alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Chairman Thomas M. Hite Vice-Chairman

Gary Orner BoardMembers

Andrew (Dre11)Swope Martin J. Marasco Ben StapeljeldJr. Herbert Bolger, Jr. Mike Ritchey AirportManager

Tracy Plessinger Blair County Commissioners

Terrence Tomassetti Diane Meting TedBeam Solicitor

DavidPertile 

## ALTOONA BLAIR COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY

.. .3JOAIRPORTDRIVE, SUITE 6



### .

**--~-:-·.:I** ;MARTINSBURG,PA 16662



### . 'Pho/7..e

**(~14)** 793-2027 Fax (814) 793-2655

-- ... ·:t.



### Mr. Kevin D. Schlemmer Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division United States Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20590 February 4, 2015

RE: OST -2002-11446 (AOO EAS); OST -2003-14528 (BFD EAS); OST -2003-14950 (JHW EAS); OST-1997-2523 (FKL EAS) Dear 

### Mr. Schlemmer, In discussions with our current EAS carrier, Sun AirExpress, the option ofhaving service provided by Cessna Grand Caravan aircraft was proposed, and after careful evaluation, we have concluded that we would support such service as a replacement or in addition to the existing Piper Chieftain PA31-350 aircraft. We understand thatthe Caravan is a single engine turbo-prop, and as such does not meet the Department'stwin-engine minimum service requirement. We believe there is sufficient value in use ofthat aircraft to our community that we are prepared to waive ourright to twinengine service. We understand that use ofsingle engine aircraft for Essential Air Service could eliminate the twin-engine minimum standard in future EAS bids. No change to the existing subsidy levels would be requested or required. Accordingly, we request thatthe Department allow Sun Airto operate either Cessna Caravan or Piper Chieftain aircraft for the remainder ofthe current EAS Order. Sincerely,



# V.'-

**{l~** TracyAinger, Manager



# Altoon:~~~s~ounty Airport
§ 14.108 Food and water. ( a ) No carrier shall accept any wild mammal or bird for transport to the United States unless written instructions from the shipper concerning the animal's food and water requirements are securely affixed to the outside of its primary enclosure. Such instructions shall be consistent with professionally accepted standards of care and include specifically the quantity of water required, the amount and type of food required, and the frequency of feeding and watering necessary to ensure that the animal is transported humanely and healthfully.
( b ) A mammal or bird requiring drinking water shall have uncontaminated water suitable for drinking made available to it at all times prior to commencement of transport to the United States, during intermediate stopovers, and upon arrival in the United States, or as directed by the shipper's written instructions.
( c ) A mammal or bird that obtains moisture from fruits or other food shall be provided such food prior to commencement of transport to the United States, during stopovers, and upon arrival in the United States, or as directed by the shipper's written instructions.
( d ) During a stopover or while still in the custody of the carrier after arrival in the United States, a mammal or bird in transit shall be observed no less frequently than once every four hours and given food and water according to the instructions required by § 14.108(a).
( e ) Suitable and sufficient food shall be made available during transport.
( f ) Additional requirements for feeding and watering particular kinds of animals are found below in the specifications for the various groups.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23



The Board of Directors
CE Software Holdings, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos 33-
54210 and 33-41037) on Form S-8 of CE Software Holding, Inc. of our report dated
November 8, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of CE Software 
Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 1996 and 1995, and the 
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash 
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 1996, 
which report appears in the September 30, 1996 Form 10-KSB of CE Software
Holdings, Inc.



                                     						/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

                                     						KPMG Peat Marwick LLP




Des Moines, Iowa
December 23, 1996


page 41
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5068 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5068

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit for the 
      purchase of child restraint systems used in motor vehicles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 1994

 Mr. Fields of Texas 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 provide a credit for the 
      purchase of child restraint systems used in motor vehicles.

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

SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR PURCHASE OF CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS.

    (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrefundable 
personal credits) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
new section:

``SEC. 25A. PURCHASE OF CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM.

    ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual, there shall be 
allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the 
taxable year an amount equal to the costs incurred by the taxpayer 
during such taxable year in purchasing a qualified child restraint 
system for any child of the taxpayer.
    ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
            ``(1) Qualified child restraint system.--The term 
        `qualified child restraint system' means any child restraint 
        system which meets the requirements of section 571.213 of title 
        49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
            ``(2) Child.--The term `child' has the meaning given to 
        such term by section 151(c)(3).''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart A of 
part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 25 the 
following new item:

                              ``Sec. 25A. Purchase of child restraint 
                                        system.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid after the date of the enactment of this Act in 
taxable years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 95.2101 Scope.

This subpart contains rules that apply only to the Low Power Radio Service (LPRS).
# Map            Kashmir region.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AT SEPT. 30, 1999, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          24,476
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                       398
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,121
<PP&E>                                           5,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,140
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,754
<BONDS>                                            493
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,262
<SALES>                                          9,397
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,538
<CGS>                                            4,099
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   126
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,199)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,199)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,199)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.58)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1: Rule 13a-14(b)
Certification





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of China Water Group, Inc.
(the “Company”) certifies that:




1.           The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended September
30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and




2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  April
      13, 2009
              /s/ Wenge FangWenge
      Fang, Chief Executive Officer
Wavepilot

Alexander Fisher

37 29th Ave S

Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250

(805) 432

- 7111

January 22, 2016

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Wavepilot

- Exemption/Rulemaking

- Exemption Request Section 333

, ID: FAA

- 2015

- 8728

- 0001

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am Alexander Fisher of Wavepilot, the applicant of this petition originally dated November 5, 2016 and

posted December 30, 2015 . Appendix C of the request listed the DJI Phantom 3 as the sUAS to be

operated.

I request the petition be expanded to also include and cover the DJI Inspire 1 Pro sUAS to be operated

under the exemption.

The DJI Inspire 1 Pro U ser Manual follows below and is attached to this comment separately and can

also be obtained at

http://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/inspire_1_pro/en/Inspire_1_Pro_User_Manual_en_v1.0_1201.pdf

.

Sincerely,

Wavepilot

Alex ander Fisher

January 22, 2016
#### SEDERBERG v. CALVERT et al.

No. 13276.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 22, 1951.

Geo. F. Woodliff, Jackson, Miss., for appellant.

Shelby R. Rogers, Bob Ray, P. H. Eager, Jr., and Hubert S. Lipscomb, all of Jackson, Miss., for appellees.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and BORAH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Brought against three defendants, Cal-wert, McCullough, and Watts, the suit was for damages for personal injuries sustained an an automobile collision.

The claim against McCullough and Calvert was: that defendant McCullough, while acting within the scope of his authority on the business of his employer, Calvert, negligently operated an automobile being driven by him causing it to collide with plaintiff’s car and injure him.

The claim against defendant Watts was: that the driver of a car owned by him, which was proceeding along the highway ahead of McCullough, negligently signaled McCullough that the road ahead and over the crest of the hill was clear for McCullough to pass; and that this negligent signal combined with McCullough’s negligence to cause the collision.

The defendants denied negligence and responsibility and pleaded that plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

A jury having been waived, and the case fully tried to the court without a jury, the court delivered and filed an opinion stating his views on the questions of liability and damage, in which he found and held: that plaintiff had been damaged in the amount of $10,000, but because of his contributory negligence he should recover only $7500; that he should recover this sum from McCullough, who had been primarily negligent; that he was not entitled to recover against Calvert because McCullough was not at the time and under the circumstances acting for or on behalf of Calvert or in any way as his employee, but was on a mission entirely of his own; and that he could not recover of Watts because the driver of Watt’s car was guilty of no negligence which contributed in any respect to the collision.

Plaintiff is here seeking a reversal of the judgment in so far as it was adverse to him.

We have given the most careful consideration to the record, the briefs, and the arguments, and are in no doubt that the appeal presents no disputed questions of law, but only the single question whether the findings the judge made, or any of them, are clearly erroneous within the meaning of the settled law.1

*718The same careful examination convinces us that, except in respect of the finding that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, there is no basis in the record for the view that any of the fact findings are so erroneous. It will, therefore, serve no useful purpose to set out and discuss the facts in detail. It will suffice for us to say, as we do, that the judgment will be modified by allowing plaintiff to recover of McCullough the $10,000 found as the amount of his damages, and, as so modified, it will be affirmed.

Modified and affirmed with costs of appeal against McCullough.

1

. Cf. Sanders v. Leach, 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 486.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Interactive Intelligence, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,  Donald E. Brown, M.D., Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.








/s/ Donald E. Brown, M.D.


Donald E. Brown, M.D.


President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)


November 9, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5133 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5133

 To provide for expediting an investigation by the International Trade 
   Commission by providing for the monitoring of the importation of 
                 certain kinds of tomatoes and peppers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 1994

  Mr. Pombo (for himself and Mr. Thomas of California) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for expediting an investigation by the International Trade 
   Commission by providing for the monitoring of the importation of 
                 certain kinds of tomatoes and peppers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act Amendments of 1994''.

SEC. 2. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION MONITORING OF CERTAIN VEGETABLES 
              INTENDED FOR FRESH MARKET USE.

    Section 316 of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3381), is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 316. MONITORING.

    ``For purposes of expediting an investigation concerning 
provisional relief under this title or section 202 of the Trade Act of 
1974 regarding--
    ``(1) fresh or chilled tomatoes suitable for fresh-market use 
provided for in heading 0702.00 of the HTS; and
    ``(2) fresh or chilled peppers, other than chili peppers, suitable 
for fresh-market use provided for in subheading 0709.60.00 of the HTS;
the International Trade Commission, until January 1, 2009, shall 
monitor imports of such goods as if proper requests for such monitoring 
had been made under subsection (d)(1)(C)(i) of section 202. At the 
request of the International Trade Commission, the Secretary of 
Agriculture and the Commissioner of Customs shall provide to the 
International Trade Commission information relevant to the monitoring 
carried out under this section.''
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 491 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 491

    To prohibit the imposition of a fee for waiver of the passport 
 requirement for citizens in the case of reported theft or destruction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 1993

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the imposition of a fee for waiver of the passport 
 requirement for citizens in the case of reported theft or destruction.

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

SECTION 1. NO FEE FOR WAIVER OF PASSPORT REQUIREMENT IN CASE OF 
              REPORTED THEFT OR DESTRUCTION.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of State may not impose any fee for 
the waiver, under section 53.2(h) of title 22, Code of Federal 
Regulations, of the passport requirement for a citizen of the United 
States under section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1185) if the citizen has reported the theft or destruction of 
the passport to the State Department (either in the United States or 
abroad) or to the local police.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply to waivers granted 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
§ 95.587 FRS additional requirements. Each FRS transmitter type must be designed to meet the following additional requirements. ( a ) *Transmit frequency capability.* FRS transmitter types must not be capable of transmitting on any frequency or channel other than those listed in § 95.563.
( b ) *Antenna.* The antenna of each FRS transmitter type must meet the following requirements. ( 1 ) The antenna must be a non-removable integral part of the FRS transmitter type.
( 2 ) The gain of the antenna must not exceed that of a half-wave dipole antenna.
( 3 ) The antenna must be designed such that the electric field of the emitted waves is vertically polarized when the unit is operated in the normal orientation.
( c ) *Digital data transmissions.* FRS transmitter types having the capability to transmit digital data must be designed to meet the following requirements. ( 1 ) FRS units may transmit digital data containing location information, or requesting location information from one or more other FRS or GMRS units, or containing a brief text message to another specific FRS or GMRS unit or units.
( 2 ) Digital data transmissions may be initiated by a manual action or command of the operator or on an automatic or periodic basis, and FRS units may be designed to automatically respond with location data upon receiving an interrogation request from another
( 3 ) Digital data transmissions must not exceed one second in duration.
( 4 ) Digital data transmissions must not be sent more frequently than one digital data transmission within a thirty-second period, except that an FRS unit may automatically respond to more than one interrogation request received within a thirty-second period.
( d ) *Packet mode.* FRS transmitter types must not be capable of transmitting data in the store-and-forward packet operation mode.
( e ) Effective September 30, 2019, no person shall manufacture or import hand-held portable radio equipment capable of operating under this subpart (FRS) and other licensed or licensed-by-rule services in this chapter (part 15 unlicensed equipment authorizations are permitted if consistent with part 15 rules).
[82 FR 41104, Aug. 29, 2017, as amended at 86 FR 53565, Sept. 28, 2021]
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5053 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5053

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                                 An Act

  
 
  To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to extend for one year Water 
Bank Act agreements that are due to expire on December 31, 1994.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Water Bank Extension Act of 1994''.
SEC. 2. SPECIAL AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WATER BANK ACT AGREEMENTS.
    (a) Subject to subsection (b), any agreement entered into under the 
Water Bank Act (16 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) and due to expire on December 
31, 1994, may be extended for 1 year under section 6 of the Water Bank 
Act (16 U.S.C. 1305).
    (b) The authority to extend Water Bank Act agreements under this 
Act may only be exercised to the extent that the amount available for 
obligation under the Wetlands Reserve Program (16 U.S.C. 1637 et seq.), 
and the amount used for the extension of Water Bank Act agreements 
under subsection (a), does not exceed $93,200,000 as provided for the 
Wetlands Reserve Program under the Agricultural, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
1995.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
368P12-3

#### Sherif A. Philips, M.D. v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc., Paul Bolin, M.D., Ralph Whatley, M.D., Sanjay Patel, M.D., and Cynthia Brown, M.D.

Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion for Petition for Reconsideration

Denied