alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Mark Shelton 

October 5, 2015 ,, 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

BOO Independence Ave, SVV 

Washington, DC 20591 

Gentlemen: 

.i ,,j 

I, Mark E. Shelton, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and ReformActof2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB.14, 2012, Section 

333 and the procedures contained within14C.F.R. 11, request exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations as specified, and 

furthermore seek exemption from the requirements of 14C.F.R. §§ 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b), to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA). 

This exemption request will permit Mark E.Shelton, as the owner and operator of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) for the commercial 

purpose of conducting aerial video and photography of real estate, to perform home and/or business exterior inspections, agricultural 

inspections, and general photography. 

I, as the sole operators of the named UAS vehicles, consisting of a DJJ Inspire PRO UAS and a DJJ Phantom 3 Pro UAS, maintain their 

uses will be for commercial photography and video for hire of real estate photography, home and/or business exterior inspections, 

we.ddings..and events~land arutsurvey appraisals, and agricultural assessments on local farms. In addition to the many commercial 

uses, it is important to promote safe UAS operations and increase public knowledge of UAS's. 

The afore-mentioned aircraft are GPS assisted for location-based information, and include a "Return To Home" safety feature in the 

event of signal loss. I will personally perform all pre-flight and post-flight checks and system/vehicle maintenance. Flight logs will also 

be maintained and kept current. All flights will be L.O.S., and I will utilize a spotter, and will maintain less than 400' A.G.L. The Inspire 

Pro 1 aircraft weighs 6.5 lbs; the Phantom Pro 3 weighs 3 lbs. Both are battery operated, which are quieter so as not to disrupt the 

public's right of "quiet enjoyment" in neighborhoods and near businesses. Additionally, both aircraft have a safety feature integrated in 

the software which prohibits it from starting up the motors within a certain distance of Class A/B/C airspace. 

I am an experienced pilot with more than 25 years experience with radio controlled helicopters, and 3 years experience with multirotors. I am also a private pilot knowledgeable of safety and current F.A.R.'s. Additionally, I built and certified an experimental 

helicopter (EAB), Rotorway 162F. 

The use of these aircraft is financially viable, as the cost to the consumer is much Jess than hiring a full size aircraft and pilot. The 

UAS's are safer in that they can traverse areas a full size aircraft cannot. For home inspections, the UAS also allows for a total roof 

. inspection without the-need~ to physically climb structures,-creatlng a saferarrd less costly opti!Yn to the· client 

Thank you in advance for your consideration as I look forward to your response. 

Very truly yours, 

Mark E. 

if 

( Shelton
638 A.2d 1174

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. Tania May PORTER, Respondent.

Misc. (Subtitle BV) No. 52

Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 28, 1994.

*ORDER*

This matter came before the Court on the joint petition of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Respondent, Tania May Porter. The Court, having considered the Petition, it is this 28th day of March 1994,

ORDERED, that Tania M. Porter be, and she is hereby, suspended from the practice of law for a period of thirty (30) days commencing at the close of business April 15,1994. Said suspension will terminate on May 16, 1994; and it is further

ORDERED that at the end of the suspension period Respondent shall be reinstated with the following conditions:

1. Respondent shall maintain active membership and participation with Alcoholics Anonymous.

*2862. Respondent shall participate in such activities as may be prescribed from time to time by the Director of the Lawyer Counseling Program of the Maryland State Bar Association.

3. Respondent’s practice shall be monitored by Michael V. Davis, Esquire for a period of two (2) years. The monitor shall have access to client files and Respondent’s escrow account records and shall submit quarterly reports to Bar Counsel in the form directed by Bar Counsel.

4. Respondent is to pay costs in the amount of $605.50, for which judgment in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland is entered.

5. Respondent is to file with Bar Counsel the required affidavit under Maryland Rule BV13 a2.
§ 36.525 Fringe benefits. ( a ) *“Fringe benefits” defined.* For purposes of these Title IX regulations, *fringe benefits* means: Any medical, hospital, accident, life insurance, or retirement benefit, service, policy or plan, any profit-sharing or bonus plan, leave, and any other benefit or service of employment not subject to the provision of § 36.515.
( b ) *Prohibitions.* A recipient shall not: ( 1 ) Discriminate on the basis of sex with regard to making fringe benefits available to employees or make fringe benefits available to spouses, families, or dependents of employees differently upon the basis of the employee's sex;
( 2 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a fringe benefit plan that does not provide for equal periodic benefits for members of each sex and for equal contributions to the plan by such recipient for members of each sex; or
( 3 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a pension or retirement plan that establishes different optional or compulsory retirement ages based on sex or that otherwise discriminates in benefits on the basis of sex.
#### ARROYO v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 85-048 AC (County Court Case No. 83-211091)

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

January 28, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and Calvin L. Fox, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SNYDER, LEVY, MASTOS, JJ.

The Opinion filed in this case on January 26, 1987, is withdrawn and the following opinion substituted.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The Defendant was arrested by a police officer and charged with the *140offense of resisting arrest without violence in violation of § 843.02, Florida Statutes (1983). The factual basis for this charge was that the Defendant, when stopped by the police officer for a traffic violation, falsely stated that he had not been previously arrested.

The Defendant filed a sworn Motion to Dismiss alleging that the stated facts did not constitute a violation of § 843.02. The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, the Defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere specifically reserving the the right to appeal the denial of said motion as being dispositive of the matter.

The Appellant contends that the giving of false information does not fall within the conduct proscribed by § 843.02, F.S. We agree.

Apparently, the Legislature of the State of Florida also agrees with this position as evidenced by the fact that in 1982 the Legislature enacted an additional statute entitled “Obstruction by False Information”. This legislation was codified as § 843.035, Florida Statutes.. Subsequently, however, § 843.035 was declared unconstitutional. Clearly, by enacting § 843.035, the Legislature was attempting to prohibit not previously regulated or addressed by Florida penal law.

Consequently, based on the foregoing, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s sworn Motion to Dismiss and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.
EXHIBIT 32.1





                                CERTIFICATION OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350, the undersigned,  Thurman L. Sisney, who is
the  President  and  Treasurer  of  Lincoln   International   Corporation   (the
"Company"),  hereby  certifies that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the  year  ended  July  31,  2003,   (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of ss.13(a) or ss.15(d) as  applicable,  of the  Securities Act of
1934 and that the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.





                                  /s/ THURMAN L. SISNEY
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Name:    Thurman L. Sisney
                                 Title:   President & Treasurer
                                 Date:    APRIL 7, 2004
COLLECTED BY
Internet Archive
Wayback Machine
Wikipedia Outlinks May 2011
#### DABNEY v. THE STATE.

(Decided November 16, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. A. H. Alston.

F. E. Blackburn, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Wehave issued our report dated September 28, 2009, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule (which report expressed anunqualified opinion and contains and explanatory paragraph relating to theadoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Tax Provisions*, in 2008)included in the Annual Report of Lannett Company, Inc. and Subsidiaries onForm 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009. We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements ofLannett Company, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-3 (File No. 33-115746,effective May 21, 2004) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-103235,effective February 14, 2003, File No. 103236, effective 14, 2003, andFile No. 33-14710, effective November 15, 2007). 

 

 
| /s/  Grant Thornton LLP     |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                        |   |
|                        |   |
| Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania |   |
| September 28,  2009    |   |

 

----
#### § 417.8 Appearances.

The Department of Labor does not maintain a register of persons or attorneys who may participate at hearings. Any interested person may appear and be heard in person or be represented by counsel.
#### MILWAUKEE MECHANICS’ INS CO v HEFFERNAN

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21774.

Decided Dec. 24, 1929

*31Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JUAN ANTONIO GUTIERREZ,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00194-CR

Appeal from the

41st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20140D03047)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until June 19, 2019. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Veronica Teresa Lerma, the Appellant’s attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before June 19, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of May, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
Order entered February 26, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01228-CV

CLEAN ENERGY, ET AL., Appellants

V.

TRILLIUM TRANSPORTATION FUELS, LLC, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-10489

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ February 22, 2019 unopposed motion for an extension of 

time to file their reply brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to April 4, 2019.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 21



                                  SUBSIDIARIES

At December 30, 2000, the Company owned the following subsidiaries:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        PERCENT
                                            STATE OR JURISDICTION OF      OF
SUBSIDIARIES                                     INCORPORATION         OWNERSHIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                         <C>                        <C>

Carlon Chimes Co.                                 Delaware                100
Lamson & Sessions Ltd.                            Ontario, Canada         100
LMS Asia Limited                                  Hong Kong               100
Lamson and Sessions South America Limitada        Chile                   100
Dimango Products Corporation                      Michigan                100
Pyramid Industries II, Inc.                       Delaware                100
VisionTeq, Inc.                                   Florida                  70
Ameriduct Worldwide, Inc.                         Florida                 100
Ameriduct, Inc.                                   Missouri                100
Ameriduct of Georgia, Inc.                        Florida                 100
Gulf Island Pipe, Inc.                            Florida                 100
</TABLE>



                                       1
§ 2570.67 Summary decision. For 502(c)(2) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.41 of this title. ( a ) *No genuine issue of material of fact.* ( 1 ) Where no issue of a material of fact is found to have been raised, the administrative law judge may issue a decision which, in the absence of an appeal pursuant to §§ 2570.69 through 2570.71 of this subpart, shall become a final order.
( 2 ) A decision made under this paragraph shall include a statement of: ( i ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the reasons therefor, on all issues presented; and
( ii ) Any terms and conditions of the rule or order.
( 3 ) A copy of any decision under this paragraph shall be served on each party.
( b ) *Hearings on issues of fact.* Where a genuine question of material of fact is raised, the administrative law judge shall, and in any other case may, set the case for an evidentiary hearing.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Form 10-K
of The Lamson & Sessions Co. (the "Company") for the period ended January 1,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March
4, 2005 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies that,
to such officer's 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 as of the dates and for the periods
              expressed in the Report.

    A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose
whatsoever.


March 4, 2005



                                        /s/ James J. Abel
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       James J. Abel
                                       Executive Vice President, Secretary,
                                       Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                       (Principal Financial Officer)
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-229-CR

EX PARTE 

ELIGAH DARNELL, JR.

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

	FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Eligah Darnell, Jr. was indicted for failing to register as a sex offender.  He filed a pro se motion to dismiss the indictment.  The trial court heard Appellant’s various claims, including double jeopardy and ex post facto complaints challenging the trial court’s authority to subject him to trial on the merits of his case.  After hearing argument and taking judicial notice of the contents of the court file, the trial court denied Appellant relief.

	Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his claims.  He argues that the double jeopardy clause and the ex post facto clause are implicated by his indictment for failing to register as a sex offender.  He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a reduction in bail.

	Appellant’s primary argument is that, by being required to register as a sex offender, he is being subjected to the possibility of multiple punishments for the offense for which he has already been tried and convicted.  Consequently, he argues, he is being subjected to both double jeopardy and to punishment under an ex post facto law.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has already held that the sex offender registration requirement is civil and remedial in nature and that it does not constitute punishment.2  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has also already held that because the sex offender registration statute is essentially remedial in nature, its application to a particular defendant does not violate the ex post facto clause of the state and federal constitutions.3  We therefore hold that Appellant may be tried for his failure to register as a sex offender without implicating either his rights to be free from double jeopardy or the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions and overrule these complaints.

	Appellant also argues that because his original offense, indecency with a child, was not classified as a violent felony for purposes of the mandatory supervision statute, it cannot now be classified as a sexually violent offense for purposes of the sex offender registration statute.4  The legislature has delineated those offenses that subject a person to the requirements of registration.5  The legislature has specifically designated indecency with a child as a reportable conviction.6  We therefore overrule this complaint.

	Finally, our review of the record does not show that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a bail reduction.7  We therefore overrule that complaint.

	Because we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant the relief he sought, we overrule all of Appellant’s complaints on appeal and affirm the trial court’s denial of all habeas relief.

								LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

								JUSTICE

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  April 9, 2009
exv10w14






Exhibit 10.14




ANALOG DEVICES, INC.




Third Amendment to the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended



The 2006 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2006 Plan”) of Analog Devices, Inc. (the “Corporation”),
pursuant to Section 13(d) thereof, is hereby amended as set forth below:





			
	VOTED:	 	That the Corporation hereby adopts and approves a sub-plan (the “French Sub-Plan”)
to the 2006 Plan in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (such amendment
referred to as “Appendix B — France”), in order to establish and implement a French qualified
stock option plan that satisfies the requirements of Sections L. 225-177 to L. 225-186 of the
French Commercial Code; and further that the Chairman of the Board, the President and Chief
Executive Officer, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, and the Treasurer of
the Corporation, each of them acting singly, are hereby authorized and empowered to execute
any document necessary or proper to give effect to “Appendix B — France” under the laws and
regulations of the country of France; and further, the aforementioned officers be, and
each acting singly hereby is, authorized in the name and on behalf of the Corporation to sign,
acknowledge, swear to and deliver any affidavit, agreement or other documents, each in such
form as the authorized person or persons executing the same shall determine to be in the best
interest of the Corporation to give proper effect to such “Appendix B — France”, the execution
of any such documents to be sufficient evidence of such determination; and that the Secretary
of the Corporation be authorized to attest, co-sign and affix the Corporate seal to such
documents.





          Except to the extent amended hereby, all of the terms, provisions and conditions set forth in
the Plan are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect. The Plan and
this amendment shall be read and construed together as a single instrument.





Approved by the Board of Directors on September 15, 2009
**EXHIBIT
      32**


**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Capitol Federal Financial (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      we, John B. Dicus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kent G. Townsend,
      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





|1) | The
              Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company
              as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
              included in such Report.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Date:   August
      4, 2006  
              
                  
 By: /s/
      John B.
      Dicus


John B. Dicus, President and


Chief Executive Officer





Date:   August
      4, 2006     
                  
            
By: /s/
      Kent G.
      Townsend


Kent G. Townsend, Executive Vice President,


Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer