alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AFS-15-997-E December 28, 2015

Mr. Michael Stewart Those Amazing Performers LLC DBA Team AeroDynamix

110 Aviation Lane

Gold Hill, NC 28071

Dear Mr. Stewart:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption (and explains why we cannot process your request) from § 91.319(c) of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

You entered your petition for exemption on March 27, 2015, into public docket (No. FAA2015-0798) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Those Amazing Performers LLC, and doing business as (DBA) Team AeroDynamix, from 14 CFR § 91.319(c). That exemption, if granted, would provide broad relief that would permit Those Amazing Performers LLC, DBA Team AeroDynamix, to conduct overflights of various stadiums and sporting events in aircraft having experimental certificates.

14 CFR § 91.319(c) in part states that:

“...no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with terms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of safety in air

commerce.”

The FAA considers a stadium or sporting event to be an open air assembly of people subject to regulation under § 91.119(b). Many stadiums and sporting events, however, will also be2

located around a densely populated area. In such cases, ingress, egress, and holding paths for stadium flyover events involving experimental ai rcraft would require an exemption from

§ 91.319.

In your petition, you did not provide the FAA w ith sufficient information about each flyover event (e.g. aircraft to be used, stadium to be overflown, geographical area surrounding the stadium) to know whether a particular flyover would involve flight over a densely populated area. As such, your petition for exemption provides insufficient information upon which the FAA could base a grant of exemption. Furthermore, a grant of exemption is an individualized assessment that involves a determination that an equivalent level of safety to that provided under the regulations can be maintained. Without specific information about each intended flyover event, the FAA cannot make this assessment. The FAA will not grant a general “blanket” authority for such flyovers, and we recommend that you file individualized petitions for exemption for each intended flyover event.

In consideration of the forgoing, the FAA will take no further action on your request for exemption from 14 CFR § 91.319(c), and will close the docket on the petition. If you have any questions, you may call TJ Leahy, at (202) 267-0861, or email thomas.j.leahy@faa.gov.

Sincerely,

//s//

James M. Crotty Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division Office of Rulemaking
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 4.72

ENGLISH SUMMARY OF THE ADVERTISMENT OPERATION AGREEMENT (THE "AGREEMENT") DATED
NOVEMBER 20, 2007 BETWEEN TIANJIN SATELLITE TELEVISION ("TJSTV") AND Shanghai
Lang Yi Advertising Co., Ltd. ("LANG YI"), And TWO SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS DATED
November 20, 2007, WHICH WERE PREPARED IN CHINESE.

TJSTV and Lang Yi agree that Lang Yi will be the exclusive advertising agent for
non-4A category one advertisements of TJSTV for specific time slots of its
television programs. The Agreement is effective for a period of three years from
2008 to 2010, with an option for TJSTV and Lang Yi to extend for an additional
two years.

Lang Yi is responsible for 85% of the advertisements during the specific time
slots and TJSTV will sell the remaining 15% of the specific time slots to 4A
category one advertisers.

The advertisements can be in a variety of formats, including but not limited to,
traditional television advertisement, sponsorship of television programs and
product placements in television programs. The advertisements provided by Lang
Yi are required to comply with relevant PRC rules and regulations, and TJSTV has
the right to review such advertisements and request Lang Yi to make amendments
in order to comply with relevant PRC rules and regulations and technical
standards.

Lang Yi is entitled to receive all revenues from the advertising services and
shall pay an annual operation fee to TJSTV, which will be increased annually by
not less than 20% after negotiation between Lang Yi and TJSTV. In addition, Lang
Yi is required to pay an annual advanced deposit to TJSTV to guarantee its
performance of the Agreement, such amount will be deducted from the annual
operation fee. TJSTV has the right to terminate the Agreement if payment from
Lang Yi is delayed for more than 30 days.

TJSTV is responsible for the landing rights and will take into account the
reasonable suggestions of Lang Yi.

During the term of the Agreement, TJSTV shall maintain its national popularity
ranking. If TJSTV fails to be in the top ten popularity ranking for four months,
Lang Yi has the right to terminate the Agreement.

Disputes regarding the Agreement will be settled through negotiation between
TJSTV and Lang Yi, and arbitration by China International Economic and Trade
Arbitration Commission.

The above is a summary of the material terms of the Agreement.
No. 56985.

#### Trans World Shipping Corp. v. United States,

protest 183745-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
# C_2017231EN.01002302.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/23

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission

(Case T-207/16 R)

((Interim measures - Public contracts - Disclaimer notice - Screening opinion - Application for a stay of execution - Lack of urgency))

(2017/C 231/29)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TEFU seeking a stay of execution of the general exclusion decision concerning the applicant in the Early Warning System or in the Early Detection and Exclusion System.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
----

----

I Tiedonantoja

Neuvosto

----

Tiedotus viljojen kauppaa koskevan vuoden 1995 yleissopimuksen jatkamisesta

(2006/C 160/01)

Kansainvälinen viljaneuvosto päätti 21. kokouksessaan (Lontoo, 14.6.2005) viljojen kauppaa koskevan vuoden 1995 yleissopimuksen (1) määräysten mukaisesti jatkaa yleissopimusta kahdella vuodella 30.6.2007 asti.

----

(1)EYVL L 21, 27.1.1996, s. 47.

----

Komissio

----

Euron kurssi (1)

10. heinäkuuta 2006

(2006/C 160/02)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Lähde: Euroopan keskuspankin ilmoittama viitekurssi.

----

----

Ilmoitus jäsenvaltioiden päätöksistä myöntää tai peruuttaa toimilupia lentoliikenteen harjoittajien toimiluvista annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2407/92 13 artiklan 4 kohdan mukaisesti (1) (2)

(2006/C 160/03)

(ETA:n kannalta merkityksellinen)

ITÄVALTA

Myönnetyt toimiluvat

Luokka A:   Toimiluvat, joihin ei sovelleta asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2407/92 5 artiklan 7 kohdan a alakohdassa säädettyjä rajoituksia

Peruutetut toimiluvat

Luokka A:   Toimiluvat, joihin ei sovelleta asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2407/92 5 artiklan 7 kohdan a alakohdassa säädettyjä rajoituksia

Luokka B:   Toimiluvat, joihin sovelletaan asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2407/92 5 artiklan 7 kohdan a alakohdassa säädettyjä rajoituksia

----

(1)EYVL L 240, 24.8.1992, s. 1.

(2)  Lähetetty Euroopan komissiolle ennen 31.8.2005.

----

----

Ilmoitus jäsenvaltioiden päätöksistä myöntää tai peruuttaa toimilupia lentoliikenteen harjoittajien toimiluvista annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2407/92 13 artiklan 4 kohdan mukaisesti (1) (2)

(2006/C 160/04)

(ETA:n kannalta merkityksellinen)

TANSKA

Myönnetyt toimiluvat

Luokka B:   Toimiluvat, joihin sovelletaan asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2407/92 5 artiklan 7 kohdan a alakohdassa säädettyjä rajoituksia

----

(1)EYVL L 240, 24.8.1992, s. 1.

(2)  Lähetetty Euroopan komissiolle ennen 31.8.2005.

----

----

Ennakkoilmoitus yrityskeskittymästä

(Asia COMP/M.4244 — Ravago/Muehlstein)

Yksinkertaistettuun menettelyyn mahdollisesti soveltuva asia

(2006/C 160/05)

(ETA:n kannalta merkityksellinen teksti)

----

(1)EUVL L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

(2)EUVL C 56, 5.3.2005, s. 32.

----

----

Luettelo virastoista ja laboratorioista, jotka kolmannet maat ovat valtuuttaneet täyttämään pakolliset asiakirjat, joiden on seurattava jokaista yhteisöön tuotavaa viinierää

(Asetuksen (EY) N:o 883/2001 29 artikla)

(2006/C 160/06)

(Tällä luettelolla korvataan 31 päivänä joulukuuta 2005 Euroopan unionin virallisessa lehdessä C 336 julkaistu luettelo)

----
Reap. Dec. 10965.

#### Manhattan Novelty Corp. *v.*United States,

Motion by plaintiff.
Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 34 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 34 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-20143-HB Document 34 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
**Part 2Fiscal Year 2015 Reporting**

**SupplementSection III**

**PROPOSED CHANGES TO CURRENT TRANSACTION CODES  FOR FISCAL 2015**

**T/L S2 14-01 III  - 1IRC Handout April 22, 2014**
Eric	Hinders

Eric	Hinders	Photography 2813	53rd	st	Des	Moines,	IA	50310 319

- 415

- 5200 EricHinders@gmail.com EricHinders.com January	21st,	2016 **Petition	for	Section	333	Exemption** I	hereby	formally	request	FAA	authorization	for	Eric	M.	Hinders.

- dba/	Eric	Hinders	Photography (hereafter	“PETITIONER”)	to	operate	a	UAS	for	civil	(non

- governmental)	purposes	other	than	for recreation	or	hobby. PETITIONER	requests	to	be	exempted	from		1 4	CFR	§§	61.23(a)	and	(c),	61.101(e)(4)	and	(5), 61.113(a),	61.315(a),	91.7(a),	91.119(c),	91.121,	91.151(a)(1),	91.405(a),	91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)	and	(2),	and	91.417(a)	and	(b),	to	the	extent	necessary	to	allow	PETITIONER	to operate	a	UAS	to	perform	a erial	data	collection,	including	but	not	limited	to	aerial	imaging. PETITIONER	requests	this	exemption	for	its	use	of	UAS	both	within	and	without	the	United	States. PETITIONER	frequently	travels	abroad	for	photographic	endeavors	and	seeks	to	use	UAS	in accordance	with	all	laws	of	foreign	and	domestic	governmental	authorities. PETITIONER	requests	this	permission	to	pursue	its	use	of	UAS	models	including	DJI	Phantom	3 Professional,	or	other	similar	commercially

- available	and	widely

- available	UAS	models. PETITIONER	will	conduct	its	use	of	UAS	in	a	manner	which	will	minimize	risk	to	the	NAS,	other persons,	and	property.		The	following	procedures	will	be	followed:	(1)	UAS	will	be	given	a	pre

- flight inspection	before	each	flight	to	examine	airworthiness,	(2) UAS	will	not	be	materially	altered	from commercial	specifications	except	for	battery,	prop,	and	battery	alterations,	(3)	UAS	will	not	be flown	over	people,	(4)	UAS	will	always	be	flown	within	line	of	sight	to	operator(s)	pursuant	to Section	333(b)(1),	(5) UAS	will	never	reach	altitudes	over	exceeding	those	allowed,	(6)	UAS	will never	reach	speeds	exceeding	50	mph,	(7)	operator	will	perform	a	preflight	visual	inspection	of	the NAS	to	determine	nearby	dangers	such	as	low

- flying	manned	or	unmanned	aerial	vehi cles,	power lines,	and	buildings,	(8)	UAS	will	be	checked	for	flight	stability,	proper	connection	to	remote control,	and	proper	performance	at	a	very	low	altitude	before	reaching	the	NAS,	and	(9)	non

participating	spectators	will	be	asked	to	stay	a	safe	di stance	away	from	the	flight	path	of	the	UAS and	its	landing	location.		PETITIONER	is	an	experienced	UAS	operator	with	more	than	one	year	of experience. This	petition	will	benefit	the	public	interest.	PETITIONER	photographs	and	Video	Public	Parks	and Groun ds	for	prosperity	and	the	enjoyment	of	future	generations.		PETITIONER	will	provide	imagerywhich	is	not	otherwise	possible	to	be	captured	without	the	use	of	a	UAV,	which	will	assist

companies	to	which	the	images	may	be	sold,	will	enhance	the	public	unders tanding	of	nature photographed	by	the	UAS,	and	PETITIONER	will	be	able	to	provide	UAS	safety	information	to	those with	whom	he	or	she	comes	in	contact. Please	grant	the	requested	exemption	under	Section	333.

Eric	M.	Hinders. dba/	Eric	Hinders	Photography
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

____________________________________ 

 ) 

BARBARA A. DWYER, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff ) CIVIL ACTION 

 ) 

 v. ) NO: 02-CV-4353 

 ) 

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ) 

 ) 

 Defendant ) 

____________________________________) 

 ORDER

 AND NOW, this ____ day of _____________, 2002, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

THAT: 

1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint For Improper Venue is 

GRANTED. 

 2. The Complaint is hereby DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 _________________________________ 

 Weiner, Charles R., J. 

Case 2:02-cv-04353-CRW Document 7-2 Filed 11/01/2002 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,883
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,883
<PP&E>                                       3,235,222<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,244,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,185
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,324,306
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,468,628)<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,244,105
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,788
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,788)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,788)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,788)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
<FN>
<F1>Consists of $3,235,222 in resource properties and claims.
<F2>Consists of $137,630 deficit in additional paid-in capital plus a deficit of
$1,330,998 accumulated during the development stage.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2018032EN.01002701.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (360o)

o

(Case T-332/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark 360o - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

o

(2018/C 032/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2016 (Case R 2288/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign 360o as an EU trade mark.

o

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Colgate-Palmolive Co. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Colgate-Palmolive Co. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

1

---
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 Report of ZymoGenetics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Douglas E. Williams, Chief Executive Officer and James A. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained
in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:
February 26, 2010



/s/ DOUGLAS E. WILLIAMSDouglas E. WilliamsChief Executive Officer/s/ JAMES A. JOHNSONJames A. JohnsonChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21



LIST OF THE PHOENIX COMPANIES, INC. SUBSIDIARIES



|                                              |  |                              
|--------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                          |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|1851 Securities, Inc.                         |  | Delaware                     
|American Phoenix Life and Reassurance Company |  | Connecticut                  
|Goodwin Capital Advisers, Inc.                |  | New York                     
|Holland Re Holdings, LLC                      |  | Delaware                     
|Holland Re, Inc.                              |  | South Carolina               
|Next Generation Ventures LLC                  |  | Connecticut                  
|PHL Variable Insurance Company                |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Distribution Holding Company          |  | Connecticut                  
|The Phoenix Foundation                        |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Founders, Inc.                        |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix International Capital Corporation     |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Investment Management Company         |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Life and Annuity Company              |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Life Insurance Company                |  | New York                     
|Phoenix Life Solutions, Inc.                  |  | Delaware                     
|Phoenix National Trust Holding Company        |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix New England Trust Holding Company     |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Variable Advisors, Inc.               |  | Delaware                     
|PM Holdings, Inc.                             |  | Connecticut                  
|PML International Insurance Limited           |  | Bermuda                      
|Practicare, Inc.                              |  | Delaware                     
|Saybrus Equity Services, Inc.                 |  | Delaware                     
|Saybrus Holdings, Inc.                        |  | Delaware                     
|Saybrus Partners, Inc.                        |  | Delaware                     
|The Phoenix Companies, Inc. (Parent)          |  | Delaware
Case 2:02-cv-04379-JG Document 11-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04379-JG Document 11-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04379-JG Document 11-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04379-JG Document 11-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04379-JG Document 11-2 Filed 02/17/2004 Page 5 of 5
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 138 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 138 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 138 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 138 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 138 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 138 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 138 Filed 02/09/2005 Page 7 of 7
1. Judge Scuderi recommended that we remand this matter to

enable the Commissioner to reconsider: (1) plaintiff's

impairments in assessing her residual functional capacity; (2)

the impact of plaintiff's functional limitations on the

occupational base; and (3) plaintiff's subjective complaints of

pain. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MILAGROS LUDY : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART : No. 05-2440 

 ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2006, upon

consideration of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (docket

entry # 6), defendant's motion for summary judgment (docket entry

# 7), the February 28, 2006 Report and Recommendation of the

Honorable Peter B. Scuderi (docket entry # 9), and defendant's

failure to object within ten days of service of the Report and

Recommendation, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the

letter accompanying the Report and Recommendation, and the Court,

in any event, agreeing with Judge Scuderi's cogent analysis, it 1

is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and

ADOPTED;

2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED;

3. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED

IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and this matter is REMANDED to the

Commissioner for further consideration; and

Case 2:05-cv-02440-SD Document 10 Filed 03/20/06 Page 1 of 2
2. If the parties conclude that attorney's fees and costs are

warranted and agree on an amount, they shall file a stipulation

by March 31, 2006.

-2-

4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this matter statistically.2

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Stewart Dalzell, J. 

Case 2:05-cv-02440-SD Document 10 Filed 03/20/06 Page 2 of 2