alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Earl D. Harrison

CMO, Peak Perspective LLC

Earl@PPUAS.com

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Request to amend and allow Operator Earl D. Harrison To Operate Under His Company 

'Peak Perspective LLC'. 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

Thankfully Earl D. Harrison was issued an exemption under Section 333 of the "FAA 

Modernization and Reform act of 2012" (the "Reform Act") numbered 12051 (the Exemption) for the 

purpose of conducting UAS operations within Aerial data collection industries. Earl D. Harrison, 

hereby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow the petitioner to change the operator to Peak 

Perspective LLC. The exemption was submitted with information that was miss placed in the 

introductions that caused the operators name to be Earl D. Harrison versus the company's name of 

'Peak Perspective LLC'. Formally we would like to thank you for approving the exemption on behalf of

the team here at Peak Perspective.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

December 2, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00794

- CV

Frank HERRERA

, Appellant

v.

INTERTERRA HOLDINGS

,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CV05121 Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 22, 2022, appellant filed an emergency motion to stay a writ of possession and eviction. On November 28, 2022, we denied appellant’s request for a stay because he had not paid a supersedeas bond. See T EX

. P ROP

. C ODE A NN

. § 24.007. On November 29, 2022, appellant filed a motion asking us to reconsider our denial of the requested stay. Appellant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED

. See id.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2nd day of December, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
---

---

Exhibit 13.(a).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 Annual Report of Partner Communications Company Ltd. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

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 results of operations of the Company.

|Date: May 6, 2008 |  | By: /s/ David Avner
David AvnerChief Executive Officer
|----------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: May 6, 2008 |  | By: /s/ Emanuel Avner
Emanuel AvnerChief Financial Officer
|----------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
ArcelorMittal

 Performance testing, average emission rate (lb SO2/hr):

o 2007 – 13.8 

o 2008 – 25.7 

o 2009 – 24.6 

o 2011 – 23.0

 Facility suggested following limits:

o 2.0 lbs SO2/MMBtu

o This limit is not based on the performance of a wet scrubber (which is in 

operation at the facility)

 MPCA set BART at 0.165 lb SO2/LT, measured on a 30 day rolling average; applies 

when burning natural gas

 Converting MPCA limit gives:

o 59.4 lb SO2/hr based on 360 LT/hr production rate (average production rate from 

2011 test)

o 38.9 lb SO2/hr based on 235 LT/hr production rate (average production rate from 

2008 test – test with highest emissions rate )

 Set limit at 23.0 lb SO2/hr, measured on a 30-day rolling average; does not apply when 

burning fuel oil
February 1 3 , 201 3

MEMORANDUM : 2010

- 2011 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Data on HCFC

- 22 Production Byproducts

TO: Air Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2011

- 0354

This memorandum includes data submitted to the Environmental Protection Ag ency (EPA) under Subpart O of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting P rogram (40 CFR Part 98)

. Subpart O covers HFC

- 23 emissions associated with HCFC

- 22 production. Specifically, the following processes are covered by this regulation:

• Processes that produce HCFC

– 22 (ch lorodifluoromethane or CHClF2) using chloroform and hydrogen fluoride.

• HFC

– 23 destruction processes located at HCFC

– 22 production facilities.

• HFC

– 23 destruction processes that destroy more than 2.14 metric tons of HFC

– 23 per year and that are not located at HCFC

– 22 production facilities.
Since there is no minimum production threshold, all HCFC

- 22 production processes in the U.S. (and therefore all U.S. producers of HCFC

- 22) are covered by Subpart O reporting

.
Direct GHG Emissions of HFC

- 23 Reported by Facility in Metric Tons of CO 2 e
Facility City State Total Reported Emissions (MT CO 2 e ) 2010 2011 DAIKIN AMERICA INC. DECATUR AL 5,3 2 4 4,809 DUPONT LOUISVILLE WORKS LOUISVILLE KY 3,265,138 4,710,701 DUPONT WASHINGTON WORKS WASHINGTON WV 16 66 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

- BATON ROUGE PLANT BATON ROUGE LA 3,081,312 2,213,055

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC

- GEISMAR COMPLEX GEISMAR LA 7 5,370

Important Information about this Data Set

- The data was reported to EPA by facilities as of 01/15/2013. EPA continues to quality assure data and may release updated data later

.

- Learn more about what is included in this data set and view related EPA GHG data sources at http://epa.gov/ghgreporting/gh gdata/ghgdatasets.html

.
No. 48547.

#### Protest 746607-G of Katz Berk Hat Body Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of harvest hats similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith, those imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075) were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and those imported or withdrawn for consumption subsequent to the effective date of the said trade agreement were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) as claimed.
No. 46741.

#### Protests 42341-K, etc., of John A. Chard et al. (New York).

*424Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise in question is similar to that the subject of Abstract 45323 it was held dutiable as waterproof cloth under paragraph 907, T. D. 47600, and T. D. 49753 at 30 or 25 percent ad valorem.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4106]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Reissuances

    Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
U.S.C. Chapter 409), and the regulations of the Commission pertaining 
to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 
515.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       License No.           Name/address           Date reissued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
011335N..................  Aeronet, Inc.,   December 28, 2006.
                            42 Corporate
                            Park, Suite
                            150, Irvine,
                            CA 92606.
015247NF.................  Amerindias,      November 10, 2006.
                            Inc., 5220 NW.
                            72nd Avenue,
                            Bay 3, Miami,
                            FL 33166.
013692F..................  Gallagher        May 30, 2003.
                            Transport
                            International,
                            Inc., P.O. Box
                            39005, Denver,
                            CO 80239.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. E7-4106 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
No. 48541.

#### Protest 75410-K of Robert C. Watson (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 63120.

#### The Dayton Company *v.*United States,

protests 185694-K, etc. (Minneapolis).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the items of merchandise marked with the letter “A” were held dutiable as follows: (a) As to the items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to May 28, 1950, at 20 percent under paragraph 1547(a) ; and (b) as to items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on and after May 28, 1950, at 10 percent under said paragraph 1547(a), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52378), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52476).
No. 59019.

protest 246636-K (New York).

#### Palestine Exhibits, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose anything that would warrant the court in disturbing the finding of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
#### Maria Bermudez, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Richard Bermudez, an Infant, et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Ramon Ruiz et al., Respondents, and Marba Furniture Co. et al., Respondents-Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[— NYS2d —]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered June 20, 1994, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant New York City Board of Education’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint as against it, and denied defendant Swanson’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action on behalf of her son who, while riding a bicycle, was struck by a truck, in *197front of a public school, on a one way street, which had double parked cars on both sides. The driver testified that he did not see plaintiff prior to striking the child. Defendant Swanson, an employee of a speech disorder center which had a contract with the public school to provide speech therapy, owned one of the double parked cars which allegedly obstructed the driver’s vision at the time of the accident.

We agree with the IAS Court that the Board was not negligent in failing to prevent the double parking outside the school. Contrary to plaintiffs assertion, the Board did not "actively encourage” its employees to illegally double park by its issuance of parking permits for designated curbside zones. Plaintiff is also incorrect in arguing that the Board was negligent in its proprietary capacity as a landowner in failing to take action to prevent this dangerous condition and by failing to control the conduct of third persons on its property, since the Board is not a landowner, the accident did not occur on school property, and the Board had no control over where its employees parked their cars *(see, D’Amico v Christie,*71 NY2d 76, 85).

The court also properly denied defendant Swanson’s motion for summary judgment. Whether the driver could have seen the infant plaintiff crossing the street in time to avoid striking him were it not for this defendant’s double parked car or whether that vehicle affected the infant’s ability to see the truck as it approached are issues of fact that should be left for trial *(see, Nowlin v City of New York,*81 NY2d 81, 89). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.
No. 52319.

protests 63360-K and 84795-K (New York).

#### Allied Purchasing Corp. and Johnson Bros. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
(Reap. Dec. 8693)

Entry Nos. 786962; 840168.

#### Bluefries New York, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided October 24, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Donlon, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that—

> 1. The merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of chocolate bars and other chocolate articles exported from Holland, the same in all material respects as those in *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 8470, wherein it was held that cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of value.

> 2. The record in said Reap. Dec. 8470 may be incorporated herein.

> 3. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A, there was no foreign value or export value or United States value for such or similar merchandise as defined in Sec. 402, Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, and the cost of production is therefore the proper basis of value.

> 4. The cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, for the chocolate bars and other chocolate articles listed in Schedule B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is as set forth in said Schedule B.

> 5. The appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A are submitted on this stipulation and are limited to the items set forth in said Schedule B, and abandoned as to all other items.

On the agreed facts, I find the cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determination of value of the merchandise listed in schedule “B,” attached hereto and made a part of this decision, and that, for the respective items of merchandise, such value is as listed in said schedule “B.”

The appeals, as they relate to other merchandise, are dismissed. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

*550
No. 50994.

#### Protests 41973-K, etc., of I. C. Isaacs & Co., Inc., et al. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 53583.

protests 72986-K, etc. (New York).

#### Yardley & Co., Ltd , et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bottles the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Griffon Importing Co.*v. *United States*(36 C. C. P. A. 121, C. A. D. 408), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
GEORGE DUESDIEKER (State Bar No. 95505)

1850 Gateway Drive – 1 Floor st

San Mateo, California 94404-2467

Telephone: (650) 513-2149

Fax (913) 523-0647

Attorney for Defendants

Sprint United Management Company and

Sprint Communications Company L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALICIA ALO, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

SPRINT UNITED MANAGEMENT

COMPANY, INCORPORATED, A Kansas

Corporation, SPRINT

COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P.,

A Delaware Limited Partnership,

Defendants.

Case No. CIV.S 04-1904 LKK JFM

STIPULATION AND ORDER

RE: MENTAL EXAMINATION

(RULE 35, F.R.Civ.P.)

The parties hereby stipulate pursuant to Rule 35, F.R.Civ.P. that plaintiff

Alicia Alo shall be examined by Dr. Alan Brooker, Ph.D. (a psychologist licensed by

the State of California) on September 12, 2005, commencing at 9 a.m. at 2609 Capitol

Avenue, Suite 2, Sacramento, California, and continuing as appropriate.

Dated: August 12, 2005

Dated: August 12, 2005

By: /s/

George Duesdieker

Attorney for Defendants

Sprint United Management Company and 

Sprint Communications Company, L.P.

By: /s/

Mark P. Velez

Attorney for Plaintiff

Alicia Alo

Case 2:04-cv-01904-LKK -JFM Document 18 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 2
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2005.

/aloime.stip

Case 2:04-cv-01904-LKK -JFM Document 18 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 46152.

#### Petition 6061-R of Collin & Gissel (Ludwig Baer) (Galveston).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The petition was dismissed.
(Reap. Dec. 8242)

#### United States *v.*Rogow & Fuse, Inc.

Entry Nos. 72286; 73749.

(Decided July 8, 1953)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed between counsel for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the court, that at the time of exportation of the por-celainware, consisting of dinner sets, with hand painted design, of 93 pieces per set, involved in the above cases, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, at Japanese yen 28 per set, case and packing included, less invoiced freight charges from Yokkaiti, Japan, to Nagoya, Japan, in Reappraisement 138444 — A, and from Dati, Japan, to Nagoya, Japan, in Reappraisement 138445-A, the said freight charges being deducted following the decision in *United States*v. *William Shaland,*A. R. D. 12.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein, at the time of exportation thereof.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the porcelainware, consisting of dinner sets, with hand-painted design, of 93 pieces per set, and that such value was Japanese yen 28 per set, case and packing included, less invoiced freight charges from Yokkaiti, Japan, to Nagoya, Japan, in reappraisement 138444-A, and from Dati, Japan, to Nagoya, Japan, in reappraisement 138445-A.

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
May 12, 1964

Reap. Dec. 10756.

reappraisement R62/15127.

#### Nichimen Co. *v.*United States,

Reappraisement dismissed October 9, 1963.

Entered at San Francisco, Calif.

(Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marshall Enders, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 411]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Rogers, J.), rendered August 1, 1994, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

*773Defendant argues that County Court erred in not according him youthful offender status following his conviction of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree. We disagree. Although the presentence report indicates that defendant suffers from mental retardation and cerebral palsy, it characterizes defendant’s level of dangerousness as "quite high” based upon his psychological adjustment compounded by his mental condition. In view of this, as well as the serious nature of the crime committed, we do not find that County Court abused its discretion in refusing to classify defendant as a youthful offender.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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

GEOFFREY LINN JONES, No. CIV S-04-2424-DFL-PAN-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

ROXANNE CAMPBELL,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On January 5, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. In the objections, petitioner argues

that his previous § 2254 petition should be reinstated because it was a “mixed” petition and he

was not afforded the opportunity to amend it. However, the previous petition only contained

unexhausted claims. Therefore, dismissing the petition without prejudice was appropriate. 

Case 2:04-cv-02424-DFL -PAN Document 14 Filed 03/29/06 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 5, 2006, are adopted in

full;

2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.

Dated: 3/28/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02424-DFL -PAN Document 14 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

January 22, 2019

v No. 340389

Wayne Circuit Court

ELLIOTT GUANZALAUS-GWY SHAFFER, LC No. 17-001265-01-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LETICA, P.J., and CAVANAGH and METER, JJ.

LETICA, J. (concurring).

I concur in the judgment and the majority’s analysis, but write separately to make two 

points. First, although the majority rejects defendant’s challenges to the scoring of his 

guidelines, I would not address them as he was sentenced under the nonbinding judicial 

guidelines. People v Mitchell, 454 Mich 145, 176-177; 560 NW2d 600 (1997) (“There is no 

juridical basis for claims of error based on alleged misinterpretation of the guidelines, 

instructions regarding how the guidelines should be applied, or misapplication of guideline 

variables.”) Second, defendant’s alleged reasonable mistake about his victim’s age is not a 

defense in a prosecution for third-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a victim between the 

ages of 13 and 16. People v Cash, 419 Mich 230; 351 NW2d 822 (1984). 

/s/ Anica Letica