alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Personal Protocols for Safety & Flight Concerns

• Flights will be operated manually within visual line of sight 

(VLOS) of the sUAS pilot while using the sUAS’ global 

positioning system (GPS) flight safety feature.

• Maximum total flight time for each operational flight will be 

20 minutes. Flights will be terminated at 25% battery power 

reserve should that occur prior to the 20 minute flight time.

• Flights will be operated at an altitude of NO MORE than 

400 feet above ground level (AGL), though most flights will 

be conducted within 50 feet of the ground. 

• The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an 

airport reference point (ARP) as denoted in the current FAA 

Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not denoted 

with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on 

the current FAA-published aeronautical chart, unless a letter 

of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or 

otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption 

holder. The letter of agreement with the airport management 

must be made available to the Administrator or any law 

enforcement official upon request. 

• All flights will be prohibited from beginning unless 

(considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is 

enough available power for the UA to conduct the intended 

operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or 

with the reserve power recommended by the manufacturer if 

greater. 

• If the sUAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, 

the sUAS must return to a pre-determined location within 

the private or controlled-access property. 
• Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that 

affect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e.g., 

replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a 

functional test flight prior to conducting further operations 

under this exemption. Functional test flights may only be 

conducted by myself and must remain at least 500 feet from 

other people. The functional test flight must be conducted in 

such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons 

and property 

• Prior to each flight, I will conduct a pre-flight inspection 

and determine the sUAS is in a condition for safe flight. The 

pre-flight inspection must account for all potential 

discrepancies, e.g., inoperable components, items, or 

equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects 

the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from 

operating until the necessary maintenance has been 

performed and the sUAS is found to be in a condition for 

safe fligh 

• I will follow the sUAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, 

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the 

aircraft and aircraft components. 

• Always obtain all necessary permission prior to operation.

• Post a sign reading: “ATTENTION! Aerial photography in 

Progress—Keep Back 150 feet!”
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 295 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 11, 2007.
Whereas for more than 50 years since the outbreak of the Korean War, a close 
        relationship has existed between the United States and the Republic of 
        Korea, which has been of enormous economic, cultural, and strategic 
        advantage to both nations;
Whereas President George W. Bush and President Roh Moo Hyun have demonstrated 
        their mutual willingness to forge a deeper alliance between the United 
        States and the Republic of Korea to enhance stability in East Asia;
Whereas the 29,000 United States armed services personnel who are stationed in 
        the Republic of Korea serve as a testament to the enduring strength of 
        the 1953 U.S.-R.O.K. Mutual Defense Treaty;
Whereas the foundation of the relationship between the United States and the 
        Republic of Korea rests on a shared interest in and commitment to peace, 
        democracy, and freedom on the Korean Peninsula, in Asia, and throughout 
        the world;
Whereas the Republic of Korea and the United States are both deeply committed to 
        the Six Party Talks and have a mutual interest in keeping the Korean 
        Peninsula free of nuclear weapons;
Whereas the Republic of Korea has more than 1,200 armed services personnel 
        deployed in Iraq, constituting the third largest coalition contingent in 
        Iraq behind the United States and the United Kingdom;
Whereas the Republic of Korea has more than 200 armed services personnel 
        deployed in Afghanistan; and
Whereas the Republic of Korea has pledged $460,000,000 toward reconstruction and 
        stabilization in postwar Iraq: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives recognizes the strong alliance 
between the Republic of Korea and the United States and expresses appreciation 
to the Republic of Korea for its contributions to international efforts to 
combat terrorism.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7239

MICHAEL R. SOUTHALL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT KUPEC, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-00-1246-AW)

Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 11, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael R. Southall, Appellant Pro Se. Celia Anderson Davis,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael R. Southall seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001), and his motion to reconsider. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Southall v. Kupec, No. CA-00-1246-AW (D. Md. filed Aug.

9, 2000; entered Aug. 10, 2000; Sept. 6, 2000); see also Crawley v.

Catoe, 257 F.3d 395 (4th Cir. 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case No. 8,177.

#### Ex parte LEE.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 197.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1832.

Clerk of Court — Pees—For Continuance.

If a case in equity be set for hearing as to some of the defendants, and, as to them, brought upon the docket of the court, and continued at the rules as to other defendants who are absent and who have not answered, the clerk has a right to charge his fees for the continuances at the rules.

Mr. Hewitt objected to the clerk’s bill of fees in a chancery attachment, in which he charged continuances at the rules, after the cause was set for hearing as to the resident defendants, and common order of publication as to the absent defendants, and before the order of publication was executed. The cause as to the resident defendants was transferred to the court docket, but as to the absent defendants it remained at the rules.

THE COURT

said it was a question of practice, and requested information as to the practice in the courts of Virginia. Mr. R. J. Taylor, said the practice was as stated by Mr. [E. J.] Lee. Precedents were also produced in the time of Colonel Deneale; and on this day (3d May, 1832) a letter from Mr. Phillips, the clerk of the court at Fau-quier, Virginia, was produced, confirming Mr. Lee’s statement of the practice.

THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent) decided the .point in favor of the clerk.
From: scottbmeister@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:33:11 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,

Scott Meister

Tampa, FL 33626
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form N-1A of our report dated February 26, 2008, relating to the
financial statements and financial highlights which appears in the December 31,
2007 Annual Report to Shareholders of California Daily Tax Free Income Fund,
Inc., which is also incorporated by reference into the Registration Statement.
We also consent to the references to us under the headings "Financial
Highlights", "Counsel and Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" and
"Financial Statements" in such Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
New York, New York
April 28, 2008
From: mberg@lmu.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:55:30 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 Berg

, CA 90045
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant

To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Intelsat
Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that to such officers knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /S/ DAVID
MCGLADE                    
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | David McGlade Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
From: carol@tbcvenice.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:13:01 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,

Carol Revels

Nokomis, FL 34275
From: whalenchas@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:55:47 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,

Charles Whalen

Montgomery Village, MD 20886
Motion Granted and Order filed June 6, 2022

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00361-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.Y.C, a Child

On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-02304J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a parental termination case.

The notice of appeal was filed May 17, 2022. Appellant has established 

indigence or is presumed to be indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a). The

reporter’s record was due within 10 days after the notice of appeal was filed. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). On May 27, 2022, a requested extension of 

time to file the reporter’s record was granted to June 6, 2022. The court reporter,

Kim Weidenheft, was notified no further extensions would be granted absent 

exceptional circumstances. 
On June 6, 2022, Kim Weidenheft filed a second request to extend time to 

file the reporter’s record, until June 16, 2022. We GRANT the motion.

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be 

brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is 

filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence 

the preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute reporter, 

if necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1). 

Accordingly, we further order Kim Weidenheft, the court reporter, to file the 

record in this appeal on or before June 6, 2022. If Kim Weidenheft does not 

timely file the record as ordered, the court will issue an order requiring her to 

appear at a hearing to show cause why the record has not been timely filed and 

why she should not be held in contempt of court for failing to file the record as 

ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan and Wilson.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marta Rivera, Also Known as Maria Rivera, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 122]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira F. Beal, J.), rendered September 14, 1993, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal possession and sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years imprisonment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case is remanded for new trial.

Defendant was arrested in March 1993 in a routine buy-and-bust operation on East 100th Street in Manhattan. The arresting officer testified in July, at a hearing on the People’s application for closure *(People v Hinton,*31 NY2d 71, *cert denied*410 US 911), that he had performed undercover assignments for the Manhattan North (above 77th Street) Tactical Narcotics Team in three different precincts over the past 11 months.

*299The purpose of the application was to preserve the officer’s safety and continued utility as an undercover. Defendant resisted the exclusion of her family (her husband, who was represented to have a clean record, and their children, ages 7 and 13), who had been the only spectators in the courtroom. The officer affirmed that he was still working "in the vicinity of * * * East 100th Street”, although his current assignment was the 34th precinct (155th to 203rd Streets). There was no testimony as to how many undercover cases—if any—he still had open in the precinct where defendant was arrested. The prosecutor asked the court merely to "rely on the testimony of the officer”, which is precisely what it did in sealing the courtroom for his trial testimony.

Manhattan’s 34th precinct is hardly in the "same vicinity” as East 100th Street *(Vidal v Williams,*31 F3d 67, 69, *cert denied*— US —, 115 S Ct 778). Absent an expression of particularized fear for safety or compromise, closure of the courtroom to defendant’s immediate family during the trial testimony of this key witness was unwarranted *(People v Martinez,*82 NY2d 436), and thus violated her constitutional right to a public trial *(People v Gutierez,*86 NY2d 817; *see, People v Kin Kan,*78 NY2d 54). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.
| Exhibit                32.2 |
|-----------------------------|

|   | 1. | The                Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as                amended; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                ANTHONY J. GALICI                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Anthony                J. Galici                                     |
| Vice                President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |
| April                18, 2006                                        |