alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Albany

Atlanta

Brussels

Denver

Los Angeles

Miami

New York

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Tel: 703.336.8800

mckennalong.com

Northern Virginia

Orange County

Rancho Santa Fe

San Diego

San Francisco

Seoul

Washington, DC

Dane B. Jaques 

703.336.8709

Mark E. McKinnon

703.336.8708

Matthew J. Clark

703.336.8714

Email Address

djaques@mckennalong.com

mmckinnon@mckennalong.com

mclark@mckennalong.com

June 12, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Submission of Proprietary and Confidential PG&E UAS Operations Manual

(Docket No. FAA-2015-0708)

To Whom it May Concern:

As you are aware, this office represents Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) regarding 

the above-referenced Petition for Exemption, in which PG&E seeks regulatory relief to allow 

commercial operation of small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS). Please accept this letter as 

confirmation that a copy of the PG&E UAS Operations Manual, which contains proprietary and 

confidential information, was submitted via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov on June 12, 2015. 

If you have any questions or require any additional information to process PG&E's Petition

for Exemption, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP

Dane B. Jaques

Mark E. McKinnon

Matthew J. Clark

Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric Company
This table was generated on 9/7/23.

Rank ID # Committee Amount

1 C00762591 SAVE AMERICA $30,186,017

2 C00344234 PAC TO THE FUTURE $2,930,716

3 C00271338 AMERIPAC: THE FUND FOR A GREATER AMERICA $1,541,938

4 C00428052 MAJORITY COMMITTEE PAC--MC PAC $1,129,770

5 C00571182 GETTING STUFF DONE PAC (GSD-PAC) $899,400

6 C00685552 MEDICARE FOR ALL $812,205

7 C00522425 FUTURE FIRST LEADERSHIP PAC $781,659

8 C00574970 FAIR SHOT PAC $768,464

9 C00467431 THE EYE OF THE TIGER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $707,801

10 C00607556 THE GREAT TASK $676,694

11 C00771113 COUNTRY FIRST $665,932

12 C00495887 TOMORROW IS MEANINGFUL PAC $631,531

13 C00525600 OFF THE SIDELINES PAC $525,900

14 C00563726 MR. SOUTHERN MISSOURIAN IN THE HOUSE PAC $474,914

15 C00493221 THE GUARDIAN FUND $465,460

16 C00571323 TOGETHER HOLDING OUR MAJORITY PAC $461,086

17 C00617803 JOBS, EDUCATION, & FAMILIES FIRST JEFF PAC $456,175

18 C00387464 ALAMO PAC $455,535

19 C00416131 MIDWEST VALUES PAC $434,214

20 C00412791 FORWARD TOGETHER PAC $434,193

21 C00538835 COMMON GROUND PAC $422,846

22 C00573709 CA LUV PAC (CALIFORNIA LEADERSHIP UNITED FOR VICTORY PAC) $416,343

23 C00348607 IMPACT $397,632

24 C00570945 E-PAC $387,761

25 C00375584 GREAT LAKES PAC $386,266

26 C00235655 BLUEGRASS COMMITTEE $378,776

27 C00409003 HEARTLAND VALUES PAC $378,722

28 C00480228 CONTINUING AMERICA'S STRENGTH AND SECURITY PAC $376,252

29 C00442368 COMMON VALUES PAC $375,149

30 C00540187 INNOVATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $361,317

31 C00542027 BIG SKY OPPORTUNITY PAC $361,094

32 C00469429 CMR POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $326,173

33 C00566851 JOBS OPPORTUNITY AND NEW IDEAS PAC $297,822

34 C00821058 ALABAMA FIRST PAC $291,528

35 C00592089 ELECTING MAJORITY MAKING EFFECTIVE REPUBLICANS (EMMER PAC) $289,232

36 C00629212 ALL FOR OUR COUNTRY LEADERSHIP PAC $289,185

37 C00571174 SERVE AMERICA PAC $283,660

38 C00365270 M-PAC $279,477

39 C00493700 BLUE HEN FEDERAL PAC $275,743

40 C00748186 COMMONSENSE, CONSERVATIVE VALUES PAC $272,543

41 C00719971 SENATE EAGLE PAC $269,902

42 C00492983 NUTMEG PAC $268,209

43 C00433680 TREASURE STATE PAC $259,105

44 C00399196 BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS IN DIVERSE GEOGRAPHIC ENVIRONMENTS PAC $257,698

45 C00692111 VELVET HAMMER PAC $254,743

46 C00368696 RESPONSIBILITY AND FREEDOM WORK PAC (RFWPAC) $252,104

47 C00331694 AMERICA WORKS FEDERAL PAC $244,299

48 C00391797 DIRIGO PAC $244,229

49 C00771238 DEFEND THE DREAM $242,228

50 C00390674 FREEDOM FUND $242,215

January 1 - June 30, 20223

Top 50 Leadership PACs by Disbursements

PAC Table 14b
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JORGE GUERRERO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0249 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR20080927

The Honorable Rick A. Williams, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman

By Matthew J. Smith

Counsel for Respondent

Jorge Guerrero, Buckeye

Petitioner

FILED 07-16-2024
STATE v. GUERRERO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, and Judge 

David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Jorge Guerrero seeks review of the superior court’s 

order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is the petitioner’s 

second petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that the petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Articulation (Education)College FacultyCollege Second Language ProgramsCooperationFrenchHigh SchoolsHigher EducationLanguage TeachersProgram DescriptionsProgram EffectivenessSecond Language InstructionSecond Language LearningSecondary School TeachersSpanishTeam Teaching

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
From: DCD_ECFNotice@dcd.uscourts.gov

To: DCD_ECFNotice@dcd.uscourts.gov

Subject: Activity in Case 1:21-cv-01665-TJK END CITIZENS UNITED PAC v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Order on

Motion for Extension of Time to

Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 10:29:50 AM

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT

RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. 

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States

policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to

receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required

by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later

charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the

referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.

U.S. District Court

District of Columbia

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 11/7/2023 at 10:28 AM EDT and filed on 11/7/2023

Case Name: END CITIZENS UNITED PAC v. FEDERAL ELECTION

COMMISSION

Case Number: 1:21-cv-01665-TJK

Filer:

WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 04/18/2022

Document

Number: No document attached

Docket Text:

MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's [19] Motion for Extension

of Time to Conform with Order and Plaintiff's [20] response indicating that it

"no longer opposes the relief sought" in the [19] motion, it is hereby ORDERED,

nunc pro tunc and for good cause and excusable neglect shown, that

Defendant's unopposed motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that

Defendant shall conform with the Court's September 7, 2023 Order by

November 13, 2023, and submit a status report by the same date updating the

Court on the status of its compliance with the September 7, 2023 Order. Signed

by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 11/7/2023. (lctjk1)

1:21-cv-01665-TJK Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Kevin Deeley kdeeley@fec.gov, ecf.notices@fec.gov

Adav Noti anoti@campaignlegalcenter.org, docketing@campaignlegalcenter.org

Kevin P. Hancock khancock@campaignlegalcenter.org,
docketing@campaignlegalcenter.org

1:21-cv-01665-TJK Notice will be delivered by other means to::
## PRE **- FLIGHT CHECKLIST** 

Notify appropriate FAA facility , if required Aircraft (AC) and Remote Controller (RC) batteries fully charged Tablet(s) full y charged Portable Radio for communicating with manned AC fully charged Ensure SD card has free space and i s inserted into the camera Ensure Firmware is updated on AC and RC(s) Check for frequency

(FX) used by

local manned AC ( Sky

vector.com) Check if flight location is in No - Fl y Zone (Check: airmap.io ) Program local FX into portable radio Check for NOTAMs and Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) ( FAA.gov/notamSearch ) **CHECK WX**
• Precipitation less than 5 - 10% (Check: UAVforecast.com )
• Winds under 20kts
• Cloud layer above 500' (152M) ( aviationweather.gov )
• 1 statute mile visibility Comprehensive maintenance after 200 flights or 50 flight hours.

## LOCATION ON **- SITE CHECK** 

Check fl yi ng area free of overhead obstructions
• Wires, low flying AC, trees, tall buildings
• Antennas that may

interfere with compass and GPS reception Weather meets conditions
• Winds under 20 kts (23 MPH or 10 meters per second)
• Clouds above 500’ (152M)
• Visibility

for 1 statute mile Confirm flight plan with camera operator and/or spotter Note: Still perform step if by oneself, it adds clarity to decision making.

## PHYSICAL AIRCRAFT CHECK

Desired ND filter attac hed to camera and clear of debris/smudges Camera locked in place SD Card in camera Carbon fiber arms have no play and free of cracks/damage Check propellers for an y melting, misshape, nics or cracks Motors clear of Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Propellers hand tight Prop locks firmly

attached or Quick Release plastic base has no cracks 

## REMOTE CONTROLLER CHECK Antennas oriented properly Note: The broad side should face the AC and they should not touch each other. Switch to P - mode Landing gear switch orient ed down Check battery

level of RC for minimum 75%

## DJI GO APP CHECK

Maximum Flight altitude set Note: 121 Meters = 400’ Failsafe Mode, Set for 10M Clearance above highest obstacle in flight plan Note: 1 Meter = 3.3’ RC Signal L ost set to Return - to - Home Check Sensors
• Gy roscope between “ - 1.0 to +1.0”
• Acceleration between “ - 1.0 to +1.0”
• Compass MOD between “1400 - 1599”
• Check IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) Image Transmission Channel set Note: W atch channels for 30 seconds to ensure selected channel is indeed stable Battery Cells all 4.28V or greater
• At least 98% battery
• Ensure no greater than .2V between battery cells Adjust Gimbal Roll to make levelEnsure enough Satellites are locked (recommend 16)

Set Camera Orientation mode Note: R ecommend “Follow - mode” for solo and “free - mode” with camera Turn all devices to airplane mode Face AC into the wind Note: This allows AC to float back to operator in case of emergency. Check heading of Aircraft Note: Ensure nose heading of red paper airplane is close to nose heading of actual aircraft. Start Video recording Start Propellers using a Combined Stick Command (CSC) Ensure blue dot representing RC is accuratel y located on map Ensure home point is accuratel y set on map Ensure elevation reads 0 (zero)
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 12294 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:15

- cr - 20717

- JAL

- 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ROMANCEE OSHAY GEORGE, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (September 18, 2017 )

Before WILLIAM PRYOR , ROSENBAUM , a nd EDMONDSON , Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-12294 Date Filed: 09/18/2017 Page: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM:

Romancee George appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1). On appeal, George argues that the district court lacked subject

- matter jurisdiction to convict h im because the government failed to demonstrate that George had the requisite intent to cause serious bodily injury or death: a required element of his offense. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. We review de novo the district court’s subject

- matter jurisdiction, even when raised for the first time on appeal. United States v. Iguaran , 821 F.3d 1335, 1336 (11th Cir. 2016). “So long as the indictment charges the defendant with violating a valid federal statute as enacted in the United States C ode, it alleges an ‘offense against the laws of the United States’ and, thereby, invokes the district court’s subject

- matter jurisdiction.” United States v. Brown , 752 F.3d 1344, 1354 (11th Cir. 2014). Here, the indictment

-- tracking the pertinent stat utory language

-- stated that George “with the intent to cause death and serious bodily harm, did take a motor vehicle that had been transported, shipped, and received in interstate and foreign commerce . . . from the person and presence of another . . . b y force and violence, and by intimidation, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2119(1)

Case: 16-12294 Date Filed: 09/18/2017 Page: 2 of 33 and 2.” Because the indictment charged George with violating a valid federal statute, the district court had subject

- matter jurisdiction over George’s criminal

case. See id

. George’s contention that the government failed to provide a factual basis sufficient to prove the intent element of the crime does not implicate the district court’s subject

- matter jurisdiction over the case. * See United States v. Fairchild , 803 F.2d 1121, 1124 (11th Cir. 1984) (defendant’s claim that an insufficient factual basis existed to support the indictment was non

- jurisdictional).
AFFIRMED.

* George denies expressly that he is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his guilty plea. His challenge is only to the district court’s jurisdiction.

Case: 16-12294 Date Filed: 09/18/2017 Page: 3 of 3
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, C.E. Andrews, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filedin respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SLMStudent Loan Trust 2006-9 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”);     2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution, servicing and other information required to beprovided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Actperiodic reports;     4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required under this reportunder Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, theservicer and administrator have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement andadministration agreement, as applicable, in all material respects; and     5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit tothis report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by Deutsche Bank TrustCompany Americas, as indenture trustee.Date: March 23, 2007   /s/ C.E. Andrews   C.E. Andrews  Chief Financial Officer  SLM Funding LLC
§ 2555.430 Financial assistance. ( a ) *General.* Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, in providing financial assistance to any of its students, a recipient shall not: ( 1 ) On the basis of sex, provide different amounts or types of such assistance, limit eligibility for such assistance that is of any particular type or source, apply different criteria, or otherwise discriminate;
( 2 ) Through solicitation, listing, approval, provision of facilities, or other services, assist any foundation, trust, agency, organization, or person that provides assistance to any of such recipient's students in a manner that discriminates on the basis of sex; or
( 3 ) Apply any rule or assist in application of any rule concerning eligibility for such assistance that treats persons of one sex differently from persons of the other sex with regard to marital or parental status.
( b ) *Financial aid established by certain legal instruments.* ( 1 ) A recipient may administer or assist in the administration of scholarships, fellowships, or other forms of financial assistance established pursuant to domestic or foreign wills, trusts, bequests, or similar legal instruments or by acts of a foreign government that require that awards be made to members of a particular sex specified therein; *Provided,* that the overall effect of the award of such sex-restricted scholarships, fellowships, and other forms of financial assistance does not discriminate on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) To ensure nondiscriminatory awards of assistance as required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, recipients shall develop and use procedures under which: ( i ) Students are selected for award of financial assistance on the basis of nondiscriminatory criteria and not on the basis of availability of funds restricted to members of a particular sex;
( ii ) An appropriate sex-restricted scholarship, fellowship, or other form of financial assistance is allocated to each student selected under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section; and
( iii ) No student is denied the award for which he or she was selected under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section because of the absence of a scholarship, fellowship, or other form of financial assistance designated for a member of that student's sex.
( c ) *Athletic scholarships.* ( 1 ) To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such awards for members of each sex in proportion to the number of students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics.
( 2 ) A recipient may provide separate athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid for members of each sex as part of separate athletic teams for members of each sex to the extent consistent with this paragraph (c) and § 2555.450.
Exhibit 32.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS

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 First Place Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Paul S. Musgrove, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|            |  |  |  |                        
|----------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|May 9, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Paul S. Musgrove   
|            |  |  |  | Paul S. Musgrove       
|            |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
Order entered October 9, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00801
- CV JAY SANDON COOPER, Appellant

V. JUDGE PAUL MCNULTY, Appellee On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. 219
- 01611
- 2015



### O RDER Because it appears from a review of Collin County ’s online records that the trial court has dismissed the underlying action, we ORDER Collin County District Clerk Andrea Stroh Thompson to file, no later than October 19, 2015, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of the August 17, 2015 order of dismissal

. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Thompson and all parties.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Shiner International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), XueZhu Xu, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.






Date:       March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ XueZhu XuName: Qingtao XingTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer







This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

September 27, 2017

p0920 

# Order

Clerk September 27, 2017

155308

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155308

COA: 335006

Kent CC: 16

- 002958

- FH

GREGORY CHARLES BREWER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2016

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, be cause we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.