alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2/4/2016 To: US Dept. ofTransportation Docket Management Systems 1200 NewJersey Ave., SE 3 Washington, DC 200590 ; t;
We are resubmitting ourapplication for section 333 exemption status for BuzzBy Drones, LLC and Drone Buzzings, LLC which was originally postmarked by USPS on August

# 24tfttfrb~gh second day mail tracking number 23150610000007394274. The purpose for resubmitting our application is two fold. First, thetime period stated on the FAA.gov website in the questions frequently asked section quoted below:

Ijustsubmitted a Petitionfor Exemptionfor my UAS. How longdoesthe process take? A. The FAA requires a reasonable amount oftime to conduct the study. Whenever possible, all efforts are made to handle proposals expeditiously. Under current regulations, a petitioner requesting a Section 333 exemption is advised to make the request 120 days prior to the date they anticipate needed it for operations. To inquire about the status ofa petition for exemption, please email 333exemptions@faa.gov"

lists a 120 daywaiting period aftersubmission. Realizing this is nota hard and fast time period. We felt thatthe time elapsed (160 +days) from when we submitted our application was a reasonable amount oftime. We then looked at recently granted applications and found several thatwere submitted a couple of months afterourswere postmarked. This caused us to investigate and inquire as tothe status ofoursubmission. We sent several inquiriesthrough the link from the website listed above and received no response. We then decided to double check our digital copy ofthe application to see ifthere were any issues which we might have overlooked oromitted which may have caused the application granting process to be delayed. In reviewing the digital copy we did notfind any issues thatwe felt should have caused any questionable delays. This led us to reviewthe printed hard copy and we found that page 5 ofthe application thatwe submitted may have possibly been inserted into the wrong application according tothe company issuing the application. In otherwords BuzzBy Drones, LLC information on page 5 could have been inserted into Drone Buzzings, LLC application page 5 and viceversa. Therefore the second reason for resubmitting the application is to reduce confusion and help speed up the granting process by making sure the application was not mistakenly collated. We thankyou foryour quick attention to this request and resubmission.

" ;·

# ~1 

# 3

_.,. l./. /
. -··· .


# . L**~~** 

# ' 1

# ~-- 

# iJCl-f-·jZo'"

La ce t ins, President BuzzBy Drones, LLC Chris Pierson, President Drone Buzzings, LLC BuzzByDrones@gmail.com DroneBuzzings@gmail.com
## SERVED MAY 14,

# 012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### MIDWESTJET CHARTER, INC. FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Case) DMS No. FAA-2012-0029


### ORDERVACATING ORDERTO SHOW CAUSE AND ACCEPTING ANSWER The basis for the·Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and Motion for Judgment onthe Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Motion to Limit theIssues at Hearingto Sanction ("Motion") ofApril10, 2012 filed by Complainant Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") was the asserted failure ofRespondent Midwest Jet Charter, Inc. ("Respondent") to file a timely Answer to Complainant's Complaint. An Order to Show Cause ("OSC") was issued under date ofApril27, 2012, directing Respondent to file an Answer byMay 11,2012,

## orrisk sanctions. Respondent onMay 11, 2012, responded·to the 0 SC and submitted a purported Answer. Respondent has adequately explained why it initially failed to file an Answer. Respondent's submission also substantively addresses the Complaint's allegations. Itis found and concluded that Respondent has submitted a proper Answerto Complainant's Complaint. Inview ofthe foregoing, it is ordered as follows:2 1 - Respondent's submission is hereby ACCEPTED for filing as its Answer; 2- The Order to Show Cause is hereby VACATED; and

3 -Complainant's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Motion to Limit the Issues at Hearing to Sanction is hereby DENIED.**~** 'l • / Je.Ju.Q 0,**~** Richard C. Goodwin · U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment - Service List

·- vSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1



### Tim Lodes Director ofHuman Resources Midwest Jet Charter, Inc. 4216 Dewitt Avenue Mattoon, IL 61938 TEL: 217-236-7102 FAJ(: 217-235-0573 ONE COPY



### Briana Martino, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AGL-7 Great Lakes Region Federal Aviation Administration 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7313 FAJ(: 847-294-7498 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAJ(: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2012-0029 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
§ 1917.115 Platforms and skids. ( a ) Platforms and skids extending from piers, transit sheds or lofts and used for landing or hooking on drafts shall be provided at the open sides with guardrails meeting the requirements of § 1917.112(c) or alternate means, such as nets, to protect employees against falls.
( b ) Any employee working below a second-story platform or skid shall be protected from falling objects by a net stretched from the platform or skid to the vessel.
( c ) Platforms and skids shall be strong enough to bear the loads handled and shall be maintained in safe condition. Safe working loads, which shall be posted or marked on or adjacent to platforms and skids, shall have a minimum safety factor of five for any part, based upon maximum anticipated static loading conditions and the ultimate strength of the construction material.
( d ) The employer shall provide and maintain platform and skid attachments that will prevent accidental movement of the skid or platform.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 2, 2017

p0424

Order 

Clerk

May 2, 2017

154259 & (81)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154259

COA: 325977

Wayne CC: 14-006851-FC

KENYAN ALFONSO BOOKER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the June 30, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
### J.

such a dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay. See Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a postbankruptcy dismissal will violate the automatic stay "where the decision to dismiss first requires the court to consider other issues presented by or related to the underlying case"); IUFA v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 966 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that the automatic stay does not preclude dismissal of an appeal so long as dismissal is "consistent with the purpose of [11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1)1"). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to Emery's right to move for reinstatement within 90 days of either the lifting of the bankruptcy stay or final resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding.

It is so ORDERED.

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Daniel J. Albregts, Ltd. Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF 2 NEVADA

(0) I.947A ugetroa
#### Robert Lipscomb, Plaintiff in Error, v. State of Florida, Defendant in Error.

Writ of Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court for the County of Brevard.

W. I. Metcalf, for Plaintiff in Error.

Attorney General, for the State.

Writ of Error dismissed November 21st, 1911, on motion of the Attorney General.
#### Eileen Boyd et al., Appellants, *v.*American Can Company, Respondent, Impleaded with Others.

Argued April 22, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*528
      *Thomas J. Milan*and *Morris Zweibel*for appellants.

*James B. Sloane*and *Leonard B. Smith*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
#### § 1635.7 Retaliation.

A covered entity may not discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this title or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title.
§ 1953.2 Definitions. ( a ) *OSHA* means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, or any representative authorized to perform any of the functions discussed in this part, as set out in implementing Instructions.
( b ) *State* means an authorized representative of the agency designated to administer a State plan under § 1902.3(b) of this chapter.
( c ) *Plan change* means any modification made by a State to its approved occupational safety and health State plan which has an impact on the plan's effectiveness.
( d ) *Plan supplement* means all documents necessary to accomplish, implement, describe and evaluate the effectiveness of a change to a State plan which differs from the parallel Federal legislation, regulation, policy or procedure. (This would include a copy of the complete legislation, regulation, policy or procedure adopted; an identification of each of the differences; and an explanation of how each provision is at least as effective as the comparable Federal provision.)
( e ) *Identical plan change* means one in which the State adopts the same program provisions and documentation as the Federal program with the only differences being those modifications necessary to reflect a State's unique structure (e.g., organizational responsibility within a State and corresponding titles or internal State numbering system). *Different plan change* means one in which the State adopts program provisions and documentation that are not identical as defined in this paragraph.
( g ) *Developmental change* is a change made to a State plan which documents the completion of a program component which was not fully developed at the time of initial plan approval.
( h ) *Federal program change* is a change made to a State plan when OSHA determines that an alteration in the Federal program could render a State program less effective than OSHA's if it is not similarly modified.
( i ) *Evaluation change* is a change made to a State plan when evaluations of a State program show that some substantive aspect of a State plan has an adverse impact on the implementation of the State's program and needs revision.
( j ) *State-initiated change* is a change made to a State plan which is undertaken at a State's option and is not necessitated by Federal requirements.
# A -- Vegetated, native soil

# B -- Devegetated, native soil

# C -- East Trench

# D -- West Trench
§ 1608.5 Affirmative action compliance programs under Executive Order No. 11246, as amended. Under title VII, affirmative action compliance programs adopted pursuant to Executive Order 11246, as amended, and its implementing regulations, including 41 CFR part 60-2 (Revised Order 4), will be considered by the Commission in light of the similar purposes of title VII and the Executive Order, and the Commission's responsibility under Executive Order 12067 to avoid potential conflict among Federal equal employment opportunity programs. Accordingly, the Commission will process title VII complaints involving such affirmative action compliance programs under this section. ( a ) *Procedures for review of Affirmative Action Compliance Programs.* If adherence to an affirmative action compliance program adopted pursuant to Executive Order 11246, as amended, and its implementing regulations, is the basis of a complaint filed under title VII, or is alleged to be the justification for an action which is challenged under title VII, the Commission will investigate to determine whether the affirmative action compliance program was adopted by a person subject to the Order and pursuant to the Order, and whether adherence to the program was the basis of the complaint or the justification. ( 1 ) *Programs previously approved.* If the Commission makes the determination described in paragraph (a) of this section and also finds that the affirmative action program has been approved by an appropriate official of the Department of Labor or its authorized agencies, or is part of a conciliation or settlement agreement or an order of an administrative agency, whether entered by consent or after contested proceedings brought to enforce Executive Order 11246, as amended, the Commission will issue a determination of no reasonable cause.
( 2 ) *Program not previously approved.* If the Commission makes the determination described in paragraph (a), of this section but the program has not been approved by an appropriate official of the Department of Labor or its authorized agencies, the Commission will: ( i ) Follow the procedure in § 1608.10(a) and review the program, or
( ii ) refer the plan to the Department of Labor for a determination of whether it is to be approved under Executive Order 11246, as amended, and its implementing regulations. If, the Commission finds that the program does conform to these Guidelines, or the Department of Labor approves the affirmative action compliance program, the Commission will issue a determination of no reasonable cause under § 1608.10(a).
( b ) *Reliance on these guidelines.* In addition, if the affirmative action compliance program has been adopted in good faith reliance on these Guidelines, the provisions of section 713(b)(1) of title VII and of § 1608.10(b), of this part, may be asserted by the contractor.
- 1 - Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

September 7, 2011

via email and regulations.gov

Esta Rosenberg Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Application of Delta, China Southern, and SkyWest For a Statement of Authorization and an Amended Exemption Dockets DOT-OST-1997-2653, DOT-OST-1999-5031, DOT-OST-2001-9314, and DOT-OST-2001-10172

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all carriers on the service list to the above referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: George Carneal, Counsel to China Southern Gerry Murphy, Counsel to SkyWest
info@airlineinfo.com
#### § 1977.17 Withdrawal of complaint.

Enforcement of the provisions of section 11(c) is not only a matter of protecting rights of individual employees, but also of public interest. Attempts by an employee to withdraw a previously filed complaint will not necessarily result in termination of the Secretary's investigation. The Secretary's jurisdiction cannot be foreclosed as a matter of law by unilateral action of the employee. However, a voluntary and uncoerced request from a complainant to withdraw his complaint will be given careful consideration and substantial weight as a matter of policy and sound enforcement procedure.
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michel Attias, certify that:  1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of Patriot Motorcycles, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly
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 quarterly report; and 3. Based on my knowledge,
the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
quarterly 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 quarterly report.

Date: September 23, 2002

/s/ Michel Attias
    --------------
    Michel Attias
    Principal Executive Officer And Principal Financial Officer
§ 21.120 Evaluation and disposition of applications and proposals for research to be conducted or supported by a Federal department or agency. ( a ) The department or agency head will evaluate all applications and proposals involving human subjects submitted to the Federal department or agency through such officers and employees of the Federal department or agency and such experts and consultants as the department or agency head determines to be appropriate. This evaluation will take into consideration the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained.
( b ) On the basis of this evaluation, the department or agency head may approve or disapprove the application or proposal, or enter into negotiations to develop an approvable one.
#### § 1695.10 No judicial review or enforceable rights.

This part is intended to improve the internal management of the Commission. As such, it is for the use of EEOC personnel only and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its agencies or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
§ 1954.22 Notice provided by State. ( a ) ( 1 ) In order to assure that employees, employers, and members of the public are informed of the procedures for complaints about State program administration, each State with an approved State plan shall adopt not later than July 1, 1974, a procedure not inconsistent with these regulations or the Act, for notifying employees, employers and the public of their right to complain to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration about State program administration.
( 2 ) Such notification may be by posting of notices in the workplace as part of the requirement in § 1902.4(c)(2)(iv) of this chapter and other appropriate sources of information calculated to reach the public.
( b ) [Reserved]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Oregon Coast Birding Trail.**
 
Guide | Sponsors
 
SuDoc Number:I 49.2:B 53/16
Item Number:0612 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000934650
 
March 21, 2018
# EUR-Lex - 31998R2513 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R2513

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2513/98 of 20 November 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals **

*
Official Journal L 313 , 21/11/1998 P. 0016 - 0016 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2513/98 of 20 November 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 923/96 (2), and in particular Article 13(11) thereof,

Whereas, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2094/98 (4), in order to calculate the export refunds on processed products, the processing coefficients applicable must be known; whereas those coefficients are in fact the figures set out in Annex I to that Regulation; whereas, in view of technical progress in the sector, the figures laid down for unroasted and roasted malt need to be adjusted; whereas Regulation (EC) No 2094/98 updates those coefficients;

Whereas the new coefficients are applicable from 1 September 1998; whereas, however, for export licences for malt used in September the coefficients valid before the change provided for in that Regulation continue to apply for the purpose of calculating the monthly increase;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

'1 300` and '1 520` in the last column of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 for malt, not roasted, covered by CN codes 1107 10 19 and 1107 10 99 and malt, roasted, covered by CN code 1107 20 00 are replaced by '1 270` and '1 490` respectively.

Article 2

Regulation (EC) No 2094/98 is repealed.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply with effect from 1 September 1998.

However, for export licences used between 1 and 30 September 1998, the amount of the monthly increase shall be calculated on the basis of the processing coefficients valid before 1 September 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 November 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.

(3) OJ L 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 7.

(4) OJ L 266, 1. 10. 1998, p. 61.