alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PO Box 789 • 319 N Raleigh Ave • Sheffield, Alabama 35660 • (256) 320-2311 • info@wellspringadv.com • wellspringadv.com

Wellspring Advertising

PO Box 789 | 319 N. Raleigh Ave.

Sheffield, AL 35660

(256) 320.2311 • keith@wellspringadv.com

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

October 30, 2015

Exemption request pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations from: 14 CFR 21 subpart H; 14 CFR 45.23(b); 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b); 

14 CFR 91.7(a); 14 CFR 91.9(b)(2); 14 CFR 91.109; 14 CFR 91.119(C); 14 CFR 91.121; 14 CFR 91.151(a); 14 

CFR 91.203(a) and (b); 14 CFR 91.405(a); 14 CFR 91.407(a)(1); 14 CFR 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 14 CFR 91.417(a) 

and (b)

Pursuant to Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(the “Reform Act”) and 14 CFR Part 11, Keith A. Sims, owner of Epiphany Group LLC (d/b/a Wellspring 

Advertising) which owns and operates an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), hereby applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to allow commercial operation of its UAS, so long as 

such operations are conducted within and under the conditions outlined herein or as may be established by 

the FAA as required by Section 333.

(PILOT IN CHARGE) PIC INFORMATION

The UAS will only be flown by company owner and Private Pilot, Keith A. Sims

- 319 N. Raleigh Ave., Sheffield, AL 35660

- PPSEL with approximately 800 hours as PIC

- CN 3120257 Issued Dec 21, 2005

- Sims has approximately 25 hours as UAS PIC

FLIGHT SAFETY 

PIC Keith A. Sims, has always flown the UAS with attention to safety. Sims uses a transceiver to monitor 

local aircraft and can communicate location information to aircraft if need be. Sims, as a Private Pilot, is 

familiar with airspace regulations and adheres to regulations of operation near public & private airports / 

strips, MOA and TFR notices.

- The UAS will always be flown using VLOS rules and a Visual Observer (VO) will be used for any 

 commercial operations

- The UAS uses GPS, so in the case of a LOS (Loss of Signal) the UAS will return to launch location

- The UAS is inspected prior to each flight for operational systems, structural or rotor damage 

 (that may result in control issues), and general air worthiness

- The airspace is monitored at all times with via transceiver; PIC can communicate any information 

 to area air traffic, tower or center

- All observers (general public, clients, etc.) are instructed to maintain a safe distance from UAS

- Liability Insurance for property damage / injury is current and valid (AMA Member 1075060)

Shell Docket FAA-2007-0001
#### § 80.1108 Oceanside Harbor, CA.

A line drawn from Oceanside South Jetty Light 4 to Oceanside Breakwater Light 3.

[CGD 77-118a, 42 FR 35784, July 11, 1977. Redesignated by CGD 81-017, 46 FR 28154, May 26, 1981, and CGD 87-008b, 52 FR 25218, July 6, 1987]
#### Gaskins *v.*The State.

Submitted November 19,

Decided December 12, 1906.

Accusation of unlawful sale of liquor. Before Judge Hansell. City court of Thomasville. October 5, 1906.

*Fondren Mitchell*and *W. B. Hambleton Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Boscoe Luke, solicitor,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. When a defendant is on trial charged with illegally selling intoxicating liquor, and the evidence shows that he received money from another person, accompanied with a request to procure for the latter some intoxicating drink, and shortly thereafter returned and delivered the article as requested, the burden is on the accused to explain how, where, and from whom he obtained the liquor; and until some other person filling the character of seller in the transaction is shown to the satisfaction of the jury, they would be authorized to treat the defense that the accused acted as the agent of the buyer as a mere subterfuge to cover up an illegal sale by himself, and to find him guilty of selling the liquor. *White*v. *State,*93 *Ga.*47; *Mack*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*546.

2. The evidence as to whether or not the liquor sold was in fact intoxicating was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it was; and the judge being satisfied with the verdict, it should be allowed to stand.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00672-CR

IN RE Mauricio BALDERAS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 1, 2014

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On September 24, 2014, relator Mauricio Balderas filed a pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus raising issues related to his underlying felony conviction. In November 2012, relator 

was convicted of indecency with a child with contact, a second degree felony, and sentenced to 

fifteen years’ confinement. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11 (West 2011). On March 27, 2013, 

this court dismissed relator’s direct appeal from the judgment of conviction in Cause No. 04-12-

00793-CR, styled Balderas v. State, because the trial court’s certification reflected that the 

defendant had no right of appeal given his written plea bargain agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(d).2 Therefore, relator’s felony conviction became final.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011CR0555, styled The State of Texas v. Mauricio Balderas, pending in 

the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Melisa Skinner presiding. 2 See Balderas v. State, No. 04-12-00793-CR, 2013 WL 1225872, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 27, 2013, no 

pet.).

 
04-14-00672-CR

Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to postconviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 

802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 

(West Supp. 2014); Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for Eighth 

Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (holding “Article 11.07 provides the exclusive 

means to challenge a final felony conviction.”). Because the relief sought in relator’s petition 

relates to post-conviction relief from an otherwise final felony conviction, we are without 

jurisdiction to consider his petition for writ of mandamus. Accordingly, relator’s petition is 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2 -
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4896 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H.R. 4896

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the child tax 
                      credit to $2,000 per child.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2000

  Mr. Maloney of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the child tax 
                      credit to $2,000 per child.

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

SECTION 1. CHILD TAX CREDIT INCREASED TO $2,000 PER CHILD.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 24 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to child tax credit) is amended by 
striking ``$500'' and all that follows and inserting ``$2,000.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

May 5 , 201 1

Ms. Margaret Oge

Director

Office of Transportation and Air Quality (6401A)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

oge.margo@epa.gov

Re: RFS2

- Date of RIN Transfer

Dea r M s

. Oge :

On behalf of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), Growth Energy (GE), the American Petroleum

Institute (API), and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA), we are writing in

reference to the currently outstanding industry i ssue of EMTS RIN transaction reporting for RFS2

compliance. This letter is a follow

- up to our earlier correspondence with EPA o n July 30, 2010

, December 14, 2010 , and January 17, 2011 (attached) . I n addition, several telecon ference s have

also taken place between EPA and the industry during the past ten months.

We appreciate the time EPA has taken thus far working with our associations and are anxious to

have th e RIN transfer date issue resolved

. Our request has been that EPA afford industry the

flexibility to u se existing accounting systems by allowing the use of either the title transfer date or

the invoice date (plus a designated number of days depending on the mode of transportation) for

purposes of EMTS RIN transaction reporting and RFS2 compliance. As highl ighted in our earlier

communications with the EPA, such flexibility is needed to allow efficient operation of all industry

accounting systems, the majority of which currently follow the RFS1 compliance process and use

of the invoice date.

We would like t o suggest a teleconference or face to face meeting with you and others at EPA to

discuss our proposal and define the path forward.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Geoff Cooper

Renewable Fuels AssociationGreg Krissek

Growth Energy

P atrick Kelly

American Petroleum Institute

Tim Hogan

National Petrochemical and Refiners Association

cc:

Paul Machiele, m achiele.paul@epamail.epa.gov

John Weihrauch, weihrauch.john@epa.gov

Erv Pickell, pickell.erv@epa.gov

Tony Miller, miller.anthony@epa.gov

David Korotney, korotney.david@epa.gov

Karl Simon, simon.karl@epa.gov

Paul Argyropoulos, argyropoulos.paul@epamail.epa.gov

Chet France, france.chet@epamail.epa.gov
§ 384.8 How does the Corps of Engineers provide states an opportunity to comment on proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development? ( a ) Except in unusual circumstances, the responsible Corps official gives state processes or directly affected state, areawide, regional and local officials and entities at least 60 days from the date established by such official to comment on proposed direct Federal development or Federal financial assistance.
( b ) This section also applies to comments in cases in which the review, coordination, and communication with the Corps of Engineers have been delegated.
[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: Petroleumgeology of the Songliao basin, Northeast China**
 
Report | Plate One | Plate Two
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.76:86-502
Item Number:0624-H (online)
CGP systemNumber: 001060722
 
June 13, 2018
#### Maria M. PEREZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 02-72085, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 14, 2004.

*107Walter Rafael Pineda, Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office Of The District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Marion E. Guyton, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Maria M. Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal and for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We have jurisdiction to review due process challenges, and review *de novo. Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.

Perez’s first contention that the BIA’s summary affirmance process violates due process is foreclosed by our decision in *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 850-851 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the BIA’s streamlining procedure does not violate an alien’s due process rights).

Perez also argues that she had a “settled expectation” that the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) would apply to her because she applied for asylum prior to the effective date of the permanent rules of the IIRIRA, and that it was a denial of due process to place her in removal proceedings. This contention is foreclosed by *Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003), where the court held that an alien does not have a settled expectation of being placed in removal proceedings if the INS filed the charging document after April 1,1997, and that placing an alien in removal proceedings does not violate his due process rights. *See also Jimenez-Angeles,*291 F.3d at 600-02 (holding that alien did not have settled expectation that she would be placed in deportation proceedings rather than removal proceedings).

Pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), Perez’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for a stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary depar*108ture period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
§ 187.320 Transfer by operation of law. ( a ) In this section— ( 1 ) “By operation of law” means pursuant to a law or judicial order affecting ownership of a vessel— ( i ) Because of death, divorce or other family law proceeding, merger, consolidation, dissolution, or bankruptcy;
( ii ) Through the exercise of the rights of a lien creditor or a person having a lien created by statute or rule of law; or
( iii ) Through other legal process.
( 2 ) “Transfer-by-law statement” means a record signed by a transferee stating that by operation of law the transferee has acquired or has the right to acquire an ownership interest in a vessel.
( b ) A transfer-by-law statement must contain— ( 1 ) The name and last known mailing address of the owner of record and the transferee and the other information required by § 187.307(b);
( 2 ) Documentation sufficient to establish the transferee's ownership interest or right to acquire the ownership interest;
( 3 ) A statement that— ( i ) The certificate of title is an electronic certificate of title;
( ii ) The transferee does not have possession of the written certificate of title created in the name of the owner of record; or
( ii ) The transferee is delivering the written certificate to the office with the transfer-by-law statement; and
( 4 ) Except for a transfer described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, evidence that notification of the transfer and the intent to file the transfer-by-law statement has been sent to all persons indicated in the files of the office as having an interest, including a security interest, in the vessel.
( c ) Unless the office rejects a transfer-by-law statement for a reason stated in § 187.308(c) or because the statement does not include documentation satisfactory to the office as to the transferee's ownership interest or right to acquire the ownership interest, not later than 20 days after delivery to the office of the statement and payment of fees and taxes payable under State law in connection with the statement or with the acquisition or use of the vessel, the office must— ( 1 ) Accept the statement;
( 2 ) Amend the files of the office to reflect the transfer; and
( 3 ) If the name of the owner whose ownership interest is being transferred is indicated on the certificate of title— ( i ) Cancel the certificate even if the certificate has not been delivered to the office;
( ii ) Create a new certificate indicating the transferee as owner;
( iii ) Indicate on the new certificate any security interest indicated on the canceled certificate, unless a court order provides otherwise; and
( iv ) Deliver the new certificate or a record evidencing an electronic certificate.
( d ) This section does not apply to a transfer of an interest in a vessel by a secured party as prescribed by State law related to security interests in goods.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                                H. R. 4

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a 
                       national missile defense.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 4

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To declare it to be the policy of the United States to deploy a 
                       national missile defense.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the policy 
of the United States to deploy a national missile defense.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 18, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 3030.100 Applicability. ( a ) The rules in this part implement provisions in 39 U.S.C. chapter 36, subchapter I, establishing the modern system of ratemaking for regulating rates and classes for market dominant products. The rules in this part are applicable whenever the Postal Service proposes to adjust a rate of general applicability for any market dominant product, which includes the addition of a new rate, the removal of an existing rate, or a change to an existing rate. Current rates may be found in the Mail Classification Schedule appearing on the Commission's website at *www.prc.gov .*
( b ) Rates may be adjusted either subject to the rules appearing in subpart B of this part, which includes a limitation on rate increases, or subject to the rules appearing in subpart I of this part, which does not include a limitation on rate increases but requires either extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. The rules applicable to the calculation of the limitations on rate increases appear in subparts C through H of this part. The rules for workshare discounts, which are applicable whenever market dominant rates are adjusted, appear in subpart J of this part.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7090. Send written comments to CDC, Desk Officer; Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice. 

## Proposed Project

                    Supplement to HIV/AIDS Surveillance (SHAS) Project—New—The National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention (NCHSTP). NCHSTP is proposing revisions to the currently-approved questionnaire for the Supplement to HIV/AIDS Surveillance (SHAS) project (OMB No. 0920-0262). This questionnaire provides detailed information about persons with HIV infection which continues to be of significant interest to public health, community, minority groups and affected groups. Since 1989, the CDC, in collaboration with 12 state and local health agencies, has collected data through the national Supplemental HIV/AIDS Surveillance project. The objective of this project is to obtain increased descriptive information on persons with newly-reported HIV and AIDS infections, including sociodemographic characteristics, risk behaviors, use of health care services, sexual and substance abuse behaviors, minority issues and adherence to therapy. The revised questionnaire will address important emerging surveillance and prevention issues, particularly those related to the recent advances in therapy for HIV infection. This information supplements routine, national HIV/AIDS surveillance and is used to                     Start Printed Page 3453                    improve CDC's understanding of minority issues related to the epidemic of HIV, target educational efforts to prevent transmission, and improve services for persons with HIV infection. The total annual burden hours are 3500.                 

Dated: January 14, 2000. 

Nancy Cheal, Ph.D.,

Acting Associate Director for Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

[FR Doc. 00-1450 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4894

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to increase the maximum amount

of marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments that an agricultural

producer may receive during the 2000 crop year.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 19, 2000

Mrs. EMERSON (for herself and Mr. BERRY) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to increase the

maximum amount of marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments that an agricultural producer may receive during the 2000 crop year.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF MAR4 KETING LOAN GAINS AND LOAN DEFICIENCY

5 PAYMENTS.

6 Section 1001(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985

7 (7 U.S.C. 1308(2)) is amended by adding at the end the

8 following new sentence: ‘‘However, during the 2000 crop
2

•HR 4894 IH

1 year, the total amount of such payments may not exceed

2 $150,000 per person.’’.

Æ