alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Patrick MacAllister Date: 6/23/15

DBA, Aerial Optics Exemption No. 11430 

P.O Box 26 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–0170

Humarock MA 02047 

(781)588-3259 

Patrick@aerialoptics.net

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave.,

SE Washington, DC 20590

To who it may concern, 

Patrick MacAllister DBA, Aerial Optics would like to add 11 UAS to our existing exemption, Exemption No. 

11430, Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–0170. Ten are UAS/Rotorcraft and one is an UAS/Fixed wing. All 

added UAS fall within the FAA section 333 UAS specifications. Aerial Optics is requesting the ability to 

operate the UAS listed below. All UAS Aerial Optics operates will have equal or better safety features than 

our current UAS. When operating new and existing UAS Aerial Optics will strictly adhere to our existing 

operating procedures stated in our exemption #11430. 

The 4 UAS listed below have been approved for use in other section 333 exemptions. 

DJI Inspire1 - This UAS has been approved in exemption #11398

DJI S1000 - This UAS has been approved in exemption #11416

DJI S900 - This UAS has been approved in exemption #11401

3DRobotics IRIS+ - This UAS has been approved in exemption #11419

The 7 UAS listed below have not yet been approved in existing section 333 exemptions. UAS information

is available with the provided links:

DJI Phantom 3 - http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3

DJI Matrice 100 - http://dev.dji.com/en/products/flying-platforms/matrice-100

Yuneec Tornado H920- http://www.yuneec.com/products/aerialuav/h920.html

Yuneec Typhoon Q500 - http://www.yuneec.com/products/AerialUAV/typhoon-q500-plus.html

senseFly eXom - https://www.sensefly.com/drones/exom.html

senseFly eBee - https://www.sensefly.com/drones/ebee.html

Tayzu Robotics Titan X8- http://tayzu.com/tayzu-x8-drone.html

Thank you, 

Patrick L MacAllister, D.B.A Aerial Optics
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                       554
<INVENTORY>                                        843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,477
<PP&E>                                         179,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,573
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 155,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,231
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,559
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,783
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,767
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (730)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (275)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (455)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (455)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
42393.

#### THOMPSON v. THE STATE.

Deen, Judge.

The defendant Dewitt Thompson was apprehended in the company of his cousin, Gaddis, and his uncle, M. C. Thompson in a 1952 Cadillac two-tone green and white sedan at 5:30 p.m. A beige Zenith Channel Master television set was in the back seat of the car and a remote control unit and clock radio were in the trunk. All these items had been removed from burglarized premises sometime during the afternoon of the same day. Gaddis and M. C. Thompson pleaded guilty to the burglary; the defendant pleaded not guilty and contended that he had joined his uncle and cousin in the car at their invitation after he left work at about 4 or 4:30 p.m. The only other evidence in the case is that a witness noticed *29a “green or gray old model Cadillac” on an old logging road about 200 yards from the burglarized premises at about 3 p.m. He stated there were three white men in the car, two young and one older, but that he was unable to identify any of them. The defendant is 26 years old, Gaddis, 24 and M. C. Thompson, 43. *Held:*

*Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur.*

Submitted November 7, 1966

Decided January 12, 1967.

*William C. Bimmer, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Dan Winn, Solicitor General, John T. Perren,*for appellee.

This case is controlled by *Woody v. State,*99 Ga. App. 867 (109 SE2d 896) which held that where four men were arrested in an automobile containing stolen goods, and the owner of the car and one of the other men pleaded guilty to burglary, the evidence was insufficient to exclude the reasonable hypothesis that the explanation offered by the other two, who contended they were not guilty, was untrue. In this case there is also evidence that a car like that of M. C. Thompson was in the vicinity of the crime during a time when it is reasonable to believe the goods were stolen, but neither that car nor any of its occupants was identified. This testimony, therefore, is insufficient to fill in the gap between *Woody,*supra, and the minimum necessary to sustain the conviction.

*Judgment reversed.*
# C_2012092EN.01000301.xml

| 29.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/3

---

No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

2012/C 92/03

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 12 October 2011 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 68123 |
| Decision number | : | 311/11/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Region | : | Akershus, Aust-Agder, Buskerud, Finnmark, Hedmark, Hordaland, Nordland, Nord-Trøndelag, Møre og Romsdal, Oppland, Rogaland, Sogn og Fjordane, Sør-Trøndelag, Telemark, Troms, Vest-Agder, Vestfold and Østfold |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Nasjonal digital læringsarena (NDLA) |
| Legal basis | : | The legal basis for the funds paid by the Ministry of Education to NDLA is the 2006 state budget resolution of the Stortinget in combination with the delegation of competence to the Ministry of Education to approve applications for grants. The legal basis for the grants from the county municipalities to the NDLA is budget resolution of the participating county municipalities |
| Objective | : | Public education |
| Budget | : | NOK 147,9 million (2007-2010) |
| Economic sectors | : | Development of Learning Material |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Ministry of Education and Research |
| PO Box 8119 Dep. |
| 0032 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

12 October 2011

Case number

:

68123

Decision number

:

311/11/COL

EFTA State

:

Norway

Region

:

Akershus, Aust-Agder, Buskerud, Finnmark, Hedmark, Hordaland, Nordland, Nord-Trøndelag, Møre og Romsdal, Oppland, Rogaland, Sogn og Fjordane, Sør-Trøndelag, Telemark, Troms, Vest-Agder, Vestfold and Østfold

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Nasjonal digital læringsarena (NDLA)

Legal basis

:

The legal basis for the funds paid by the Ministry of Education to NDLA is the 2006 state budget resolution of the Stortinget in combination with the delegation of competence to the Ministry of Education to approve applications for grants. The legal basis for the grants from the county municipalities to the NDLA is budget resolution of the participating county municipalities

Objective

:

Public education

Budget

:

NOK 147,9 million (2007-2010)

Economic sectors

:

Development of Learning Material

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Ministry of Education and Research

PO Box 8119 Dep.

0032 Oslo

NORWAY

Other information

:

—

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
§ 252.21 Applicability. ( a ) *General applicability.* A bank holding company must comply with the risk-committee requirements set forth in this subpart beginning on the first day of the ninth quarter following the date on which its average total consolidated assets equal or exceed $50 billion.
( b ) *Cessation of requirements.* A bank holding company will remain subject to the requirements of this subpart until the earlier of the date on which: ( 1 ) Its total consolidated assets are below $50 billion for each of four consecutive calendar quarters; and
( 2 ) It becomes subject to the requirements of subpart D of this part.
[84 FR 59102, Nov. 1, 2019]
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 I, Barbara A. Klein, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CDW Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:  a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting. /s/ Barbara A. KleinBarbara A. KleinSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerCDW CorporationMarch 11, 2004
Exhibit 10.1


 


Amendment No. 1


to


Primo Water Corporation


Amended and Restated 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan







Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”), dated April 30, 2015, to the Amended and Restated 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Existing Plan”; as amended hereby, the “Plan”), of Primo Water Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).


 


Statement of Purpose







The Plan was approved by the Company’s Board of Directors on April 10, 2012, and by its stockholders on May 15, 2012, and became effective on such date.  The Company wishes to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $.001, authorized for issuance under the Plan.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements contained herein, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:







1.            Capitalized Terms.  All capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings given thereto in the Existing Plan.







2.            Amendment to Existing Plan.







The first two paragraphs of Section 4 Stock Subject to the Plan are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following:







“Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 15 hereof, the maximum number of shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan shall be 3,892,674 (as adjusted pursuant to this Section 4 and Section 15).  In addition, there shall be added the number of shares subject to stock options granted under the Company’s 2004 Stock Plan that are canceled, expired, forfeited, settled in cash, settled by issuance of fewer shares than the number of shares underlying stock option or otherwise terminated without delivery of shares to the Grantees.







3,718,735 of such shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan shall be available for issuance pursuant to Incentive Stock Options.  Stock issued or to be issued under the Plan shall be authorized but unissued shares; or, to the extent permitted by applicable law, issued shares that have been reacquired by the Company.  Subject to adjustments in accordance with Section 15, the maximum number of each type of Award (other than cash-based Performance Awards) intended to constitute “performance-based compensation” under Code Section 162(m) granted to any Grantee in any thirty-six (36) month period shall not exceed the following: Options:  800,000; SARs: 800,000; Restricted Stock: 800,000; Restricted Stock Units: 800,000; and other Stock-based Performance Awards: 800,000.”







3.            Reference to and Effect on the Plan.  The Plan, as amended hereby, and all other documents, instruments and agreements executed and/or delivered in connection therewith, shall remain in full force and effect, and are hereby ratified and confirmed.


 













4.            Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware.







*            *            *







Effective this 30th day of April, 2015.
# C_2017108EN.01001301.xml

| 6.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 29 July 2016

in Case E-30/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

v

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/62/EU amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use)

(2017/C 108/11)

In Case E-30/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
Editorial Note on Part 249
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 79 FR 61539, Oct. 10, 2014.

§ 249.100 Net stable funding ratio. ( a ) *Minimum net stable funding ratio requirement.* A Board-regulated institution must maintain a net stable funding ratio that is equal to or greater than 1.0 on an ongoing basis in accordance with this subpart.
( b ) *Calculation of the net stable funding ratio.* For purposes of this part, a Board-regulated institution's net stable funding ratio equals: ( 1 ) The Board-regulated institution's available stable funding (ASF) amount, calculated pursuant to § 249.103, as of the calculation date; divided by
( 2 ) The Board-regulated institution's required stable funding (RSF) amount, calculated pursuant to § 249.105, as of the calculation date.
427 A.2d 250

#### Commonwealth v. Kent, Appellant.

Submitted March 21, 1980.

E. Yvonne Grear, for appellant;

Eric B. Henson, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before HESTER, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105

- 2498

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: OTAQ Meetings for 2012 NCP Rulemaking

FROM: Byron Bunker

TO: Docket Number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 20 11

- 1000

DATE: 20 August 2012

After issuances of EPA ’ s n otice of p ropos e d r ulemaking (NPRM) representatives of various engine manufacturers met with me and other representatives of EPA ’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), to discuss the 2012 Nonconformance Penalty (NCP) proposal . This

memorandum summarizes the se meetings which occurred at EPA headquarters or via phone

.

O n March 8, 2012, representatives of Volvo including Executive VP for North America Dennis Slagle, Jan

- Eric Sundgren

– Exec VP Volvo Group , and Jonathan Miller

– VP Government

Relations and Public Affairs met with OTAQ to d iscuss the NCP rulemaking. Representatives of

EPA inclu ded Margo Oge, Office Director

– OTAQ. During the meeting Volvo raised issues consistent with the written comments they would later file including arguments that an NCP was

unwarranted under these circumstances

, and that if granted

, the NCP penalty should be substantially higher. Volvo was encouraged to provide written comments supplementing their statements which they did.

On March 22, 2012, representatives of Cummins met with OTAQ to discuss the rulemaking

. Representatives from Cummins included John Wa ll, Chief Technical Officer for Cummins. Representatives of EPA included Margo Oge, Office Director

– OTAQ. Cummins repeated

concern s it raised at the public hearing that the NCP levels were too low and presented a cost analys is that provided evidence for a higher penalty

.

On May 17, 2012 representatives of Navistar held a phone call with EPA representatives to

discuss the rulemaking. Steve Covey, Larry Levine and Patrick Charbonneau participated in the meeting for Navistar. Michael Horowitz, Justing Greuel, Gregory Orehowsky and I represent ed

EP A in the meeting. During the meetin g Navistar ’ s inability to produce compliant products in a timely manner was discussed including c onfidentia l information regarding specific product

schedules for Navistar ’ s 11, 13 and 15 lit er engine products , and their need for NCPs

. Navistar later supplemented their statements with written comments on May 22, 2012 consistent with the information Navistar shared during the conference call. OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION