alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30962-30963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12064]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Renewal of 20 Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Pub. L. 92-463, the ``Federal Advisory 
Committee Act,'' notice is hereby given that the following 20 advisory 
committees have been determined to be in the public interest and have 
been renewed:
    A. Board of Visitors, National Defense University.
    B. Strategic Advisory Group for the U.S. Strategic Command.
    C. Advisory Group on Electron Devices.
    D. Defense Science Board.
    E. Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing.
    F. Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services.
    G. DoD Wage Committee.
    H. National Security Agency Advisory Board.
    I. Armed Forces Epidemiological Board.
    J. Army Science Board.
    K. Army Education Advisory Committee.
    L. Chief of Engineers Environmental Advisory Board.
    M. Scientific Advisory Board of the Armed Forces Institute of 
Pathology.
    N. Board of Advisors to the President, Naval War College.
    O. Board of Advisors to the Superintendent, Naval Postgraduate 
School.
    P. Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel Advisory Committee.
    Q. Naval Research Advisory Committee.
    R. Air University Board of Visitors.
    S. Community College of the Air Force Board of Visitors.
    T. U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board.
    These committees provide necessary and valuable advice to the 
Secretary of Defense and other senior officials in the DoD in their 
respective areas of expertise. They make important contributions to DoD 
efforts in research and development, education and training, and 
various technical program areas. Some of them are authorized by 
statute.

[[Page 30963]]

    It is a continuing DoD policy to make every effort to achieve a 
balanced membership on all DoD advisory committees. Each committee is 
evaluated in terms of the functional disciplines, levels of experience, 
professional diversity, public and private association, and similar 
characteristics required to ensure a high degree of balance is 
obtained.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Jennifer Spaeth, DoD Committee 
Management Officer, 703-695-4281.

    Dated: May 9, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-12064 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
##### 



Exhibit
10.23
 Robeco WPG Distressed/Special
Situations Overseas, L.P.
c/o Robeco Investment Management, Inc.
909 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
  
 Re:
    
    Factoring Line of Credit Loan to PROLINK SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company from Robeco WPG Distressed/Special Situations Overseas, L.P., a
Cayman Islands limited partnership




---



##### 








---



##### 



Kevin.ghomashchi@robecoinvest.com




---



##### 



[Signatures appear on the following page]




---



##### 



LENDER:ROBECO WPG DISTRESSED/SPECIAL SITUATIONS OVERSEAS, L.P., a Cayman Islands limited partnershipBy:Name:Title:
 CONSENTED AND AGREED TO:
 BORROWER:
 
 By:Name:Title:
#### PINK, Supt., et al. v. McGUIRE et al.

No. 29727.

June 18, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1940.

*105 P. 2d 229.*

Marion R. Wells, of Wewoka, for plaintiffs in error.

Reily & Reily,' of Shawnee, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs in error appeal from a judgment rendered against them by the trial court. A motion to dismiss has been filed by the defendants in error for the reason that *630no notice of settlement of the case-made was given as provided by section 534, O.S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. § 958.

Plaintiffs in error concede that no notice of settlement was served on the defendants in error, but seek to escape the effect of such failure. They contend for the first time that under our recent holdings it is no longer necessary to give notice of settlement in certain cases.

We have many times held that section 534, supra, requires due notice of settlement of case-made, which includes the time and place of such settlement. As stated above, plaintiffs in error urge that under the doctrine announced by this court in American Surety Co. v. Wolsey, 163 Okla. 270, 20 P. 2d 158, and Embry v. Villines, 175 Okla. 552, 53 P. 2d 277, it is no longer essential that notice of time and place of settlement of the case-made be given where the record does not disclose that the defendants had amendments to suggest. In both of these cases above referred to, notice of settlement was given to the defendant in error. We hold that in the absence of a compliance with section 531 a, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. § 966, which provides for an agreement in lieu of settlement, or in the absence of a waiver of such notice of settlement, it is still the duty of the plaintiff in error to give notice of the time and place of settlement of the case-made. None was given in the case at bar. It is therefore the duty of the court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. McKeehen v. James, 144 Okla. 101, 289 P. 732.

Appeal dismissed.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH; V. C. J., and HURST, DAVISON, and DANNER, JJ., concur.
Appendix C

Safety Case

The DJI Inspire 1 is a quadcopter developed and produced by DJI Innovations. It weighs 6.8 lbs. 

and is made primarily of carbon tubing and plastic.

The gimbaled camera has the ability to rotate 360° horizontally. To aid in the safety of flight, 

there will be a pilot to operate the flight aspect of the Inspire 1 and to ensure that it maintains an 

appropriate safety distance to people and buildings at all times. There will be another operator to 

control/operate the camera and will focus on what the camera is looking at.
Autopilot

The autopilot system the DJI Inspire 1 uses is the DJI A2 autopilot. The A2 was introduced in 

August of 2013 and has had a very reliable and safe history. They have constantly sought to 

improve the capabilities and safety of the autopilot system to include a function that will not 

allow it to fly too close to airports. This function cannot be overridden and is hard coded into the 

software.

Operations

While the autopilot system supports functions at over 1.5 nautical miles (NM), with the 

exception request being sought by Creative Aerial Media, all flight operations will be within 1/4 

NM of the pilot. This will allow line of sight operations in an extremely safe manner. It will 

allow for the pilot-in-command to maneuver the UAV in any needed manner to maintain a safe 

distance from other aircraft or people that may come within the safety envelope established 

before flight.

Along with the NOTAM filed 72 hours before operations, the PIC will also have a hand held 

radio to maintain contact with the closest ATC tower. If there is an airport in the area that is not 

towered, then the radio will be tuned to the appropriate CTAF. It will be monitored 30 minutes 

before flight operations begin with warning calls that operations will begin at 15 min, 10 min, 5 

min, and one minute intervals.

All flights will be conducted at or under 400 feet above ground level (AGL). If there are any 

manned aircraft within 3 NM, either operations will cease or if in contact with ATC, all 

operations will be conducted at 100 feet AGL with approval from local ATC. If there is manned 

activity with line of site of anyone associated with operations, all operations will cease until 10 

minutes after the last siting of any manned aircraft. Once the airspace is clear of manned 

aircraft, operations will continue with coordination from local ATC.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,

AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ecosphere Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Adrian Goldfarb, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: May 15, 2008



| |                              
| | -----------------------------
| | /s/ ADRIAN GOLDFARB          
| | Adrian Goldfarb              
| | Chief Financial Officer      
| | (Principal Financial Officer)
#### In the Matter of Jo A. Stefanik, Respondent, v Jo A. Roberts, Respondent, and Joseph Kochanski, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 752]

—Graffeo, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County (Maney, J.), entered October 21, 1998, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for custody of respondent’s daughter.

Respondent Jo Ann Roberts, mother of the eight-year-old child at issue, began residing with her daughter and the child’s father, respondent Joseph Kochanski, in August 1997. Apparently Roberts had little previous contact with the child and as a result of problems which developed due to Roberts’ drug usage, the child moved in with petitioner, her grandmother. This prompted petitioner to file a petition for temporary custody of her granddaughter in September 1998 alleging serious substance abuse problems in respondents’ household.

*759Family Court initially awarded temporary custody to petitioner, suspended Kochanski’s visitation and ordered a Family Court Act § 1034 investigation on September 1, 1998. The temporary custody order was extended and in October 1998 a final order of custody for petitioner was entered which provided, *inter alia,*Kochanski with supervised visitation. Kochanski now appeals.

Initially, we note there was no evidentiary hearing. The sole basis for the change in custody ordered by Family Court was the purported consent of respondents. Our review of the transcript of the court appearances reveals that Kochanski may reasonably have thought that he was consenting to an award of temporary physical custody, not permanent custody, due to his drug treatment efforts. Because the final order of custody herein displaced a biological parent without a hearing *(see, Matter of D’Entremont v D’Entremont,*254 AD2d 576, 576-577; *see generally, Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543, 548-549), it was crucial that the record show that an informed consent was obtained. For this reason, we reverse the final order of custody and reinstate the temporary order of custody dated September 24, 1998, modified to the extent of continuing Kochanski’s supervised visitation with his daughter.

Cardona, P. J., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the temporary order of custody dated September 24, 1998 is reinstated with a provision that visitation between the child and respondent Joseph Kochanski shall be in a supervised therapeutic setting.
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report
of M Line Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or
about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jitu Banker, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:  November
      22, 2010
              /s/
      Jitu BankerBy:  Jitu
      BankerIts:  Chief
      Financial Officer
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
M Line Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by M Line Holdings, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000655

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

MICHAEL L. CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 1PR181000005 (CR. NO. 1PC131001615))

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that:

(1) On September 24, 2019, self-represented PetitionerAppellant Michael L. Carter (Carter) filed the notice of appeal

without the fees required by Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure

(HRAP) Rule 3(a);

(2) On October 11, 2019, the appellate clerk filed a

notice of non-payment, instructing Carter to pay the filing fee

or seek a fee waiver on or before October 21, 2019; 

(3) The record on appeal was due on or before

November 25, 2019. See HRAP Rules 11(b)(1) & 26(a);

(4) On December 3, 2019, the appellate clerk entered a

default of the record on appeal, informing Carter that the time

to docket the appeal had expired, he had not paid the filing fee

or obtained an order allowing him to proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis, the matter would be brought to the court's attention on

December 13, 2019, for action that may include dismissal of the

appeal, and he could seek relief from default by motion;

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000655

23-JUN-2021

09:53 AM

Dkt. 13 ODDP
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(5) The appellate clerk mailed copies of the notice of

non-payment and the default notice to Carter at his address

indicated on the notice of appeal, and both documents were

returned;

(6) Carter has not filed a notice of change of address,

consistent with HRAP Rule 25(f), or taken any other action in

this appeal; and

(7) An appeal may be dismissed where the record on

appeal has not been prepared because the appellant failed to pay 

the required fees or obtain an order allowing the appellant to

proceed in forma pauperis. HRAP Rule 11(b)(2), (c)(2).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 23, 2021.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Associate Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

2
EXHIBIT 10.2 

AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT
TRANSITION PLAN 

This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the
Avigen, Inc. Management Transition Plan (the “Plan”) is effective as of
November 9, 2009, 

     WHEREAS, Section 11 of the Plan provides that the Company may amend the Plan and
any Management Transition Plan Eligibility Notice at any time (subject to
approval by certain Plan participants if such amendment or termination reduces
Plan benefits of any Plan participant); and 

     WHEREAS, the Company, acting through its Board of Directors, deems it advisable
to amend the Plan and each Management Transition Plan Eligibility Notice of each
Plan participant, as set forth herein (such Amendment not having the effect of
reducing Plan benefits of any Plan participant). 


	NOW,
      THEREFORE, Section 11 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the
following sentence to the end thereof:
	
      “In accordance with Section 1.409A-3(j)(ix)(B) of the
      Treasury Regulations, the Plan and each Management Transition Plan
      Eligibility Notice thereunder shall terminate upon the effective date of a
      Change in Control that constitutes a “change in control event” within the
      meaning of Section 1.409A-3(i)(5) of the Treasury Regulations, with the
      result that (i) any Participant who, coincident with or prior to such Plan
      termination, has experienced an Involuntary Termination or a Constructive
      Termination shall receive an accelerated lump sum payment, within thirty
      (30) days following such Plan termination, of all salary continuation
      payments to which he or she may be entitled at that time or in the future,
      subject, however, to satisfying the requirements of any Delayed Payment
      Date pursuant to Section 12; (ii) any Participant who has not experienced
      an Involuntary Termination or a Constructive Termination coincident with
      or prior to such Plan termination shall receive an accelerated lump sum
      payment, within thirty (30) days following such Plan termination, of all
      salary continuation payments to which he or she would have become entitled
      if such a termination of employment had then occurred, without delay on
      account of Section 12; and (iii) health benefits pursuant to Section 4
      shall be provided to Participants described in (i) and (ii) above upon
      their eligibility to elect COBRA continuation coverage.”
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 17, 2010
    By:
    /s/
Thomas OSullivanThomas OSullivanPresident (Principal Executive Officer)Date: May 17, 2010
    By:

/s/
Robert J. Leist, Jr.Robert J. Leist, Jr.Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
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 offer ing a uniqu e combination of analytical and practical experienc e with an emphasis in Unmanned Aerial S ystems (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 - in loop simulation and testing, and has composite fabrication and machining capabilities. With the permission of the FAA, Area - I, Inc. requests the oppor tunity 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 Co mpliance (AMOC) for any exempt regulations.
#### § 406.151 Standard of proof.

The administrative law judge must issue an initial decision or must rule in a party's favor only if the decision or ruling is supported by, and in accordance with, the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence contained in the record. In order to prevail, the party with the burden of proof must prove the party's case or defense by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.
§ 414.3 Definitions. *Safety element.* For purposes of this part, a safety element is any one of the items or persons (personnel) listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the definition of “safety element approval” in this section.
*Safety element approval.* For purposes of this part, a safety element approval is an FAA document containing the FAA determination that one or more of the safety elements listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this definition, when used or employed within a defined envelope, parameter, or situation, will not jeopardize public health and safety or safety of property. A safety element approval may be issued independent of a license, and does not confer any authority to conduct activities for which a license is required under 14 CFR chapter III. A safety element approval does not relieve its holder of the duty to comply with all applicable requirements of law or regulation that may apply to the holder's activities. ( 1 ) Launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, safety system, process, service, or any identified component thereof; or
( 2 ) Qualified and trained personnel, performing a process or function related to licensed activities or vehicles.
§ 450.157 Communications. ( a ) An operator must implement communication procedures during the countdown and flight of a launch or reentry vehicle that— ( 1 ) Define the authority of personnel, by individual or position title, to issue “hold/resume,” “go/no go,” and abort commands;
( 2 ) Assign communication networks so that personnel identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section have direct access to real-time, safety-critical information required to issue “hold/resume,” “go/no go,” and any abort commands; and
( 3 ) Implement a protocol for using defined radio telephone communications terminology.
( b ) An operator must ensure the currency of the communication procedures, and that all personnel are working with the approved version of the communication procedures.
( c ) An operator must record all safety-critical communications network channels that are used for voice, video, or data transmissions that support safety-critical systems during each countdown.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7233

RONNIE D. SUGGS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-00-1041-2-19) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 2, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie D. Suggs, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ronnie D. Suggs appeals the district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), as untimely filed. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and Suggs’ informal brief. Because Suggs failed to challenge onappeal the basis for the district court’s ruling, he has not preserved any issue for our review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny Suggs’ motion for appointment of counsel, deny acertificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Suggs v. Condon , No. CA-00-1041- 2-19 (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2000). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED