). ( 1 ) The external eyelid weight is adhered to the outer skin of the upper eyelid.
( 2 ) The implantable eyelid weight is implanted into the upper eyelid.
( b ) *Classification.* ( 1 ) Class II (special controls) for the external eyelid weight. The external eyelid weight is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 886.9. The special controls for the external eyelid weight are: ( i ) Testing demonstrating the biocompatibility of the device; and
( ii ) Labeling must include the following information: ( A ) Specific instructions regarding the proper placement, sizing, and removal of the device; and
( B ) A warning stating that the patient should be instructed to remove the device prior to entering a magnetic resonance environment.
( 2 ) Class II (special controls) for the implantable eyelid weight. The special controls for the implantable eyelid weight are: ( i ) Testing demonstrating the biocompatibility of the device;
( ii ) Testing demonstrating the sterility and shelf life of the device;
( iii ) Nonclinical testing evaluating the compatibility of the device in a magnetic resonance environment.
( iv ) Patient labeling to convey information regarding the safety and compatibility of the device in a magnetic resonance environment, the conditions under which a patient with the device can be safely scanned, and a mechanism for a healthcare provider to obtain detailed information about magnetic resonance safety and compatibility if needed.
[79 FR 22015, Apr. 21, 2014]
#### Brooks *v.*Bishop.

No. 8545.

January 16, 1932.

Rehearing denied March 2, 1932.

Russelu, C. J.

This case is controlled by the principles stated by this court in *Dill*v. Taylor, 160*Ga. 234 (127 S.*E. 737) ; and the writ of error must be dismissed. In the *Dill*case no response was made to the motion to dismiss, and this failure to respond was construed as an admission of the facts stated in tile motion. In the instant case the plaintiff in error filed a response to the motion, but did not deny the averments of fact in the motion to dismiss.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*255
      *Smith, Hammond, Smith & Bloodworth, H. H. Anderson, W. B. Robinson,*and *G. N. King,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. M. Neel,*contra.
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.6080 Airbrush. ( a ) *Identification.* An airbrush is an AC-powered device intended for use in conjunction with articulation paper. The device uses air-driven particles to roughen the surfaces of dental restorations. Uneven areas of the restorations are then identified by use of articulation paper.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II. The special control for this device is International Electrotechnical Commission's IEC 60601-1-AM2 (1995-03), Amendment 2, “Medical Electrical Equipment—Part 1: General Requirements for Safety.”
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987; 52 FR 49250, Dec. 30, 1987, as amended at 71 FR 17144, Mar. 31, 2006]
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Form 10-Q of STERIS Corporation for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned officers of the Company certifies, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to STERIS Corporation and will be retained by STERIS Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Les C. VinneyName: Les C. VinneyTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Laurie BrlasName: Laurie BrlasTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief     Financial Officer




Dated: February 11, 2004
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Species codebook**
 
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013| 2014 | 2015 | 2016
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.308/3:
Item Number:0609-C-17 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000821408
 
August 13, 2019
JohnNypl 16325 State Hwy. 49 Grass Valley, CA 95949 October 7, 2014 Federal AviationAdministration 600 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, Wilbur Wright Building-Room 2Wl000 Case No. 2010WP250060

I am requesting ahearing for a case no. 201OWP250060.

JohnNypl 10/07/2014
Exhibit 32.1

# Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned President and Chief Executive
Officer and Vice President Law/Finance and Secretary of Ladish Co., Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Kerry L. Woody  Kerry
L. Woody President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Wayne E. Larsen
 Wayne E. Larsen Vice President Law/Finance & Secretary

August 2, 2004
No. 76-1212.

#### Scibelli *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice White, and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.
# C_2016038EN.01005601.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/56

---

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-809/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Language regime - Vacancy notice for the post of Director of the Translation Centre for bodies of the European Union - Linguistic requirements in the on-line presentation module for candidates - Alleged discrepancy with the vacancy notice published in the Official Journal - Letter sent by the Commission following the closure of the application procedure - Inadmissible))

(2016/C 038/74)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of a decision allegedly made by the Commission contained in a letter of 2 October 2014, sent to the Director General for the European Union of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Commission Director General of the Directorate-General (DG) for Human Resources and Security.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3310 Coating material for resin fillings. ( a ) *Identification.* A coating material for resin fillings is a device intended to be applied to the surface of a restorative resin dental filling to attain a smooth, glaze-like finish on the surface of the filling.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Summaryof state speed laws: current as of January 1 ...**
 
Editions: 9th | 10th | 11th | 12th
 
SuDoc Number:TD 8.2:SP 3/10/
Item Number:0982-D-51 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001019884
 
August 26, 2019
39296.

#### LYDICK v. NAPIER *et al.*

Decided April 5, 1962

Rehearing denied April 26, 1962.

*821
      *Guy B. Scott, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hamilton Napier, Nicholas P. Chilivis,*contra.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

In the bill of exceptions transmitted to this court only Napier is named as defendant in error and he has made a motion to dismiss the writ of error in this court on the ground, among others, that an essential party has not been named as defendant in error and served with a copy of the bill of exceptions. Under the facts outlined above, it is clear that Co-Op Cab Co., the defendant in the main suit, has a substantial interest in upholding the judgment of the trial court and is, therefore, a necessary party in this court. *822In this suit the recovery sought is based on simple negligence of the defendant and the prayer merely seeks to recover the actual damages to the plaintiff’s automobile. On the other hand, the copy of the suit in the city court which is attached as an exhibit to the stipulation shows that a somewhat larger sum is being sought as actual damages and that, in addition, plaintiff claims the right to recover exemplary damages. Napier became a party to the case in the lower court when he was served with Lydick’s motion and the judge’s order requiring him to show cause why the prayers of that motion should not be granted, and, having thus become a party to the case in the lower court, he does have such an interest in upholding the judgment as makes him a proper party and we have, therefore, made Co-Op Cab Co. a party defendant in error under the provisions of *Code*§ 6-1202 as amended. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is, therefore, denied.

The loan receipt signed by Lydick in this case is identical in wording with the loan receipt in *Lowance v. Dempsey,*99 Ga. App. 592 (109 SE2d 318). In that case, it was held in effect that the attorney for the insurance company was not authorized to bring a suit on behalf of the insured solely on the authority of such a loan receipt. In fact, the loan receipt does not in any sense purport to convey authority to the insurance company to bring suit on behalf of the insured against the parties responsible, but obligates the insured to bring the suit himself. In that case, it was held that the record demanded the finding of the superior court that the attorney acting for the insurance company in bringing suit in the name of the insured was without authority and that the plaintiff should be relieved of the consequences of his actions. The motion in this case was a direct attack on the authority of the attorney who purported to represent Lydick and was clearly brought under the terms of *Code*§ 9-603. Under the facts appearing in the record in this case, the trial court erred in denying Lydick’s motion.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*