alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FLIGHT PLAN

INFORMATION

DATE: 01/01/15 TIME: 10:00am



### ADDRESS: 1234 Long Dr, Acton CA 91234



### TYPE: PHOTO | VIDEO | BOTH



### NOTES: Take pictures of main house area, front and back. Avoid back Stables area

- live stock may not like

the drone.



## FLIGHT RESEARCH

WEATHER FORCAST : Clear skies with chance for 12mph gusts



### AREA: Open area, nearest neighbor is 500 ft West and 200 Ft South

HAZARDS: Numerous Trees around property



### CLOSEST AIRPORT: Auga Dulce Airpark

- S/W 8 miles. Palmdale Regional

– N 14 miles

## PRE FLIGHT SITE CHECK

WEATHER ONSITE : Clear skies with gusts of wind, gusts were to strong to us e DJI Phantom (ZuQuad)

.

U se d DJI S800 EVO (ZuHex)



### HEI GHT NEEDED FOR SHOT: 100ft



### FLIGHT TIME NEEDED: 5

- 8 min



### HAZARDS CONFIRMATION: Numerous Trees a round property, also has power lines running up the

center of property (North /South ). Not safe to perform Angle C (CANCEL ANGLE C Shot)



### NOTES: Take off and landing will be in the main drive way, dust free, clear of obstacles and trees
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-00-00529-CR

Ricky Gene Watkins, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 49,086, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Ricky Gene Watkins pleaded guilty to possessing more than four grams

of methamphetamine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (d) (West Supp. 2001).

The district court adjudged him guilty and assessed punishment at imprisonment for three years.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App.

1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d

137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant
2

was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief

has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the

appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: February 1, 2001

Do Not Publish
#### § 128-1.8010 Judicial review.

Nothing in this subpart is intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the Department of Justice, its Seismic Safety Coordinators, its officers, or any employee of the Department.
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

§ 36.331 Information origination/termination expenses—Account 6310. ( a ) The expenses in this account are classified as follows: ( 1 ) Other Information Origination/Termination Equipment Expenses; Customer Premises Equipment Expenses
( 2 ) For some companies, these classifications are available from accounting records; for others, they are obtained by means of analyses of plant, accounting or other records for a representative period.
( b ) Other Information Origination/Termination Equipment Expenses include all expenses not associated with Customer Premises Equipment expenses. These expenses shall be apportioned between state and interstate operations in accordance with the apportionment of the related investment as per § 36.142(a).
( c ) Expenses related to Customer Premises Equipment shall be assigned to the state operations.
[52 FR 17229, May 6, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 33012, Aug. 29, 1988]
No. 11-5372.

#### Cathcart *v.*Corrections Corporation of America et al.

Ct. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10067.

#### Gilyard *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
CDC - NIOSH Publications and Products - Preventing Deaths and Injurie... http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/85-110/

1 of 4 2/1/2016 10:17 AM
CDC - NIOSH Publications and Products - Preventing Deaths and Injurie... http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/85-110/

2 of 4 2/1/2016 10:17 AM
Relevant OSHA Standards

Status of

Compliance by Case

#1 #2 #3 #4

1. The walls and faces of all excavations in which 

 shall be guarded by a shoring system, sloping of the ground, or

some other equivalent means. (29 CFR 1926.651 (c))

No No No** No

2. Sides of trenches 5 feet or more in depth, shall be

shored, sheeted, braced, sloped, or otherwise supported by means of sufficient

strength to protect employees working within them. (29 CFR 1926.652 (b), Tables

P-1 and P-2)

No No No No

3. Excavations (including trenches) adjacent to 

 from railroads, highway traffic, or operation of machinery shall have

additional shoring and bracing precautions taken. (29 CFR 1926.651 (m) and

1926.652 (e))

No NA No No

1. Excavations*** from 5 feet to 24 feet**** deep in Type A and Type B soils or 5 feet

to 15 feet deep in Type C soil shall either be: provided with a shoring system capable

of supporting the lateral soil pressure, cut back to the steepest allowable slope for the

type of soil, or a combination of both measures. Stable rock is exempt. (Vibration

energies have been taken into consideration in the requirement of shoring systems or

sloping.)

No No No No

CDC - NIOSH Publications and Products - Preventing Deaths and Injurie... http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/85-110/

3 of 4 2/1/2016 10:17 AM
CDC - NIOSH Publications and Products - Preventing Deaths and Injurie... http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/85-110/

4 of 4 2/1/2016 10:17 AM
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Board of Directors

American Wagering, Inc.

Las Vegas, Nevada

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements of American Wagering, Inc.on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-89494, 333-32505, 333-27393 and 333-27395) ofour report dated May 12, 2008, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K,on the financial statements of American Wagering, Inc. and Subsidiaries asof and for the years ended January 31, 2008 and 2007.

 

PIERCY BOWLER TAYLOR &KERN

 
| /s/ PIERCY BOWLER  TAYLOR & KERN |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|

 

Certified Public Accountants

Las Vegas, Nevada

May 12, 2008

 

----
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4893

To repeal the North/South Center Act of 1991.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 3, 1994

Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin (for himself, Mr. PENNY, Mr. ZIMMER, Ms.

CANTWELL, and Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To repeal the North/South Center Act of 1991.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NORTH/SOUTH CENTER ACT.

4 Effective June 1, 1995, the North/South Center Act

5 of 1991 (22 U.S.C. 2075) is repealed.

Æ
#### § 109-45.5005 Disposal.
§ 64.2009 Safeguards required for use of customer proprietary network information. ( a ) Telecommunications carriers must implement a system by which the status of a customer's CPNI approval can be clearly established prior to the use of CPNI.
( b ) Telecommunications carriers must train their personnel as to when they are and are not authorized to use CPNI, and carriers must have an express disciplinary process in place.
( c ) All carriers shall maintain a record, electronically or in some other manner, of their own and their affiliates' sales and marketing campaigns that use their customers' CPNI. All carriers shall maintain a record of all instances where CPNI was disclosed or provided to third parties, or where third parties were allowed access to CPNI. The record must include a description of each campaign, the specific CPNI that was used in the campaign, and what products and services were offered as a part of the campaign. Carriers shall retain the record for a minimum of one year.
( d ) Telecommunications carriers must establish a supervisory review process regarding carrier compliance with the rules in this subpart for outbound marketing situations and maintain records of carrier compliance for a minimum period of one year. Specifically, sales personnel must obtain supervisory approval of any proposed outbound marketing request for customer approval.
( e ) A telecommunications carrier must have an officer, as an agent of the carrier, sign and file with the Commission a compliance certificate on an annual basis. The officer must state in the certification that he or she has personal knowledge that the company has established operating procedures that are adequate to ensure compliance with the rules in this subpart. The carrier must provide a statement accompanying the certificate explaining how its operating procedures ensure that it is or is not in compliance with the rules in this subpart. In addition, the carrier must include an explanation of any actions taken against data brokers and a summary of all customer complaints received in the past year concerning the unauthorized release of CPNI. This filing must be made annually with the Enforcement Bureau on or before March 1 in EB Docket No. 06-36, for data pertaining to the previous calendar year.
( f ) Carriers must provide written notice within five business days to the Commission of any instance where the opt-out mechanisms do not work properly, to such a degree that consumers' inability to opt-out is more than an anomaly. ( 1 ) The notice shall be in the form of a letter, and shall include the carrier's name, a description of the opt-out mechanism(s) used, the problem(s) experienced, the remedy proposed and when it will be/was implemented, whether the relevant state commission(s) has been notified and whether it has taken any action, a copy of the notice provided to customers, and contact information.
( 2 ) Such notice must be submitted even if the carrier offers other methods by which consumers may opt-out.
§ 7.7 Product design, development, and evaluation. ( a ) Manufacturers and service providers shall evaluate the accessibility, usability, and compatibility of equipment and services covered by this part and shall incorporate such evaluation throughout product design, development, and fabrication, as early and consistently as possible. Manufacturers and service providers shall identify barriers to accessibility and usability as part of such a product design and development process.
( b ) In developing such a process, manufacturers and service providers shall consider the following factors, as the manufacturer deems appropriate: ( 1 ) Where market research is undertaken, including individuals with disabilities in target populations of such research;
( 2 ) Where product design, testing, pilot demonstrations, and product trials are conducted, including individuals with disabilities in such activities;
( 3 ) Working cooperatively with appropriate disability-related organizations; and
( 4 ) Making reasonable efforts to validate any unproven access solutions through testing with individuals with disabilities or with appropriate disability-related organizations that have established expertise with individuals with disabilities.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DERRICK GRANTLEY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-4682

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

 )

Opinion filed September 16, 2020. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte 

County; George C. Richards, Judge.

Derrick Grantley, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, C.J., and BLACK, J., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR 

JUDGE, Concur.
No. 11-5273.

#### Fournerat *v.*Wisconsin Law Review et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Waiver



 Exhibit 4.2 
 WAIVER REGARDING STOCK OWNERSHIP RESTRICTIONS 
 This WAIVER REGARDING STOCK OWNERSHIP RESTRICTIONS (this
AWaiver@), dated as of August 11, 2000, is by and between American Land Lease, Inc., a Delaware corporation and successor in interest to Asset Investors Corporation (the ACompany@), and Asset Investors Operating Partnership, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership (the AStockholder@). 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to certain provisions contained in the Company=s Second Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation (the ACertificate@; capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings provided in the Certificate), no person may, among other things, beneficially own or directly or indirectly own
shares of Capital Stock of the Company equal to or in excess of 5% of the aggregate value of the outstanding shares of Common Stock (such provisions, as set forth in Section 7.2.1(a) of the Certificate, the ARestrictive Ownership Provisions@);

 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.2.7 of the Certificate, the Board of Directors may, in its sole discretion, exempt a person from the
application of any one or more of the Restrictive Ownership Provisions, subject to such terms and conditions as the Board of Directors may determine; and 
 WHEREAS, the Stockholder has requested that the Company exempt the Stockholder from application of certain of the Restrictive Ownership Provisions; and the Company has determined to provide such exemption in respect
of the Stockholder, subject to the terms and conditions provided herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for mutual consideration the receipt of which is
hereby confirmed, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	1.	The Stockholder shall be exempt from the Aggregate Stock Ownership Limit and the Section 382 Limit as contained in Section 7.2.1(a)(i) of the Certificate.


  

	2.	The Stockholder agrees that, except as expressly provided herein, all of the provisions contained in Article SEVENTH (ARestriction on Transfer and Ownership of Shares@) shall
continue to be applicable to the Stockholder in respect of the Stockholder=s ownership of Capital Stock of the Company. 

  

	3.	This Waiver shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware. 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Waiver as of the date provided above.

  

			
	AMERICAN LAND LEASE, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Terry Considine
		 	Name: Terry Considine
		 	Title: Chief Executive Officer


  

			
	ASSET INVESTORS OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
	
	 By: AMERICAN LAND LEASE, INC., its
General Partner

		
	By:	 	/s/ Terry Considine
		 	Name: Terry Considine
		 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.537 Temporary authorizations. ( a ) Special temporary authority may be granted for aural broadcast STL or intercity relay station operation which cannot be conducted in accordance with § 74.24. Such authority will normally be granted only for operations of a temporary nature. Where operation is seen as likely on a continuing annual basis, an application for a regular authorization should be submitted.
( b ) A request for special temporary authority for the operation of an aural broadcast STL or an intercity relay station must be made in accordance with the procedures of § 1.931(b) of this chapter.
( c ) All requests for special temporary authority of an aural broadcast auxiliary stations must include full particulars including: licensee's name and address, facility identification number of the associated broadcast station(s), call letters of the aural broadcast STL or intercity relay station, if assigned, type and manufacturer of equipment, effective isotropic radiated power, emission, frequency or frequencies proposed for use, commencement and termination date and location of the proposed operation, and purpose for which request is made including any particular justification.
( d ) A request for special temporary authorization shall specify a frequency or frequencies consistent with the provisions of § 74.502. However, in the case of events of widespread interest and importance which cannot be transmitted successfully on these frequencies, frequencies assigned to other services may be requested upon a showing that operation thereon will not cause interference to established stations. In no case will operation of an aural broadcast STL or intercity relay station be authorized on frequencies employed for the safety of life or property.
( e ) When the transmitting equipment utilized is not licensed to the user, the user shall nevertheless have full control over the use of the equipment during the period it is operated.
( f ) Special temporary authorization to permit operation of aural broadcast STL or intercity relay stations or systems pending FCC action on an application for regular authority will normally not be granted.
[47 FR 9220, Mar. 4, 1982, as amended at 50 FR 23709, June 5, 1985; 58 FR 19775, Apr. 16, 1993; 68 FR 12767, Mar. 17, 2003]
Hillsborough

No. 80-410

#### Sarah Hubbard *& a.*v. Paul Panneton

June 12, 1981

*527*Holland & Aivalikles,*of Nashua *(Francis G. Holland*on the brief and orally), for the plaintiffs.

*Wiggin & Nourie,*of Manchester *(Gregory H. Holmes*on the brief and orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

On April 18, 1975, plaintiff Raymond Hubbard was driving south on Route 3 in Bedford with his wife, Sarah, as a passenger. The defendant was operating his automobile in a northerly direction at the same location. As the defendant’s automobile came into the plaintiffs’ view, it crossed over onto their side of the road and struck their vehicle.

Sarah and Raymond Hubbard each brought suit, claiming that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep his vehicle under control, failing to stay in his own lane, operating at an unreasonable speed, and crossing over into their lane of travel. At trial, the defendant claimed that the accident was the result of an unexpected and unanticipated blackout which was beyond his control and amounted to an act of God. Consequently, he asserted, he was not negligent. A jury returned verdicts for the defendant in both cases. The Trial Court (Souter, J.) denied the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdicts and transferred the plaintiffs’ exceptions.

The plaintiffs raise several issues on appeal, but the only question that we address relates to the discovery of the defendant’s medical records.

On October 26, 1977, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the production of the defendant’s medical records and medical authorizations. The plaintiffs did not receive the medical records until June 12, 1978, the morning of trial, and they never received the medical authorizations. The information contained in the medical records clearly was relevant to the issue of whether the defendant’s alleged sudden loss of consciousness was unforeseen, especially in light of the fact that the defendant had suffered a blackout while driving a van approximately five months before the accident in question. By not providing the plaintiffs with information that bore directly on the defendant’s only defense until the day of trial, the defendant prevented the plaintiffs from adequately preparing their case for trial. *See Kearsarge Computer, Inc. v. Acme Staple Co.,*116 N.H. 705, 707, 366 A.2d 467, 469 (1976); *McDuffey v. Boston & Maine R.R.,*102 N.H. 179, 181, 152 A.2d 606, 608 (1959). In *528these circumstances, we conclude that the plaintiffs are entitled to a new trial. We leave it to the trial court to decide whether to impose costs, attorney’s fees, witness fees, and other expenses on the defendant.

*Reversed and remanded for new trial.*
§ 76.225 Commercial limits in children's programs. ( a ) No cable operator shall air more than 10.5 minutes of commercial matter per hour during children's programming on weekends, or more than 12 minutes of commercial matter per hour on weekdays.
( b ) The display of Internet Web site addresses during program material or promotional material not counted as commercial time is permitted only if the Web site: ( 1 ) Offers a substantial amount of bona fide program-related or other noncommercial content;
( 2 ) Is not primarily intended for commercial purposes, including either e-commerce or advertising;
( 3 ) The Web site's home page and other menu pages are clearly labeled to distinguish the noncommercial from the commercial sections; and
( 4 ) The page of the Web site to which viewers are directed by the Web site address is not used for e-commerce, advertising, or other commercial purposes (e.g., contains no links labeled “store” and no links to another page with commercial material).
( c ) If an Internet address for a Web site that does not meet the test in paragraph (b) of this section is displayed during a promotion in a children's program, in addition to counting against the commercial time limits in paragraph (a) of this section the promotion must be clearly separated from program material.
( d ) ( 1 ) Entities subject to commercial time limits under the Children's Television Act shall not display a Web site address during or adjacent to a program if, at that time, on pages that are primarily devoted to free noncommercial content regarding that specific program or a character appearing in that program: ( i ) Products are sold that feature a character appearing in that program; or
( ii ) A character appearing in that program is used to actively sell products.
( 2 ) The requirements of this paragraph do not apply to: ( i ) Third-party sites linked from the companies' Web pages;
( ii ) On-air third-party advertisements with Web site references to third-party Web sites; or
( iii ) Pages that are primarily devoted to multiple characters from multiple programs.
( e ) The requirements of this section shall not apply to programs aired on a broadcast television channel which the cable operator passively carries, or to access channels over which the cable operator may not exercise editorial control, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 531(e) and 532(c)(2).
Note 1 to § 76.225 :
*Commercial matter* means air time sold for purposes of selling a product or service and promotions of television programs or video programming services other than children's or other age-appropriate programming appearing on the same channel or promotions for children's educational and informational programming on any channel.
Note 2 to § 76.225 :
For purposes of this section, children's programming refers to programs originally produced and broadcast primarily for an audience of children 12 years old and younger.
Note 3 to § 76.225 :
Section 76.1703 contains recordkeeping requirements for cable operators with regard to children's programming.
[56 FR 19616, Apr. 29, 1991, as amended at 65 FR 53615, Sept. 5, 2000; 70 FR 38, Jan. 3, 2005; 71 FR 64165, Nov. 1, 2006]
#### § 73.1209 References to time.

Unless specifically designated as “standard (non-advanced)” or “advanced,” all references to time contained in this part, and in license documents and other authorizations issued thereunder shall be understood to mean local time; *i.e.*, the time legally observed in the community.

[39 FR 26736, July 23, 1974]