alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 28, 2016 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

ComEd 

Re: Docket No. FAA-2014-0855, Request for Extension of Exemption No. 11185 to February 28, 2019 with Updated 

Approvals Granted the most current Section 333 Holders (such as Authorization to Fly All Approved UAS under 

Section 333) 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Commonwealth Edison ("ComEd") hereby requests the following: 

1) Extension of FAA Exemption No. 11185, Docket No. FAA-2014-0855 from February 28, 2017 through February 

28, 2019 and 

2) Authorization to fly all approved UAS listed under Section 333 per Docket No. FAA-2007-3330. 

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the "Reform Act") and 14 

C.F.R. Part 11, ComEd, a northern Illinois-based electric utility that delivers reliable electricity for 3.8 million 

customers throughout more than 400 municipalities and 25 counties, seeks the aforementioned extension of 

Exemption No. 11185 from the Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs"), and updated Section 333 approvals granted 

since February 24, 2015 so that it may capture aerial images of utility system equipment (including threats to system 

safety and reliability) by using small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUASs). 

Extension of FAA Exemption No. 11185, Docket No. FAA-2014-0855 from February 28, 2017 through February 28, 

2019 

Com Ed's above-referenced Exemption currently expires on February 28, 2017 and it is requested that the expiration 

date be extended by two years through February 28, 2019. 

Though Com Ed will operate some missions under the recently enacted Part 107, we will also operate some missions 

under our Exemption. The requested extension to the Exemption will, amongst other purposes, support flight 

missions for which significant planning has already been conducted. Missions include aerial equipment inspections 

near Midway International Airport (Class C) and O' Hare International Airport (Class B) - for which Certificates of 

Waiver or Authorization have already been issued (2016-CSA-11185-680-333E and 2016-CSA-11185-734-333E 

respectively). 

Authorization to fly all approved UAS listed under Section 333 per Docket No. FAA-2007-3330 

Authorization is requested to use any aircraft identified on the List of Approved Unmanned Aircraft Systems under 

Section 333 at the regulatory docket FAA-2007-3330 at www.regulations.gov, when weighing less than 55 pounds 

including payload. 

The UAS must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL). Altitude must be 

reported in feet AGL. This limitation is in addition to any altitude restrictions that may be included in the applicable 

certificate of waiver or authorization (COA). 

Li ode , CSP (Certified Safety Professional) 

Commonwealth Edison 

ComEd Exemption No. 11185 Extension Request 9-28-16
##### 



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 of Arch Western Resources, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Robert J. Messey, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company. /s/ Robert J. MesseyRobert J. Messey
Chief Financial OfficerMay 12, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. 39
No. 53038.

#### Hilker, Townsend & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 651601-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

By virtue of the decision in *United States*v. *American Viscose Corporation*(30 C. C. P. A. 240, C. A. D. 239), the protests were dismissed.
* 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 April 23, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40465 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DEREK GLASPER, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6-01-CR-31-5

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Derek Glasper has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Glasper was sent a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but has not filed a response. Glasper knowingly and voluntarily waived his appeal rights, except as to sentencing guidelines determinations, and our independent review of the brief and the record discloses noNo. 02-40465 -2- nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
No. 52615.

protest 57973-K (New York).

#### Keller Tailors Trimming Co., Inc. *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 invoice 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 the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 /s/ John T. DrexlerJohn T. DrexlerVice President
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the quarterly report of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Margulies, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard Margulies

Richard MarguliesChief Executive OfficerDated: September 18, 2008

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to East Coast Diversified Corporationand will be retained by East Coast Diversified Corporation and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Before the Third Division,

May 7, 1958

No. 61900.

#### Armour and Company *v.*United States,

protest 315427-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 52623.

petition 6636-R (Los Angeles).

#### Karl Sapper & Sons; W. X. Huber Co. *v.*United States,

*223Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the office manager of one of the petitioners herein testified that he had had consultations with the appraiser in respect to the value at which the merchandise was to be entered; that the invoice showed on the bottom “Home market value, taxes included is 10%% higher than the invoice price”; that he presumed the broker calculated that that 10% per centum added to the invoice price would make the proper home market value; and that he had showed the price list and all the correspondence which he had received from England relative to prices and qualities to the appraiser. On the record presented it was held that the petitioners acted without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
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, 2015, 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: March 14, 2016

By: /s/ Isaac Benbenisti

——————————————

Name: Isaac Benbenisti

Title: Chief Executive Officer




Date: March 14, 2016

By: /s/ Ziv Leitman

——————————————

Name: Ziv Leitman

Title: Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4489]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 2 p.m. ET.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inez De Jesus at 1-888-912-1227, or 
954-423-7977.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10 (a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel will be held Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 2 p.m. ET via a 
telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a 
written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write 
Inez De Jesus, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, 
Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of 
intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be 
made with Inez De Jesus. Ms. De Jesus can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 
or 954-423-7977, or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: March 6, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E7-4489 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 3.2



# Continuation of
Section 2 of the Certificate of Amendment

"The Company will evidence the
Reverse Stock Split effected hereby pursuant to procedures adopted by the board of
directors.

In connection with the Reverse Stock
Split,  no scrip or fractional  share  certificates  will be issued and, as of the
Effective Date, fractional shares resulting from the Reverse Stock Split will be rounded
up to the next whole share.

Commencing upon the Effective Date,
each certificate of the Company's capital stock will be deemed for all corporate purposes
to evidence ownership of the reduced number of shares of common stock resulting from the
Reverse Stock Split."
Before the Third Division,

November 17, 1960

No. 64904.

#### United China & Glass Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 269275-K, etc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorative after-dinner cups and saucers the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. a/c United China*& *Glass Company*(47 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 719), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 41223/41224

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISONDRA ANN CANADY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 442

Filed: April 9, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, Chrisondra Ann Canady pled guilty to two counts of 

burglary, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b) (Docket No.41223); and two counts of grand 

theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b) (Docket No. 41224). The district court sentenced 

Canady to concurrent unified terms of five years with two years determinate, suspended the 

sentences and placed Canady on supervised probation for three years. Canady admitted to 

violating the terms of her probation which the district court revoked and ordered the underlying 

sentenced executed, but retained jurisdiction. The district court later relinquished jurisdiction. 

Canady filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions in both cases, which the district court denied. 
2

Canady appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying her Rule 35 

motions.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Gill, 150 Idaho 183, 186, 244 P.3d 1269, 1272 (Ct. App. 2010). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Canday’s Rule 35 motions, we conclude 

no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Canady’s 

Rule 35 motions 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

HECTOR SANCHEZ LEYVA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2593 GEB KJM P

vs.

ROBERT L. AYERS,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed an application 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On May 19, 2005, 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. 

Case 2:04-cv-02593-GEB -KJM Document 8 Filed 08/16/05 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

Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 19,

2005, are adopted in full; and 

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas

corpus is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

Dated: August 15, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02593-GEB -KJM Document 8 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 56437.

protest 146936-K (San Francisco).

#### Wong Sang Man *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the articles the subject of Abstracts 50357, 53093, and 55389, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1738 was sustained.
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

JEFFREY J. BIGGS, No. CIV S-04-2667-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

EDDIE YLST, Acting Warden,

Respondent.

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 6, 2006, the court directed respondent to

file a response to the amended petition within 30 days. On May 11, 2006, respondent filed a

motion for a stay of proceedings until June 28, 2006. Respondent informs the court that, on

December 28, 2005, petitioner was found suitable for parole and that, if the Governor of

California upholds that decision, the instant petition may be moot. Respondent states that the

Governor has until May 27, 2006, to decide the matter and seeks a stay of these proceedings

until 30 days after this date.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:04-cv-02667-MCE -CMK Document 28 Filed 05/19/06 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

It is clear that what respondent is seeking is relief from his obligation to file a

response to the petition until he knows what kind of response to file. Specifically, if petitioner is

granted parole, respondent will argue the petition is moot, in which case an appropriate response

would be a motion to dismiss on that ground. Rather than staying these proceedings, the court

will simply grant respondent an extension of time to June 28, 2006, to file a response.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent shall file a response to

the amended petition by June 28, 2006. 

DATED: May 17, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02667-MCE -CMK Document 28 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent****Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

WitnessSystems, Inc.:

We consent toincorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-33250, No.333-107236, No. 333-67416, No. 333-122411, and No. 333-127397) on Form S-8 andin the registration statement (No. 333-122410) on Form S-3 of Witness Systems,Inc. of our reports dated March 16, 2006, except as to Note 2, which is as ofFebruary 7, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of WitnessSystems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and therelated consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity andcomprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2005, and the related financial statementschedule, and our report dated March 16, 2006, except as to paragraph 6 ofManagement’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting (as restated)which is as of February 7, 2007, on management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual reporton Form 10-K/A of Witness Systems, Inc.

Our report dated March16, 2006, except as to Note 2, which is as of February 7, 2007, indicates thatthe consolidated financial statements of Witness Systems, Inc. and subsidiariesas of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2005 have been restated as discussed in Note 2.

Our report dated March16, 2006, except as to paragraph 6 of Management’s Report on InternalControl over Financial Reporting (as restated) which is as of February 7,2007, on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2005, expresses our opinion that Witness Systems,Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2005 because of the effect of material weaknesses described in thesixth and seventh paragraphs of such report.

Atlanta, GeorgiaFebruary 7, 2007

----
No. 56434.

protest 134992-K (New York).

#### Fleming-Joffe, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.