alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. ( a ) *Inapplicability.* This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.
( b ) *General.* When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
( c ) *In distress.* An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.
( d ) *Converging.* When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories— ( 1 ) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;
( 2 ) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
( 3 ) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft. However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
( e ) *Approaching head-on.* When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.
( f ) *Overtaking.* Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.
( g ) *Landing.* Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004]
EXHIBIT
10.3


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE


THE
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF BOSTON

THRIFT BENEFIT EQUALIZATION PLAN

(Effective January 1, 2009)


 


WHEREAS,  the Federal
Home Loan Bank of Boston (the “Bank”) has adopted and currently maintains the
Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston Thrift Benefit Equalization Plan (the “Thrift
BEP”), effective January 1, 2009; and


 


WHEREAS, Section 8.11 of the Thrift BEP reserves to
the Board of Directors of the Bank the right to amend the Thrift BEP from time
to time, in whole or in part; and


 


WHEREAS, the Bank desires to amend the Thrift
BEP to (i) specify the qualifications of any entity who may serve as the
trustee of any rabbi trust established to fund and pay benefits under the
Thrift BEP, (ii) require periodic funding of such rabbi trust, and (iii) provide
that a Participant or Beneficiary may recover legal fees if he or she is
required to bring a lawsuit to recover benefits from the Thrift BEP.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,  the Thrift BEP
is amended as set forth below, effective September 1, 2009:


 


1.                                     The following sentence is added to the
end of Section 7.4:


 


If a Participant or
Beneficiary prevails in a lawsuit to recover benefits under the Plan, the Bank
shall pay to the Participant or Beneficiary the reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs incurred by such Participant or Beneficiary in prosecuting such
lawsuit.  However, a Participant or
Beneficiary shall not be liable for attorney fees or costs incurred by the
Bank, the Plan or the Committee in successfully defending a lawsuit brought by
such Participant or Beneficiary to recover benefits under the Plan, unless a
court has finally determined that the Participant or Beneficiary acted in bad
faith or that the lawsuit was frivolous.


 


2.                                     The following new Section 8.13 is
added to the Thrift BEP, and reads as follows:


 


8.13         Trust Provisions.  The trustee of any trust established for
the funding and payment of benefits under the Plan shall be a national bank or
trust company, be duly authorized to conduct trust business, be organized under
the 


 

















 


laws of the United States
or any of the 50 states thereof, and be independent of and not subject to
control of the Bank or any Participant of the Plan.


 


The Bank shall
contribute at least quarterly to such trust or fund the amount, if any, by
which the then aggregate balance of the Accounts of all Participants and
Beneficiaries in the Plan exceeds the fair market value of the assets in such
trust or fund.  This provision
will survive any amendment or termination of the Plan until all accrued
benefits have been paid.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing
amendment was duly adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank
on September 18, 2009.


 


Executed
this 30th day of October, 2009.


 


	
   

  	
  FEDERAL
  HOME LOAN BANK OF BOSTON

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Ellen McLaughlin

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Senior Vice President and General Counsel
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS  SETTLEMENT  AGREEMENT  is entered into by and between Gateway Distributors
LTD  ("GD")  and Donald Gary Hansen a Consultant for GD effective as of February
17, 2004. FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS RECEIVED, AND THE MUTUAL PROMISES
HEREIN,  THE  PARTIES  AGREE  AS  FOLLOWS:

1.  DISPUTE

It  is  the position of Donald Gary Hansen a Consultant that compensation in the
form  of shares of GD were due to the Consultant, as consideration for loans and
being engaged to supply services for or on behalf of GD, over two years prior to
this  date.  It  is  the position of the Company that the shares are in complete
settlement  of any claim of the Consultant for compensation or money owed by the
Company  and  in  avoidance of further dispute and litigation and relate back to
the  services  rendered  over  two  years  ago.

2. SETTLEMENT

The  parties  hereby  agree  that  they  have settled any and all claims one has
against  the  other,  including  any  affiliates  of  a party, such as officers,
Directors, and shareholders, by the execution and performance of this Agreement.
In  connection  herewith,  the  parties  agree  that,  on  or  about  this date:

     a.   November  15,  2004  $5000,  January  12, 2004 $5000, January 28, 2004
          $20000,  and  final  payment  of  $15,000  enclosed.

     b.   Any and  all  work  product,  documents,  and  materials,  data,
          relating  to  Consultants  work  in  the  possession  or  control  of
          Consultant  or  GD  shall  be  retained  by  GD;

3. RELEASE

The  parties agree to release hereby one another from any and all obligations of
one  to  the  other,  except  to  perform  this  Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date above
written.


     The "Company"
     Gateway Distributors
     A Nevada Corporation

     By:
         -----------------------
     Name:  Rick Bailey
     Title: President / CEO


     The "Consultant"
     Donald  Gary  Hansen
     By:
         -----------------------
     Name:  Donald  Gary  Hansen
     Title: Consultant
§ 91.1435 CAMP: Certificate requirements. ( a ) Except for maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, and required inspections performed by repair stations located outside the United States certificated under the provisions of part 145 of this chapter, each person who is directly in charge of maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations for a CAMP, and each person performing required inspections for a CAMP must hold an appropriate airman certificate.
( b ) For the purpose of this section, a person “directly in charge” is each person assigned to a position in which that person is responsible for the work of a shop or station that performs maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, or other functions affecting airworthiness. A person who is directly in charge need not physically observe and direct each worker constantly but must be available for consultation and decision on matters requiring instruction or decision from higher authority than that of the person performing the work.
PO Box 4055 , Greenvill e, SC 29608



## - 864.492.1648



## - www. m3partnersllc.com March 17, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Subject: M3 PARTNERS, LLC (DBA WHITE TOP UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS WT

- UAS

PETITION

FOR EXEMPTION

To Whom It May Concer n:

Please accept this petition for exemption on behalf of M3 Partners, LLC.

Our petition is submitted with the desire to operate UAS’s in conjunction with M3 Partners business

supporting helicopter/helipad & real estate services.

M3 Partners owners have ext ensive knowledge and experience in both the civilian and military aviation

fields and would like to bring this knowledge to the safe operational control of UAS’s to support and

enhance its business.

The knowledge and tools that M3 Partners has created t o assist in making helicopter and helipad

operations safer are prime examples of our continual focus on safety and the belief that safety can

always be improved upon. It is this same determination that we can bring to our UAS operations if we

are granted an exemption and serve as an example of how a deep understanding of best practices from

the civilian and military aviation sectors can be applied to UAS operations. An exemption would also

allow our business to grow and operate more efficiently allowing M3 Partners to expand and provide

increased employment opportunities to our local community.

We look forw ard to working with the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation

Administration at the inception of commercial UAS operations . We respectfully request th at our petition

be granted and allow M3 Partners to serve as a role model for UAS operations now and in the future.

Respectfully,

Michael W. Middleton Martin J. Fisher

President Member
§ 93.343 Requirements for aircraft operations to or from College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, or Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airport. ( a ) A pilot may not operate an aircraft to or from College Park Airport, MD, Potomac Airfield, MD, or Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airport, MD unless— ( 1 ) The aircraft and its crew and passengers comply with security rules issued by the TSA in 49 CFR part 1562, subpart A;
( 2 ) Before departing, the pilot files an IFR or DC FRZ flight plan with the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center for each departure and arrival from/to College Park, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field airports, whether or not the aircraft makes an intermediate stop;
( 3 ) When filing a flight plan with the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center, the pilot identifies himself or herself by providing the assigned pilot identification code. The Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center will accept the flight plan only after verifying the code; and
( 4 ) The pilot complies with the applicable IFR or VFR egress procedures in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of this section.
( b ) If using IFR procedures, a pilot must— ( 1 ) Obtain an Air Traffic Control clearance from the Potomac TRACON; and
( 2 ) Comply with Air Traffic Control departure instructions from Washington Executive/Hyde Field, Potomac Airport, or College Park Airport. The pilot must then proceed on the Air Traffic Control-assigned course and remain clear of the DC FRZ.
( c ) If using VFR egress procedures, a pilot must— ( 1 ) Depart as instructed by Air Traffic Control and expect a heading directly out of the DC FRZ until the pilot establishes two-way radio communication with Potomac Approach; and
( 2 ) Operate as assigned by Air Traffic Control until clear of the DC FRZ, the DC SFRA, and the Class B or Class D airspace area.
( d ) If using VFR ingress procedures, the aircraft must remain outside the DC SFRA until the pilot establishes communications with Air Traffic Control and receives authorization for the aircraft to enter the DC SFRA.
( e ) VFR arrivals: ( 1 ) If landing at College Park Airport a pilot may receive routing via the vicinity of Freeway Airport; or
( 2 ) If landing at Washington Executive/Hyde Field or Potomac Airport, the pilot may receive routing via the vicinity of Maryland Airport or the Nottingham VORTAC.
[Docket No. FAA-2004-17005, 73 FR 76213, Dec. 16, 2008, as amended by Amdt. No. 93-91A, 83 FR 13411, Mar. 29, 2018]
[Nos. 47512-6-1; 47920-2-I.

Division One.

November 25, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael Vittorio Caffee, *Defendant,*Shelton Ramsey Musgrave, *Appellant. In the Matter of the Postsentence Review of*Shelton Ramsey Musgrave.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-1-07078-6, Charles W. Mertel, J., entered September 20, 2000, together with a petition for post-sentence review. Conviction *affirmed,*petition *granted,*and *remanded*for resentencing by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Coleman and Baker, JJ. Now published at 117 Wn. App. 470.
#### § 91.881 Final compliance: Civil subsonic jet airplanes weighing 75,000 pounds or less.

Except as provided in § 91.883, after December 31, 2015, a person may not operate to or from an airport in the contiguous United States a civil subsonic jet airplane subject to § 91.801(e) of this subpart that weighs less than 75,000 pounds unless that airplane has been shown to comply with Stage 3, Stage 4, or Stage 5 noise levels.

[Docket FAA-2015-3782, Amdt. 91-349, 82 FR 46132, Oct. 4, 2017]
§ 91.711 Special rules for foreign civil aircraft. ( a ) *General.* In addition to the other applicable regulations of this part, each person operating a foreign civil aircraft within the United States shall comply with this section.
( b ) *VFR.* No person may conduct VFR operations which require two-way radio communications under this part unless at least one crewmember of that aircraft is able to conduct two-way radio communications in the English language and is on duty during that operation.
( c ) *IFR.* No person may operate a foreign civil aircraft under IFR unless— ( 1 ) That aircraft is equipped with— ( i ) Radio equipment allowing two-way radio communication with ATC when it is operated in controlled airspace; and
( ii ) Navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.
( 2 ) Each person piloting the aircraft— ( i ) Holds a current United States instrument rating or is authorized by his foreign airman certificate to pilot under IFR; and
( ii ) Is thoroughly familiar with the United States en route, holding, and letdown procedures; and
( 3 ) At least one crewmember of that aircraft is able to conduct two-way radiotelephone communications in the English language and that crewmember is on duty while the aircraft is approaching, operating within, or leaving the United States.
( d ) *Over water.* Each person operating a foreign civil aircraft over water off the shores of the United States shall give flight notification or file a flight plan in accordance with the Supplementary Procedures for the ICAO region concerned.
( e ) *Flight at and above FL 240.* If VOR navigation equipment is required under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, no person may operate a foreign civil aircraft within the 50 States and the District of Columbia at or above FL 240, unless the aircraft is equipped with approved DME or a suitable RNAV system. When the DME or RNAV system required by this paragraph fails at and above FL 240, the pilot in command of the aircraft must notify ATC immediately and may then continue operations at and above FL 240 to the next airport of intended landing where repairs or replacement of the equipment can be made. A foreign civil aircraft may be operated within the 50 States and the District of Columbia at or above FL 240 without DME or an RNAV system when operated for the following purposes, and ATC is notified before each takeoff: ( 1 ) Ferry flights to and from a place in the United States where repairs or alterations are to be made.
( 2 ) Ferry flights to a new country of registry.
( 3 ) Flight of a new aircraft of U.S. manufacture for the purpose of— ( i ) Flight testing the aircraft;
( ii ) Training foreign flight crews in the operation of the aircraft; or
( iii ) Ferrying the aircraft for export delivery outside the United States.
( 4 ) Ferry, demonstration, and test flight of an aircraft brought to the United States for the purpose of demonstration or testing the whole or any part thereof.
[Doc. No. 18834, 54 FR 34320, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-227, 56 FR 65661, Dec. 17, 1991; Amdt. 91-296, 72 FR 31679, June 7, 2007]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains  financial  information  extracted from Forstmann &
Company,  Inc.'s condensed  financial  statements for the twenty-six weeks ended
May 2, 1999 and is qualified  in its  entirety by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Oct-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Nov-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   May-02-1999
<CASH>                                         15
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  30,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,609
<INVENTORY>                                    32,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               67,892
<PP&E>                                         19,773
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 85,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          60,526
<BONDS>                                        712
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       44
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   85,254
<SALES>                                        45,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               45,540
<CGS>                                          43,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  43,645
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,184
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,939)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,939)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 54
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                314
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,679)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.75)




</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2320

WILLIAM A. HAWKINS, by his next friend, Ida Hawkins, 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INCORPORATED (USA); MARGOLIS, 

PRITZKER, EPSTEIN & BLATT, PA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. 

(1:09-cv-01122-JFM)

Submitted: November 19, 2010 Decided: December 21, 2010

Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason Ostendorf, LAW OFFICE OF JASON OSTENDORF, LLC, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Julia B. Strickland, Marcos D. Sasso, 

STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP, Los Angeles, California; J. 

Preston Turner, Baltimore, Maryland; Jeffrey N. Pritzker, 

Randolph Baker, MARGOLIS, PRITZKER, EPSTEIN & BLATT, P.A., 

Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William A. Hawkins appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), his civil 

action asserting claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act as well as the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection 

Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Hawkins v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., No. 1:09-cv01122-JFM (D. Md. filed Oct. 23, 2009 & entered Oct. 26, 2009). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7332
LARRY M. STEELE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (CA-05-381-5) Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: December 28, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry M. Steele, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Larry M. Steele, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error because the claim is foreclosed by our decision in Yi v. Federal Bureau of Prisons , 412 F.3d 526 (4th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the order of the district court. SeeSteele v. Stansberry , No. CA-05-381-5 (E.D.N.C. July 27, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED