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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7681

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RODNEY EDWARD WALL, a/k/a Sld Dft 3:99-24-9, a/k/a Big 

Rodney,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:99-cr-00024-FDW-9)

Submitted: February 18, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Edward Wall, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Edward Wall appeals the district court’s order 

denying Wall’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Wall, No. 3:99-cr-00024-FDW-9 (W.D.N.C. Aug, 31, 

2009). 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
----

Light blue area is less than 340 m deep.  Medium blue area is between 340 and 350 m deep.  Dark blue area is between 350 and 360 m deep.  Purple area is over 360 m deep.

----

----

----

SusanA. Cochran

U.S. Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,Western RegionCoastal and Marine Geology
● Urb. La Vega 60 Calle C Villalba, P.R. 00766 ● Tel. (787) 847-0088 ● Cel. (787) 602-5364 ● tony.rodz@me.com

RE: Petition for exemption/rulemaking

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 (the Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, this petition for exemption on 

behalf of Juan Antonio Rodriguez Laboy for “Producciones Hermanos 

Mendez Diaz” (“HMD”), an operator of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(“UAs”) for aerial cinematography in Puerto Rico. Specifically, petitioner 

seeks an exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed in 

Appendices A and B to allow commercial operation of its UAs, so long as 

such operations are conducted within and under the conditions outlined 

herein or as may be established by the FAA in a grant of this petition. This 

request is substantially similar to other data collection petitions previously 

approved, and should be considered under the expedited summary grant 

procedure.

Approval of the exemption for petitioner will allow commercial 

operation of the DJI Phantom 3 Professional in Class G airspace nationwide 

unless otherwise prescribed by an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued 

COA. This UA has been previously approved for commercial operations in 

Exemption Nos. 11204, 11224, 1254, 11279, 11280, 11288, 11295, 11301,

11303, 11313, 11314, 11318, 11323, 11327, 11336, 11342, 11359, 11377,

11384, 11385, and 11394. The UA covered by this petition is a small batterypowered craft, weighing approximately 6.5 lbs., inclusive of battery and

payload. Operation of the UA under the strict conditions proposed below 

will provide an equivalent level of safety, as Congress intended, while still 

allowing commercial operations. Operations using these UAs are far safer 

than conventional operations conducted with helicopters and fixed-wing

aircraft that weigh thousands of pounds, carry highly flammable fuel, and

operate in close proximity to the ground, trees, infrastructure, and people.
Congress directed the FAA to consider seven factors in deciding 

whether to approve Section 333 exemption petitions -size, weight, speed, 

operational capability, proximity to airports, proximity to populated areas, 

and operation within visual line of sight. In this case, each factor supports

the exemption request. In particular, the UA is small, and will operate at slow 

speeds and close to the ground. It will be able to more safely and efficiently 

conduct operations that would otherwise involve risk of injury or death. The 

substantial increase of safety and decrease of risk to human life and to 

property weighs heavily in favor of granting the exemption. 

If we can provide any additional information to assist your understanding or 

review of this document, please do not hesitate to contact me at 787-602-

5364 or via email at tony.rodz@me.com. 

Thank you.

Juan Antonio Rodriguez Laboy
§ 180.78 Stowage of life jackets. ( a ) *General.* Unless otherwise stated in this section, life jackets must be stored in convenient places distributed throughout accommodation spaces. ( 1 ) Each stowage container for life jackets must not be capable of being locked. If practicable, the container must be designed to allow the life jackets to float free.
( 2 ) Each life jacket kept in a stowage container must be readily available.
( 3 ) Each life jacket stowed overhead must be supported in a manner that allows quick release for distribution.
( 4 ) If life jackets are stowed more than 2,130 millimeters (7 feet) above the deck, a means for quick release must be provided and must be capable of operation by a person standing on the deck.
( 5 ) Each child size life jacket must be stowed in a location that is appropriately marked and separated from adult life jackets so the child size life jackets are not mistaken for adult life jackets.
( b ) *Additional personal flotation devices.* The stowage locations of the personal flotation devices carried in addition to life jackets under § 180.72, must be separate from the life jackets, and such as not to be easily confused with that of the life jackets.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 10.14


Memo

TO:  John McDonough

FROM:  James Carney

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to your increased responsibilities at Workgroup Technology as a result of
your promotion to President and Chief Operating Officer, I am pleased to offer
to you the following:

 .  Increase in your base salary to $160,000 per year

 .  Grant of 75,000 stock options to vest in accordance with the company's
   standard 4 year vesting schedule however in the event of a change in control
   of the company 100% of your stock options will vest immediately

 .  In the event of a change of control of the company and your position is
   significantly changed or eliminated, you will be eligible for twelve months
   of severance should you no longer be employed by the company

 .  You will be appointed to the Board of Directors

 .  Your bonus plan will remain in effect and the Compensation Committee of the
   Board of Directors will determine at the end of the fiscal year how much of
   your bonus will be paid to you















--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              91 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts 02173

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.012-1 Applicable specifications. ( a ) The following specifications, of the issue in effect on the contract date for the particular installation on any vessel, form a part of this subpart: ( 1 ) American Society for Testing Materials' standard: E 84-98, Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials.
( 2 ) National Fire Protection Association's standard: NFPA No. 255—Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials.
( 3 ) Coast Guard specifications: 164.008—Bulkhead Panels for Merchant Vessels. 164.009—Incombustible Materials for Merchant Vessels.
( b ) A copy of this subpart, together with copies of the specifications referred to in this section, shall be kept on file by the manufacturer of any Interior Finish except those qualifying under § 164.012-5(c). It should be noted that the standards listed in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section are identical and, therefore, only one need to be kept on file. The Coast Guard specifications may be obtained upon request from the Coast Guard Headquarters. Contact Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509. ASTM International's standards may be purchased from that organization at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. The National Fire Protection Association Standard may be purchased from that association at 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269.
[CGFR 61-15, 26 FR 9303, Sept. 30, 1961, as amended by CGFR 65-16, 30 FR 10903, Aug. 21, 1965; CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34537, Sept. 7, 1988; CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50467, Sept. 29, 1995; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50734, Sept. 27, 1996; USCG-1999-5151, 64 FR 67185, Dec. 1, 1999; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60162, Sept. 30, 2013]
# C_2011130EN.01001802.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/18

---

Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Versus Bank v Council

(Case T-121/11)

2011/C 130/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Versus Bank (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. -C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.

Attey

Council

---
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 First Capital, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William W. Harrod, President and Chief Executive 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:



(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 result of operations of the Company as
of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                        |  |     |  |                              
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|DATE: November 12, 2004 |  | BY: |  | /s/ William W. Harrod        
|                        |  |     |  | William W. Harrod            
|                        |  |     |  | President and                
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2011362EN.01002501.xml

| 10.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/25

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Hecq v Commission

(Case F-12/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Occupational disease - Invalidity procedure - Application to resume professional activity - Application for damages and interest)

2011/C 362/43

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request to resume his professional activities and for full payment of his remuneration as an official, calculated from 1 August 2003, and for damages, plus default interest calculated at a rate of 7 % per annum from 1 August 2003.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Hecq shall pay the entirety of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Hecq shall pay the entirety of the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.11, p. 22.

1

---
§ 119.465 Ventilation of spaces containing diesel machinery. ( a ) A space containing diesel machinery must be fitted with adequate means, such as dripproof ventilators, ducts, or louvers, to provide sufficient air for proper operation of main engines and auxiliary engines.
( b ) Air-cooled propulsion and auxiliary diesel engines installed below deck, as permitted by § 119.420 of this part, must be fitted with air supply ducts or piping from the weather deck. The ducts or piping must be so arranged and supported to be capable of safely sustaining stresses induced by weight and engine vibration and to minimize transfer of vibration to the supporting structure. Prior to installation of ventilation system for such engines, plans or sketches showing machinery arrangement including air supplies, exhaust stack, method of attachment of ventilation ducts to the engine, location of spark arresting mufflers and capacity of ventilation blowers must be submitted to the cognizant OCMI for approval.
( c ) A space containing diesel machinery must be fitted with at least two ducts to furnish natural or powered supply and exhaust ventilation. The total inlet area and the total outlet area of each ventilation duct may not be less than one square inch for each foot of beam of the vessel. These minimum areas must be increased as necessary when the ducts are considered as part of the air supply to the engines.
( d ) A duct must be of rigid permanent construction, which does not allow any appreciable vapor flow except through normal openings, and made of the same material as the hull or of noncombustible material. The duct must lead as directly as possible from its intake opening to its terminus and be securely fastened and supported.
( e ) A supply duct must be provided with a cowl or scoop having a free area not less than twice the required duct area. When the cowl or scoop is screened, the mouth area must be increased to compensate for the area of the screen wire. A cowl or scoop must be kept open at all times except when the weather is such as to endanger the vessel if the openings are not temporarily closed.
( f ) Except as required by § 116.610(f) of this chapter, dampers may not be fitted in a supply duct.
( g ) A duct opening may not be located where the natural flow of air is unduly obstructed, adjacent to possible sources of vapor ignition, or where exhaust air may be taken into a supply duct.
( h ) Provision must be made for closing all supply duct cowls or scoops and exhaust duct discharge openings for a space protected by a fixed gas extinguishing system. All closure devices must be readily available and mounted in the vicinity of the vent.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 922, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51352, Sept. 30, 1997]
**EXHIBIT 11**

 

Statement Reference Computationof Per Share Earnings

 

 

Primary earnings (loss) per share amountswere computed on the basis of the weighted average number of shares of commonstock during the year.  The weightedaverage number of shares used for this computation was 1,576,589, 1,528,268,1,483,493, 1,469,489 and 1,479,520, in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000,respectively.

 

Fully diluted earnings(loss) per share amounts were computed on the basis of the weighted averagenumber of shares of common stock and common stock equivalents outstandingduring the year.  Common stockequivalents include employee stock options. The weighted average number of shares used for this computation was1,919,512, 1,796,859, 1,744,082, 1,701,827 and 1,705,258, in 2004,2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000, respectively.

 

1

----
#### BLACK AND WHITE OPERATING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. EMIL GROSBART, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided March 11, 1929.

*234Before Justices Trenchard, Kalisch and Lloyd.

Eor the appellant, *Harry Levin.*

For the respondent, *George F. Seymour, Jr.*

Pee Curiam.

The Black and White Operating Company, Incorporated, obtained a judgment against Eva Fay for taxicab hire. The money was paid to the defendant, but the plaintiff claimed never accounted for to it. The present action was brought to recover the moneys so paid. There was a judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals, contending that a motion for nonsuit was improperly denied and that the court erred in its charge to the jury.

Our examination of the case satisfies us that the nonsuit could not properly have been granted. The defendant is a constable and the account was placed in his hands for collection. He issued an attachment out of the District Court, and after the issuance of summons the money was paid by Mrs. Fay under protest. Defendant then turned the money over to Harry Levin, an attorney occupying the same office as the defendant, who in turn sent his check to the plaintiff for $12.50, retaining $50 as his fee. This the plaintiff refused to receive and decided to recognize the payment by the defendant to Levin, and the present action resulted.

The case was tried before the court and a jury and there was contradictory evidence as to the employment of Levin. This raised a question of fact which the jury alone could determine.

The general exception taken to the charge cannot be considered as it brings nothing before us and we cannot, therefore, consider the numerous errors alleged to exist in the instructions given to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### § 169.109 Equivalents.

Substitutes for a fitting, appliance, apparatus, or equipment, may be accepted by the Commandant if the substituted item is as effective and consistent with the requirements and minimum safety standards specified in this subchapter.
# C_2012217EN.01002102.xml

| 21.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel)

(Case T-277/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark iHotel - Earlier Community figurative mark i-hotel - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 217/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch and D. Hötte, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Promotora Imperial SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2011 (Case R 832/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Promotora Imperial SA and Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.620 Design temperature below −55 °C (−67 °F) and down to −165 °C (−265 °F). Plates, forgings and forged or rolled fittings, and rolled, forged or extruded bars and shapes for cargo tanks, secondary barriers, and process pressure vessels for a design temperature below −55 °C (−67 °F) and down to −165 °C (−265 °F) must: ( a ) Meet § 54.25-10(b)(2), § 54.25-15, or § 54.25-20 of this chapter; or
( b ) Be of an aluminum alloy that is specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG).
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
May 27, 2015 

 

Mr. Charles Ayers 

4912 Shoreline Circle 

Sanford, FL 32771 

Dear Mr. Charles Ayers: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 14, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-0998), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure