alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
E384 Training Syllabus 2015

Prior to First Flight:

- Overview of Components

o Function

o Operating Frequencies as Applicable

- Transmitter

o R/C Controls

o FBW-A Operation (How it differs from manual)

o Modes, which to use when

o Order of operations RE: ground station

- Manual Flight

o Theory (use throttle to control altitude, pitch to control airspeed)

 Avoid extreme maneuvers

o Flight Envelope

 Avoid high speed and low speeds

 Min 7m/s max 20m/s airspeed

 No minimum alt, max ~4000m (requires special launch and flight procedures

above ~2000m)

 Minimum mapping alt ~80m above ground level

o Take off

 Always into the wind

 High throttle until clear obstacles (around 50 meters) then reduce throttle and 

reduce pitch, climb more slowly

 Around 80-100% throttle

 Switch to RTL and reduce throttle to 0, maintain sight until aircraft settles into 

its route and completes at least one full orbit

o Landing

 Always into the wind

 Try to descend slowly

 Slight pitch down, no throttle necessary for ideal glide slope

- Preflight Checklist (go over preflight document)

- Mission Planner Flight Data
o HUD Data Display (level, speed, alt, gps, mode, meters>waypoint, battery, compass 

heading)

o Actions Tab

o Tuning Graphs (important params: ch3 percent, relative alt, gps speed, batt voltage; can 

be useful to see these with better resolution and see how they change over time while 

flying)

o Guided Mode

- Emergency Procedures

o Dead Battery (positive pitch but losing altitude)

o Unusual Behavior (FBW no throttle until stabilizes)

o Strong Wind (high throttle slight pitch down to raise speed into wind and hold altitude)

o Strong Thermals

o Landing with Heavy Turbulence

- Simulator

Prior to First Mission:

- Mission Planning

o https://support.pix4d.com/entries/27002457 Mission Planning Theory

o Flight Planner Tab Tools

 Measure Distance

 Elevation Profile

 Survey (Grid)

 Reverse WPs

 Waypoint Edit, Move, Reorder, Delete

o Run through an entire mapping mission

o Caching Imagery

o Camera Setup

 Calculating Number of Pictures

o Automatic Takeoff

 Take Off, 50* Angle 50m+ Alt

o Automatic Landing

 Slow Glide Slope, Landing Waypoint

Misc:

- Repair/Maintenance

o Replacing Motor

o Replacing Servos

o Replacing Propeller

o Wiring Diagram
o Transferring Fuselages

o Charging Batteries

o Recovering Low Voltage Batteries

o Damaged Battery/Old Battery

o Setting up New SD Cards

o Changing Telemetry Radio Settings

- Changing Settings

o 3DR Radio Parameters

 Changing Power on RFD900 20-30dBm

o Throttle Set Point 35-45%

o Mission Planner Settings

 Audible Warnings

 Battery Voltage/Capacity

Post-Flight:

- Post-processing

o Inspecting Images

o Building Map

o Adding Ground Control Points

o Exporting OrthoPhoto and DEM

- Mission Planner Telemetry Analysis

o Exporting KML

o Graphing Telemetry Data

o Replaying Telemetry Data
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 22, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00046

- CR

Jason Lee Sackett , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES BAK ER, TRIANA A ND KELLY
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the record, it app ears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal . Therefore, the Court

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay

costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
From: jdennisbf@mindspring.com [mailto:jdennisbf@mindspring.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:05 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

John Bradfield 

648 Waller St, Apt 1 

San Francisco, CA 94117
**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 Providential Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Henry Fahman, President and Director 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 the best of my knowledge and belief: (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. 

 

/s/ Henry Fahman

Henry Fahman

President/Director 

February 17, 2009
The Communications Subcommittee did not provide a draft proposal to the full 

committee but held its eighth subcommittee meeting the morning of September 11, 

2014. The material for that meeting can be found in this regulations.gov site under the 

section titled “Supporting Documents” and titled:

Communications Subcommittee Meeting #8 - Agenda and Handouts - 2014 Sept 11.
#### Matter of Application of Henry Frost to Disbar Henry Dailey, Jr.

--Petition dismissed. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
#### § 198.35 Grants conditioned on adoption of one-call damage prevention program.

In allocating grants to State agencies under the pipeline safety laws, (49 U.S.C. 60101 *et seq.*), the Secretary considers whether a State has adopted or is seeking to adopt a one-call damage prevention program in accordance with § 198.37. If a State has not adopted or is not seeking to adopt such program, the State agency may not receive the full reimbursement to which it would otherwise be entitled.

[Amdt. 198-2, 61 FR 38403, July 24, 1996]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6912

HAYWARD L. ROGERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(2:12-cv-01858-TMC)

Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hayward Leon Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hayward L. Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Rogers’ motions for a certificate of appealability and for 

appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Repro-Med Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Andrew I. Sealfon, Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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 the best of my knowledge
and belief:

         (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.

/s/ Andrew I. Sealfon
Andrew I. Sealfon
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer

October 17, 2005
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# ACTION:

Announcement of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the seventh meeting of the American Health Information Community Personalized Healthcare Workgroup in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.).

# DATES:

August 17, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. [Eastern Daylight Time].

# ADDRESSES:

Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

*http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​healthcare/​.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Workgroup will discuss possible common data standards to incorporate interoperable, clinically useful genetic laboratory test data, family history information, and analytical tools into Electronic Health Records (EHR) to support clinical decision-making for the health care provider and patient.

                    The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional information, go to:                     *http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic/​healthcare/​phc_​instruct.html.*

Dated: July 20, 2007.

Judith Sparrow,

Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

[FR Doc. 07-3715 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 193

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 193 appear at 71 FR 33408, June 9, 2006.

#### § 193.2303 Construction acceptance.

No person may place in service any component until it passes all applicable inspections and tests prescribed by this subpart and NFPA-59A-2001 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 193.2013).

[45 FR 9203, Feb. 11, 1980, as amended by Amdt. 193-17, 65 FR 10960, Mar. 1, 2000; Amdt. 193-18, 69 FR 11337, Mar. 10, 2004; Amdt. 193-25, 80 FR 182, Jan. 5, 2015]
# EUR-Lex - 52003XC0322(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52003XC0322(01)

**Imposition of additional public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between, on the one hand, all airports in metropolitan France and, on the other, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal C 069 , 22/03/2003 P. 0002 - 0002 *

Imposition of additional public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between, on the one hand, all airports in metropolitan France and, on the other, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion

(2003/C 69/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. France has decided to supplement the public service obligations relating to scheduled air services between, on the one hand, all airports in metropolitan France and, on the other, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion which were published in Official Journal of the European Communities C 243 of 9 August 1997, reference number 97/C 243/02, in accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.

2. In addition to the public service obligations referred to in the abovementioned notice C 243/02 of 9 August 1997, the minimum overall capacity, in terms of the number of seats, of the services to be provided between the airport of Paris (Orly) and each of the four overseas departments in two consecutive scheduling seasons is:

- 1100000 for the Guadeloupe service,

- 183000 for the French Guiana service,

- 1000000 for the Martinique service,

- 660000 for the Réunion service.

Slots have been reserved at Paris (Orly) airport for the services to the four overseas departments in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports. Air carriers interested in servicing these routes can obtain information on these slots from the coordinator of the Paris airports.

3. The address given in the notice 97/C 243/02 has changed to the following: Direction générale de l'aviation civile Direction des transports aériens 50, rue Henry-Farman F - 75720 Paris Cedex 15.
-----Original Message----- 

From: RyanRocker@aol.com [mailto:RyanRocker@aol.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 3:21 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Ryan Barsotti 

6772 Cibola Rd. 

San Diego, CA 92120
Exhibit 32.1

ALPHA INNOTECH CORP

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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Alpha Innotech Corp (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Haseeb Chaudhry,
CEO 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 31, 2006 |  | /s/ Haseeb Chaudhry    
|                     |  | Haseeb Chaudhry        
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit No. 21.1SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANTAs of December 31, 20091. Providential Capital, Inc.Percentage of ownership: 100%Business activity: Consulting and M&A advisory services2. Providential Vietnam, Ltd.Percentage of ownership: 100%Business activity: Consulting3. Philand Ranch Limited UKPercentage of ownership: 75.50%Business activity: real estate development4. PHI Mining Group, Inc., formerly DDC Industries, Inc.Percentage of ownership: 82.71%Business activity: Mining5. Providential Energy CorporationPercentage of ownership: 100%Business activity: Independent Oil & Gas, Alternative Energy6. Provimex, IncPercentage of ownership: 85%Business activity: Trading and Imports/Exports7. Vietnam Media Group, Inc., formerly Touchlink Communications, Inc.Percentage of ownership: 85%Business activity: Multi-media


---
No. 31,397

#### Peter Carl Matthies, *Appellee,*v. The Union Products Company, *Appellant.*

(36 P. 2d 89.)

Opinion on rehearing filed October 6, 1934.

(For original opinion of affirmance see 138 Kan. 764, 29 P. 2d 754.)

*Arnold C. Todd, Julian E. Ralston, Ralph Gore*and *James G. Norton,*all of Wichita, for the appellant.

*Chester I. Long, W. E. Stanley, Claude I. Depew, W. C. Hook*and *Albert P. Blase,*all of Wichita, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Johnston, C. J.:

It is stated that the opinion rendered in the case carries the idea that the written motion set forth nonjurisdictional as well as jurisdictional grounds. The opinion states that the motion to vacate the judgment alleged the jurisdictional ground that the service upon the defendant was insufficient. There was a contention that the petition did not state a cause of action against the defendant. The written motion did not state nonjurisdictional grounds, but when the question came up for argument, counsel for defendant stated his request in this way:

> “First I maintain that this petition does not state a cause of action against either of the defendants, and therefore a judgment rendered on the petition that does not state a cause of action, is void. I am also maintaining that the service is defective in so far as the corporation is concerned.”

Both grounds had been submitted to the court, and in their brief counsel make a long written argument in support of the claim that the petition failed to state a cause of action. Whether the non-jurisdictional ground was stated in writing or orally, the waiver is complete. It should be said that the statement in the opinion is open to the inference that the written motion contains the allegation that the petition did not state a cause of action. When counsel orally asked the court to set aside the judgment because the petition did not state a cause of action and applied it to the several causes of action alleged in the petition, he thereby waived the jurisdictional ground he had alleged. Throughout the history of the court we have *233in a long line of decisions uniformly held that when a party sets forth both jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional grounds, orally or in writing, there is a general appearance and a waiver of the jurisdictional grounds.

Counsel for defendant insisted at the end of the hearing that the question of nonjurisdictional ground should be decided, and the court responded by saying that he was deciding it upon both grounds. That decision shows what was before the court for determination and what had been before the court from the start of the hearing.

The decision is adhered to.

Harvey, J., dissenting.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40058

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HECTOR SERNA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-1346-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SOUTHWICK and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Serna appeals the nine-month sentence imposed by the district

court following the revocation of his term of supervised release for possession of

a firearm by a convicted felon; his sentence falls within the applicable guidelines

range and below the statutory maximum. Although this court ordinarily reviews

revocation sentences under the “plainly unreasonable” standard, United States

v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 496 (2011), we

review for plain error because Serna failed to object to his sentence in the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 15, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 12-40058 Document: 00511957481 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2012
No. 12-40058

district court. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir.

2009); United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2008).

Although he argues that his sentence should be vacated because, inter

alia, his violations were due to extenuating circumstances, Serna’s sentence was

fully consistent with the primary goal of a sentence on revocation, which is to

sanction the violator for failing to abide by the terms of supervised release. See

U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A, intro. comment. ¶ 3(b); see Miller, 634 F.3d at 843 (“[T]he

goal of revocation is to punish a defendant for violating the terms of the

supervised release.”). He fails to show that his sentence is plainly erroneous. 

Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 265.

AFFIRMED. 

2

Case: 12-40058 Document: 00511957481 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2012