alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 158.120 Aggregate reporting. ( a ) *General requirements.* For purposes of submitting the report required in § 158.110 of this subpart, the issuer must submit a report for each State in which it is licensed to issue health insurance coverage that includes the experience of all policies issued in the State during the MLR reporting year covered by the report. The report must aggregate data for each entity licensed within a State, aggregated separately for the large group market, the small group market and the individual market. Experience with respect to each policy must be included on the report submitted with respect to the State where the contract was issued, except as specified in § 158.120(d) of this subpart.
( b ) *Group Health Insurance Coverage in Multiple States.* Group coverage issued by a single issuer that covers employees in multiple States must be attributed to the applicable State based on the situs of the contract. Group coverage issued by multiple affiliated issuers that covers employees in multiple States must be attributed by each issuer to each State based on the situs of the contract.
( c ) *Group Health Insurance Coverage With Dual Contracts.* Where a group health plan involves health insurance coverage obtained from two affiliated issuers, one providing in-network coverage only and the second providing out-of-network coverage only, solely for the purpose of providing a group health plan that offers both in-network and out-of-network benefits, experience may be treated as if it were all related to the contract provided by the in-network issuer. However, if the issuer chooses this method of aggregation, it must apply it for a minimum of 3 MLR reporting years.
( d ) *Exceptions.* ( 1 ) For individual market business sold through an association or trust, the experience of the issuer must be included in the State report for the issue State of the certificate of coverage.
( 2 ) For employer business issued through a group trust or multiple employer welfare association (MEWA), the experience of the issuer must be included in the State report for the State where the employer (if sold through a trust) or the MEWA (if the MEWA is the policyholder) has its principal place of business.
( 3 ) An issuer with policies that have a total annual limit of $250,000 or less must report the experience from such policies separately from other policies.
( 4 ) An issuer with group policies that provide coverage to employees, substantially all of whom are: Working outside their country of citizenship; working outside of their country of citizenship and outside the employer's country of domicile; or non-U.S. citizens working in their home country, must aggregate and report the experience from these policies on a national basis, separately for the large group market and small group market, and separately from other policies.
( 5 ) An issuer in the student market must aggregate and report the experience from these policies on a national basis, separately from other policies.
[75 FR 74921, Dec. 1, 2010, as amended at 75 FR 82278, Dec. 30, 2010; 76 FR 76592, Dec. 7, 2011; 77 FR 16469, Mar. 21, 2012; 77 FR 28790, May 16, 2012]
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 (321)-261-2547 

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com

December 14, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Bldg. 10A

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

RE: Summary Grant for Spoke Enterprise, LLC Exemption Request Under 

Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012, 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), 49 

U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Spoke Enterprise, LLC, an operator of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS”) equipped to conduct full service photography and 

videography, seeks exemption from the following listed Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) to allow commercial operation of the previously approved Yuneec Typhoon G, 

Yuneec Tornado H920, Leptron RDASS, and the Leptron Avenger within the National 

Airspace System (NAS) for controlled, low-risk, aerial video and photography, aerial 

mapping and survey, precision agriculture survey and analysis, and real estate over 

certain areas of the United States, conducted within and under the conditions outlined 

herein, or as may be established by the FAA, as required by Section 333 requirements. 

Spoke Enterprise, LLC in the accompanying petition, seeks exemption from the 

requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§ 45.27(a), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.105, 91.119(c), 

91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2),and 91.417(a) and (b). 

Spoke Enterprise, LLC has requested that the FAA not request public comment on its

petition because it would not set any precedent and because the relief requested is 

identical to numerous exemptions granted previously by the FAA. 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. 

In addition, Spoke Enterprise, LLC will be utilizing the proven technologies the FAA has 

already accepted and approved in numerous other approved exemptions. Combined, the

comprehensive Section 333 Exemption and the approvals the FAA has already given to 

these chosen products and the technology, should provide the support necessary to the 

FAA for a Summary Grant of Spoke Enterprise, LLC’s Section 333 Petition and expedite 
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 (321)-261-2547 

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com

the process. 

Kelly J. Neubecker

CEO

UASolutions Group, Inc.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 257]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ257.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 660]]

Public Law 109-257
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  3000 Homewood Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``State Senator 
Verda Welcome and Dr. Henry Welcome Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Aug. 
                        1, 2006 -  [H.R. 4108]>> 

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

SECTION 1. STATE SENATOR VERDA WELCOME AND DR. HENRY WELCOME POST OFFICE 
            BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3000 Homewood Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, shall be known 
and designated as the ``State Senator Verda Welcome and Dr. Henry 
Welcome Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``State 
Senator Verda Welcome and Dr. Henry Welcome Post Office Building''.

    Approved August 1, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4108:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 151 (2005):
                                    Dec. 18, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 152 (2006):
                                    July 20, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 22-0621
A.J.B. and O.F.,

Petitioners,

v. MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, GALLATIN COUNTY, HON. ANDREW J. BREUNER, Presiding,

Respondent. 

## hl 

# L-I1' NOV 03 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

PetitionerA.J.B., on behalfofherselfandher child O.F., seeks awrit ofsupervisory control to reverse the October 25, 2022 Opinion and Order Re Request forEPSHearing of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, in its Cause No. DN-22-27D. In that Order,theDistrict Court deniedA.J.B.'srequest for anEmergencyProtective Services hearing because the court determined that § 41-3-306(7), MCA, barred such hearing in dependent neglect cases that implicate the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The court further denied A.J.B.'s constitutional challenge to that statute. Having reviewed the Petition and the challenged Order, and further noting that A.J.B. has filed a Notice of Constitutional Challenge to § 41-3-306(7), MCA, this Court deems it appropriate to obtain a summary response. Therefore, in accordance with M. R.App. P. 14(7), IT IS ORDERED that the Eighteenth Judicial District Court and the State of Montana, or both, are each granted thirty days from the date ofthis Order, toprepare, file, and serve a response to the petition for writ ofsupervisory control. The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for Petitioner, all counsel ofrecord in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, CauseNo. DN-22-27D, and the Honorable Andrew J.Breuner, presiding. 11/03/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0621DATED this 3rd day ofNovember, 2022.
For the Court, By

2
Exhibit
32
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF THE
 PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO
 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Paul D.
Hamm , the
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Endavo Media and
Communications, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Endavo Media and Communications, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Endavo Media and
Communications, Inc.
  Date: May 20, 2005
    */s/ Paul
      D. Hamm*Paul
      D. HammChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer
EXHIBIT 4.3
                               RETRIEVAL DYNAMICS
                   INFORMATION MANGEMENT FOR THE PROFESSIONAL

                           CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE

April 1, 2000

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, RETRIEVAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, A Florida Corporation, whose
address is 630 S. Orange  Avenue,  Suite 102,  Sarasota,  Fl.  34243,  ("Maker")
promises  to pay to  Clifford  L. Tager  ("Lender"),  whose  address is 57 North
Street, Danbury, Connecticut,  06810, or his (her) assignee the principal sum of
SixThousand Dollars ($6,000.00) together with interest as follows:


*    Simple interest shall accrue on the unpaid  principal  balance at a rate of
     Nine Percent (9%) per annum and payable at maturity.

*    The principal  balance and any accrued but unpai interest  hereunder is due
     and shall be payable in not more than thirty days (30days) following one of
     the following events:

     1.   The Maker enters into or performs an Initial Public  Offering for its'
          Common Stock under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933.
     2.   The Maker enters into an agreement to merger,  or reverse  merger with
          another Corporation.
     3.   The Maker  enters  into an  agreement  to sell or cause to be sold the
          Stock of the Corporation under a but-out agreement.

Should the Maker effect or cause to affect the events  stipulated under (1), (2)
or (3) above, the Lender, at his /her sole discretion has the right to:

* Request payment of principal and interest

*    Convert the  Promissory  Note and  interest,  into the Common  Stock of the
     Maker or the surviving  Corporation.  If available,  the Lender may request
     Preferred Stock.

*    Convert any part of the  principal  and interest due, into The Common Stock
     of the Maker or the surviving Corporation. The Lender may request Preferred
     Stock if available.

The Lender, upon election of his/her conversion option,  shall have the right to
acquire the Common Stock, Preferred if available,  of the Maker or the surviving
Corporation  at a price equal to Fifty  Percent (50%) of the market price at the
time of offering. In the event that the Nasdaq- OTC price structure is used, the
price shall be computed at Fifty Percent (50%) of the average,  BID / ASK price,
at the time of offering.

IN WITHNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned has caused this Note to be signed by its
duly authorized Officer, and this Note to be dated this 1st day of April 2000.

                              RETRIEVAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION

                              By: /s/ Peter Voghel
                              Name:   Peter Voghel
                              Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer
Note: 

 The Executive Calendar is not published unless there are nominations and/or treaties on it. 

 Additionally, nominations and/or treaties that are reported out of committee, placed on the Executive 

Calendar and confirmed all in the same day will not appear on the next Executive Calendar. 
RESOLUTIONS

CALENDAR 

NO.

S. RES. 

NO.

SUBJECT 

REPORTED 

BY

1

 
TREATIES

CALENDAR 

NO.

TREATY

DOC. NO.

SUBJECT 

REPORTED 

BY

2

 
* Signifies nominee’s commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate 

NOMINATIONS

CALENDAR 

NO.

MESSAGE

NO.

NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR REPORTED 

BY

3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6108

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM FELIX, a/k/a Willio Mode,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CR-93-140, CA-96-288-6)

Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 6, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Felix, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking to alter or amend the judgment

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994)

(current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Felix, Nos. CR-93-140;

CA-96-288-6 (M.D.N.C. Dec.12, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S.

___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)          | The                  Report 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                  Company. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November                  14, 2007 | /s/                  Richard R. Ivanovick         |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | Richard                  R. Ivanovick                                                     |
|                               | Chief                  Financial Officer                                                  |

----
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 24, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 12 85 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 1- cr-0 00 10 -LC-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us IRA J EROME MILLENDER, JR., a.k .a. Ira J ero m e Mi ll an de r, Jr ., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 24 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ira J ero m e Mi ll en de r, Jr ., app eal s h is sen te nc e o f 18 0 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d b y

5 years o f supe rv is edrel eas e, im po se d a fte r he pl ed gu il ty to p os se ss in g fi rearm s as a co nv ic te d fe lo n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). The d is tri ctco urt en ha nc edMi ll en de r’s se nt en ce u nd er the Arm ed Care er Cr im in al Act (“ ACCA”) , 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e), b ecau se itfou ndhe ha d fo ur qu al ifyin g p red ic at e co nv ic ti on s. Mi ll en de r arg ue s tha t i n app lying th e ACCA, the di st ric t co urt erredby cou nt in g h is 19 92 co nv ic ti on on two co un ts of a gg rav at ed ba tt ery as two sep arat e p rio r co nv ic ti on s.
“ W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f whe th er two cr im es co ns ti tu te a si ng le cri m in al ep is od e o r two sep arat e fel on ie s fo r pu rp os es of se ct io n 9 24 (e).” Uni te d Sta tes v. S pe ar s , 44 3 F .3d13 58 , 13 60 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).

“ Und er the ACCA, a d efen da ntco nv ic te d u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) is subjec t t o § 92 4( e)(1 )’s m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e o f fi fte eny ears if the de fen da ntha s ‘th ree p rev io us co nv ic ti on s . . . for a vi ol en t fe lo ny or a s eri ou s dru g of fen se , or b ot h, co m

m it te d o n o ccas io ns di ffer en t fr om on e an ot he r.’” Uni te d St at es v. Sn eed , 60 0 F .3d13 26 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (e)( 1) ). Whi le Mi ll en de r arg ue s the di st ric t co urt erredinco un ti ng th e 1 99 2 co nv ic ti on as t wo s ep arat e p rio r co nv ic ti on s, b ot h h e an d t he Gov ern m en t reco gn iz e th atMi ll en de r wou ldha ve th ree qua li fy in g p red ic at e o ffen se s u nd er the 2ACCA, ev enif the di st ric t co urt h adno t co m m it te d the pu rp orte d c ou nt in g e rro r. 1 The refo re, the all eg ederro r wou ldha ve ha d n o i m pa cton Mi ll en de r’s subs ta nt iv e rig ht s o r th e o ut co m e o f hi s s en te nc in g p ro ceed in gs . Accor di ng ly, we co nc lu de th atan y erro r in ap pl y in g the ACCA was ha rm le ss an d a ffi rm th e se nt en ce. AFFIRMED.

Millender cla ims that one of the other predic ate c onvictions is invalid butdoes not 1 appea r to have challeng ed that convic tion here or in any other c ourt. 3
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00060-CR

DARYL LAPAUL JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court 

No. 3

of Tarrant County (1644625D)

February 1, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Brian Walker

 Justice Brian Walker
AFS-11-382-E 

August 9, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10326 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0741 

Mr. Jacob A. Senior 

Orlando Aviation Consultants 

P.O. Box 621295 

Orlando, FL 32862-1295 

Dear Mr. Senior: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated June 15, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (LMMFC) for an exemption from 

§§ 91.9 and 91.203 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary 

to allow LMMFC to operate its Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) that do not carry and 

display the aircraft’s airworthiness, certification, and registration documents required under 

part 91. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to LMMFC. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 8607 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that it is unnecessary to carry and display the airworthiness, certification, and 

registration documents in UASs for the operation described by the petitioner. The original 

intent of the subject regulations was to display the airworthiness and registration documents 

so they would be easily available to the FAA inspectors and passengers. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 8607; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 8607 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control an exemption 

from 14 CFR §§ 91.9(b) and 91.203(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to allow LMMFC to 

operate a UAS that does not carry and display the aircraft’s airworthiness, certification, and 

registration documents required under part 91, subject to the conditions and limitations 

described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. The documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the pilot in

command of the UAS anytime the aircraft is operating.

2. Those documents required under §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be made available

within 10 days to any FAA, U.S. Department of Defense, or law enforcement

official.

This exemption terminates on August 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure
#### § 16.19 How to calculate deadlines.

In counting days, include Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; but if a due date would fall on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday, then the due date is the next Federal working day.