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

August 7, 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 UAS Focus, LLC 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, UAS Focus, LLC 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 3D Robotics X8+ within the National Airspace 

System (NAS) for controlled, low-risk, aerial surveying and engineering, remote sensing, 

agriculture and ranching purposes, real estate photography, construction site inspections 

and monitoring, power line, stack and pipeline inspections, tower inspections, surface 

mining, wildlife and forestry monitoring, timber monitoring, law enforcement and first 

responders, and educational and training operations 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. 

UAS Focus, LLC 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). 

UAS Focus, LLC 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, UAS Focus, LLC will be utilizing the same 3D Robotics X8+ proven 

technologies the FAA has already accepted and approved in numerous other approved 

exemptions. All of the appropriate documentation to accompany UAS Focus, LLC
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

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

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com

Section 333 Petition is included. 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 necessary to the FAA for a Summary Grant of UAS Focus, 

LLC’s Section 333 Petition and expedite the process. 

Kelly J. Neubecker

CEO

UASolutions Group, Inc.

CC:

Bill Crozier

Joe Morra

Jake Troutman

Dean Griffith, Esq.

Robert Papas
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 188 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 188

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

      Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Commending Greece and Turkey for their mutual and swift response to the 
    recent earthquakes in both countries by providing to each other 
               humanitarian assistance and rescue relief.

Whereas Greece and Turkey, two longstanding allies of the United States and 
        North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners, have each recently 
        suffered devastating earthquakes;
Whereas Greece and Turkey have unresolved issues that have led to tensions in 
        the past;
Whereas Greece and Turkey, in an unprecedented fashion, were the first to 
        respond to these tragedies by providing their neighboring country with 
        humanitarian assistance and rescue relief that ultimately reduced the 
        number of casualties;
Whereas Greece and Turkey were successful in putting aside their differences in 
        order to respond swiftly to these crises; and
Whereas Greece and Turkey have held successful talks to begin to resolve their 
        issues of disagreement: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) commends Greece and Turkey for their mutual and swift 
        response to the recent earthquakes in both countries by 
        providing to each other humanitarian assistance and rescue 
        relief;
            (2) encourages the United States to continue its efforts in 
        aiding both countries as they seek to rebuild after these 
        tragedies;
            (3) recognizes the renewed spirit of cooperation and the 
        importance of the talks between Greece and Turkey; and
            (4) encourages Greece and Turkey to persevere in resolving 
        outstanding issues between the two countries.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 26, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

DAT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

HERIBERTO MARTINEZ-CHACON, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-10556

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00783-GMS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 

Heriberto Martinez-Chacon appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 52-

month sentence for attempted illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 

8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

FILED

DEC 16 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DAT/Research 2 08-10556

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Martinez-Chacon’s

counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion

to withdraw as counsel of record. Martinez-Chacon has filed a pro se supplemental

brief requesting an evidentiary hearing, the Government has filed a motion to

dismiss instead of an answering brief, and Martinez-Chacon has filed a pro se

response to the motion to dismiss.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, all pending

motions are DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

WASHINGTON, O. C. 2055]

ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD

August 3, 2017

Ms. Tanya Williams
7258 Kingspoint Court
Riverdale, Georgia 30296

Dear Ms. Williams:

The General Counsel, acting pursuant to delegated authority, and after
consultation with the Director of the Division of Supervision and Regulation, has approved your
request pursuant to section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act! to become an institution-
affiliated party of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”),
Bloomington, Illinois, a savings and loan holding company (“SLHC”). This approval is limited
to your being an institution-affiliated party of State Farm, including by working for an
independently owned agency that sells State Farm insurance products and products for State
Farm’s wholly owned subsidiary, State Farm Bank, f.s.b. (“State Farm Bank”), Bloomington,
Illinois. If you seek to work for another SLHC or bank holding company (“BHC”), or an
independently owned agency that sells products for another SLHC or BHC, you must obtain the
Board’s approval to do so.

This action is based on all the facts of record and representations made by you to
the Board in connection with your request. Any change in the facts presented could result ina
different conclusion and should be reported immediately to Board staff. These representations
constitute conditions imposed in writing in connection with the findings and decision herein and,
as such, may be enforced in proceedings under applicable law. This action is also conditioned
specifically on your receipt of all necessary regulatory approvals and compliance with any terms
and conditions that may be imposed upon such approvals. Additionally, if you are convicted of,
or enter into a pretrial diversion program for, a crime involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or
money laundering in the future, you must again seek approval to work for any SLHC, BHC, or
independently owned agency that sells products for an SLHC or BHC, including any agency that
sells States Farm and State Farm Bank products.

Sincerely,
Margoats 11) Sranhte
mer

MargaretMcCloskey Shanks
Deputy Secretary of the Board

112 U.S.C. § 1829.
No. 55721.

protest 131932-K (New York).

#### Kurtz Importing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of alabaster beads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1020). The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was therefore sustained.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE 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. Sections 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of America Service Group
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Dated:  May 10, 2004

                                               Name: /s/ Michael Catalano
                                                     --------------------------
                                               Title: Chairman, President &
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

                                       34
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 223

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 10, 1999

Received

NOVEMBER 19, 1999

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding Freedom

Day.

Whereas on November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall was torn

down by those whom it had imprisoned;

Whereas the fall of the Berlin Wall has become the preeminent symbol of the end of the Cold War;

Whereas the Cold War, at its essence, was a struggle for

human freedom;
2

HCON 223 RFS

Whereas the end of the Cold War was brought about in large

measure by the dedication, sacrifice, and discipline of

Americans and many other peoples around the world

united in their opposition to Soviet Communism;

Whereas freedom’s victory in the Cold War against Soviet

Communism is the crowning achievement of the free

world’s long 20th century struggle against totalitarianism; and

Whereas it is highly appropriate to remind Americans, particularly those in their formal educational years, that

America paid the price and bore the burden to ensure the

survival of liberty on this planet: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) a Freedom Day should be celebrated each

4 year in the United States; and

5 (2) the United States should join with other na6 tions, specifically including those which liberated

7 themselves to help end the Cold War, to establish a

8 global holiday called Freedom Day.

Passed the House of Representatives November 9,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

EARL MORRISHOW JR,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5117M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( x ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( X ) Multiple prior warrants for failure to appear for other court hearings..

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 July 5, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05455-BHS Document 9 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE CO., 

Plaintiff,

v.

FIRST FINANCIAL INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant.

Case No. C05-2098RSL

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on a motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff

American States Insurance Company (“ASIC”). ASIC requests that the Court reconsider the

portion of its December 28, 2007 Order Regarding Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt.

#77, the “Order”) that held that defendant First Financial did not breach its duty to defend PHB

LLC in the underlying action. ASIC does not contest the remainder of the Order.

ASIC argues that the Court erroneously found that the complaint in the underlying action

made allegations of defective work only against the partnership. ASIC notes that the underlying

complaint referred to both the partnership and the LLC collectively as “Professional

Homebuilders” and all subsequent allegations were directed at “Professional Homebuilders.” 

However, the underlying complaint alleged that the LLC was not formed until 2000. Prior to

that time, in 1998, the partnership entered into a contract to perform the relevant work and

Case 2:05-cv-02098-RSL Document 79 Filed 01/14/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

“provided labor and material at the Heritage Ridge Apartments ostensibly pursuant to the PHB

contract.” Underlying Complaint at ¶ 3.4 (emphasis added). The Underlying Complaint did not

explicitly allege that the LLC contracted to or performed any of the work and the timing alleged

in the complaint undermines any such inference. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, __ U.S. __,

127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007).

ASIC also alleges that the Court erred in finding that the LLC was sued as a successor in

interest to the partnership. However, the underlying complaint stated that the LLC “is the

successor in interest to PHB.” Underlying Complaint at ¶ 3.7.

In addition, ASIC argues that whether its late notice prejudiced First Financial is a fact

issue. However, that issue can be decided on a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g.,

MacLean Townhomes v. Am. States Ins. Co., 138 Wn. App. 186 (2007) (on a motion for

summary judgment, finding prejudice to the insurance company where its insured, without

notice, submitted its claims to binding arbitration, thereby “remov[ing] judicial remedies that the

insurer may have had”).

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES ASIC’s motion for reconsideration

(Dkt. #78).

DATED this 14th day of January, 2008.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02098-RSL Document 79 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 2
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00088-CV

__________________

MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM OF EAST TEXAS D/B/A CHI ST. 

LUKE’S HEALTH MEMORIAL, Appellant

V.

EDWARD SIMON, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CIV30598

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorial Health System of East Texas d/b/a CHI St. Luke’s Health Memorial 

(Memorial) moved to dismiss its appeal, asserting the trial court granted the 

plaintiff’s (Edward Simon’s) agreed motion for nonsuit and disposed of all the 

claims that are relevant to the appeal. Memorial made its motion voluntarily and 

filed it before we decided the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party 
2

appealed. We conclude the motion should be granted, so we grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 9, 2021

Opinion Delivered June 10, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

TOBY MASSE ,

Plaintiff, JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

 SIGNEY CLARK, et al., CASE NUMBER: C06-5375RBL/KLS

 Defendants,

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried

and the jury has rendered its verdict.

X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been

tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

The Court Adopts the Report and Recommendation.

Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. #21) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

 May 21, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

 /s/ Pat LeFrois 

 Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05375-RBL Document 38 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 1
P.1 

OAR Box 1112 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

45) ll-C-7 

Docket Number: 

A-83-22 

Printed 4/16/2008 9:12:07AM Sheet 45 of 97 
P.2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A "<$ J ~ 2_- £_ 

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK —fT ,_ /* _K , 

NORTH CAROLINA 27711 _£X - •— / 

May 30, 198U 

Mr. Leonard Bruckman 

Director, Air Compliance 

Department of Environmental Protection 

State of Connecticut 

State Office Building 

Hartford, Connecticut 06115 

RE: MM82-333, Request for an Equivalent Method Determination for Low-Volume 

Lead Sampler 

Dear Mr. Bruckman: 

In regard to your letter of April 2, I98U, I hope that the following 

comments will help to explain why we approved your low-volume lead sampler 

as a modification of the reference method (under Section 2.8 of Appendix C 

of UO CFR Part 58, Modifications of Methods by Users), rather than designating it as an equivalent method (reference our letter of approval, dated 

February 29, 198U). 

As you, of course, know, the low-volume lead sampler is very similar to 

the conventional high-volume sampler specified in the Federal Reference 

Method for Lead (UO CFR Part 50, Appendix G), and the analytical procedure 

is identical. The only principle difference is the much lower air sample 

flow rate of the low-volume sampler and the different hardware needed to 

maintain and meter this lower flow rate. While these differences are certainly not trivial, they also do not, in our opinion, constitute an extensive departure from the reference method. Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate 

to approve the low-volume sampler as a modification to the reference method 

under Section 2.8. 

More importantly, approval of a modification to a reference method under 

Section 2.8 restricts use of the modification to a specific area, as opposed 

to the universal availability provided by designation as an equivalent method. 

In this case, this restriction is appropriate for two reasons. First, while 

your tests demonstrated to our satisfaction an acceptable agreement between 

lead samples collected by the low-volume and high-volume samplers in your 

area, we are not sure that such agreement would necessarily be found in all 

areas of the country where an equivalent method might be used. We therefore 

feel that additional testing may be necessary before the low-volume sampler 

could be approved for use in other areas or for universal use as an equivalent method. 

Secondly, the level and degree of documentation of the design, construction, operation and quality assurance procedures of the modified sampler, 

while adequate for your own use of the sampler within Connecticut, is not 
P.3 

Jf% 

-2-

sufficient to readily allow use or adoption of the sampler by other monitoring agencies. 

I hope that this explanation helps you understand our decision, and that 

you will contact us again if you wish to discuss the matter further. 

Sincerely yours, 

fjLJZtiu 

Frank F. McElroy 

For: Larry J. Purdue, Chief 

Methods Standardization Branch 

Quality Assurance Division (MD-77) 

Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Registration Statement of Osage Systems Group,
Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated March 24, 1997. We understand that certain
presentations have been restated for purposes of this Registration Statement to
be consistent with successor auditor's presentation.

We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
prospectus.



/s/ Pearce, Gray & Rudd
PEARCE, GRAY & RUDD, CPAs
Mesa, Arizona



June 25, 1999