alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Scott	Wordham

7051	West	Manchester	Avenue,	Unit	E			Westchester,	California	90045

310-529-1830

Scott	Wordham

7051	West	Manchester	Avenue

Unit	E

Westchester,	California	90045

Ph:	310-529-1830

swordham@sbcglobal.net

October	25,	2015

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation

Docket	Manager	System

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	SW

Washington,	D.C.		20590

Dear	Sir	or	Madam:

Per	instruction	of	the	Federal	Aviation	Administration,	I	am	Petitioning	for	

Exemption	under	Section	333	of	the	FAA	Reform	Act	and	Part	11	of	the	Federal	

Aviation	Regulations	from	14	CFR	61.23(a)	and	(c),	61.101(e)(4)	and	(5),	61.113(a),	

61.315(a),	91.7(a),	91.119(c),	91.121,	91.151(a)(1),	91.405(a),	91.407(a)(1),	

91.409(a)(1)	and	(2),	and	91.417(a)	and	(b).

I	am	seeking	this	exemption	in	order	to	operate an	Unmanned	Aircraft System	(UAS)	

for	the	commercial	purpose	of	photography	and	aerial	video	of	special	events,	real	

estate,	and	inspections.	

I	am	requesting	the	exemption	in	part	because	unlike	a	manned	aircraft,	the	UAS

carries no	passengers	or	crew,	and	no	flammable	fuel.	This	benefits	the	general	

public,	as	well	as	myself,	as	the	UAS	can	accomplish	aerial	photography,	inspection,	

and	video	without	the	use	of	a	heavy,	flammable	aircraft.	These	UASs	operate	at	very	

slow	speeds,	close	to	the	ground, and as	a	result,	are	far	safer	than	conventional	

operations	conducted	with	turbine	helicopters	operating	in close	proximity	to	the	

ground	and	people. An	additional	benefit to	the	public	is	the	UAS	can	provide

services	at	a	much	lower	cost	than	the	same	services provided by	an	armed	aircraft.	

In	accordance	with	the	Section	333	Exemption	the	UAS	weighs	less	than	55	pounds.

I	will	not	fly	it	above	200	feet.	I	will	only	operate	the	UAS	during	the	day,	and	always	

within	my	visual	line	of	site.		I	will	operate	the	UAS	in	a	controlled	environment,	a	

safe	distance	from	streetlights,	power	and	phone	lines,	airports,	and	areas	that	are	

actively	populated.		Before	every	use	of	the	UAS,	I	will	conduct	preflight	inspections.		

I	will	operate	the	UAS	at	well	under	80	knots,	as	nothing	I	use	it	for	requires	that	

speed.		I	will	never	allow	the	battery	to	diminish	in	power	below	20%,	reserving

power	for	emergencies.		I	will	always	operate	the	UAS	with	the	safety	feature	that	
Scott	Wordham

7051	West	Manchester	Avenue,	Unit	E			Westchester,	California	90045

310-529-1830

enables the	aircraft	to	land	safely	in	the	event	the	operator’s	remote	control	

communication	is	lost.	I	will	obtain	any	necessary	permission	prior	to	operating	the	

UAS.	I	will	have	procedures	in	place	to	end	a	flight	in	the	case	of	any	unforeseen	

danger.

The	UAS	I	will	operate	is	the	DJI	Phantom	3	with	1080	HD	Video	Camera.	The	UAS	

equipment	includes:

• A	fully	stabilized	3-axis	gimbal

• Lightbridge	digital	streaming	viewing	of	720p	video

• Vision	Positioning	system	for	stable	flight

• Flight	battery	and	rechargeable	remote	controller

											 Thank	you	for	your	review	of	this	petition.	Please	feel	free	to	contact	me	with	any	

questions.	

Sincerely,		

Scott	Wordham

.
Comments on NPDES Drafts 

Caton, William 

to: 

Jennifer Chan, Virginia Garelick, Jack Faulk 

12/04/2009 02:22 PM 

Cc: 

"Schardt, Jeffrey", "Coram, Phil", "Potts, Elsa", "Drew, Richard", "'Dwinell, Steve'", "'Howard, 

Dennis'", "'Daiker, Dave'" 

Show Details 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is the lead agency in Florida responsible for

directing the control, eradication, and regulation of noxious aquatic weeds.   The FWC implements this

responsibility through a funding program for the management of aquatic plants in publically accessible water

bodies and a permitting program for activities that do not qualify for state funding.  NPDES requirements could

have a significant impact on the operations of this program.  Therefore, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to

participate in the NPDES PGP process.  Attached are comments on: BATs; feasibility and cost estimates; and

reporting requirements.

  

If this information needs to be sent to others in EPA please forward it to them.  If you have any questions or

need additional information, please contact me.

  

Regards,

William E. Caton, Section Leader

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Division of Habitat and Species Conservation

Invasive Plant Management Section

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 705

Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

bill.caton@myfwc.com

850-245-2809

Fax: 850-245-2834

  

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jfaulk\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web4282.htm 5/11/2010
**Exhibit 31.1**

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

I, Rajesh Kalathur, certify that:

​

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2021 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

​

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

​

3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing, and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

​

4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

​

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

​

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).

​

​

| ​                | ​ | ​                                     |
|------------------------|---------|---------------------------------------------|
| Date: January 26, 2024 | By:     | */s/ Rajesh Kalathur*                       |
| ​                | ​ | Rajesh Kalathur                             |
| ​                | ​ | President of John Deere Capital Corporation |
| ​                | ​ | (as Servicer)                               |

​

----
§ 21.86 Individualized extended evaluation plan. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of an IEEP is to identify the services needed for the VA to determine the veteran's current ability to achieve a vocational goal when this cannot reasonably be determined during the initial evaluation. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3106(a), 3107(a))
( b ) *Elements of the plan.* An IEEP shall include the same elements as an IWRP except that: ( 1 ) The long range goal shall be to determine achievement of a vocational goal is currently reasonably feasible;
( 2 ) The intermediate objectives relate to problems of questions which must be resolved for the VA to determine the current reasonable feasibility of achieving a vocational goal.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3106(a), 3107(a))
[53 FR 50957, Dec. 19, 1988]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6467** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TREVOR LITTLE, a/k/a Tragedy, a/k/a Trag , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston
. Thomas E. Johnston , District Judge. ( 2:95

- cr - 00198

- 2; 2:10

- cv - 00978 )

Submitted : July 24 , 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Trevor Little, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bin ding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Trevor Little seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court ’ s order denying rel ief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion , and denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing
. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . A certificate of appeala bility will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Little has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We3 dispense with oral argument bec ause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### § 4.88c Ratings for inactive nonpulmonary tuberculosis initially entitled after August 19, 1968.

| | Rating |
| --- | --- |
| For 1 year after date of inactivity, following active tuberculosis | 100 |
| Thereafter: Rate residuals under the specific body system or systems affected. | |
| Following the total rating for the 1 year period after date of inactivity, the schedular evaluation for residuals of nonpulmonary tuberculosis, *i.e.*, ankylosis, surgical removal of a part, etc., will be assigned under the appropriate diagnostic code for the residual preceded by the diagnostic code for tuberculosis of the body part affected. For example, tuberculosis of the hip joint with residual ankylosis would be coded 5001-5250. Where there are existing residuals of pulmonary and nonpulmonary conditions, the evaluations for residual separate functional impairment may be combined. | |
| Where there are existing pulmonary and nonpulmonary conditions, the total rating for the 1 year, after attainment of inactivity, may not be applied to both conditions during the same period. However, the total rating during the 1-year period for the pulmonary or for the nonpulmonary condition will be utilized, combined with evaluation for residuals of the condition not covered by the 1-year total evaluation, so as to allow any additional benefit provided during such period. | |

[34 FR 5062, Mar. 11, 1969. Redesignated at 59 FR 60902, Nov. 29, 1994]
42229.

#### PHILLIPS v. THE STATE.

Hall, Judge.

The defendant appeals from his conviction for larceny of an automobile.

1. The owner testified that she parked her automobile at a location in Pulton County, that when she returned several hours later it was missing, that she had not given authority to anyone to move it, and that it was stolen. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, this was sufficient to establish the venue of the crime in Fulton County. “Evidence as to venue, though slight, is sufficient where there is no conflicting evidence.” *Gee v. State,*110 Ga. App. 439 (3) (138 SE2d 700).

2. The conflict between the defendant’s testimony and testimony of witnesses for the State authorized the jury to find that the defendant’s explanation of his possession of the stolen property was not satisfactory. *Howington v. State,*110 Ga. App. 452 (138 SE2d 677).

*418Argued September 12, 1966

Decided September 21, 1966

Rehearing denied October 6, 1966

*G. Hughel Harrison,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, Solicitor General, J. Walter LeCraw, J. Roger Thompson,*for appellee.

3. Enumerations of error 3 and 4 are without merit. No party-may complain of the giving or the failure to give an instruction to the jury, unless he objects thereto before the jury returns its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18), as amended (Ga. L. 1966, p. 493).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
#### § 46.7 Prohibitions concerning negotiations.

Reporting under this part (including the submission of copies) may not be the subject of negotiation in any settlement agreement, employee action, legal proceedings, or any other negotiated settlement.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8
                                                                    ------------

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                          KENT ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
                      STOCK OPTION PLAN AND AGREEMENT FOR
                    VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY AND TREASURER

     This Amendment to Kent Electronics Corporation Stock Option Plan and
Agreement for Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer (the "Plan"), is effective
as of the 2nd day of July, 1997 (the "Effective Date"), between Kent Electronics
Corporation, a Texas corporation (the "Company"), and Stephen J. Chapko (the
"Optionee").

     WHEREAS, the Company adopted the Plan effective May 8, 1995; and

     WHEREAS, on July 2, 1997, the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors approved certain amendments to the Plan;

     NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises herein, this
Amendment to the Plan further evidences the amendment of the Plan as follows:

     1.   Amendment to the Plan.  The Plan is hereby amended as set forth on
          Exhibit A attached hereto.

     2.   Full Force and Effect.  The Plan, as amended hereby, shall remain in
          full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to the Plan to be
signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                              KENT ELECTRONICS CORPORATION


                              By: /s/ Morrie K. Abramson
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                  Morrie K. Abramson
                                  Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
                                    Officer and President


ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO
AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE:

Optionee:

/s/ Stephen J. Chapko
--------------------------------------
Stephen J. Chapko
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT A

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                          KENT ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
                      STOCK OPTION PLAN AND AGREEMENT FOR
                    VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY AND TREASURER


     Section 5 of the Kent Electronics Corporation Stock Option Plan and
Agreement for Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer shall be amended in its
entirety to provide for transferability of stock options as follows:

     5.  Transferability of Option. Except as set forth below, the Option
     granted hereunder shall not be transferable by the Optionee otherwise than
     by will or operation of the laws of descent and distribution or pursuant to
     a qualified domestic relations order as defined in the Code or Title 1 of
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, or the
     rules thereunder; provided, however, that the Option may be transferable,
     without payment of consideration, to immediate family members of the
     Optionee or to trusts or partnerships for such family members.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2022 Fiscal Transparency Report…Ethiopia

# 					2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Ethiopia			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Ethiopia 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Ethiopia

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget available to the public online.  The executive budget proposal, however, was not published, quarterly budget execution reports were not publicly available, and its end-of-year report was not published within a reasonable period.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available, including aggregated state-owned enterprise debt.  Budget documents lacked detail on state-owned enterprises.  The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence.  It audited the government’s annual financial statements and published its reports within a reasonable period.

Ethiopia’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Publishing its executive budget proposal and end-of-year report within a reasonable period; and
- Providing more detail on allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises in the budget.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Ethiopia 

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentEthiopia

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
# Official Journal C 274/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 274 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6214 August 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 274

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6214 August 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 274/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — fifth supplement to the 37th complete edition | 1 |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| 2019/C 274/02 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — sixth supplement to the 37th complete edition | 18 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 274/01

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — fifth supplement to the 37th complete edition

1

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

2019/C 274/02

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — sixth supplement to the 37th complete edition

18

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
§ 78.50 Suicide prevention services: Baseline mental health screening. ( a ) Grantees must provide or coordinate the provision of a baseline mental health screening to all eligible individuals they serve at the time those services begin. This mental health screening must be provided using a validated screening tool that assesses suicide risk and mental and behavioral health conditions. Information on the specific tool or tools to be used will be included in the NOFO.
( b ) If an eligible individual is at risk of suicide or other mental or behavioral health condition pursuant to the baseline mental health screening conducted under paragraph (a) of this section, the grantee must refer such individual to VA for care. If the eligible individual refuses the grantee's referral to VA, any ongoing clinical services provided to the eligible individual by the grantee are at the expense of the grantee.
( c ) Except as provided for under § 78.60(a), funds provided under this grant program may not be used to provide clinical services to eligible individuals, and any ongoing clinical services provided to such individuals by the grantee are at the expense of the grantee. The grantee may not charge, bill, or otherwise hold liable eligible individuals for the receipt of such care or services.
[87 FR 13835, Mar. 10, 2022; 87 FR 16101, Mar. 22, 2022, as amended at 89 FR 62663, Aug. 1, 2024]
HomePolicy Issues…Arms Control and Nonproliferation

Policy Issues

# Arms Control and Nonproliferation

The proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems, advanced conventional weapons, and related materials, technologies, and expertise presents a grave threat to the security of the United States and to international peace.

North Korea, for example, pursues nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in defiance of its international obligations, destabilizing Northeast Asia and increasing the risk of nuclear war. The Iranian regime develops ever more capable ballistic missiles and proliferates them to regional proxies and terrorist forces. Both ISIS and the Assad regime in Syria have used WMD. Russia and China have increasingly potent and diverse WMD and missile arsenals, and they provide advanced arms to partners and proxies in various regions.

It is a strategic goal of the Department of State to counter threats to the United States and the international order. Ultimately, the Department’s work improves the security of the United States and all the nations of the world.

Read more about what specific bureaus are doing to support this policy issue:

**Bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability (ADS)**: ADS helps to form key strategies and goals of the U.S. government on arms control. These strategies and goals cover two broad areas: 1) assisting the United States and other nations in negotiating arms control and disarmament treaties and 2) creating strong relationships with other nations to aid in the implementation of treaties. **Read more about ADS.**

**Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN):** ISN’s mission is to prevent the spread of WMD, delivery systems, and advanced conventional weapons capabilities and to roll back such proliferation where it has already taken root. ISN tracks, develops, and implements effective responses to proliferation threats and shapes the international security environment to prevent their recurrence. **Read more about ISN**

## 			Top Stories		

					April 4, 2024				

## To Walk the Earth in Safety (2024)

                    -  May 22, 2024							Under Secretary Jenkins Travels to Austria, Sweden						   
                    -  May 16, 2024							Imposing Sanctions in Response to DPRK-Russia Weapon Deals						   
                    -  May 15, 2024							Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: The Future of Arms Control and Deterrence						   
Read All Top Stories

Back to Top

                        - White House
                        - USA.gov
                        - Office of the Inspector General
                        - Archives
                        - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

                      - Privacy Policy
                      - Accessibility Statement
                      - Copyright Information
                      - FOIA
                      - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future