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

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Morgan Keegan, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 1999,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,996
<RECEIVABLES>                                  646,220
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            418,550
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                            9,480
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            417,563
<PP&E>                                          26,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,600,068
<SHORT-TERM>                                   170,300
<PAYABLES>                                     774,792
<REPOS-SOLD>                                   192,336
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                              7,589
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              88,993
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,339
<OTHER-SE>                                     224,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,600,068
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               30,623
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            22,345
<COMMISSIONS>                                   27,279
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   11,884
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   10,904
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,204
<COMPENSATION>                                  53,125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,865
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,865
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,465
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24



</TABLE>
Motion Granted and Order filed August 13, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-01010-CR

____________

LUIS GILBERT ABREGO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1578737

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant filed a motion requesting to 

review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The motion is 

granted.
Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 262nd District Court to afford 

appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure; 

that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant on or before August 28, 

2019; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of 

the record to appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se brief with this court 

within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM
10/19/15

Brandon King 281 Buffalo Street Beaver, PA 15009 kingb624@aol.com (724)728

- 1263
To whom it may

concern: I am requesting exemption for section 333 of the Reform Act by the Federal Aviation Regulations under 14 CFR 21 subpart H as well as: 14 CFR 45.23 (b) 14 CFR 61.113 (a) and (b) 14 CFR 91.7 (a) 14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2) 14 CFR 91.103 14 CFR 91.109 14 CFR 91.119 (c) 14 CFR 91.121 14 CFR 91.151 (a) 14 CFR 91.203 (a) and (b) 14 CFR 91.405 (a) 14 CFR 91.407 (a) (1) 14 CFR 91.409 (a) (1) and (2) 14 CFR 91.417 (a) and (b) I am applying for exemption from these regulations to operate a UAS for commercial purposes, provided the operations will be conducted in a safe and secure manner that follow the outlines of Section 333 of FAA. The commercial operations that will be conducted will include aerial photography and video for real

- estate, aerial photography and video for ar chitecture, aerial photography and video for agricultural operations, and 3D mapping. The sy stem I will be operating will be a DJI Phanto m 3 Professional. This UAS is a quadcopter sy stem which has four rotating blades about 6 inches in length. It is operated using radio signals, Wi

- Fi , and GPS with line of sight to ensure safety

. The weight is only

1280 g (about 3 pounds). The max speeds ar e 16 m/s, 5 m/s ascending, and 3 m/s descending. The max flight altitude is 6000m and the max flight time is approximately

23 minutes. The Phantom 3 allows for complete control, but also allowing safe flights. For example if I lose connection to my Phanto m 3, the GPS will take over and bring thePhantom back to me. Another example is the Phantom 3 has training videos to allow the

operator to become familiar with their sy stem and become experts with it. Given the parameters that the FAA has established for the use of any UAS, the sy stem I will be using fits within these parameters and some of my own listed below: 1. The UAS must weigh less than 55 pounds. 2. Flights must be operated below 400 feet AGL. 3. Flights must be operated line of sight. 4. Flights will not be operated near any airport. 5. The flight will be terminated at 20% battery life. 6. Flights will be operated in controlled areas with permission from owners. 7. I will make sure there is an area of safety to pr event injuries from any person(s). 8. I will be properly

trained before operating this sy stem for commercial purposes.
I currently

am enrolled in a UAS program at the Community College of Beaver County

. We must log forty

hours of total UAS time with different UAS sy stems. This enrollment also requires obtaining a private pilot certificate, as well as an instrument rating which I have obtained both. I am also a part of the FAA wings program for knowledge and safety

. Knowing that I have gone through the proper ground schools and proper flight training, along with knowing airspaces in my area and certain FARs, I request that the FAA grant my exemption for Section 333 and modif y an y part of this request to satisfy the level of safety . If you need any

additional information please contact me with any questions or

conc erns.
Sincerely ,

Brandon King
Editorial Note on Part 501
Editorial Note: At 78 FR 4766, Jan. 23, 2013, parts 500-599 were transferred from Title 37, Chapter V, to Title 37, Chapter IV. Chapter V was removed and reserved.

§ 501.7 Agency determination. ( a ) If the agency determines that the Government is entitled to obtain title pursuant to § 501.6(a)(1) and the employee does not appeal, no further review is required.
( b ) In the event that a Government agency determines, pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(4) of § 501.6, that title to an invention will be left with the employee, the agency shall notify the employee of this determination. In cases pursuant to § 501.6(a)(2) where the Government's insufficient interest in the invention is evidenced by its decision not to file a patent application, the agency may impose on the employee any one or all of the following conditions or any other conditions that may be necessary in a particular case: ( 1 ) That a patent application be filed in the United States and/or abroad, if the Government has determined that it has or may need to practice the invention;
( 2 ) That the invention not be assigned to any foreign-owned or controlled corporation without the written permission of the agency; and
( 3 ) That any assignment or license of rights to use or sell the invention in the United States shall contain a requirement that any products embodying the invention or produced through the use of the invention be substantially manufactured in the United States. The agency shall notify the employee of any conditions imposed.
( c ) In the case of a determination under either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the agency shall promptly provide the employee with: ( 1 ) A signed and dated statement of its determination and reasons therefor; and
( 2 ) A copy of 37 CFR part 501.
[53 FR 39735, Oct. 11, 1988, as amended at 61 FR 40999, Aug. 7, 1996]
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4378 Debits and credits to insurance account under § 36.4320.

In the event that an insured loan is transferred under the provisions of § 36.4320, there shall be charged to the insurance account of the transferor a sum equal to the amount paid transferor on account of the indebtedness less the current market value of the property transferred as security therefor as determined by an appraiser designated by the Secretary, or the amount chargeable to such insurance account in the event of a transfer under § 36.4377, whichever sum is the greater. The credit to the insurance account of the transferee will be computed in accordance with § 36.4377(a).

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3703(c)(1))

[73 FR 6310, Feb. 1, 2008. Redesignated at 75 FR 33705, June 15, 2010, as amended at 80 FR 34319, June 16, 2015]
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ARTHUR GILBERT, ) ) ) ) 

### Plaintiff,


### v. ) Civil Case No. 05-2128 (RJL) ) 

### JANET NAPOLITANO, )

hereby 

### Defendant. ) 

# )--tc...--- FINAL JUDGMENT (January

### ~2011) Forthe reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion entered this date, it is



### ORDERED that the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 

### [#66] is 

### GRANTED, and it is further 

### ORDERED that the above-captioned case be 

### DISMISSED with prejudice.

# ~eJJ~**RICHAW~** United States District Judge
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4217 Delivery of notice.

Any notice required by the § 36.4200 series to be given the Secretary must be in writing or such other communications medium as may be approved by an official designated in § 36.4221(b) and delivered, by mail or otherwise, to the VA office at which the guaranty was issued, or to any changed address of which the holder has been given notice. Such notice must plainly identify the case by setting forth the name of the original veteran-obligor and the file number assigned to the case by the Secretary, if available, or otherwise the name and serial number of the veteran. If mailed, the notice shall be by certified mail when so provided by the § 36.4200 series. This section does not apply to legal process. (See § 36.4282.)

[58 FR 29114, May 19, 1993]
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.323 Combined ratings. ( a ) *Compensation* — ( 1 ) *Same type of service.* When there are two or more service-connected compensable disabilities a combined evaluation will be made following the tables and rules prescribed in the 1945 Schedule for Rating Disabilities.
( 2 ) *Wartime and peacetime service.* Evaluation of wartime and peacetime service-connected compensable disabilities will be combined to provide for the payment of wartime rates of compensation. (38 U.S.C. 1157) Effective July 1, 1973, it is immaterial whether the disabilities are wartime or peacetime service-connected since all disabilities are compensable under 38 U.S.C. 1114 and 1115 on and after that date.
( b ) *Pension* — ( 1 ) *Nonservice-connected disabilities.* Evaluation of two or more nonservice-connected disabilities not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct will be combined as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( 2 ) *Service-connected and nonservice-connected disabilities.* Evaluations for service-connected disabilities may be combined with evaluations for disabilities not shown to be service connected and not the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct.

Cross References:
“Willful misconduct.” See § 3.1(n). Pension. See § 3.3. Line of duty and misconduct. See § 3.301. Service connection for mental unsoundness in suicide. See § 3.302. [26 FR 1583, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 38 FR 21923, Aug. 14, 1973; 61 FR 20438, May 7, 1996]
#### Margaret Connor, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

May, 1899.)

Negligence — Passenger alighting from street car — Judgment, against the weight of evidence.

A judgment for a street-car passenger must be reversed where her statement that she was injured because the ear started after it had stopped and while she was alighting* is contested by the conductor, *542the gripman, a bicycle patrolman and a passenger who state that the accident happened before she reached her street,, and that she alighted -while the car was in motion.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court, ■ tenth district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.

Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.

Lawrence. P. Mingey, for respondent.

MacLean, J.

According to the plaintiff’s version, she, a woman of sixty, being a passenger on the car of the defendant going downtown, asked the' conductor to stop at Twenty-third street, she heard the bell ring for the gripman to stop the car, the conductor called out Twenty-third street, and when it had come to a stop, she stepped down, putting her right foot down, taking hold of the rail, and just as she was taking hold of the rail, the car started and she was pulled down on her right side, and thrown upon the street.' The car stopped, as she said, just where she asked it to- stop, but where, with reference to the two crosswalks on Twenty-third street, or whether it • was on the north side of Twenty-third street, she could not remember. Eor the defendant four witnesses, the conductor, the gripman, a bicycle patrolman and a -passenger, tes-' tilled that the accident happened north of Twenty-third street, and that the plaintiff alighted from the car before it had come- to a stop at all (giving incidents with circumstantiality).

The judgment should be reversed, with costs. Pierce v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 21 App. Div. 427.

Fbeedmaw, P. J., concurs; Levextbitt, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered,, with costs to appellant to abide' event.
August 8, 2016

Mr. James Dunn

Eastern Aero Solutions LLC

8340 Moyer Carriage

Cicero, NY 13039

Re: FAA–2016–3201

Dear Mr. Dunn:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst
§ 1.913 Liquidation of collateral. ( a ) VA should liquidate security or collateral through the exercise of a power of sale in the security instrument or a nonjudicial foreclosure, and apply the proceeds to the applicable debt, if the debtor fails to pay the debt within 180 days after demand and if such action is in the best interest of the United States. Collection from other sources, including liquidation of security or collateral, is not a prerequisite to requiring payment by a surety, insurer, or guarantor, unless such action is expressly required by statute or contract.
( b ) When VA learns that a bankruptcy petition has been filed with respect to a debtor, VA should seek legal advice from VA's General Counsel or Regional Counsel concerning the impact of the Bankruptcy Code, including, but not limited to, 11 U.S.C. 362, to determine the applicability of the automatic stay and the procedures for obtaining relief from such stay prior to proceeding under paragraph (a) of this section.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3711; 38 U.S.C. 501)
[69 FR 62195, Oct. 25, 2004]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE

DONALD SMASAL, SR., CANDIDATE

FOR MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF

HORIZON CITY, TEXAS

RELATOR

 §

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-09-00103-CV

An Original Proceeding 

in Mandamus

MEMORANDAUM OPINION 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Relator, Donald Smasal, Sr., candidate for Mayor of the Town of Horizon City, Texas

asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus against the City Clerk of Horizon City, Texas. In

order to be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must meet two requirements. First, the relator

must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Insurance Company

of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the relator must demonstrate he has no

adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 135-36. Based on the record before us, we are unable to

conclude Relator is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus

is denied. Further, we deny the request made by the Town of Horizon City, Texas for sanctions

pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 52.11.

April 29, 2009

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
41739.

#### JOHNSON v. THE STATE.

Argued January 5, 1966

Decided February 23, 1966

Rehearing denied March 21, 1966.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “The refusal to declare a mistrial on account of a voluntary answer of a witness is not reversible error unless the trial court fails to apply proper corrective measures.” *Haynes v. State,*80 Ga. App. 99 (2) (55 SE2d 646). In the present case the court, after overruling the defendant’s motion for mistrial, instructed the jury to disregard the testimony which had the effect of putting the character of the defendant in issue. Under the decisions - of this court and the Supreme Court, exemplified by *Osteen v. State,*83 Ga. App. 378, 381 (63 SE2d 692); and *Manchester v. State,*171 Ga. 121 (7) (155 SE 11), the grant of a mistrial is largely within the discretion of the trial court and such discretion will not be disturbed unless abused. No abuse of such discretion is shown in the present case.

2. The evidence adduced on the trial of the case, while not without conflict, was sufficient to authorize the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*

*362
      *Louis H. Mitchell,*for appellant.

*W. B. Skipworth, Jr., Solicitor General,*for appellee.
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4316 Acceptability of partial payments. A partial payment is a remittance by or on behalf of the borrower on a loan in default (as defined in § 36.4301) of any amount less than the full amount due under the terms of the loan and security instruments at the time the remittance is tendered. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, or upon the express waiver of the Secretary, the mortgage holder shall accept any partial payment and either apply it to the mortgagor's account or identify it with the mortgagor's account and hold it in a special account pending disposition. When partial payments held for disposition aggregate a full monthly installment, including escrow, they shall be applied to the mortgagor's account.
( b ) A partial payment may be returned to the mortgagor, within 10 calendar days from date of receipt of such payment, with a letter of explanation only if one or more of the following conditions exist: ( 1 ) The property is wholly or partially tenant-occupied and rental payments are not being remitted to the holder for application to the loan account;
( 2 ) The payment is less than one full monthly installment, including escrows and late charge, if applicable, unless the lesser payment amount has been agreed to under a repayment plan;
( 3 ) The payment is less than 50 percent of the total amount then due, unless the lesser payment amount has been agreed to under a repayment plan;
( 4 ) The payment is less than the amount agreed to in a repayment plan;
( 5 ) The amount tendered is in the form of a personal check and the holder has previously notified the mortgagor in writing that only cash or certified remittances are acceptable;
( 6 ) A delinquency of any amount has continued for at least 6 months since the account first became delinquent and no repayment plan has been arranged;
( 7 ) Foreclosure has been commenced by the taking of the first action required for foreclosure under local law; or
( 8 ) The holder's lien position would be jeopardized by acceptance of the partial payment.
( c ) A failure by the holder to comply with the provisions of this paragraph may result in a partial or total loss of guaranty or insurance pursuant to § 36.4328(b), but such failure shall not constitute a defense to any legal action to terminate the loan.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3703(c)(1))
[73 FR 6310, Feb. 1, 2008. Redesignated at 75 FR 33705, June 15, 2010, as amended at 75 FR 65238, Oct. 22, 2010; 89 FR 25144, Apr. 10, 2024]
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 3631 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 060

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

c ost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### M odify the cockpit

door frame 53 .0 $ 4,505.0

0 $2,430 $ 6,935.00 

### 70 $ 485,450.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 485,450



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hou r) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( U se this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulator y action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation :

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :