alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 (321)-261-2547 

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com

November 3, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Bldg. 10A

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

RE: Summary Grant for Independent Mapping Consultants Exemption Request 

Under Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012, 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), 49 

U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Independent Mapping Consultants, (IMC) an 

operator of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS”) equipped to conduct full service 

photography and videography, seeks exemption from the following listed Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) to allow commercial operation of the previously approved DJI 

Phantom, DJI S1000 plus, Pulse Vapor 35, Pulse Vapor 55 within the National Airspace 

System (NAS) for controlled, low-risk, aerial video and photography, aerial mapping and 

survey, site specific highway Lidar mapping and ortho image mapping, as well as 

powerline corridor and bridge inspections over certain areas of the United States, 

conducted within and under the conditions outlined herein, or as may be established by 

the FAA, as required by Section 333 requirements. 

IMC in the accompanying petition, seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R.

§§ 45.27(a), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.105, 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2),and 91.417(a) and (b). 

IMC has requested that the FAA not request public comment on its petition because it 

would not set any precedent and because the relief requested is identical to numerous 

exemptions granted previously by the FAA. 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. 

In addition, IMC will be utilizing the same proven airframes and technologies the FAA has 

already accepted and approved in numerous previously approved exemptions. 

Combined, their comprehensive Section 333 Exemption and the approvals the FAA has 

already given to their chosen products and the technology, should provide the support 
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 (321)-261-2547 

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com

necessary to the FAA for a Summary Grant of IMC’s Section 333 Petition and expedite 

the process. 

Kelly J. Neubecker

CEO

UASolutions Group, Inc.
Comment submitted by: William Starnes, Peachtree City, Georgia, United States 

RiN-1210 AB 33 I think that is the correct number. None of the links provided to 

comment on this issue actually worked. I suspect you didn't actually want comments and 

will probably delete this one. 

Nevertheless, I plan on contacting my Congressman and seeing if he can work your 

website. None of the links I tried to contact DOL worked until this one. Frankly, I don't 

mind the option of having lifetime income for my 401k monies, but I can already 

purchase an annuity so why the fuss? Isn't Wall Street getting enough control over my 

money already. Some of the questions asked by DOL included essentially "why don't 

more people use the lifetime income option." Well for starters: 1) I can already purchase 

an annuity but 2) virtually every worker in the country has been defrauded out of some of 

their money by so called financial geniuses and we are tired of it. Why would I give a 

large portion (or all) of my life savings to purchase an annuity/lifetime income stream? 

This is the equivalent of playing Keno except Wall Street sets the rules, the SEC and 

rating agencies play dumb, and everyone gets rich except the “workers” DOL is supposed 

to protect. No thanks, I’ll purchase an annuity if I want to, otherwise keep your freaking 

hands off my lifesavings. I earned the money. I saved the money. I will invest it as I wish. 

You have no right to tell me how to use my funds. You have already "not helped" 

enough. wts
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-66,132-05

EX PARTE LARRY W. SAMFORD, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 18451 IN THE 239 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM BRAZORIA COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of attempted murder

and sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that he is being denied mandatory supervision release when he is entitled

to release. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court
2

shall order the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Office of the General Counsel to file an

affidavit addressing the issue of whether Applicant is eligible for mandatorysupervision release, and

if so, when he is scheduled for release.

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant

is eligible for mandatory supervision release, and if so, why he has not yet been released. The trial

court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and

appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court.

Filed: September 24, 2014

Do not publish
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

LINDA GLADZISZEWSKI, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES 

GROUP, INC.), 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 140 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Sentex Sensing Technology, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending November 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert S. Kendall, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U. S. C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
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.

/s/ Robert S. Kendall
-----------------------
Robert S. Kendall
Chief Executive Officer
April 26, 2004

                                       19
# U.S. General James Mattis meets with Egyptian military leaders

/ Published July 19, 2011

CAIRO (July 19, 2011) — U.S. Central Command Commander Gen. James Mattis departed Egypt yesterday after visiting and consulting with senior Egyptian military and security officials to gain their views.

Mattis visited with Lt. Gen Anan, Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces and Field Marshal Tantawi, Commander and Chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces to discuss issues of military cooperation within the region.

The leaders discussed their strong military-to-military cooperation efforts as well as a range of other issues.

The visit is the second that Mattis has made to the country since taking command of CENTCOM eleven months ago.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40347 Summary Calendar

__________________ ARNOLD DAVILA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus ARANSAS PASS, CITY OF TEXAS, ET AL., Defendants, and BONNIE MCCARTY, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-90-CV-121
- - - - - - - - - - March 7, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Arnold Davila appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his civil rights complaint. Davila argues that the district court erred by dismissing his claims regarding: (1) the validity of hisNo. 95-40347 -2- conviction; (2) access to the courts; (3) conditions of confinement; and (4) inadequate diet. We have reviewed the record and the reasons for dismissal given by the district court and perceive no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion. AFFIRMED.
----

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(Third Chamber)

of 30 April 2004

in Case C-172/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Robert Bourgard v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Self-employed workers - Derogation allowed for the determination of pensionable age - Possibility for male workers to claim early entitlement to old-age pension - Limited to forms of discrimination necessary and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable ages - Method of calculation - Reduction for early entitlement)

(2004/C 118/45)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-172/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour de cassation (Belgium), seeking to obtain, in the proceedings pending before that court between Robert Bourgard and Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 30 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(a), must be interpreted as meaning that, where the national legislation of a Member State has maintained a difference of retirement ages for men and women, it does not preclude that Member State, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings in this case, from calculating the amount of the retirement pension differently according to the sex of the worker and from applying to male workers, who alone have the right to apply for an early retirement pension in the five years prior to the normal age of retirement, a reduction of five per cent for each year in which the pension is taken in advance.

----

(1)OJ C 156 of 29. 6. 2002.

----
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

Board of Directors
Sistersville Bancorp, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Sistersville
Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of September 30, 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of cash flows for the six-month period ended, and the
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the six- and
three-month periods then ended. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical and procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of
America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of
March 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive
income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended
(not presented herein); and in our report dated April 20, 2001, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.


/s/ S. R. SNODGRASS, A.C.


Wheeling, West Virginia
November 2, 2001
From: Irene Komor

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 6:19:31 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Irene Komor

14 Ogden Road

Ithaca, NY 14850
Exhibit 10.10

# ASSIGNMENT OF
DEDUCTIBLE LIABILITY PROTECTION POLICY PROCEEDS

For good and valid consideration,
Gevity HR, Inc. (Insured) hereby transfers and assigns to Continental Casualty
Company (Insurer), effective as of 12:01 am June 30, 2004, the sole right to
collect any and all proceeds (including any return or unearned premiums or any other
payments or refunds) payable under Deductible Liability Protection Policy No. 5014190,
issued to Insured by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Vermont. In the event of
commutation of the Deductible Liability Protection Policy, the Insured also hereby
transfers and assigns to the Insurer the amount of any commutation payment payable to the
Insured in conjunction with said commutation (collectively, together with the other
property assigned hereunder, the Assigned Property) except as may otherwise be
agreed between the Insurer and the Insured. The Insured warrants and represents that no
assignment of the Assigned Property has been made to any third party and that the Insured,
acting through its duly authorized officer or representative, has the full authority and
power to transfer and assign the Assigned Property to the Insurer and that the rights so
transferred and assigned herein are free of lien, encumbrance or adverse claim.

This assignment is irrevocable on the
part of the Insured and may only be revoked or terminated with the written consent of the
Insurer.

This assignment shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the Insured and the Insurer, their successors and assigns.

Dated: October 20, 2004

|                                                      |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|By: /s/ Peter C. Grabowski                            |  | 
|Title: Senior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|Name: Peter C. Grabowski                              |  |
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Spire Corporation:

       We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of Spire Corporation of our report dated March 10, 2000, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Spire Corporation and subsidiary as of
December 31, 1998 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in the December
31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Spire Corporation.

                                                      /S/ KPMG LLP
                                                      -------------------------
                                                      KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 2000
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEvaluation of a metering, mixing, and dispensing system for mixing polysulfide adhesiveTests were performed to evaluate whether a metered mixing system can mix PR-1221 polysulfide adhesive as well as or better than batch-mixed adhesive; also, to evaluate the quality of meter-mixed PR-1860 and PS-875 polysulfide adhesives. These adhesives are candidate replacements for PR-1221 which will not be manufactured in the future. The following material properties were evaluated: peel strength, specific gravity and adhesive components of mixed adhesives, Shore A hardness, tensile adhesion strength, and flow rate. Finally, a visual test called the butterfly test was performed to observe for bubbles and unmixed adhesive. The results of these tests are reported and discussed.Document ID19900004338Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsEvans, Kurt B.*(Morton Thiokol Brigham City, UT, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1989Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberTWR-16417NASA-CR-183749NAS 1.26:183749Accession Number90N13654Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-30490Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900004338.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
II

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1101

To name the engineering and management building at Norfolk Naval

Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, after Norman Sisisky.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 26, 2001

Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. ALLEN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To name the engineering and management building at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, after Norman

Sisisky.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION. 1. DESIGNATION OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGE4 MENT BUILDING AT NORFOLK NAVAL SHIP5 YARD, VIRGINIA, AFTER NORMAN SISISKY.

6 The engineering and management building (also

7 known as Building 1500) at Norfolk Naval Shipyard,

8 Portsmouth, Virginia, shall be known as the Norman Sisi9 sky Engineering and Management Building. Any reference

10 to that building in any law, regulation, map, document,
2

•S 1101 IS

1 record, or other paper of the United States shall be consid2 ered to be a reference to the Norman Sisisky Engineering

3 and Management Building.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18794]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: August 31, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
32 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2023-239, CP2023-242.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-18794 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: Amanda Carter

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: THANK YOU for supporting birth control access for all women!

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:06:23 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Amanda Carter

2000 Wilson Road, #67

Knoxville, TN 37912