alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE May 13, 2015

Washington, DC 20590

Regarding: Amendment to Aquilo Exemption No. 13517 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–3548 to 

include additional aircraft as follows.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Aquilo was issued a Section 333 exemption for operation in the national airspace. Aquilo hereby 

requests an amendment to that exemption to allow additional Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) with 

no changes in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for 

the FAA granting the original exemption. All requested aircraft below have been previously approved for 

use under Section 333 exemptions.

Aquilo wishes to operate the following additional UAS:

Aircraft Previously Approved 

Under Exemption

3DR Solo 11309A

3DR Iris+ 11309A

DJI Matrice 100 11646A

Skywalker X8 11172A

ZETA Science FX-79 11492A

As this is an amendment to existing exemptions requesting only the addition of other types of

UAS, Aquilo respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in 

the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

1206 16TH Avenue 

Fairbanks, AK 99701

Sincerely,

Carl France

Chief Pilot, CEO

info@aquiloalaska.com
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 Staying Summary Judgment Proceedings

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

BYRON L. SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:04-cv-02586-LKK-GGH (P)

ORDER CONTINUING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court continues the proceedings on Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment for ninety days. Defendant Runnels’ opposition to Plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment is due on or before June 7, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/3/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

HON. GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

United States Magistrate Judge

sc2586.st

Case 2:04-cv-02586-LKK -GGH Document 47 Filed 05/04/06 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE MOSES WILLIS,

Plaintiff, Case No. CIV-04-2060 DFL GGH PS

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On July 7, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on July 19,

2005, defendant Burns filed a reply to plaintiff’s objections, and they were considered by the

district judge.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

Case 2:04-cv-02060-DFL-GGH Document 22 Filed 09/15/05 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

2

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 7, 2005, are

ADOPTED; 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Lazard and Burns are dismissed with

prejudice, without leave to amend;

3. Plaintiff’s claims against the State are dismissed with prejudice, without leave

to amend;

4. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims against defendant Fiddament is

granted with prejudice and without leave to amend; and

5. This action is closed.

DATED: 9/14/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02060-DFL-GGH Document 22 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 8688)

Entry No. 15493, etc.

#### F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided October 24, 1956)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to golf balls exported from England and entered at the port of Philadelphia.

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted these appeals on an agreed set of facts that establish foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the golf balls in question, which are represented by the invoice items marked *“A”*and initialed “RFC.” It is further established by the stipulated facts that the statutory foreign values for these golf balls are the appraised values, less 3% per centum, net, packed, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXA

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

7/10/2015 COA No. 

WALKER, WILBERT Tr. Ct. No. 12CR-115 

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant's Pro Se Motion 

9.3(b) T.R.A.P.

A

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 12 (the  "Partnership")  for the quarter ended June
30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  I,  Thomas  J.  Riha,  Chief
Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify that:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Partnership.




/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
August 10, 2005
No. 57322.

protests 483817-G, etc. (New York).

#### Mei Hwa Fur Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in ail material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS LEE KOLLARS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2336 DFL KJM P

vs.

M. YARBOROUGH, Warden,

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed August 5, 2005, petitioner’s application was dismissed and thirty

days leave to file an amended application was granted. The thirty day period has now expired,

and petitioner has not filed an amended application or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the

court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02336-DFL -KJM Document 13 Filed 10/26/05 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

2

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 25, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/koll2336.fta

Case 2:04-cv-02336-DFL -KJM Document 13 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Alamar Cyril Houston,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1923 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Thomas L. Carey,

Defendant.

-oOoMay 12, 2005, plaintiff requested an extension of time to

amend his complaint. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request

is granted and time is extended until 30 days from the date this

order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: May 17, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01923-GEB -EFB Document 10 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 1
From: Garry / Gary O'Neill <GOneill@energy.state.ca.us>

To: <combustionsurvey@erg.com>

CC: <mnichols@arb.ca.gov>, Jim Boyd <Jboyd@energy.state.ca.us>, PanamaBartholomy 

<Pbarthol@energy.state.ca.us>, Robert Oglesby <ROglesby@energy.state.ca.us>, Saul Gomez 

<SGomez@energy.state.ca.us>, SarahMichael <SMichael@energy.state.ca.us>, Tony Goncalves 

<TGoncalv@energy.state.ca.us>, <jones.toni@epa.gov>, <shrager.brian@epa.gov>, 

<wall.steve@epa.gov>, <Tesnau.Tab@epamail.epa.gov>, <Crawford.Tuttle@fire.ca.gov>, 

<Martha.Guzman-Aceves@gov.ca.gov>, <julia.levin@resources.ca.gov>

Date: 7/15/2011 7:24 PM

Subject: Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0058 Major Source Boiler MACT and CISWI 

Rules

Attachments: Jackson Lisa - biomass rules - 08 19 10.pdf; Lisa Jackson US EPA Letter 071511 

Jim.pdf

To Whom it May Concern:

The California Energy Commission respectfully submits the attached documents on behalf of California's 

Bioenergy Interagency Working Group regarding U.S. EPA's request for additional data and information 

related to the Major Source Boiler MACT and CISWI Rules.

Best regards,

Garry O'Neill

Renewable Energy Program

California Energy Commission

Phone: (916) 651-0961

Fax: (916) 653-8251
#### Bonnie Marchione, Appellant, v Anthony Battaglia, Defendant, and Anthony Cordero, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 595]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Schmidt, J.), dated July 28, 1994, which granted the defendant Anthony Cordero’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff brought this personal injury action against the *510defendant Anthony Battaglia and the appellant Anthony Cordero after she was allegedly injured in a two-car automobile accident. By order dated February 28, 1994, this Court reversed an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 9, 1992 which denied the defendant Battaglia’s motion for summary judgment *(see, Marchione v Battaglia,*201 AD2d 708). This Court dismissed the plaintiffs complaint as against Battaglia upon a finding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case that she sustained serious injury in the underlying accident. The action insofar as against the defendant Cordero was severed *(see, Marchione v Battaglia, supra).*Relying on this Court’s decision and order on his codefendant’s appeal, Cordero made a successful motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as against him. The plaintiff now appeals.

We agree with the plaintiff that on the defendant Cordero’s motion for summary judgment she was free to submit additional evidence to Supreme Court concerning injuries allegedly suffered as a result of the underlying accident which required surgery after the defendant Battaglia’s appeal was filed. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to make out a prima facie case that she suffered serious injury. The doctor’s reports submitted by her were unsworn, and therefore were insufficient to defeat Cordero’s motion *(see, Grasso v Angerami,*79 NY2d 813; *Marsh v Wolfson,*186 AD2d 115). Thus, Cordero’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted *(see, Marchione v Battaglia, supra).*Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
**INFORMATIONAL ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON FORM 10-K PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 NOT FILED PURSUANT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**
     Solely for the purpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely tothe extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-K, the undersigned herebycertify that this report on Form 10-K of Grant Prideco, Inc. fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information containedherein this report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Grant Prideco, Inc.        March 31, 2005 /s/ Michael McShane   Name:  Michael McShane   Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer                                /s/ Matthew D. Fitzgerald   Name:  Matthew D. Fitzgerald   Title:  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Before the Third Division,

May 6, 1954

No. 58070.

protests 209145-K and 209146-K (New York).

#### A. L. Ofseyer *v.*United States,

Ekwall, Judge:

The merchandise involved herein is described on the invoice as “10 albums of 20 original etchings each with water color.” It was assessed at 5 per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1410 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, T. D. 51802, as unbound books of *bona fide*foreign authorship. It is claimed to be entitled to free entry under paragraph 1807 as original sketches.

When the case was called for trial, the plaintiff appeared in person and testified as follows: The merchandise involved herein was sent to him from Israel, unsolicited, by someone whom he did not know. It consisted of sketches in bound volumes, with a 3^-page introduction by Professor Shotts, director of an art school in Jerusalem. The witness accepted the albums in good faith, thinking the sketches were originals, and later was notified that duty was due thereon. He kept the books for a few months and had some correspondence with the shipper, who wanted him to sell them. However, he said he was not an art dealer, did not know the value of the merchandise, and felt he would not be able to sell it. He so advised the sender and returned the albums.

There is nothing in this testimony to establish that the merchandise consisted of original etchings or sketches. The witness said he knew nothing about art and gave no opinion as to the originality of the work. The evidence presented is clearly insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action.

Under section 558 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, no refund of duty may be allowed because of the exportation of any merchandise after its release from Government custody, except where drawback is expressly provided for by law, or when prohibited articles have been entered in good faith and exported under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, or where articles entered under bond are destroyed *487under certain circumstances. Since none of the exceptions is applicable to the instant merchandise, and since it was released from customs custody and delivered to the plaintiff, no refund is permitted. *Khosrovschahi & Co.*v. *United States,*39 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 40, C. A. D. 460; *Hudson Shipping Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*18 Cust. Ct. 17, C. D. 1038.

For the reasons stated, we are constrained to overrule the protests. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 10.4**

 

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE**

**CANO PETROLEUM, INC.**

**NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTIONAGREEMENT**

 

ThisFIRST AMENDMENT (the “***Amendment***”)to the Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement (the “***Agreement***”)dated December 13, 2005, is hereby made and entered as of the 2nd day ofJanuary, 2008 by and between Cano Petroleum, Inc., a Delaware corporation(the “***Company***”) and Donnie DaleDent (the “***Participant***”).  Terms used in this Amendment with initialcapital letters that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaningsascribed to such terms in the Agreement.

 

**WHEREAS**, Section 24 of the Agreement provides that theparties to the Agreement may change or modify the Agreement in a writing signedby the parties; and

 

**WHEREAS**, the parties desire to amend the Agreement’svesting provisions to reflect changes made by the Compensation Committee ofCano Petroleum, Inc. and the Board of Directors, on June 28, 2007 andthe Participant’s resignation as a director in good standing from the Board ofDirectors on December 12, 2007.

 

**NOW THEREFORE**, pursuant to Section 24 of theAgreement, in consideration of the mutual promises, conditions and covenantscontained herein and in the Agreement, and other good and valuableconsideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agreeas follows:

 

1.             Section 3of the Agreement shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 

3.               Vesting; Time of Exercise.  100% of the total Optioned Shares shall vestimmediately upon the Participant’s resignation on December 12, 2007 andthe Stock Option shall become exercisable for an extended period of Twenty-Four(24) months from the date of resignation with the exercise period ending at5:00 p.m. on December 12, 2009.

 

2.                                       Section 27.a.of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:

 

a.                                       Notice to theCompany shall be addressed and delivered as follows:

 

Cano Petroleum, Inc.

Burnett Plaza

801 Cherry Street

Suite 3200, Unit 25

Fort Worth, TX  76102

Attn:  Corporate Secretary

 

----

 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties hereto have executedthis Amendment the day and year first above written.

 
|   | **CANO  PETROLEUM, INC.** |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   |                      |
|   | By:                       | /s/  S. Jeffrey Johnson |
|   | Name:                     | S.  Jeffrey Johson |
|   | Title:                    | Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 
|   | **PARTICIPANT** |
|--------|-----------------|
|   | ** **      |
|   | By:             | /s/  Donnie Dale Dent |
|   | Name:           | DONNIE  DALE DENT |

 

----
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20718 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARCIALES PENA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-25-1

-------------------- February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marciales Pena appeals his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(b)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a downward departure based on his status as a deportable alien. Because the record indicates that the district court recognized its authority to depart downward based on Pena’s status as a deportable alien but determined that a downward departure was not warranted based on the facts of the case, we lack jurisdiction to review theNo. 01-20718 -2- district court’s decision. See United States v. Brace , 145 F.3d 247, 263 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc). APPEAL DISMISSED.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE JONES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1933 DFL GGH P

vs.

LIEUTENANT E. SANDY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On September 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a “declaration of plaintiff Leslie James

Jones.” That document was not served on defendants. Plaintiff is advised that every document

submitted to the court for consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. 

Documents not to be served electronically are usually served by placing a copy in the U.S. mail. 

If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of any defendants, then documents

submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not on the defendants. Every

document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g., by a prisoner proceeding pro se) must

include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants

or their attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff file proof of having served

his September 28, 2005 “declaration of plaintiff Leslie James Jones” upon defendants within 15

Case 2:04-cv-01933-ALA Document 35 Filed 10/28/05 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

2

days. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to properly serve any documents subsequently filed in this

action, and failure to include a proper certificate of service with such filing, may result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: 10/28/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/kf

jone1933.35

Case 2:04-cv-01933-ALA Document 35 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 2