alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CineStar 8 6/4/15, 1:54 PM

http://freeflysystems.com/products/cinestar/8/ Page 1 of 5

A reliable and robust system, delivering the incredibly smooth footage professional aerial video and

photographers demand.

The Ultimate Aerial Platform

REDEFINING MOVEMENT

 
CineStar 8 6/4/15, 1:54 PM

http://freeflysystems.com/products/cinestar/8/ Page 2 of 5

OPTIMIZED FOR

MŌVI INTEGRATION

Freefly designed the MōVI line of

camera stabilizers with the

CineStar platform in mind, with the

ability to go from filming handheld

to capturing aerials in just a few

OPEN ARCH ITECTURE

DESIGN
CineStar 8 6/4/15, 1:54 PM

http://freeflysystems.com/products/cinestar/8/ Page 3 of 5

DESIGN

The ability to fly a variety of cameras and

lenses is critical to professional users. The

“open architecture” of the CineStar allows

for cameras such as the Canon C500 and

RED Epic to be flown on the same frame

TOP MOUNTED BATTERY

CAGE

In addition to providing ease of access to the

battery and optimal CG (center of gravity)

for best flight performance, the top

mounted battery creates a structural cage

around the sensitive flight control

ULTRA

LIGHTWE IGHT

FRAME

In an industry where every gram

counts, Freefly designed the

CineStar to be as sturdy and light

as possible, utilizing carbon fiber

FROM THE SKY TO THE

ROAD

The Cinestar line is not only designed to

deliver the best aerial footage, but to travel

easily. With the camera gimbal mounting

plate, quick release booms and threaded

nuts and inserts that only require one tool,

ADVANCED

VIBRATION
CineStar 8 6/4/15, 1:54 PM

http://freeflysystems.com/products/cinestar/8/ Page 4 of 5

FIND DEALERS

VIBRATION

ISOLATION SYSTEM

Fully adjustable vibration isolation

system ensures smooth and stable

footage in even the most

demanding filming conditions.

H IGH CURRENT

DISTRIBUTION BOARD

A quick and robust connection from Freefly

motors to the Freefly flight packs is possible

with the solder-less distribution board that

features four 12v power leads for driving

LEDs or any other 12v accessory. Dual 10

MEDIA

Gallery

Vimeo

YouTube

STORE

Online

Dealers

NEWS

Blog

SOCIAL

Twitter

Facebook

Instagram

FREEFLY

About Us

Contact

SUPPORT

Forum

Tutorials

Software

&

Manuals

Knowledge

Base

Copyright 2015 Freefly Systems
CineStar 8 6/4/15, 1:54 PM

http://freeflysystems.com/products/cinestar/8/ Page 5 of 5
#### Daniel J. Pollock, appellant, v. Philip Pearson et al., appellees.

Filed May 19, 1917.

No. 19454.

Trial: Direction of Verdict. It Is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury to find for defendant when the evidence is not sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff.

Appeal from the district court for Scott’s Bluff county: Ralph W. Hobart, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*L. L. Raymond,*for appellant.

*Wright & Al other sead, contra.*

Morrissey, C. J.

Plaintiff agreed with defendant, a piano salesman, for the purchase of a piano of a specified make for $340, and executed his promissory note for that amount, the note being payable to defendant. Defendant agreed to have the piano shipped from the factory to plaintiff’s home at Scott’s Bluff, where plaintiff should have the right to inspect the instrument, and, if it was found to be satisfactory, the note, which by agreement between- the parties had been deposited in the hands of a third party, was to be delivered to defendant. Defendant ordered the piano shipped to plaintiff, but had the bill of lading sent to himself. Before the piano reached Scott’s Bluff, defend-, ant concluded that the note might be uncollectible, and notified the railroad company that the piano should not be delivered to plaintiff. Plaintiff then brought this action in replevin against defendant Pearson, the railroad company, and'its agent, alleging ownership and right to immediate possession. On the trial it was stipulated that neither the railroad company nor its agent had any interest in the litigation, and the trial proceeded against defendant Pearson. At the conclusion of the testimony the court instructed a verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

*285There is little, if any, dispute in the evidence so far as the material issues are concerned. If the. verdict returned is the only one which the evidence would sustain, there can be no error in the direction of the court. And in this respect it is necessary to consider only the testimony of plaintiff. His statement of the agreement is substantially as heretofore detailed. He says it was agreed that the note should be held by a third party, one Telander, until such time as plaintiff inspected the piano and notified Telander to turn the note over to defendant. This shows that the parties had merely entered into an executory contract, Avhich defendant might rescind before delivery, and thus prevent the title passing. Whatever plaintiff’s right might be to recover for breach of the contract, the title to the property had not passed.

The verdict returned is the only one that could be sustained by the evidence, and the court did not err in directing a verdict.

Affirmed.
§ 72.40-15 Vehicular ferries. ( a ) On vehicular ferries, suitable chains, cables, or other barriers shall be installed at the ends of the vehicle runways. In addition, suitable gates, rails, or other devices shall be installed as a continuation of the regularly required rails.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### § 1113.5 Stipulations.

Apart from the procedure contemplated by the prehearing provisions, the parties may, by stipulation in writing filed with the Board at any stage of the proceeding, or orally made at the hearing, agree upon any pertinent facts in the proceeding. The parties should agree to facts in this manner whenever practicable.

[47 FR 49559, Nov. 1, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 52712, Oct. 8, 1996]
§ 78.47-15 Fire extinguishing system branch lines. ( a ) The branch line valves of all fire extinguishing systems shall be plainly and permanently marked indicating the spaces served.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Thomas B. Fay, Appellant, *v.*William McAdoo, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.

*People ex rel. Fay*v. *McAdoo,*129 App. Div. 924, affirmed.

(Argued June 1, 1910;

decided June 17, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 30, 1908, which confirmed a determination of the' defendant in dismissing the relator from the police force of the city of New York.

*G. E. Hunter*for appellant.

*Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Gounsél (James D. Bell*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur; Gray, Haight, Yarn, Werner, Hiscock and Chase, JJ. Absent: Culler, Oh. J.
DISCRETIONARY APPEALS ALLOWED

98-1624.

#### Witherspoon v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Richland App. No. 97CA114.

Moyer, C.J., would allow on Propositions of Law Nos. I and II only.

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending March 10, 2012

|Filer                    | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                                
|------------------------ | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|RIVER VALLEY BANCORP     | CIC           | Notice by River Valley Bancorp Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, Madison, Indiana, to acquire up to 24.99 percent of River Valley Bancorp, Inc., Madison, Indiana.  Matthew P. Forrester is the plan administrator and the shares are voted by plan participants, none of which exceeds 10 percent individually.                               | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:               | Not available
|Federal Register:        | Not available
|TRIUMPH BANCSHARES, INC. | CIC           | Notice by Hilliard R. Crews, individually, and as a member of the Crews family control group to gain control of Triumph Bancshares, Inc., Germantown, Tennessee.  The Crews family control group consists of Hilliard R. Crews, Jason L. Crews, Cynthia Michelle Leslie Crews, Roger L. McGee, and Stacy Crews McGee, all of Collierville, Tennessee. | Newspaper:03/27/2012Federal Register:03/23/2012      
|Newspaper:               | 03/27/2012   
|Federal Register:        | 03/23/2012   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending March 26, 2011

----

Regulations and Policies            Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) and Regulation M (Consumer Leasing)  -- final rules to implement a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that increases the dollar thresholds for exempt consumer credit transactions and consumer leases from $25,000 to $50,000, with future annual adjustments to reflect increases in the consumer price index.            -Approved, March 22, 2011            Enforcement            Northern States Financial Corporation, Waukegan, Illinois -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.            -Announced, March 22, 2011                        Tidelands Bancshares, Inc., Mount Pleasant, South Carolina -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.            -Announced, March 22, 2011            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
Editorial Note on Part 107
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 107 appear at 67 FR 61011, Sept. 27, 2002, 70 FR 56089, Sept. 23, 2005, and 70 FR 73159, Dec. 9, 2005.

§ 107.219 Processing. ( a ) The Chief Counsel may initiate an investigation of any statement in an application and utilize in his or her evaluation any relevant facts obtained by that investigation. The Chief Counsel may solicit and accept submissions from third persons relevant to an application and will provide the applicant an opportunity to respond to all third person submissions. In evaluating an application, the Chief Counsel on his or her own initiative may convene a hearing or conference, if he or she considers that a hearing or conference will advance his or her evaluation of the application.
( b ) The Chief Counsel may dismiss the application without prejudice if: ( 1 ) He or she determines that there is insufficient information upon which to base a determination;
( 2 ) Upon his or her request, additional information is not submitted by the applicant; or
( 3 ) The applicant fails to provide the notice required by § 107.217.
( c ) The Chief Counsel will only consider an application for waiver of preemption determination if— ( 1 ) The applicant State or political subdivision thereof or Indian tribe expressly acknowledges in its application that the State or political subdivision or Indian tribe requirement for which the determination is sought is inconsistent with the requirements of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, regulations issued under the Federal hazardous material transportation law, or hazardous material transportation security regulations or directives issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
( 2 ) The State or political subdivision thereof or Indian tribe requirement has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or in a ruling issued under § 107.209 to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, regulations issued under the Federal hazardous material transportation law, or hazardous material transportation security regulations or directives issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
( d ) When the Chief Counsel has received all substantive information it considers necessary to process an application for a waiver of preemption determination, it serves notice of that fact upon the applicant and all other persons who received notice of the proceeding pursuant to § 107.217.
( e ) To the extent possible, each application for a waiver of preemption determination will be acted upon in a manner consistent with the disposition of previous applications for waiver of preemption determinations.
[Amdt. 107-3, 41 FR 38171, Sept. 9, 1976, as amended by Amdt. 107-24, 56 FR 8621, 8623, Feb. 28, 1991; Amdt. 107-32, 59 FR 49131, Sept. 26, 1994; Amdt. 107-38, 61 FR 21099, May 9, 1996; 65 FR 58618, Sept. 29, 2000; 68 FR 52847, Sept. 8, 2003; 69 FR 54044, Sept. 7, 2004; 71 FR 30068, May 25, 2006]
§ 77.35-15 Stowage. ( a ) The fireman's outfit, together with such other items of equipment as the master may deem necessary, shall be stowed in convenient, accessible locations for use in case of emergency. One outfit shall be stowed in or near the pilothouse. Where additional outfits are required by table 77.35-10(b), one of the additional outfits shall be stowed preferably adjacent to the main entrance to the machinery space. Other additional outfits shall be stowed in convenient accessible locations remote from the pilothouse.
( b ) [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 98
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 98 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49232, Sept. 25, 2009.

§ 98.01-1 Applicability. ( a ) The provisions of this part shall apply to all self-propelled cargo vessels which carry in bulk any of the dangerous cargoes specifically noted in this part.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) The regulations for barges carrying any of the bulk chemical cargoes listed in subparts 98.01 through 98.25 are found in subchapter O of this chapter.
( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) Manned barges carrying any of the cargoes listed in Table 151.05 of this chapter will be considered individually by the Commandant and may be required to meet the applicable requirements of subchapter O of this chapter, as well as the requirements of this subchapter.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 17022, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 70-10, 35 FR 3711, Feb. 25, 1970; CGD 84-043, 55 FR 37411, Sept. 11, 1990; 59 FR 17011, Apr. 11, 1994]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

 Statement of Computation of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock
 Dividend Requirements for the three month periods ended March 31, 2000 and
 March 31, 1999

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                              For the three months ended
                                                      March 31, 2000             March 31, 1999
                                                   --------------------       --------------------
<S>                                                 <C>                        <C>
            Net income                              $           37,575         $           29,032
            Interest expense                                    31,039                     34,358
            Amortization of capitalized interest                    45                         23
                                                   --------------------       --------------------
            Earnings before interest                            68,659                     63,413

            Interest expense                                    31,039                     34,358
            Interest capitalized                                 1,063                        311
            Interest portion of rentals                             88                         88
            Preferred dividends                                    875                        875
                                                   --------------------       --------------------
            Fixed charges and preferred stock
                 dividend requirements                          33,065                     35,632

            Earnings to fixed charges and preferred
                 stock dividend requirements                      2.08                       1.78
                                                   ====================       ====================
</TABLE>
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Condron, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Condron*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 11.]

(Nos. 98-884 and 98-886

Submitted October 13, 1998

Decided November 25, 1998.)

*Mathias H. Heck, Jr.,*Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Cheryl*A *Ross,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*12
      *Charles A. Smiley, Jr.,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Cook*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, March 28, 1995 (51), Para 51.14 Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation]
[Page 507]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.51.14  dayton aviation heritage preservation

  Mr. HANSEN moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 606) to 
amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992, and for 
other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. McINNIS, recognized Mr. HANSEN and Mr. 
RICHARDSON, each for 20 minutes.
  After debate,
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. McINNIS, announced that two-thirds of the 
Members present had voted in the affirmative.
  So, two-thirds of the Members present having voted in favor thereof, 
the rules were suspended and said bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the rules were suspended and 
said bill was passed was, by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
  Ordered, That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in said 
bill.
```
§ 58.25-35 Helm arrangements. ( a ) The arrangement of each steering station, other than in the steering-gear compartment, must be such that the helmsman is abaft the wheel. The rim of the wheel must be plainly marked with arrows and lettering for right and left rudder, or a suitable notice indicating these directions must be posted directly in the helmsman's line of sight.
( b ) Each steering wheel must turn clockwise for “right rudder” and counterclockwise for “left rudder.” When the vessel is running ahead, after clockwise movement of the wheel the vessel's heading must change to the right.
( c ) If a lever-type control is provided, it must be installed and marked so that its movement clearly indicates both the direction of the rudder's movement and, if followup control is also provided, the amount of the rudder's movement.
( d ) Markings in the pilothouse must not interfere with the helmsman's vision, but must be clearly visible at night.
Note 1 to § 58.25-35 :
See § 113.40-10 of this chapter for the arrangement of rudder-angle indicators at steering stations.
[CGD 83-043, 60 FR 24776, May 10, 1995, as amended by USCG-2020-0634, 89 FR 50178, June 12, 2024]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7456

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAOUL LAFOND, a/k/a Chris Lafond, a/k/a Jim, a/k/a Jamaican 

Jim, a/k/a Derrick Burch, a/k/a Fletcher Busbee, a/k/a 

Ronald Elie, a/k/a Ronald Ely,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (6:96-cr-00212-WO-1)

Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raoul Lafond, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela 

Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Raoul Lafond appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3582 

(2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Lafond, No. 6:96-cr-00212-WO-1 

(M.D.N.C. Sept. 2, 2015). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, June 15, 1995 (80), Para 80.20 Adjournment]
[Page 1008]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.80.20  adjournment

  On motion of Mr. DeLAY, at 6 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m., the House 
adjourned.
```
----

----

EXHIBIT 10.54

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

| WEINGARTEN      REALTY INVESTORS |
|----------------------------------|
| By:                              | /s/      Stephen C. Richter |
| Title:                           |   |
|                             |   |
| Notice      Address:             | 2600      Citadel Plaza Drive |
|                             | Houston,      Texas 77008 |

| WEINGARTEN      REALTY INVESTORS |
|----------------------------------|
| /s/      Johnny Hendrix          |
| JOHNNY      HENDRIX              |
|                             |   |
| Notice      Address:             | 2600      Citadel Plaza Drive |
|                             | Houston,      Texas 77008 |

----

----