alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wheeler Martin, Executor, Appellant, *versus*James Dennie *et al.*

Where a statute required that a bond should be given, to be approved by the judge of probate, but was silent on the subject of sureties, it was held, that a bond so approved, although not signed by a surety, was sufficient.

This was a motion that an appeal from the Court of Pro-Date be dismissed, because the bond filed in the probate office for the prosecution of the appeal to effect and for paying intervening damages and costs, was executed by the appellant alone, without any surety. But per *Curiam.*The *St.*1817, c. 190, § 23, says it shall be the'duty of the judge of probate to examine and approve all bonds required by law to be filed in the probate office, and this bond therefore must be deemed to have been so approved ; and we are not warranted in holding that it should have been executed by a surety, the statute (§ 7) being silent on that subject. It is objected that a bond without a surety, furnishes no new security ; and it may be difficult to assign a good reason why the statute has omitted to require sureties. The provision that any bond shall be given on such appeal, may have been intended merely to furnish a specific remedy ; and possibly where the cause is like to be pending a long time, the judge of probate might require a bond signed by sureties. We do not mean to decide, however, that he can reject one because it is not so executed. The motion is overruled. [By the Revised Statutes no bond to prosecute such an appeal is required. See Revised Stat. *c.*83, § 32 *et seq.,*and note of the commissioneis.]

*Warren*and *Battelle,*for the appellees.

*Wilkinson,*for the appellant.
§ 420.59 Mishap plan. ( a ) *General.* A licensee must report, respond to, and investigate any event that meets either paragraph (1) or (5) of the definition of “mishap” in § 401.7 of this chapter. A licensee must submit a mishap plan that meets the requirements of § 450.173(b) through (f).
( b ) *Launch mishaps.* A launch site operator's mishap plan must also contain procedures for participating in an investigation of a launch mishap for launches launched from the launch site.
( c ) *Other agency procedures.* Emergency response and investigation procedures developed in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.119 and 40 CFR part 68 will satisfy the requirements of § 450.173(d) and (e) to the extent that they include the elements required by § 450.173(d) and (e).
[Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 420-9, 85 FR 79716, Dec. 10, 2020]
§ 61.413 What are the privileges of my flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating? ( a ) If you hold a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating, you are authorized, within the limits of your certificate and rating, to provide training and endorsements that are required for, and relate to— ( 1 ) A student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate;
( 2 ) A sport pilot certificate;
( 3 ) A flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating;
( 4 ) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft rating;
( 5 ) Sport pilot privileges;
( 6 ) A flight review or operating privilege for a sport pilot;
( 7 ) A practical test for a sport pilot certificate, a private pilot certificate with a powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft rating or a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating;
( 8 ) A knowledge test for a sport pilot certificate, a private pilot certificate with a powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft rating or a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating; and
( 9 ) A proficiency check for an additional category or class privilege for a sport pilot certificate or a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating.
( b ) A person who holds a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating is authorized, in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator, to: ( 1 ) Accept an application for a student pilot certificate or, for an applicant who holds a pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and meets the flight review requirements specified in § 61.56, a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating;
( 2 ) Verify the identity of the applicant; and
( 3 ) Verify that an applicant for a student pilot certificate meets the eligibility requirements in § 61.83.
[Docket FAA-2010-1127, Amdt. 61-135, 81 FR 1307, Jan. 12, 2016, as amended by Docket FAA-2015-0150, Amdt. 61-137, 81 FR 42208, June 28, 2016]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11916]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-952-00-1420-BJ]


Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be 
officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land 
Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico, (30) thirty calendar days from the 
date of this publication.

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico:

T. 29 N., R. 15 W., approved April 20, 2000, for Group 955 NM;
T. 29 N., R. 14 W., approved April 25, 2000, for Group 955 NM;
T. 29 N., R. 16 W., approved May 1, 2000, for Group 955 NM;
T. 14 S., R. 10 E., approved April 27, 2000, for Group 962 NM;
T. 21 N., R. 6 E., approved April 27, 2000, for Group 73 OK;

Amended Protraction Diagrams for Tps. 7-12 S., R. 21 W., approved May 
4, 2000;
    If a protest against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats 
is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be 
stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be 
officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed 
and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
    A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these 
surveys must file a written protest with the NM State Director, Bureau 
of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
    A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice 
of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be 
filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest 
is filed. The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, 
surveys, and subdivisions.
    These plats will be available for inspection in the New Mexico 
State Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New 
Mexico 87502-0115. Copies may be obtained from this office upon payment 
of $1.10 per sheet.

    Dated: May 4, 2000.
James D. Claflin.
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor for New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 00-11916 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
An easy way to know if your child has kidney disease is to 

have his or her urine tested.

Who is at risk for kidney disease?

Children who:

n Are overweight 

n Have pain in their back, side, or lower belly

n Complain of pain when urinating, have changes in their urine, or often wet their pants 

n Have unexplained fever

n Have swelling in their feet, ankles, or legs

n Wake up with swollen eyelids

n Become dehydrated often

n Have a family member with kidney disease 

Children who have certain conditions:

n SGA (small for gestational age) 

or born premature

n A growth disorder

n Diabetes

n High blood pressure

n Rickets (soft bones caused by too little 

vitamin D)

n Other conditions that run in families, such as polycystic kidney disease, 

Alport Syndrome, or heart disease 

If your child is at risk for kidney disease, ask about 

getting his or her urine tested today.

Is Your Child at Risk for 

Kidney Disease?

U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services

National Institutes of Health National Kidney Disease

Education Program

For more information, call the National Kidney Disease Education Program toll free at 1-866-4 KIDNEY (1-866-454-3639), or go online at www.nkdep.nih.gov

NIH Publication No. 12-7489 • Revised October 2011 • Order more posters at www.nkdep.nih.gov
§ 61.409 What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply for a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating? You must receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the following areas of operation for the aircraft category and class in which you seek flight instructor privileges: ( a ) Technical subject areas.
( b ) Preflight preparation.
( c ) Preflight lesson on a maneuver to be performed in flight.
( d ) Preflight procedures.
( e ) Airport, seaplane base, and gliderport operations, as applicable.
( f ) Takeoffs (or launches), landings, and go-arounds.
( g ) Fundamentals of flight.
( h ) Performance maneuvers and for gliders, performance speeds.
( i ) Ground reference maneuvers (except for gliders and lighter-than-air).
( j ) Soaring techniques.
( k ) Slow flight (not applicable to lighter-than-air and powered parachutes).
( l ) Stalls (not applicable to lighter-than-air, powered parachutes, and gyroplanes).
( m ) Spins (applicable to airplanes and gliders).
( n ) Emergency operations.
( o ) Tumble entry and avoidance techniques (applicable to weight-shift-control aircraft).
( p ) Post-flight procedures.
#### MATURO, et al. v CITY OF CORAL GABLES, et al.

Case No. 90-194 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

September 6, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

John G. Fletcher, Esquire, for appellant.

Robert D. Zahner, Esquire and F.W. Guilford, Esquire, for appellees.

Before NADLER, CAPUA, FERRO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FERRO, J.

This appeal follows a final order of an administrative tribunal (the Coral Gables City Commission) granting a zoning variance to the Appellee, MINORCA CORPORATION.

In *City of Coral Gables v Geary,*383 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA *71980), the court stated that the granting of a variance can be justified and possibly required where there is a hardship unique to an individual owner and that a “peculiar characteristic of a particular parcel constitutes a classic hardship”.

The record of the proceeding below indicates that the applicant set forth evidence of a “hardship” before the City Commission. The hardship arose from circumstances peculiar to the property where only five of the seven lots owned by the applicant could be used for development. The parcel is located in two different jurisdictions causing this unusual situation.

The courts have clearly stated that they are not empowered to substitute their judgment for that of legislative and administrative bodies exercising objectives unless their action is shown to be “clearly arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, or welfare.” *Bay View Investment, Inc. v Gringsby,*219 So.2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); *Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v City of Petaluma, 522*F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied 424 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1148, 47 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); *Miami v Zorovich,*195 So.2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). It is clear from the evidence in the record, as stated above, that the City’s objective was reasonable and there is competent evidence to support the commission’s decision.

Therefore, based upon the foregoing, we affirm the decision of the City Commission.
. 

-‘. 262 
,I..’ 

I’ --’ 263 

prov~lms hfm3of &all not apply to ofttcia, 

towns, an3 villages aad epaeial eobool dlat&ots, 

054 iadepmdent RJJIOO~ xUatrict8, ualerrs and until tb.8 gsvernln~ bodr of any such city, tom, 

or village, or ageoial ochool dietrLot, or inCepcmdmt s.3mol distz3ct f1M.q that ~usual OF 

flxc8salYe default In tthb pa-t of sd valaq 

andpolltilzes ha3 ouaurred,andtbatan bxten6lo.n of t3.m for the ?smt of suah del.tnqwnt 

ad valorrsand poll tsxea vi11 >xmote azzd aocelcrate the colloctlm ibcmof, vheroqxm euch 

gpverning b&y 82uLl a&z& a r-esolutio~ ~2 opdinice eo2dumlng awzh.flndSng, aad ~p:poo t&e rettordlng of such findIngs of fact the praialms 

of t.ha Aat 0ba.u -m 321 full f0me aw emct a6 

toany-swhoXty, tovq, or village, Or epeaial 

pchool district, or indepandent ochool district. 

Et is her&y e~ressly anb sgacifically provided 

t&t penaltiee and fnteawt herein released we 

mleaeed anl~ ox.deliwuent ad valorea and poll 

tsFies 'ant3 011 no other taxes. 
Jresh. While the language used is p%x?haps not as olem 

w &&at have been used, we believe thzbt Seation 3 uao 

mt to &we this efreot: (1) If mm9 than cm3 year9 

wea we delinque.& tha-tamayer may not have the beaeflt 

0s the roleuse if be pSg8 fox me rfxar only or if he pays 

for &ny nmbcr of year8 lese thim ~11; and f2) ii he we8 

-0s ilollmpmt cn sevexol piecaa of propa?tg hs msy 

%jngle out cme pl6Ce and.Pay the dollnqusnt tax88 assessed 

agaast it, titbout pagiag athor dollnqutrnt ad valorem and 

Poll ta%es wtig by &la, but I!! zwch a cam of thus ~az?u 

&y a part of the d%lLnque& tams oving by him he ulll 

haye to pay a @ PenaltY. It dcms not a?puar to w that 

any ~tontial 14 rLl%x#hst in sactica 3 to 1oY-y tEe c-$3 

yQaltyvher8cll thedelinQuenttaxes wfnfjbyaau3&are' 

g&la. Rather it Be%ras to us that the penalty is l-ted 

to those GUS%8 VhePe t&3 ~operty oM8r choores to sS@?egate a partof.hlq property and pay,on it alone;. .~ .~ ; ,: 

Our' opinl~ 18 that uder the Act no pemEity,m 

d%lfaquMt bXQS VI= be Char@X%ble by the State and County, 

or by OtEor goUtica subfflvlsioaa adoPtIng the Aat; where, 

a pcraan pays all thid%linquwt ad valorom aad Poll t&es 

owingbyhlm. IS he pays all tha.dollnque& ta.sea.due em . 

a part 0r lxla property mly, thm leaving a.pcz?t of hi8 deUnquanttaxes unF%dhemastpaya 6$pcnMtycinthatpaid,
# EUR-Lex - 31996D0191 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31996D0191

**96/191/EC: Council Decision of 26 February 1996 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on the protection of the Alps (Alpine Convention) **

*
Official Journal L 061 , 12/03/1996 P. 0031 - 0031 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 26 February 1996 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on the protection of the Alps (Alpine Convention) (96/191/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 130s (1) in conjunction with Article 228 (2) and (3), first subparagraph, thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),

Whereas the Commission has been involved, on behalf of the Community, in the negotiations aimed at the conclusion of the Convention on the protection of the Alps (Alpine Convention); whereas that Convention was signed on behalf of the Community on 7 November 1991;

Whereas the conclusion of the Convention forms part of the involvement of the Community in the international activities on the protection of the environment recommended in the Council resolution of 16 December 1992 on the fifth Programme of Action by the European Communities on the Environment;

Whereas the protection of the Alps is a major challenge to all Member States owing to the cross-frontier nature of the economic, social and ecological problems of the Alpine area;

Whereas the Community should therefore approve the said Convention;

Whereas, in order to permit the rapid entry into force of that Convention, it is necessary that the Member States which have signed the said Convention should complete as soon as possible their ratification, acceptance or approval procedures relating to the said Convention in order to enable the Community and those Member States to deposit their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Convention on the protection of the Alps (Alpine Convention) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Community.

The text of the Convention is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person(s) empowered to deposit, on behalf of the Community, the instrument of approval with the Republic of Austria in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention.

Done at Brussels, 26 February 1996.

For the Council

The President

W. LUCCHETTI

(1) OJ No C 278, 5. 10. 1994, p. 8.

(2) OJ No C 18, 23. 1. 1995, p. 426.

(3) OJ No C 110, 2. 5. 1995, p. 1.
Area-I, Incorporated

1590 N. Roberts Rd., Suite 102

Kennesaw, GA 30144

Tel: (678) 594-5227

Fax: (678) 594-5228

10/15/2015

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

Federal Aviation Administration

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Petition for exemption from Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) §21, §45.11, 

§91.203(a)(1), §91.203(b), and §91.9 for the operation of the Area-I, Incorporated (Area-I, Inc.) 

SMB Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS).

SUMMARY

Area-I, Inc. wishes to petition for exemption from specific parts of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

These exemptions are pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Report 112-

381). In observance of Section 333, the FAA has authorized limited use of UAS for public interest, which includes 

testing and evaluating UAS.

Area-I is a Georgia-based company offering a unique combination of analytical and practical experience 

with an emphasis in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). Area-I develops low-cost flight test platforms, UAS 

Guidance and Control (GNC) systems, and highly capable flight computing and data acquisition systems. 

The company maintains a shop and laboratory space that is used for electronics development, hardware-inloop simulation and testing, and has composite fabrication and machining capabilities.

With the permission of the FAA, Area-I, Inc. requests the opportunity to operate its UAS without the 

burden of reliance on third-party public entity COAs or cost-prohibitive restricted airspace. Area-I, Inc. 

has developed a comprehensive Aviation Safety, Safety Management System (AVSSMS) and Alternative 

Methods of Compliance (AMOC) for any exempt regulations.
§ 417.19 Registration of space objects. ( a ) To assist the U.S. Government in implementing Article IV of the 1975 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, each launch operator must provide to the FAA the information required by paragraph (b) of this section for all objects placed in space by a licensed launch, including a launch vehicle and any components, except: ( 1 ) Any object owned and registered by the U.S. Government; and
( 2 ) Any object owned by a foreign entity.
( b ) For each object that must be registered in accordance with this section, not later than 30 days following the conduct of a licensed launch, an operator must file the following information: ( 1 ) The international designator of the space object(s);
( 2 ) Date and location of launch;
( 3 ) General function of the space object; and
( 4 ) Final orbital parameters, including: ( i ) Nodal period;
( ii ) Inclination;
( iii ) Apogee; and
( iv ) Perigee.
W *v"

(M/< Abtt AMU, cit/ic Austin,T£MC 7*7//

Ocas MC AtoS-k*! 

### Ti,030-01 RECEIVED IN 

### COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS DEC 18 2015 AbelAcosta, Clerk 

### Pl£AS£ frHivAnO

ft i ft 

### 6-rct-hyutS • my(VAvnt, <> Jfbi4£S ZtOejAttG £cMo(Af a*cl ZJTa** an fhswte a.+/Ac M$tf./d m STILUS oitvfT a*/- B£AuMd*)Tr TJ£X4-f, 3:a*n om^-Hvu. To you aSITmu cjho uafn*\/ /\p/)li(&H- QffDMey On CrtUS/l/VO. 00/1-71, 03&-ol. /frSb jzr*~v upward of- ui^o R\<_ A*y 

### Ca}e, /b*cl qfTO 2Tclto/si'-l- ^ej~ AAy APpeiluk. t/olwu^euf br,i£s ow«i TranScr^fs^-K, rfCa-X fch ^c /^nou (Y-you have any yuejj>t>«f, c-K, :zr /oofc /CertjAfo|-/o 

### 5e<^cta-hs*-} wCrLC<>etj) He A- IIcetf
Cc,
§ 382.151 What are the requirements for providing Complaints Resolution Officials? ( a ) As a carrier providing service using aircraft with 19 or more passenger seats, you must designate one or more CROs.
( b ) As a U.S. carrier, you must make a CRO available at each airport you serve during all times you are operating at that airport. As a foreign carrier, you must make a CRO available at each airport serving flights you operate that begin or end at a U.S. airport. You may make the CRO available in person at the airport or via telephone, at no cost to the passenger. If a telephone link to the CRO is used, TTY service or a similarly effective technology must be available so that persons with hearing impairments may readily communicate with the CRO. You must make CRO service available in the language(s) in which you make your services available to the general public.
( c ) You must make passengers with a disability aware of the availability of a CRO and how to contact the CRO in the following circumstances: ( 1 ) In any situation in which any person complains or raises a concern with your personnel about discrimination, accommodations, or services with respect to passengers with a disability, and your personnel do not immediately resolve the issue to the customer's satisfaction or provide a requested accommodation, your personnel must immediately inform the passenger of the right to contact a CRO and then contact a CRO on the passenger's behalf or provide the passenger a means to do so (*e.g.,* a phone, a phone card plus the location and/or phone number of the CRO available at the airport). Your personnel must provide this information to the passenger in a format he or she can use.
( 2 ) Your reservation agents, contractors, and Web sites must provide information equivalent to that required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section to passengers with a disability using those services who complain or raise a concern about a disability-related issue.
( d ) Each CRO must be thoroughly familiar with the requirements of this part and the carrier's procedures with respect to passengers with a disability. The CRO is intended to be the carrier's “expert” in compliance with the requirements of this part.
( e ) You must ensure that each of your CROs has the authority to make dispositive resolution of complaints on behalf of the carrier. This means that the CRO must have the power to overrule the decision of any other personnel, except that the CRO is not required to be given authority to countermand a decision of the pilot-in-command of an aircraft based on safety.
[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2004-19482, 73 FR 27665, May 13, 2008, as amended at 74 FR 11472, Mar. 18, 2009; 75 FR 44887, July 30, 2010]
§ 23.2265 Special factors of safety. ( a ) The applicant must determine a special factor of safety for each critical design value for each part, article, or assembly for which that critical design value is uncertain, and for each part, article, or assembly that is— ( 1 ) Likely to deteriorate in service before normal replacement; or
( 2 ) Subject to appreciable variability because of uncertainties in manufacturing processes or inspection methods.
( b ) The applicant must determine a special factor of safety using quality controls and specifications that account for each— ( 1 ) Type of application;
( 2 ) Inspection method;
( 3 ) Structural test requirement;
( 4 ) Sampling percentage; and
( 5 ) Process and material control.
( c ) The applicant must multiply the highest pertinent special factor of safety in the design for each part of the structure by each limit and ultimate load, or ultimate load only, if there is no corresponding limit load, such as occurs with emergency condition loading.