alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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		14	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	aerial	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	vehicles,	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)	nonparticipating	spectators	will	be	asked	to	stay	a	safe	distance	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	

Grounds	for	prosperity	and	the	enjoyment	of	future	generations.		PETITIONER	will	provide	imagery	
which	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	understanding	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
i 

OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEli GENERALOF TW 

AUSTIN 

Hon. Geo. H. Sheppard 

Comptroller of Public 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Six-r 

You request 

Accounts 

\. : 

opinion HO; 0-7476 

Re: Under the revisions of 

Article 'f &1 televised Civil 

Statutes wikk the out-ofState coilecting and cokuercial 

agencies be assessed the gross 

recei ts 

i 

tax as provided under 

said rticle. And a related 

question. 

. 

inyour letter-of October 22, 1946, the opinion 

of this department upon theWt.gnestions in your letter, based upon 

the facts therein, which we quote as follows: 

~ArtC9.e 7061% C. S. provides as follows: 

*WEach iW.ividual,icompany, corporation or association, ormiilg, operating, managing or controll@g any 

collecting agency, cmrcial 

T 

ency or commercial reporting credit agency Hithin th s State, and charging . 

for collections madei or business done, or reports*made ' 

shall maWquarterly, on the first days of January, April, 

July and.Cetober of each year, a report to the Comptroller * 

under oath of the individual or of the president, treasurer, 

or superintendent of such company, corporation, or association, ahouing from business done within this State the 

gross amount received in the payment of charges for collections made and business done and re orts made during.the 

quarter next preceding. Such indiv E duals, companies, corpor&tione or associations at the time of making said report 

shall pay to the Treasurer of this State an occupation tax 

forthe~quarter beginning on said date equal to one-half of 

one per cent of scud gross reaeipts as shown by said report.* 

*No. 1. Collecting or commercial agencies or individuals 

who have offices outside of the State of Texas send agents 

into Texas who make contracts with Texas merchants to collect 

their delinquent accounts; the accounts and contracts are 

I.. 
207 
208
Exhibit
32.1





Statement
of Chief Executive Officer Furnished


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned, Kim S. Price, is the
President and Chief Executive Officer of Citizens South Banking Corporation (the
“Company”).





This statement is being furnished in
connection with the filing by the Company of the Company’s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”).





By execution of this statement, I
certify that to the best of my knowledge:





A)
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d))
      and





B)
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
  Report.




May 14,
      2009
                
                /s/
      Kim S. PriceDated
                
                Kim
      S. PricePresident
      and Chief Executive Officer


This
statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to Citizens South Banking Corporation and will be retained
by Citizens South Banking Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARK T. BAECHLE, :

Plaintiff :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4339

v. :

:

LUCENT, :

Defendant :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of September 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s letter dated

August 22, 2002 advising the Court that this case can be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 41.1(b),

and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil

Procedure of this Court (effective July 1995), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that

the above action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, pursuant to agreement of counsel. 

BY THE COURT:

 

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

 

Case 2:02-cv-04399-MMB Document 6 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 64804.

#### Ross Products, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/33602, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dice the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 64186, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 21



LIST OF THE PHOENIX COMPANIES, INC. SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                 |  |                              
|------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                             |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|AGL Life Insurance Company                       |  | Pennsylvania                 
|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                  
|PFG Holdings, Inc.                               |  | Pennsylvania                 
|Philadelphia Financial Group, Inc.               |  | Delaware                     
|PHL Variable Insurance Company                   |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Distribution Holding Company             |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Equity Planning Corporation              |  | Delaware                     
|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 and Reassurance Company of New York |  | New York                     
|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                  
|PractiCare, Inc.                                 |  | Delaware                     
|The Phoenix Companies, Inc.                      |  | Delaware
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

AGSOUTH GENETICS LLC AND UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA RESEARCH FOU NDATION, INC., Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v.

GEORGIA FARM SERVICE S LLC, Defendant

- Appellant,

AND

E AND I DIVERSIFIED FARM SERVICE INC, TERRELL PEANUT COMPA NY, AND EDWARD PARKER, Individually
, Defendants

,

AND

JIM USRY, Respondent

.

______________________

2014

- 1571

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia in No. 1:09

- cv

- 00186

- WLS, Judge W. Louis Sands.

______________________AGSOUTH GENETICS LLC v. GEORGIA FARM SERVICE S LLC 2

ON MOTION

______________________ O R D E R

Upon consideration of Georgia Farm Services, LLC’s unopposed motion to withdraw its appeal,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s25

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: 11

- 14

- 14
Before the Second Division,

May 6, 1968

No. P68/233.

protest 67/51138 (New York).

#### S. Hiller & Co. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of disc tumbler padlocks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Shriro Trading Corp.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 422, C.D. 2669), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 3.4**

 

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENTTO THERESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATIONOFAXT, INC.

 

Morris S. Youngand Donald L. Tatzin certify that:

 

1.             They are the dulyelected and acting President and Secretary, respectively, of AXT, Inc. (the“Corporation”), a corporation duly organized and existing under the GeneralCorporation Law of the State of Delaware, in accordance with the provisions ofSections 228 and 242 thereof, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:

 

2.             That the amendment tothe Corporation’s Restated Certificate of Incorporation set forth in thefollowing resolution has been approved in accordance with the provisions ofSections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

 

“RESOLVED, thatthe first Paragraph of the FOURTH Article of the Corporation’s RestatedCertificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety asfollows:

 

FOURTH:

 

STOCK

 

The Corporation isauthorized to issue two classes of stock to be designated, respectively,“Preferred Stock” and “Common Stock.”  Thetotal number of shares of Preferred Stock the Corporation shall have authorityto issue is 2,000,000, $.001 par value per share, and the total number ofshares of Common Stock the Corporation shall have authority to issue is70,000,000, $.001 par value per share. The shares of Preferred Stock shall initially be undesignated as toseries.”

 

IN WITNESSWHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment to the Restated Certificate ofIncorporation has been executed on behalf of the Corporation by its Presidentand attested by Donald L. Tatzin, its Secretary, this 24th day of May, 2001.

 

 
|    | AXT, INC.                    |
|---------|------------------------------|
|    |                         |
|    |                         |
|    | By:                          |   | /s/ Morris S. Young |   |
|    |                         | Morris S. Young,  President |
|    |
|    |
| ATTEST: |
|    |
|    |
| By:     |                         | /s/ Donald L. Tatzin |   |
|    | Donald L. Tatzin,  Secretary |
|         |                              |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

----
Exhibit 13.1



Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of América Móvil, S.A. de C.V., a sociedad anónima de capital variableorganized under the laws of Mexico (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as amended by this Form 20-F/A (the Form 20-F), of the Company
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                     |  |        |  |                                          
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: July 23, 2004 |  |        |  | /s/    DANIEL HAJJ
ABOUMRAD              
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Daniel Hajj Aboumrad                     
|                     |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer                  
|                     |  |       
|Dated: July 23, 2004 |  |        |  | /s/    CARLOS JOSÉ GARCÍA MORENO
ELIZONDO
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Carlos José García Moreno Elizondo       
|                     |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer                  



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to América Móvil and will be retained by América Móvil and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Smith *vs.*Dobbins *et al.,*executors.

Where the evidence was conflicting, and the court granted a first new trial, this court will not interfere therewith.

December 12, 1887.

New trial. Before Judge Fain. ' Bartow superior court, January term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

R. B. Trippe and A. S. Johnson, for plaintiff.

M. R. Stansell and J. M. Neel, for defendants.

*345Blandford, Justice.

In this case, Smith obtained a j udgment against Wo fiord; execution issued and certain land was- levied upon, to which Dobbins interposed a claim. On the trial of the claim case, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in execution, finding $800 worth of the land levied on subject to *thefi.fa.*The claimant moved for anew trial, on several grounds. A new trial was granted by the, court.

This was the first grant of a new trial in this case. The testimony was conflicting as to whether the property was subject or not. The court was not satisfied with the verdict and granted a new trial. We do not think he abused the discretion which the law vested in him; and the judgment is affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40855 Conference Calendar

TONY LEE BLACKLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RICHARD MORRIS, Major; THOMAS BOUGHNER, Captain; DANIEL DOMINGUEZ, Sergeant; ONY TREVINO, Correctional Officer IV; NORMA SAENZ, Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. C-03-CV-94

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Tony Lee Blacklock, Texas prisoner # 660791, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. Blacklock argues that the prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his need for protection from the other inmates. Blacklock further alleges that Thomas Boughner and Norma Saenz violated his civil rights by reducing his classification status, placing him on restriction,No. 03-40855 -2- and failing to interview witnesses in connection with a disciplinary hearing. Blacklock has not stated a cognizable claim for relief by showing both that the conditions of his incarceration posed “a substantial risk of serious harm” and that prison officials exhibited deliberate indifference to his need for protection. Newton v. Black , 133 F.3d 301, 308 (5th Cir. 1998). Blacklock fails to state a constitutional claim arising out of the disciplinary hearing. See Harper v. Showers , 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court did not err in dismissing Blacklock’s complaint. Because Blacklock’s appeal is without arguable merit, it is
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s dismissal of Blacklock’s complaint for failure to state a claim count as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996) . Blacklock previously earned two strikes in Blacklock v. Hamilton , No. 97-10304 (5th Cir. Oct. 21, 1997) (dismissing as frivolous an appeal from the district court’s dismissal as frivolous), and he was cautioned in that opinion that future frivolous civil suits and appeals filed by him would invite the imposition of sanctions. Because Blacklock has accumulated at least three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he is BARRED from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil actionNo. 03-40855 -3- or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915 BAR IMPOSED.
# C_2016243EN.01002101.xml

| 4.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 20 April 2016 — MIP-TS OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

(Case C-222/16)

(2016/C 243/22)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: MIP-TS OOD

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the scope of Article 1(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 of 3 August 2011 include the importation of fibreglass open mesh fabrics, of a cell size of more than 1,8 mm both in length and in width and weighing more than 35 g/m2, excluding fibreglass discs, currently classified under CN codes ex 7019 51 00 and ex 7019 59 00 (TARIC codes 7019 51 00 10 and 7019 59 00 10), in respect of which those goods were declared under the procedure ‘release for free circulation and end use’ on 10 April 2012 as originating in Thailand and shipped from that country, whereas in fact they originated in the People’s Republic of China, as established within the framework of OLAF’s investigation procedure and report carried out under Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council?

2

---
II 

Calendar No. 20 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 140 

[Report No. 115–7] 

To amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification 

Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts in the WMAT Settlement Fund. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 12, 2017 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

MARCH 21, 2017 

Reported by Mr. HOEVEN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights 

Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the use of amounts 

in the WMAT Settlement Fund. 

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

3 SECTION 1. USE OF FUNDS IN WMAT SETTLEMENT FUND 

4 FOR WMAT RURAL WATER SYSTEM. 

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF WMAT RURAL WATER SYS6 TEM.—Section 307(a) of the White Mountain Apache 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 140 RS

1 Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010 (Public 

2 Law 111–291; 124 Stat. 3080) is amended in the matter 

3 preceding paragraph (1) by inserting ‘‘, (b)(2),’’ after 

4 ‘‘subsections (a)’’. 

5 (b) FUNDING.—Section 312(b)(2)(C)(i)(III) of the 

6 White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantifica7 tion Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–291; 124 Stat. 3093) 

8 is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 

9 the following: ‘‘, including the planning, design, and con10 struction of the WMAT rural water system, in accordance 

11 with section 307(a).’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 20 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 140 

[Report No. 115–7] 

A BILL 

To amend the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water 

use of amounts in the WMAT Settlement Fund. Rights Quantification Act of 2010 to clarify the 

MARCH 21, 2017 

Reported without amendment 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS