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

2518 Auburn Dri v e , C o coa, FL 32926 ( 321)

- 261

- 2547 uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.co m April 8 , 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation D ocket O perations West Building Ground Floor, Room W 1 2

- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Section 333 Petition for Exemption pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0433

- 0001

Dear Sir or Madam:

Leptron Industrial Robotics Helicopters, Inc. (Leptron)

, f iled for a Petition For E xemption/Rulemaking, Pursuant to Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11 , for the purposes of low

- risk, precision aerial mapping, surveying, and to pography recording

. The Petition for Exemption is contained within Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0433

- 0001

. Le ptron her e by requests an amendment to Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0433

- 0001 to allow an additional type of small U nmanned A ircraft S ystem ( s UAS) that fully complies with the terms and conditions of the previous exemption request.

Le ptron wishes to operate the RDASS electrically powered 4 rotor system

, u nder the same terms and conditions contained in the Petition for Exemption in Regulator y Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0433

- 0001 . L eptron products in general already ha ve a long standing proven operational history with the FAA . Th e RDASS platform is currently being reviewed under the Public COA process for the following list of agencies, either upda ting or requesting new COAs.

 Central Michigan University

- U pdating the Avenger and modifying for an RDASS

 Texas A&M University

- Adding an RDASS

 Austin Texas P olice D epartment and Fire

- New for an RDASS

, currently with the FAA’ s Flight Standards Office completing a safety assessment

 Arlington Texas P olice Department

- Updating the Avenger and adding a new one for RDASS

All confidential manuals previously submitted to the FAA by Leptron are also applicable to the safe operat ion of the RDASS. Additionally, the required manuals specific to the RDASS accompany this Amendment and are also considered Proprietary and Confidential. All operations of the additional RDASS s UAS will be in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the original Petition for Exemption in Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0433

- 0001

.UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Dri v e , C o coa, FL 32926 ( 321)

- 261

- 2547 uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.co m As this is an amendment asking for only the addition of another type of sUAS, Le ptron respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does n ot need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendment

.

cc : Jim Willia m s Joe Morra Robert Papas Jake Troutman Dean Griffith, Esq.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 13, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00273

- CV

THE HELPFUL COMPUTER GUY, LLC

,

Appellant

v.

Christina WHIPPLE,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV05563

Honorable J Frank Davis , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant's brief was orig inally due September 11, 2020. Appellant was granted a first

extension to October 2, 2020. On October 9, 2020, appellant filed an unopposed motion for an

extension to October 16, 2020.

Appellant's Unopposed Second Motion to Extend Briefing Deadline is G RANTED.

Appellant is ORDERED to file its brief no later than October 16, 2020

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITN ESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of October, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Cou rt
Before the Second Division,

February 2, 1956

No. 59707.

#### John Wanamaker, Phila., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 189517-K, 190188-K, and 214585-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise marked “A” consists of traveling irons similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Greatrex, Limited,*and *J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 79, C. D. 1639), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 68393.

protests 63/ 7068, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Gamble-Vargish & Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pigtails similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63984, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Grafton,

Feb. 3, 1914.

#### Winfred S. Ross *v.*Allen J. Church.

Petition, by a residuary legatee, for advice as to the meaning of a will. At the October term, 1913, of the superior court, the petition was dismissed by *Peaslee,*J., upon the ground that the legatee was not entitled to advice, and he excepted.

*Pierce & Galloway*and *Arthur L. Foote (Mr. Pierce*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Edgar W. Smith,*for the defendant.

*593Parsons, C. J.

As the plaintiff does not occupy a fiduciary position entitling him for his protection to the prospective decision of questions that may arise under the will, and as the defendant, whom the plaintiff claims does occupy such a position, does not desire, but objects to, their present determination by way of advice to him, there is no ground upon which the court may lawfully advise the parties. *Glover*v. *Baker,*76 N. H. 393; *Day*v. *Washburn,*76 N. H. 203; *Harvey*v. *Harvey,*73 N. H. *106; Drake*v. *True,*72 N. H. 322; *Bailey*v. *McIntire,*71 N. H. 329; *Ellis*v. *Aldrich,*70 N. H. 219, 222; *Gafney*v. *Kenison,*64 N. H. 354; *Greeley*v. *Nashua,*62 N. H. 166, 167; *Opinion of the Justices,*62 N. H. 706; P. S., c. 207, s. 8.

*Exception overruled.*

Peaslee, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7582** 

JOE LOGAN, SR. , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

– Appellee , and
UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICER , Defendants
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:10

- ct

- 03173

- FL )

Submitted : January 28, 2013 Decided: February 12, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Joe Logan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joe Logan, Sr., appeals the district court ’ s order s dismissing hi s action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e ) motion
. * On appeal, Logan argues that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting his requests to reopen discovery and for an enlargement of time. He also challenges the district court’s conclusion that his FTCA claim is barred by the discretionary function except ion to sovereign immunity. See 18 U.S.C. § 2680(a) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error as to these issues . Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district
court. Logan v. United States , No. 5:10

- ct

- 03173

- FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2012 & Sept. 6, 2012)
. We deny Logan’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* While we conclude that the district court erred in construing Logan’ s motion to alter or amend as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, we conclude this error was harmless, as Logan cannot demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co. , 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) ( describing Rule 59(e) standard).
From: heathervandoorn@ymail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:24:50 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Heather van Doorn

Las Cruces, NM 88011
#### HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO., Appellant, v. Robert PIRIE, Secretary of the Navy, Appellee.

No. 00-1345.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 9, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, BRYSON, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
No. 60471.

#### Langfelder, Homma & Carroll, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 284954-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: lorilacy2@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:36:54 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Michael Faries

Tustin, CA 92780
I would like to amend the Conditions and Limitations of my Airworthiness Certification.

1. Please add my new UAV (DJI Inspire 1, as noted in previous comment)

13. Requesting that the PIC is required to pass the written exam only of either sport, 

recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport license. The PIC will not be in the UA 

during flight. To make up the flying portion of the license, the PIC will undergo 20 hours of flight 

time during dedicated training sessions with a UAV in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119. I have 

attached the flight test.

26. Requesting that we are able to operate within the 500 feet of moving cars. We may operate 

the UAV by a road with moving cars and it is not feasible to obtain permission from them. To 

make up for this we will have property and liability insurance. Also we will edit any cars/people 

out of the photo/video if they are in it. If we see anything unsafe or potential problems we will 

immediately cease all operations until they can be rectified.
urbf_ex104.htm


EXHIBIT 10.4


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  






 





 




  





4











  






 



 





 




  





5











  






 





 




  





6











  






 





 




  





7











  






 





 




  





8











  








 



 





 




  





9











  






 





 




  





10











  






 





 




  





11











  






 





 




  





12











  








 



 





 




  





13











  






 





 




  





14











  






 





 




  





15











  






 





 


 

16
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 179 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 23, 2007.
Whereas the family, serving as the primary source of love, identity, self-
        esteem, and support, is the very foundation of our communities, and our 
        United States;
Whereas foster families, who open their homes and hearts to children whose 
        families are in crisis, play a vital role in helping children heal and 
        reconnect and in launching those children into successful adulthood;
Whereas over 500,000 youth are in foster care with at least 380,000 in a family-
        home setting;
Whereas numerous individuals and public and private organizations work to 
        increase public awareness of the needs of children in foster care and 
        leaving foster care as well as of the enduring and valuable 
        contributions of foster parents; and
Whereas those families who are able to serve a role as foster parents should be 
        wholeheartedly encouraged to do so: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
            (1) a National Foster Parents Day should be established to recognize 
        the contributions of foster parents across the Nation; and
            (2) the President should issue a proclamation calling on the people 
        of the United States and interested groups to conduct appropriate 
        ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate support for foster 
        parents across the Nation.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTechnology Thresholds for Microgravity: Status and ProspectsThe technological and economic thresholds for microgravity space research are estimated in materials science and biotechnology. In the 1990s, the improvement of materials processing has been identified as a national scientific priority, particularly for stimulating entrepreneurship. The substantial US investment at stake in these critical technologies includes six broad categories: aerospace, transportation, health care, information, energy, and the environment. Microgravity space research addresses key technologies in each area. The viability of selected space-related industries is critically evaluated and a market share philosophy is developed, namely that incremental improvements in a large markets efficiency is a tangible reward from space-based research.Document ID19970005379Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsNoever, D. A.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1996Subject CategoryMaterials ProcessingReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-108526NAS 1.15:108526Accession Number97N13278Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970005379.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
From: fredric_ruth@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:13:07 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Fred Ruth

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(R.D. 11484)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. M-3535.

(Decided January 30, 1968)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for the ¡plaintiff.

*Hdtoin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the *776foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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 Net Savings Link, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, David Saltrelli, Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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:





(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 15th day of March, 2011.








DAVID SALTRELLIDavid SaltrelliChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer