alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## GMEP Engineers

26439 Rancho Parkway S., Ste #120 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Ph: (949)267-9095, Fax: (877)375-0936
www.gmepe.com

October 14, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S W Washington, DC 20591

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to request an exemption for the use of drones to take pictures and video of construction sites which our company does engineering design for in California. We are an engineering consulting company that provides mechanical, electrical, and plumbing design services for various projects. We intend take photos throughout the construction progress to track and changes and to monitor design. We may also use these photos on our website or in our promotional materials such as brochures. To take these photos, we propose to use the DJI Phantom 3 Professional version. We hope that you approve out exemption request as it will be a great help to our company to be able to provide this service to supplement our design.

Thank you,

Gangyi (Gary) Zhou 

### Ph.D, P.E., LEED AP BD+C Founder and Principal GMEP Engineers 26439 Rancho Parkway S., Ste #120 Lake Forest, CA 92630 (P)949-267-9095 (C)949-209-7164 Email: gzhou@gmepe.com URL: www.gmepe.com
NUMBER 13-18-00434-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

MICHEL JOSEPH BOUTHILLETTE, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Victoria County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant, the State of Texas, by and through its Criminal District Attorney, the 

Honorable Constance Filley Johnson, has filed a motion for dismissal of its appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant 

the motion and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, 
2

no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

14th day of February, 2019.
#### Jackson Banking Company *v.*Maddox *et al.*

Submitted July 18,

Decided December 12, 1906.

Motion to dismiss the writ of error.

*Bay & Bay*and *W. G. Munday,*for plaintiff in error.

*John B. L. Smith, B. W. Mays, B. L. Mays, H. M. Fletcher,*and *J. B. Wall,*contra.

Cobb, P. J.

A bill of exceptions in which there is no attempt to assign error upon a judgment rendered by the court without the intervention of' a jury, except to state the contents of the judgment and follow the same with a statement that plaintiff in error comes “within less than thirty days from the said judgment and excepts to the same and assigns the same as error,” does not comply with the statutory requirement that alleged errors shall be plainly and, distinctly pointed out. *Wheeler*v. *Worley,*110 *Ga.*518; *Neal Loan & Bkg. Co.*v. *Wright,*116 *Ga.*395, and eases cited. *Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 0886 Directorate ID : 2008 - SW - 067 - AD Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 39 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent damage to the main rotor blades and subsequent loss of helicopter control. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $9,000 to replace the top table - cutter assembly Labor per Helicopter (1 x $85/work- h our for the removal) ( 3 x $ 8 5 /work- hour for the re - work) (1 x $85/work- hour for the replacement) $ 85 $255 $85 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 85 for the removal $255 for the re - work $9,085 for the replacement Total US Fleet Cost $ Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Sharon Miles
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13182]



[[Page 33868]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Special Committee 159; Minimum Operational Performance 
Standards for Airborne Navigation Equipment Using Global Positioning 
System (GPS)

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a 
Special Committee 159 meeting to be held June 12-16, 2000, starting at 
9:00 a.m. each day. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
    The agenda will be as follows:
    Specific Working Group Sessions: June 12: Working Group 1, Third 
Civil Frequency. June 13: Working Group 6, GPS/Interference; Working 
Group 2C, GPS/Inertial. June 14: 9 a.m.-12 p.m., Working Group 4, 
Precision Landing Guidance (GPS/LAAS); Working Group 6, Interference; 
1:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., SC-159 Ad Hoc, Recommendation Support. June 15: 
Working Group 2, GPS/WAAS; Working Group 4, Precision Landing Guidance 
(LAAS).
    June 16: Plenary Session: (1) Chairman's Introductory Remarks; (2) 
Approve Summary of Previous Meeting; (3) Review Working Group (WG) 
Progress and Identify Issues for Resolution: (a) GPS/3rd Civil 
Frequency (WG-1); (b) GPS/WAAS (WG-2); (c) GPS/GLONASS (WG-2A); (d) 
GPS/Inertial (WG-2C); (e) GPS/Precision Landing Guidance (WG-4); (f) 
GPS/Airport Surface Surveillance (WG-5); (g) GPS Interference (WG-6); 
(h) SC-159 Ad Hoc; (4) Review of EUROCAE Activities; (5) Review/Approve 
Final Draft, NAVSTAR GPS L5 Civil Signal Specification; (6) Review/
Approve Final Draft, SC-159 Response to the Johns Hopkins University 
Applied Physics Laboratory Recommendation Regarding Receiver Autonomous 
Integrity Monitoring; (7) Assignment/Review of Future Work; (8) Other 
Business; (9) Date and Location of Next Meeting; (10) Closing.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting.
    Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should 
contact the RTCA Secretariat, at (202) 833-9339 (phone), (202) 833-9434 
(fax). Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2000.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 00-13182 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40879 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GUILLERMO ANTONIO PEREZ-DERAS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-98-CR-250-1

- - - - - - - - - - March 23, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Guillermo Antonio Perez-Deras has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Perez-Deras has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
#### § 531.7 [Reserved]
ACL State Grants for Assistive Technology Awards (ATSG) for the States/Territories

FY 2019 Annual Allocation

12/21/2018

State/Territory

State Grants for 

Assistive 

Technology (ATSG)

Alabama $475,086

Alaska $447,778

Arizona $646,628

Arkansas $495,173

California $1,197,732

Colorado $500,438

Connecticut $430,558

Delaware $432,505

District of Columbia $389,500

Florida $771,258

Georgia $640,747

Hawaii $467,564

Idaho $442,742

Illinois $651,673

Indiana $507,365

Iowa $469,557

Kansas $429,609

Kentucky $496,086

Louisiana $524,265

Maine $480,109

Maryland $526,519

Massachusetts $549,000

Michigan $697,086

Minnesota $518,591

Mississippi $414,159

Missouri $584,507

Montana $461,840

Nebraska $475,433

Nevada $440,065

New Hampshire $447,994

New Jersey $524,008

New Mexico $464,017

New York $766,225

North Carolina $593,028

North Dakota $387,991

Ohio $607,975

Oklahoma $456,538

Oregon $451,241

Pennsylvania $738,456

Rhode Island $387,264

South Carolina $547,308

South Dakota $436,838

Tennessee $479,299

Texas $980,364

Utah $480,124

Vermont $423,590

Virginia $537,030

Washington $519,754

West Virginia $441,990

Wisconsin $498,519

Wyoming $379,612

American Samoa $125,608

Guam $126,975

Northern Mariana Islands $125,617

Puerto Rico $448,013

Virgin Islands $126,266

TOTAL $28,065,217
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 537 

Commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by 

the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law 

enforcement officers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2008 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. 

KOHL, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. CORNYN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, 

Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. HATCH, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, 

Mr. BAUCUS, and Mrs. BOXER) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

MAY 8, 2008 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

MAY 8, 2008 

Considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by the men and women who have lost their 

lives while serving as law enforcement officers. 

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is 

preserved and enhanced as a direct result of the vigilance 

and dedication of law enforcement personnel; 

Whereas more than 900,000 men and women, at great risk 

to their personal safety, presently serve their fellow citizens as guardians of the peace; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

SRES 537 ATS 

Whereas peace officers are on the front lines in protecting the 

schools and schoolchildren of the United States; 

Whereas 181 peace officers across the United States were 

killed in the line of duty during 2007, tragically the highest yearly total since 2001; 

Whereas Congress should strongly support initiatives to reduce violent crime and to increase the factors that contribute to the safety of law enforcement officers, including— 

(1) better equipment and increased use of bullet-resistant vests; 

(2) improved training; and 

(3) advanced emergency medical care; 

Whereas, every 2 days on average, 1 out of every 16 peace 

officers is assaulted, 1 out of every 56 peace officers is 

injured, and 1 out of every 5,500 peace officers is killed 

in the line of duty somewhere in the United States; and 

Whereas, on May 15, 2008, more than 20,000 peace officers 

are expected to gather in Washington, District of Columbia, to join with the families of their recently fallen comrades to honor those comrades and all others who went 

before them: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes May 15, 2008, as ‘‘Peace Offi3 cers Memorial Day’’, in honor of the Federal, State, 

4 and local law enforcement officers that have been 

5 killed or disabled in the line of duty; and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

SRES 537 ATS 

1 (2) calls on the people of the United States to 

2 observe that day with appropriate ceremonies, appre3 ciation, and respect. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### § 784.128 Requirements for exemption of first processing, etc., at sea.

A complete exemption from minimum and overtime wages is provided by section 13(a)(5) for employees employed in the operations of first processing, canning, or packing of marine products at sea as an incident to, or in conjunction with “such” fishing operations—that is, the fishing operations of the fishing vessel (S. Rep. 145, 87th Cong., first session, p. 33). To qualify under this part of the exemption, there must be a showing that: (a) The work of the employees is such that they are, within the meaning of the Act, employed in one or more of the named operations of first processing, canning or packing, (b) such operations are performed as an incident to, or in conjunction with, fishing operations of the vessel, (c) such operations are performed at sea, and (d) such operations are performed on the marine product specified in the statute.
Editorial Note on Part 101
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 101 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35009, June 19, 2008.

§ 101.305 Reporting. ( a ) *Notification of suspicious activities.* An owner or operator required to have a security plan under part 104, 105, or 106 of this subchapter shall, without delay, report activities that may result in a transportation security incident to the National Response Center at the following toll free telephone: 1-800-424-8802, direct telephone 202-267-2675, or TDD 202-267-4477. Any other person or entity is also encouraged to report activities that may result in a transportation security incident to the National Response Center.
( b ) *Notification of breaches of security.* An owner or operator required to have a security plan under parts 104, 105, or 106 of this subchapter shall, without delay, report breaches of security to the National Response Center via one of the means listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Notification of transportation security incident (TSI).* ( 1 ) Any owner or operator required to have a security plan under part 104 or 105 of this subchapter shall, without delay, report a TSI to their local COTP and immediately thereafter begin following the procedures set out in their security plan, which may include contacting the National Response Center via one of the means listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) Any owner or operator required to have a security plan under part 106 of this subchapter shall, without delay, report a TSI to their cognizant District Commander and immediately thereafter begin following the procedures set out in their security plan, which may include contacting the National Response Center via one of the means listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
( d ) Callers to the National Response Center should be prepared to provide as much of the following information as possible: ( 1 ) Their own name and contact information;
( 2 ) The name and contact information of the suspicious or responsible party;
( 3 ) The location of the incident, as specifically as possible; and
( 4 ) The description of the incident or activity involved.
[USCG-2003-14792, 68 FR 39278, July 1, 2003, as amended by USCG-2004-18057, 69 FR 34925, June 23, 2004; USCG-2005-21531, 70 FR 36349, June 23, 2005; USCG-2006-25150, 71 FR 39208, July 12, 2006; USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35009, June 19, 2008]
### Hydrologic and Geologic Reconnaissance of Pinto Basin, Joshua Tree National Monument, Riverside County, California

By: Fred Kunkel

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1475O

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 28**                            (pdf)
- Superseded Publications:
                                        A brief hydrologic and geologic reconnaissance of Pinto Basin, Joshua Tree National Monument, Riverside County, California(1956)                                    

                                        Summary of hydrologic conditions at Joshua Tree National Monument, Riverside County, California, 1956-1959(1960)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Women's Contributions in the Field of Invention: A Study of the Records of the United States Patent Office

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Women's Contributions in the Field of Invention: A Study of the Records of the United States Patent Office : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 28*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1923,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5351,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 104.292 Additional requirements—passenger vessels and ferries. ( a ) At all Maritime Security (MARSEC) Levels, the vessel owner or operator must ensure security sweeps are performed, prior to getting underway, after any period the vessel was unattended.
( b ) As an alternative to the identification checks and passenger screening requirements in § 104.265(d)(2), (d)(4), and (d)(9), the owner or operator of a passenger vessel or ferry may ensure security measures are implemented that include— ( 1 ) Searching selected areas prior to embarking passengers and prior to sailing; and
( 2 ) Implementing one or more of the following: ( i ) Performing routine security patrols;
( ii ) Providing additional closed-circuit television to monitor passenger areas; or
( iii ) Securing all non-passenger areas.
( c ) Passenger vessels certificated to carry more than 2000 passengers, working in coordination with the terminal, may be subject to additional vehicle screening requirements in accordance with a MARSEC Directive or other orders issued by the Coast Guard.
( d ) Owners and operators of passenger vessels and ferries covered by this part that use public access facilities, as that term is defined in § 101.105 of this subchapter, must address security measures for the interface of the vessel and the public access facility, in accordance with the appropriate Area Maritime Security Plan.
( e ) At MARSEC Level 2, a vessel owner or operator must ensure, in addition to MARSEC Level 1 measures, the implementation of the following: ( 1 ) Search selected areas prior to embarking passengers and prior to sailing;
( 2 ) Passenger vessels certificated to carry less than 2000 passengers, working in coordination with the terminal, may be subject to additional vehicle screening requirements in accordance with a MARSEC Directive or other orders issued by the Coast Guard; and
( 3 ) As an alternative to the identification and screening requirements in § 104.265(d)(4) and (e)(1), intensify patrols, security sweeps and monitoring identified in paragraph (b) of this section.
( f ) At MARSEC Level 3, a vessel owner or operator may, in addition to MARSEC Levels 1 and 2 measures, as an alternative to the identification checks and passenger screening requirements in § 104.265(d)(4) and (f)(1), ensure that random armed security patrols are conducted, which need not consist of vessel personnel.
[USCG-2003-14749, 68 FR 39302, July 1, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 60514, Oct. 22, 2003; USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35009, June 19, 2008; USCG-2007-28915, 81 FR 57711, Aug. 23, 2016]
Title VII - Allotments for Vulnerable Elder Rights Protection Activities

FY 2015 Final Allocation

7/28/2015

State Ombudsman Elder Abuse Total Title VII

Alabama $244,521 $76,215 $320,736

Alaska $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

Arizona $338,520 $89,768 $428,288

Arkansas $151,771 $48,157 $199,928

California $1,643,005 $471,073 $2,114,078

Colorado $229,739 $60,922 $290,661

Connecticut $183,512 $59,907 $243,419

Delaware $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

District of Columbia $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

Florida $1,171,017 $344,252 $1,515,269

Georgia $417,408 $110,687 $528,095

Hawaii $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

Idaho $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

Illinois $596,499 $197,384 $793,883

Indiana $313,450 $98,224 $411,674

Iowa $161,503 $55,927 $217,430

Kansas $137,515 $45,843 $183,358

Kentucky $217,820 $66,595 $284,415

Louisiana $212,282 $68,518 $280,800

Maine $80,187 $23,843 $104,030

Maryland $274,567 $78,087 $352,654

Massachusetts $335,314 $109,606 $444,920

Michigan $509,768 $160,862 $670,630

Minnesota $259,630 $76,347 $335,977

Mississippi $141,800 $45,198 $186,998

Missouri $306,295 $97,643 $403,938

Montana $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

Nebraska $89,778 $29,770 $119,548

Nevada $130,688 $34,656 $165,344

New Hampshire $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

New Jersey $432,571 $143,950 $576,521

New Mexico $103,073 $27,332 $130,405

New York $957,985 $318,066 $1,276,051

North Carolina $478,702 $126,941 $605,643

North Dakota $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

Ohio $596,829 $197,185 $794,014

Oklahoma $185,182 $60,208 $245,390

Oregon $209,824 $56,795 $266,619

Pennsylvania $699,507 $242,944 $942,451

Rhode Island $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

South Carolina $247,875 $65,731 $313,606

South Dakota $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

Tennessee $324,412 $91,810 $416,222

Texas $1,031,113 $274,281 $1,305,394

Utah $97,888 $25,958 $123,846

Vermont $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

Virginia $380,383 $102,820 $483,203

Washington $331,185 $87,823 $419,008

West Virginia $109,269 $36,736 $146,005

Wisconsin $290,654 $90,309 $380,963

Wyoming $79,350 $23,843 $103,193

American Samoa $9,919 $2,980 $12,899

Guam $39,675 $11,921 $51,596

Northern Mariana Islands $9,919 $2,980 $12,899

Puerto Rico $195,622 $54,217 $249,839

Virgin Islands $39,675 $11,921 $51,596

TOTAL $15,870,051 $4,768,508 $20,638,559
**Docket Number: FAA -**  **2015 -**  **1985**