alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 15 , 2015

VIA FDMS

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140

Attn: FAA Dockets

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Airware

– Petition to Amend Exemption No. 13780 (Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 3615 )

Dear Sir or Madam :

On November 24, 2015, the FAA granted Unmanned Innovation, Inc. d/b/a Airware

(“Airware”) an exemption pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of

2012 authorizing Airware to operate DJI S1000 and Allied Drones AT28 unmanned aircraft

systems (“UAS”) to conduct aerial data collection, market surveys and demonstrations

(“Exemption No. 13780”). 1 Pursuant to O perating Condition and L imitation No. 1 indicated

therein, Airware petitions the FAA to amend its Section 333 exemption authority to enable

Airware to operat e the following additional UAS under the same operating conditions and

limitations as specified in Exemption No. 13780 :

 Yuneec Tornado H920 ( multi

- rotor, 11 lbs

. )

 Altus Delta X4 ( multi

- rotor

, 13 lbs.)

, Delta X8 ( multi

- rotor, 21 lbs.) and Delta LRX

( multi

- rotor

, 25.5 lbs.)

 Altavian Nova F6500 ( fixed

- wing, 15 lbs.)

 Swift Radioplanes Lynx ( fixed

- wing, 8 lbs.)

T hese four UAS meet all of the relevant criteria described in Exemption No. 13780

, and

the FAA has already approved Altus, Altavian and Swift Radioplanes UAS for operation under

Section 333

. 2

Airware ’s operations with the above

- referenced UAS will comply with all conditions and

limitations specified in Exemption No. 13780

, and Airware will update and maintain the

technical manuals for these UAS as necessary. The same public interest and safety factors that

supported the FAA’s issuance of Exem ption No. 13780 exist here. Moreover, granting this

1 In the Matter of the Petition of Unmanned Innovation, Inc. d/b/a Airware , Grant of Exemption

No. 13780 (Nov. 24, 2015), Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 3615

.

2 See In the Matter of the Petition of Measure , Grant of Exemption No. 12646 (Aug. 28, 2015),

Docket FAA

- 2015

- 1602 , Attachment 1 (listing all UAS authorized under Section 33 3 as of that date). In addition,

several Section 333 petitioners have requested authority to operate the Yuneec Tornado H920. See, e.g., In the

Matter of the Petition of Aerial Optic s, Petition for Amendment (Jul. 23, 2015), Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0170; In the

Matter of the Petition of VSI Aerial, LLC , Petition for Exemption (Aug. 12, 2015), Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 5551.amendment request would be consistent with the amendment relief the FAA has provided to

over 200 other UAS operators already operating under Section 333.

Should you have any questions or requi r e any additional information, please do not

hesitate to contact Jesse Kallman, Airware’s Director of Business Development & Regulatory

Affairs, at jkallman@airware.com or (4 15) 992

- 3901.

Respectfully submitted,

Marc L. Warren

Counsel for

Unmanned Innovation, Inc. d/b/a Airware
Document

Exhibit 10.2 


THE MACERICH COMPANY
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to the Employment Agreement, effective as of January 1, 2020 (this “Amendment”), is made by and between The Macerich Company, a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Thomas E. O’Hern (the “Executive”).
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as of April 26, 2018 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend certain terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is mutually acknowledged, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:
1.The sections of the Employment Agreement titled “Vacation” and “Personal Days” shall be deleted in their entirety in accordance with the Company’s Routine Time Off Policy, effective as of January 1, 2020.


2.Except as expressly amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall be and remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 


3.All capitalized undefined terms used in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Employment Agreement.


4.This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered is an original, but all of which taken together constitute one and same instrument.


In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed effective as of the date and year first above written.


THE MACERICH COMPANY, a Maryland corporation




By: /s/ Steven R. Hash    
Steven R. Hash, Chairman of the Board


Executive:


/s/ Thomas E. O’Hern     
Thomas E. O’Hern
§ 105-74.300 What must I do to comply with this part if I am an individual recipient? As a condition of receiving a(n) GSA award, if you are an individual recipient, you must agree that— ( a ) You will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity related to the award; and
( b ) If you are convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity, you will report the conviction: ( 1 ) In writing.
( 2 ) Within 10 calendar days of the conviction.
( 3 ) To the GSA awarding official or other designee for each award that you currently have, unless § 105-74.301 or the award document designates a central point for the receipt of the notices. When notice is made to a central point, it must include the identification number(s) of each affected award.
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Patapsco Bancorp, Inc.
1301 Merritt Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21222


     We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statements
(No. 333-13975,  333-49908 and 333-68260) on Form S-8 of Patapsco Bancorp,  Inc.
of our report dated August 6, 2003,  relating to the consolidated  statements of
financial  condition of Patapsco  Bancorp,  Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June 30,
2003, and the related  consolidated  statements of income,  stockholders' equity
and cash flows for the year then  ended,  which  report  appears in the June 30,
2003 Annual Report of Form 10-KSB of Patapsco Bancorp, Inc.


/s/ Anderson Associates, LLP



Baltimore, Maryland
September 25, 2003
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 6, 2018

No. 04-16-00630-CR & 04-16-00631-CR

Cody Lon SMITH,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B-07-057 & B-15-631

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Appellant’s motion to transfer these appeals to another court of appeals is DENIED. The 

court takes no action on appellant’s motion to recuse and disqualify the 198th District Court.

It is so ORDERED on August 6, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
#### David A. Soto, Respondent, v Marie A. Soto, Appellant.

[628 NYS2d 391]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a *456judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Barone, J), entered February 11, 1994, as granted the husband a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The wife’s notice of appeal from the order dated December 22, 1993, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the trial court as a fact finder on the issue of cruel and inhuman treatment will not be lightly disturbed on appeal *(see, Tortorello v Tortorello,*133 AD2d 683; *Rieger v Rieger,*161 AD2d 227). Giving due deference to the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, we are satisfied that the husband sufficiently demonstrated a course of conduct by the wife which so endangered his physical or mental well-being as rendered it unsafe or improper for him to cohabit with her *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 170 [1]; *Rieger v Rieger, supra; Bulger v Bulger,*88 AD2d 895). In view of the short duration of the marriage, the verbal abuse, both public and private, and physical harassment of the husband by the wife, cruel and inhuman treatment was proven *(see, Hessen v Hessen,*33 NY2d 406; *Rieger v Rieger, supra; Bulger v Bulger, supra).*

Contrary to the wife’s contention, the trial court acted within its discretion in granting the husband’s motion to conform the pleadings to the proof adduced at trial *(see, Murray v City of New York,*43 NY2d 400). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Altman, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 3, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

132203(52)(54) Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

JUDITH KUZNAR and JOSEPH KUZNAR,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 SC: 132203 

v COA: 259501 

RAKSHA CORPORATION, d/b/a CROWN

PHARMACY, and VALERIE RANDALL,

Defendants-Appellants. 

Wayne CC: 03-333448-NO 

______________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, motions by the Michigan Justice Association 

and by the Michigan Pharmacists Association for leave to file brief amicus curiae are 

considered and they are GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

October 3, 2007 

 Clerk
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Susan J. Kelley,Director of Finance and Principal Accounting Officer of AML CommunicationsInc., (the “Company), certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of AML Communications, Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: June 29, 2005                               |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ SUSAN J. KELLEY                                    |   |   | By: | Susan J. Kelley,  Formerly: Susan J. Fite |
| Director of Finance and   Principal Accounting Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

         The undersigned executive officer of Pittsburgh Financial Corp. (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

                                            /s/ J. Ardie Dillen
                                            -----------------------------
                                            Name: J. Ardie Dillen
                                            Title: Chairman, President and Chief
                                                   Executive Officer

Date: December 19, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7330

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LETTY MELLOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (7:07-cr-00003-gec-mfu-2; 7:10-cv-80225-gecmfu)

Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 27, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Letty Mellor, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen John Pfleger, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Letty Mellor seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Mellor has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
No. 10-10913.

#### Bell *v.*Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Schneider, LLP.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### § 105-1.109-50 General plan.

Chapter 105 is divided into parts, subparts, and further subdivisions as necessary.
#### § 301-10.260 May I use a Government aircraft for travel?

You may use Government aircraft for travel only if you have authorization from an executive agency under the rules specified in this part (except with regard to travel under §§ 301-70.808 and 301-70.910). Because the taxpayers should pay no more than necessary for your transportation, generally you may travel on Government aircraft only when a Government aircraft is the most cost-effective mode of travel.

[FTR Amdt. 2004-02, 69 FR 34304, June 21, 2004]
§ 102-75.55 What does the term “Not being put to optimum use” mean? Not being put to optimum use means an entire property or portion thereof, with or without improvements, which— ( a ) Even though used for current program purposes, the nature, value, or location of the property is such that it could be utilized for a different and significantly higher and better purpose; or
( b ) The costs of occupying are substantially higher than other suitable properties that could be made available through transfer, purchase, or lease with total net savings to the Government, after considering property values, costs of moving, occupancy, operational efficiency, environmental effects, regional planning, and employee morale.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1


                            SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES
                            ------------------------

     The following is a list of all of our significant subsidiaries, including
the name, country of incorporation or residence, the proportion of our ownership
interest in each and, if different, the proportion of voting power held by us.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                         COUNTRY OF       PERCENTAGE OF      PERCENTAGE OF VOTING
                                      INCORPORATION OR      OWNERSHIP      POWER (IF DIFFERENT FROM
                                          RESIDENCE          INTEREST         OWNERSHIP INTEREST)
------------------------------------ ------------------  ---------------  --------------------------
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY
<S>                                  <C>                 <C>              <C>
NICE Systems, Inc.                      United States          100%                   --
NICE Systems GmbH                          Germany             100%                   --
NICE Systems Canada Ltd.                   Canada              100%                   --
NICE CTI Systems UK Ltd.               United Kingdom          100%                   --
STS Software Systems (1993) Ltd.           Israel              100%                   --
NICE APAC Ltd.                            Hong Kong            100%                   --
NiceEye BV                               Netherlands           100%                   --
NiceEye Ltd.                               Israel              100%                   --
Nice Systems SARL                          France              100%                   __
Racal Recorders Ltd                    United Kingdom          100%                   __
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DUKE
REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND SUBSIDIARIES' DECEMBER 31, 1997
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,261)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,307
<PP&E>                                       2,176,727
<DEPRECIATION>                               (116,264)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,177,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,053
<BONDS>                                        720,119
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,342,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,177,174
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               256,024
<CGS>                                          129,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 72,780
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             72,780
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    72,780
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.97
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

Pursuant to section 1301.33(a) of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on March 31, 2000, and by letter dated April 14, 2000, Wildlife Laboratories, Inc., 1401 Duff Drive, Suite 600, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80524, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of carfentanil (9743), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II. 

The firm plans to manufacturer the listed controlled substance for distribution to its customers.

Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacturer such substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration.

Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than August 21, 2000.

Dated: June 7, 2000.

John H. King,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-15689 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-M