alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Drone!UAS Practice Group 

# ANTONELLI 

# LAW

U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave S.E
. Washington, D .C. 20590 Re: Amendment to Yolo Pervidi , LLC. Exerilption No . 11745 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0880 Dear Sir or Madam : 35 E Wacker Drive Suite 1875 Chicago, IL 6060 I Tel. 312.201.8310 Jcffrcvi( r;\ntonelli-Law.com August 14, 2015

In addition to the previous amendment, Docket No. FAA-2015-0880-0003 , Yolo Pervidi , LLC (" Yolo ") requests an amendment to Exemption No. 11745 , Docket No . FAA-2015-0880. This second amendment would allow Yolo to conduct closed-set motion picture and television photography and videography, in addition to the previously-approved commercial purpose ofgeospatial analysis. Yolo has previously been granted the ability to use the Sensefly eBee and DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ in Exemption No. 11745. Yolo has requested permission to use the 3DRobotics X8+, DJI Inspire 1, DJI S900, DJI S 1000, and PrecisionHawk Lancaster in its first amendment, Docket No . FAA-20 15-0880-0003. The senseFly eBee has been approved for closed-set film and television work in Exemption No. 11426A. The DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ has been approved for closed

-set film and television work in Exemption Nos. 11189, 11793 , and 11854. The DJI Inspire 1 has been approved for closed-set film and television work in Exemption Nos. 11793 , 11831 , 11847, and 11854. The DJI S900 has been approved for closed-set film and television work in Exemption Nos. 11541 , and 12008. The DJI S 1000 has been approved for closed-set film and television work in Exemption No. 11751. Finally, the PrecisionHawk Lancaster has been approved for closed

-set film and television work in Exemption No . 11253A. Yolo's Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) is being submitted confidentially. Pursuant to 14 C
.F.R. §11.35, Yolo Pervidi , LLC requests confidential treatment for its MPTOM. It requests that the information contained in that exhibit not be made public because they are trade secrets whose disclosure would harm the owner of the information. It contains valuable commercial data that is not publically available and is protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S
.C. §552(b)(4). If we can provide any additional information to assist your understanding or review of this document, please do not hesitate to contact us at 312-201

-8310 or via email at Jeffrcv(ii;AntonelliLaw.com.
§ 90.12 Rules against age discrimination. The rules stated in this section are limited by the exceptions contained in §§ 90.14, and 90.15 of these regulations. ( a ) *General rule:* No person in the United states shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
( b ) *Specific rules:* A recipient may not, in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements use age distinctions or take any other actions which have the effect, on the basis of age, of: ( 1 ) Excluding individuals from, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under, a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, or
( 2 ) Denying or limiting individuals in their opportunity to participate in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
( c ) The specific forms of age discrimination listed in paragraph (b) of this section do not necessarily constitute a complete list.
# C_2008186EN.01000801.xml

| 23.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/8

---

Communication from the Commission to all farmers concerning set aside from 2009

(2008/C 186/06)

The Commission wishes to draw the attention of Community farmers to the Health Check proposal (COM(2008) 306 final (1)) to abolish compulsory set aside as from 2009 onwards. The proposal was adopted by the Commission on 20 May 2008 and it is currently under discussion in the Council, the European Parliament and the other European Institutions.

1

The proposal is the logical follow-up of Council Regulation (EC) No 1107/2007 (2) fixing the rate for compulsory set aside at zero in 2008.

2

Under the proposal, farmers will not be obliged to set aside land from production in order to be entitled to the amount fixed by the set-aside entitlements. The set-aside entitlements will be turned to normal entitlements. Farmers could already benefit from the measure as from their autumn 2008 and spring 2009 sowings.

---

(1)  COM(2008) 306: Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers; proposal for a Council Regulation on modifications to the common agricultural policy by amending Regulations (EC) No 320/2006, (EC) No 1234/2007, (EC) No 3/2008 and (EC) No [...]/2008; proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1107/2007 of 26 September 2007 derogating from Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, as regards set aside for the year 2008 (OJ L 253, 28.9.2007, p. 1).

2

---
No. 2587.

#### William Bean, alias White, *v.*The State.

Theft—Pact Case—Possession of Stolen Property by the accused, however recent that possession may be, if explained and accounted for, and shown by the evidence to be lawful, will afford against the accused no legal presumption of guilt of theft. See the opinion for the substance of evidence *held*insufficient to support a conviction for the theft of a mare.

Appeal from the District Court of McLennan. Tried below before the Hon. Eugene Williams.

The conviction in this case was for the theft of a mare, the property of William Little. The penalty assessed against the appellant was a term of five years in the penitentiary. The opinion states the substance of the evidence.

*Jenkins & Jenkins*and *Clark, Dyer & Bolinger,*for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney Genéral, for the State

Willson, Judge.

About September 10, 1885, William Little’s ■mare was stolen from him in Bell. county. Eleven months thereafter, to wit, about the twenty-seventh of August, 1886, she was in the possession of the defendant in McLennan county, who then and there, under the name of White, traded her to one Turner. The above recited circumstances constitute the evidence upon which this conviction is founded. There is not a particle of other criminative evidence in the record before us. On the contrary, the State, by one of her own witnesses, proved that in August, 1886, the defendant puchased said mare, and the testimony of this witness went before the jury uncontradicted by any other evidence adduced on the trial.

As presented to us, the conviction is unsupported by the evidence. Defendant’s possession of the mare can not be said to be recent, and can, therefore, at most, afford but slight ground for the presumption of guilt against him. His possession, how*12ever, was explained and accounted for by the State’s testimony, and shown to be a lawful one, and such being the case, although his possession might have been recent, it would not have afforded a legal presumption of guilt. (Lehman v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 174; Tucker v. The State, 16 Texas Ct. App., 471; Norwood v. The State, 20 Texas Ct. App., 306.)

Opinion delivered October 19, 1887.

Because the judgment is unsupported by the evidence, it is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
MAR 1 4 2011

March EPA. REGION Ill 4, 2011 ‘EOFREG1ONALADM1MSTIW

Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator RECEIVED

U.S. EPA Region III (3RAOO) MAR 142011 1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19 103-2029 Dvision Director @APOO)

Re: Analysis to Demonstrate the 2007 Ozone Data Completeness at the MDE Rockville MonitorDear Mr. Garvin:

The replacement of the air monitoring trailer at the Maryland Department of the Environment’s

Rockville (240313001) air monitoring site at the start ofthe 2007 ozone season resulted in ozone

data not being collected from April 1—June 14, 2007, a total of 75 days. This data loss resulted in adata capture of only 65% (139 valid days out of 214 possible days) during the 2007 ozone season.

The data capture at the Rockville monitor was well below the minimum requirement as stated in

Section 2.3 (b) of Appendix Ito 40 CFR Part 50, which requires three consecutive years of data

collection of at least 90 percent on average with a minimum data completeness in any one year of at

least 75 percent. In addition, this section states, “... When computing whether the minimum datacompleteness requirements have been met, meteorological or ambient data may be sufficient todemonstrate that meteorological conditions on missing days were not conductive to concentrationsabove the level of the standard. Missing days on which air quality levels are assumed to be less

than the level ofthe standard are counted for the purpose of meeting the data completenessrequirement, subject to the approval ofthe appropriate Regional Administrator.”

As provided for in Section 2.3 (b) of Appendix Ito 40 CFR Part 50, MDE has gone into EPA’s Air

Quality System (AQS) and placed the EPA null data code (i.e., “BG”) next to each ofthe 75 days of

missing ozone data. Since the enclosed analysis clearly demonstrates that all ofthe missing dayswould likely have been less than the level ofthe 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, MDE is thereby

requesting that EPA Region 3 place a concurrence flag in AQS for each ofthese days. Once this iscompleted, MDE will send to EPA Region 3 an ozone data recertification package for the 2007Rockville ozone data for the purpose of meeting the ozone data completeness requirement.

www. mde.state.md.us

Recycled Paper TTY Users 1-800-735-2258

Via Maryland Relay Service
Sincerely,

Robert M. Summers, Ph.D.Acting Secretarycc. Drew Hass, EPA Region-3

Walter Wilkie, EPA Region-3

David Krask, MDEMichael Woodman , MDE

Recycled Paper www.mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258

Via Maryland Relay Service
1 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JENNY WONG, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 14-cv-13798 

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

DETROIT ENTERTAINMENT, 

LLC et al. 

 Defendants. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING 

VIDEOTAPES (ECF #47) WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 This action arises out of an investigation into, and arrest of, Plaintiff Jenny 

Wong (“Ms. Wong”). Ms. Wong has asserted claims for, among other things, 

arrest without probable cause and malicious prosecution. (See Sec. Am. Compl., 

ECF #55.) Ms. Wong (and Co-Plaintiff Michael Chung) have now filed a motion 

in limine to preclude certain Defendants from testifying as to their perceptions of 

what is depicted on a videotape (the “Motion”). (See ECF #47.) Plaintiffs argue 

that the Court should not permit the Defendants to present this testimony to the 

jury on the issue of whether there was probable cause to arrest Ms. Wong. (See 

id.) 

2:14-cv-13798-MFL-MKM Doc # 66 Filed 04/05/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 590
2 

 The Court concludes that the Motion is premature. As the Court previously 

ordered (see ECF #59), all parties submitted supplemental briefs on the issue of 

whether the Court or the jury decides the question of whether there was probable 

cause for Ms. Wong’s arrest. (See ECF ## 60, 64, and 65.) All parties agree that if 

the facts concerning probable cause are undisputed, the question of probable cause 

is to be decided by the Court. (See id.) Defendants have further informed the Court 

that they intend to file a motion for summary judgment in which they will argue 

that the Court should decide the probable cause question as a matter of law. (See 

ECF #64 at 5-8, Pg. ID 580-83; ECF #65 at 3-4, Pg. ID 587-88.) Because it is not 

yet clear that the question of probable cause – or any factual disputes related to that 

question – will be presented to the jury, it is too early to determine what testimony, 

if any, the Defendants may present concerning their perceptions of the video tape. 

 Plaintiffs may ask the Court to re-visit this issue, if appropriate, following 

the Court’s ruling on the to-be-filed motions for summary judgment. At that time, 

Plaintiffs may also renew their request for the additional relief sought in the 

Motion. 

 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

the Motion (ECF #47) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 5, 2016 

2:14-cv-13798-MFL-MKM Doc # 66 Filed 04/05/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 591
3 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on April 5, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-cv-13798-MFL-MKM Doc # 66 Filed 04/05/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 592
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { CONVENED JANUARY 8, 2001 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Wednesday, September 19, 2001 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF JERI THOMSON, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Michelle Haynes, Executive Clerk 
= 

CALENDAR 

No. 

Ex. REs 

No. 

1 

RESOLUTIONS 

SUBJECT 

REPORTED 

BY 
2 

TREATIES 

CALENDAR TREATY REPORTED 

No. Doc. No. SUBJECT BY 

-

~ 

I 
3 

NOMINATIONS 

CALENDAR MEsSAGE REPORTED 

No. No. NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR BY 

THE JUDICIARY 

360 886 Sharon Prost, of the District of Columbia, to be Sep 6, 2001 Reported by Mr. Leahy, 

United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Committee on the Judiciary, 

Circuit, viceS. Jay Plager, retired. without printed report. 

361 903 1 Reggie B. Walton, of the District of Columbia, to Sep 6, 2001 Reported by Mr. Leahy, 

be United States District Judge for the District Committee on the Judiciary, 

of Columbia, vice Stanley Sporkin, retired. without printed report. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

362 958 Deborah J. Daniels, of Indiana, to be an Assistant Sep 6, 2001 Reported by Mr. Leahy, 

Attorney General, vice Laurie 0. Robinson, Committee on the Judiciary, 

resigned. without printed report. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

* 384 831 Ellen G. Engleman, ofindiana, to be Sep 14, 2001 Senate Committee on 

Administrator of the Research and Special Commerce, Science, and 

Programs Administration, Department of Transportation discharged by 

Transportation, vice Kelley S. Coyner, Unanimous Consent. 

resigned. 

* 385 830 Kirk Van Tine, of Virginia, to be General Counsel Sep 14, 2001 Senate Committee on 

of the Department of Transportation, vice Commerce, Science, and 

Nancy E. McFadden. Transportation discharged by 

Unanimous Consent. 

* Signifies nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate 
4 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK
# C_2011226EN.01001602.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 26 May 2011 — Ainārs Rēdlihs v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-263/11)

2011/C 226/31

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ainārs Rēdlihs

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a natural person who has acquired goods (a forest) for his own needs and who makes a supply of goods to alleviate the consequences generated by force majeure (for example, a storm) a taxable person for the purposes of VAT, within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, (2) who is required to pay VAT? In other words, does such a supply of goods constitute an economic activity within the meaning of those rules of European Union law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a natural person who has acquired goods (a forest) for his own needs and who makes a supply of goods to alleviate the consequences generated by force majeure (for example, a storm) a taxable person for the purposes of VAT, within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and Article 4(1) and (2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, (2) who is required to pay VAT? In other words, does such a supply of goods constitute an economic activity within the meaning of those rules of European Union law?

1

2

| 2. | Does a regulation, under which a fine can be imposed on a person who has not registered on the register of taxable persons for the purposes of VAT, in an amount equivalent to the tax that would normally be due for the value of the goods supplied, even though that person would not have to pay the tax if he had registered on the register, comply with the principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does a regulation, under which a fine can be imposed on a person who has not registered on the register of taxable persons for the purposes of VAT, in an amount equivalent to the tax that would normally be due for the value of the goods supplied, even though that person would not have to pay the tax if he had registered on the register, comply with the principle of proportionality?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

(2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

2

---
**EXHIBIT
32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002**
 
 I, Joseph
L. Sullivan, President of CE Casecnan Water and Energy Company, Inc. (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the
best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
    the
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
      December 31, 2004 (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 result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 Dated:
      February 11, 2005
    /s/
      Joseph L. SullivanJoseph
      L. SullivanPresident(chief
      executive officer)
EXHIBIT 12.1

                        DAWSON PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)

                                                       Years Ended March 31,
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                     1996       1997       1998
                                                    ------    -------    -------
Earnings:
   Income (loss) before income taxes ...........    $2,082    $ 8,420    $12,176
Add back:
   Interest expense ............................     1,848      2,313     13,693
   Amortization of debt issuance cost ..........      --           74        455
   Portion of rent expense representative
    of interest factor .........................        84        122        331
                                                    ------    -------    -------
Earnings as adjusted ...........................    $4,014    $10,929    $26,655
                                                    ======    =======    =======
Fixed charges:
   Interest expense ............................    $1,848    $ 2,313    $13,693
   Amortization of debt issuance cost ..........      --           74        455
   Portion of rent expense representative
    of interest factor .........................        84        122        331
                                                    ------    -------    -------
                                                    $1,932    $ 2,509    $14,479
                                                    ======    =======    =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges .............      2.1x       4.4x       1.8x
                                                    ======    =======    =======
§ 86.57 Marital or parental status. ( a ) *General.* A recipient shall not apply any policy or take any employment action: ( 1 ) Concerning the potential marital, parental, or family status of an employee or applicant for employment which treats persons differently on the basis of sex; or
( 2 ) Which is based upon whether an employee or applicant for employment is the head of household or principal wage earner in such employee's or applicant's family unit.
( b ) *Pregnancy.* A recipient shall not discriminate against or exclude from employment any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom.
( c ) *Pregnancy as a temporary disability.* A recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom and any temporary disability resulting therefrom as any other temporary disability for all job related purposes, including commencement, duration and extensions of leave, payment of disability income, accrual of seniority and any other benefit or service, and reinstatement, and under any fringe benefit offered to employees by virtue of employment.
( d ) *Pregnancy leave.* In the case of a recipient which does not maintain a leave policy for its employees, or in the case of an employee with insufficient leave or accrued employment time to qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence without pay for a reasonable period of time, at the conclusion of which the employee shall be reinstated to the status which she held when the leave began or to a comparable position, without decrease in rate of compensation or loss of promotional opportunities, or any other right or privilege of employment.
(Secs. 901, 902, Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 374; 20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7954** 

MICHAEL T. SMITH , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. KENNEY ATKINSON, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 02582

- DCN )

Submitted : April 24, 2014 Decided: May 6, 2014

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael T. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael T. Smith , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)
p etition without prejudice . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Atkinson , No
. 1:13

- cv - 02582

- DCN (D.S.C. Nov. 12, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED