alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 9, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Attn: Federal Aviation Administration UAS Integration Office

RE: Request for Amendment to Exemption No. 11258, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0898

Dear Sir or Madam:

Bechtel Equipment Operations, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Operator”) respectfully requests an 

amendment to its existing Section 333 Exemption No. 11258 (the “Exemption”) to add 

additional aircraft to the list of approved unmanned aerial systems (UAS). 

By a letter dated April 2, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) issued Exemption 

No. 11258 to Petitioner allowing aerial imaging in construction operations. The conditions set 

forth in Docket No. FAA-2014-0898 have not changed since Exemption No. 11258 was granted. 

Conditions and Limitation No. 1 of the Exemption, in pertinent part, provides “[p]roposed 

operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this 

exemption.” Accordingly, Petitioner requests this amendment so that it can operate the 

following UAS models.

Model FAA Exemption Certifying the Model

1. Aeryon SkyRanger 11213

2. Aibot X6 11545A

3. Asctec Falcon 8 11268

4. DJI Inspire 1 12369

5. DJI Phantom 3 12820

6. DJI Phantom 4 See note below.

7. DJI S900 11844

8. DJI S1000+ 11527

9. Event38 E384 11166

10. FreeFly ALTA 12092A

11. Kespry 11455A

12. Microdrones MD4-1000 11522
Bechtel Equipment Operations Inc.

1006 Park West Dr. Sugar Land, TX 77478

T: +(281) 632-5347 | C: +(346) 901-0113 rfergus2@bechtel.com

T: +(281) 637-4224 | C: +(281) 202-8168 jtcotton@bechtel.com

13. PrecisionHawk Lancaster 11446A

14. RIEGL RiCOPTER 11581A

15. Sensefly eBee RTK 11956

16. Sensefly eBee eXom 11263A

17. TerraHawk 12785A

18. Trimble UX5 HP 11110B

19. Trimble ZX5 11110B

With exception of the DJI Phantom 4, each of the UAS models listed above have been approved 

by the FAA in previous exemptions, as noted, and meet the size, safety, and performance 

characteristics as required under the operator’s exemption and Section 333 of the 2012 FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act. The DJI Phantom 4 has not been previously approved in prior 

exemptions but maintains the same size, safety, and performance characteristics under the 

operator’s exemption and Section 333 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act.

The operator’s existing safety standards and procedures outlined in Exemption No. 11258 will 

apply to the operation of the additional aircraft. Operator will follow the recommended 

maintenance and operation parameters set forth by the respective UAS manufacturer of each 

aircraft. 

Please contact Bechtel Equipment Operations, Inc. with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Wyatt Ferguson

cc: Paul D. Jones

Senior Counsel

Bechtel Global Corporation

50 Beale Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

+1.415.768.2281

pjones@bechtel.com
GAO/AIMD-00-246R United Service Organizations, Incorporated

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

Accounting and Information

Management Division

B-285442

June 30, 2000

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Subject: Federally Chartered Corporation: Review of the Financial Statement Audit

Report for the United Service Organizations, Incorporated, for 1997 and 1998

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As requested, we reviewed the audit report covering the financial statements of the United

Service Organizations, Incorporated, a federally chartered corporation, for the years ended

December 31, 1997 and 1998. The corporation serves the needs of military lifestyle by

fostering a viable partnership between the military and civilian communities. To carry out

this mission, the corporation operates centers at major military installations around the

world, produces free-of-charge celebrity entertainment tours for military personnel stationed

abroad, and manages donor restricted scholarship and crisis funds for benefit of military

personnel and their families.

Federally chartered corporations are required under 36 U.S.C. 10101 to

• present the corporation’s assets and liabilities and reasonable detail on the corporation’s

income and expenses in annual financial statements,

• obtain an annual financial audit by an independent public accountant, and

• submit the auditor’s report and the corporation’s financial statements to the Congress.

The objective of our review was to determine whether the audit report complied with the

financial reporting requirements of the law. In carrying out our work, we reviewed the

corporation’s financial statements and the accompanying notes, performed certain analytical

procedures related to information presented in the financial statements, reviewed the

auditor’s report, and made inquiries to corporation officials or the auditor as we deemed

necessary. We did not review the auditor’s working papers. Our review disclosed no

reportable instances of noncompliance.
B-285442

Page 2 GAO/AIMD-00-246R United Service Organizations, Incorporated

The audit report included the auditor’s opinion that the financial statements of the

corporation were presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with generally

accepted accounting principles. We are returning the audit report you sent with your letter.

Sincerely yours,

David L. Clark

Director, Audit Oversight and Liaison

Enclosure

(911985)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 524-525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-143]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-36,730]


Ray-Ban Sun Optics, Luxottica, Formerly Known as Eyewear Division 
of Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, New York; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on November 2, 1999, applicable 
to workers of Ray-Ban Sun Optics, Rochester, New York. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on December 2, 1999 (64 FR 67594). 
The certification was amended on December 6, 1999 to show that the 
company was formerly known as Eyewear Division of Bausch & Lomb. The 
notice will soon be published in the Federal Register.
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of sunglasses. As indicated in the December 6, 1999 
amended certification, the subject firm, originally named the Eyewear 
Division of Bausch & Lomb, was sold in June, 1999 to Luxottica and was 
renamed Ray-Ban Sun Optics. The State agency reports that some workers 
wages at the subject firm have been reported to the Unemployment 
Insurance (UI) tax account of Luxottica.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm affected by increased imports. Therefore, 
the certification is again amended to include the workers at the 
Rochester, New York plant whose wages were reported to the Luxottica 
tax account.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-36,730 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Ray-Ban Sun Optics, Luxottica, formerly known as 
Eyewear

[[Page 525]]

Division of Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, New York who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after August 11, 1998 
through November 2, 2001 are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 23rd day of December, 1999.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-143 Filed 1-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### THE CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK, Respondent, *v.*RUSSELL W. ADAMS and another, Appellants.

Appeal from an order made at Special Term, setting aside a verdict in favor of the defendant, and granting a new trial, on the ground of surprise.

The General Term *held,*that the plaintiff was led, by statements of the defendant, to believe that no serious defense would be interposed at the trial, and that relying thereon he failed to ¡summon a material witness, and therefore affirmed the order- *(Jackson*v. *Warford,*7 Wend., 62; *Chamberlain*v. *Lindsay,*8 S. C. [1 Hun], 231: *Tyler*v. *Hoornbeck,*48 Barb., 198.)

*667
      *Wm. A. Jenner,*for the appellants.

*J. S. Bosworth*and *Edward F. Brown,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Brady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., concurred."

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4957 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4957

 To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to 
 extend the legislative authority for the Black Patriots Foundation to 
                    establish a commemorative work.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2000

  Mr. Rangel (for himself, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Payne, and Mrs. 
   Johnson of Connecticut) introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to 
 extend the legislative authority for the Black Patriots Foundation to 
                    establish a commemorative work.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BLACK REVOLUTIONARY WAR PATRIOTS MEMORIAL.

    Section 506 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 
1996 (40 U.S.C. 1003 note; 110 Stat. 4155) is amended by striking 
``2000'' and inserting ``2005''.
                                 <all>
```
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Alliance Gaming Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Robert L. Saxton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, tomy knowledge:

 

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

 

4.               The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operation of the Company.

 

Dated:  November 11, 2003

 

 
| /s/ Robert L. Saxton                                                                                      |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert L. Saxton                                                                                          |
| Sr. Vice President,  Treasurer and  Chief Financial Officer (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

1

----
#### WILLIAM HITCHCOCK, Executor, etc., Appellant, v. ROSETTA THOMPSON and others, Respondents.

*Will*— attestation *elrnse*— position *of.*

A will was drawn up on a sheet of paper fastened together at the ends, only the first and third pages being written on, and the second being left blank. It was signed by the testator at the bottom of the third page, while the attestation clause was placed at the top of the second, and signed by the witnesses. *Held,*that the will was properly executed and should be admitted to probate.

Appeal from an order of the surrogate of Westchester county, refusing to admit the will of one Lozerne Heady to probate.

*Trmis db*lent, for the appellant Hitchcock.

*D. 8. Hemok,*for the appellant Weir.

*Francis La/rkm,*for the respondents.

Barnard, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the surrogate of Westchester county, rejecting the probate of the will of Lozerne Heady.

The only point presented, arises, from the clumsy manner of the execution of the will by the subscribing witnesses. The will was drawn on a sheet of paper fastened at the end, in common use among lawyers. The will covered two pages and was written only on one side, so that the will ended at the bottom of the third page.

The testator signed it there. The witnesses had not room to place the attestation clause on this page, and instead of folding back the will, in the way the paper was folded when the first page of the will was written, and writing out the attestation clause on the top of what would then have been the fourth page of the one paper, they left the paper folded as it was when the testator signed at the foot of the third page, and turned the entire sheet over endways, and wrote the attestation at the top of the page. This page was, of course, the blank page between the two pages of the will, and on folding the will back as it was when the first page was written, the attestation clause is in the middle of the will and upside down.

It is a mere question of folding a paper. There is no fraud. *280The will was duly executed. The testator signed at the end of the will. All formal regularities were complied with.

The will was, in point of fact, attested after its execution by the testator, at the end of the will. The decree of the surrogate should be reversed, and the proceedings remitted to the surrogate of Westchester county, with directions to admit the will to probate.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Tappen and Talcott, JJ.

Decree of surrogate reversed, with costs to both parties out of the estate.
79–008 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–125 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE BILL (S. 454) TO IMPROVE THE ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF 

MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

MAY 20, 2009.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 463] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 463, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of the conference report 

to accompany S. 454, the ‘‘Weapons Acquisition System Reform 

Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act of 

2009.’’ 

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference 

report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. The resolution provides 

that the Chair may postpone further consideration of the conference report to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against the conference report 

and against its consideration includes a waiver of clause 8 of rule 

XXII (requiring a three-day layover of conference reports and the 

accompanying joint explanatory statement). Although the rule 

waives all points of order against the conference report and against 

its consideration, the conference report does not violate clauses 9 

or 10 of rule XXI. The waiver of all points of order against the conference report is prophylactic. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
Exhibit 4.1


 


		CAPELOGIC INCORPORATED

Providing Technology Solutions for Financial Services


1 Windhaven Court, Monroe
Twp, NJ 08831 


Telephone: (609) 448-7930 Fax:
(973) 206-9430 


Web: www.capelogic.com


  


 October
25, 2019


 





 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.


8100 E. 22nd St. North, Building 800


Suite 102


Wichita, KS 67226


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 1979 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-233645 for the above captioned Fund and acknowledge that Capelogic, Inc. is currently acting
as the independent pricing agent for the Fund. Subsequently, we hereby consent to the reference of Capelogic, Inc. as independent
pricing agent.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


                                                                                      Sincerely,




 


              Capelogic, Inc.


 


 


               By                 /s/
SALMAN AHMAD________       


Salman Ahmad


		                                                 Treasurer
ex10-20.htm


Exhibit 10.20


 


AMENDMENT TO LICENSING AGREEMENT







This Agreement is made this _8th__ day of December, 2010 between PerfPower Corporation, formerly EcoReady Corporation, a Nevada Corporation (“PerfPower”) and Perf Go-Green Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“PGGO”).







WHEREAS, PerfPower and PGGO entered into a Licensing Agreement effective January 12,, 2010 (the “Licensing Agreement”) under which PGGO agreed to license certain defined intangible assets to PerfPower and PerfPower agreed to compensate PGGO in part through royalty payments for that license; and







WHEREAS, PerfPower and PGGO have agreed to and desire to terminate the royalty payments under the Licensing Agreement, effective December 1, 2010; and







WHEREAS, the parties to the Licensing Agreement may amend the Licensing Agreement in writing signed by both parties;







           NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are expressly acknowledged and agreed to by PerfPower and PGGO, the parties agree as follows:








	
1.      

	
Article II Paragraph 2 of the Licensing Agreement is amended to read as follows:












2.     Royalty.   Effective December 1, 2010, all continuing royalties otherwise payable hereunder and all royalties due as of November 30, 2010 which have not previously been paid, shall be converted into and payable as a single royalty payment equal to 2,500,000 shares of the common stock of EcoReady Corporation, a Florida corporation and parent company of PerfPower (the “Shares”) , which Shares shall be issued in the name of PGGO and delivered to PGGO with 10 business days of the execution of this Agreement, and shall be unregistered, restricted shares.  Hereafter, there shall be no grounds for default of this Agreement for non-payment of royalties other than for failure to deliver the Shares as herein provided.








	
2.     

	
Except as amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the Licensing Agreement shall not be changed or amended and shall remain in full force and effect.












WHEREFORE, the parties have duly executed this Agreement intending to be fully bound thereby on the date first above written.









	

PerfPower Corporation

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
/s/ Boris Rubizhevsky,

	 	 	 	 
	 	
Boris Rubizhevsky,

	 	 	
 

	 
	 	
President and CEO

	 	 	
 

	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

Perf Go-Green Holdings, Inc.

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Michael Caridi	 	 	 	 
	 	Michael Caridi	 	 	 	 
	 	Chief Operating Officer
EX-10.8





 Exhibit 10.8 

Power of Attorney 
 I, Lai
Jinnan (ID number: [                     ]), shareholder of Guangzhou Lizhi Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
“Domestic-funded Company”), hereby irrevocably authorize Beijing Hongyi Yichuang Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Trustee”) to exercise the following rights within the validity
period of this Power of Attorney: 
 to invest the Trustee with complete power to act, on my behalf, as shareholder of the Domestic-funded
Company and to exercise all the shareholders’ rights entitled to shareholders according to laws and the Articles of Associations, including but not limited to (1) proposing the convening of the shareholders’ meeting,
(2) receiving any notices relating to the convening of the shareholders’ meeting and rules of procedures, (3) attending the shareholders’ meeting and exercising the full voting right (including designating and selecting
directors, general manager, chief financial officer and other senior management members of the Domestic-funded Company, deciding on the dividend distribution of the Company etc. as my authorized representative at the shareholders’ meeting of
the Company), (4) selling or transferring all or any part of my equity in the Domestic-funded Company, etc.. 
 I may exercise the voting
right or sign relevant documents as directed by the Trustee if the Domestic-funded Company requests me to exercise the voting right or sign relevant documents in person according to relevant laws and regulations. 

Unless the Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Business Operation Agreement concluded between the Domestic-funded Company, the
Trustee and me terminates prematurely for any reason, this Power of Attorney shall become effective as from the date of signing to the time when the Domestic-funded Company is dissolved under the laws. 

 

			
	Authorizer: Lai Jinnan
		
	Signature:	 	 /s/ Lai Jinnan

	
	Date: June 20, 2019