alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Petition for Exemption

Steve Muntz McTV Station Manager Iowa Valley Community College District 3700 South Center Street Marshalltown, Iowa 50158 Office: 641 844

- 5797 Cell: 641 751

-2480 Steve.muntz@iavalley.edu I am seeking an exemption for Section 333 of the Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations

. Seeking relief because the quadcopter video drone I will be flying is for marketing purposes only and will be used to photograph and fi lm landmarks in the Marshalltown, IA area. Aerial footage will be used to promote the area and inform the community through our local educational cable TV station (McTV). The quadcopter drone is lightweight (under 5lbs) and is very safe to fly. I have already communicated with local law enforcement and community leaders of my intent on using the drone and will inform them each time I plan on using the drone so they are aware of its use. The drone footage and pictures will be used to benefit the community by informing the community of new developments in the area and also provide entertainment for the community when they see aerial footage of local landmarks. For instance, a new bike trail system is under development and seeing the bike trail fro m aerial shots will help inform the community of the trail. The public will remain safe since the drone is very small in size and will only be flown in open areas free of trees and powerlines. The drone will remain a safe distance from people when flying

. In addition, I have over 100 hours of air time piloting quadcopter drones and understand the safety issues involved with flying an unmanned aircraft. Please consider granting me an exemption for Section 33 of the Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regu lations. Thank you, Steve Muntz
Before the Third Division,

September 11, 1944

No. 49707.

#### Protest 104686-K of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of papier-máché articles the same as those the subject of *Strauss-Eckardt Co.*v. *United States,*T. D. 48272. The protest was therefore sustained as to the two lots in question.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

s0125 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139887

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139887 COA: 292960 Genesee CC: 97-001414-FC THOMAS EDWARD SADLER II, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 9, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 52070.

#### Wimelbacher & Rice *v.*United States,

protests 563605-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kinchelob, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 914, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
No. 52645.

protest 841261-G (New York).

#### Henry Pollak, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of hats known as harvest hats similar in all material respects to those the classification of which was involved in *Caradine Hat Co.*v. *United Stales*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, those items imported or withdrawn from warehouse prior to February 1, 1936, were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), Tariff Act of 1930, and those imported or withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to said date, were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under said paragraph, as modified by the Nether*228lands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075). Other items of the merchandise stipulated to consist of hats in chief value of straw, etc., not blocked or trimmed, and not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Armand Schwab & Co.*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) were held properly dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1).
No. 62604.

#### B. R. Anderson & Co. and Border Brokerage Company *v.*United States,

protests 233273-K and 312716-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of yellow cedar the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Border Brokerage Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 179, C. D. 1923), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2007085EN.01001501.xml

| 19.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/15

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 382nd meeting on 18 October 2004 concerning a preliminary draft decision in case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco Spain

(2007/C 85/08)

| 1. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. A minority abstains.

| 2. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. A minority abstains.

| 3. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the basic amount due to attenuating circumstances. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the basic amount due to attenuating circumstances. A minority abstains.

| 4. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the 1996 Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fines based on the 1996 Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. A minority abstains.

| 5. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. A minority abstains.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

| 7. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4780 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4780

To amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the number of days of 
paid leave provided for certain military service by Federal employees, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2024

 Ms. Cortez Masto (for herself and Mr. Crapo) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the number of days of 
paid leave provided for certain military service by Federal employees, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting Employees in the Guard 
and Reserve Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DAYS OF PAID LEAVE PROVIDED FOR CERTAIN MILITARY 
              SERVICE BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 6323(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, 
is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting the following: 
``Leave under this subsection accrues for an employee or individual at 
the rate of 40 days per fiscal year and, to the extent that it is not 
used in a fiscal year, accumulates for use in succeeding fiscal years 
until it totals not more than 20 days at the beginning of any fiscal 
year.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on October 1, 2025.
                                 <all>
```
NO. 12-10-00351-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

' APPEAL FROM THE 

IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.J., ' COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF

A CHILD

' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed because Appellant has failed to comply with the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Pursuant to rule 32.1, 

Appellant’s docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was 

perfected, i.e., October 14, 2010. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. On October 18, 2010, this 

court notified Appellant that he should file a docketing statement immediately if he had 

not already done so. By separate letter, also dated October 18, 2010, this court requested 

that Appellant pay his filing fee on or before October 28, 2010. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5.

Because Appellant did not pay his filing fee or file the docketing statement as 

requested in the October 18, 2010 letters, this court issued a second notice on October 29, 

2010, advising Appellant that the filing fee and the docketing statement were past due. 

The notice further provided that unless the filing fee was paid and the docketing 

statement filed on or before November 8, 2010, the appeal would be presented for 

dismissal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. The November 8 

deadline has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the court’s request. Because 

Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with rules 5 and 32.1, the appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered November 17, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
EXHIBIT 32.2

       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF
                             THE UNITED STATES CODE

     In connection with the Annual Report of MediaNet Group Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alfred Fernandez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

March 27, 2009                                            /s/ ALFRED FERNANDEZ
                                                         -----------------------
                                                             ALFRED FERNANDEZ
                                                         CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
No. 58587.

protests 172729-K, etc. (New York).

#### Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: November 9, 2009
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) and Chairman/s/ Brenda AgiusBrenda AgiusChief Financial Officer (principal financial
and accounting officer) and Secretary
No. 44052.

#### Protest 495041-G of Saks & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that certain items consist of Normandy laees similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
SERVED: MAY 29, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

GREENWOOD CHEVROLET 

DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. F AA-20 11-0482 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

""'" On June 3, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter 

"Complainant") filed a Complaint. On May 24, 2011, Greenwood Chevrolet (hereinafter 

"Respondent") had requested a hearing. On May 23, 2012, Respondent filed a 

Withdrawal of Request for Hearing, citing settlement of the matter. 

14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED that: 
"2 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing is hereby GRANTED; and 

2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachments - Service List 

-.-n_ .. 

[Z;kJC,~ 'chard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

~ 

"" 
.. 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Respondent's Counsel 

Law Offices of Houston Tuel 

1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 206 

West Sacramento, CA 95691 

TEL: 916-376-0100 

FAX: 916-376-0299 

Lisa J. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7110 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 "' 

. U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.(E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant/ 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0482 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal AViation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, 

Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON ALLEN MAGGARD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2196 GEB KJM P

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

On July 10, 2006, petitioner filed an untimely reply to respondent’s opposition to

petitioner’s motion to stay the proceedings. Local Rule 78-230 (m). The court has considered

petitioner’s claim that he mailed his exhaustion petition to the wrong address, but does not find it

persuasive. First, petitioner has not supported his reply with the various exhibits he purports to

rely on to support his claim of inadvertent, rather than intentional, delay. Moreover, although he

argues that his appellate attorney refused contact with him after filing a petition for review that 

Case 2:04-cv-02196-GEB -KJM Document 28 Filed 07/27/06 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

did not include the omitted issues, he does not explain why he did not attempt earlier to raise the

issues he then realized had been omitted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s July 10, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied without

prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage of the proceedings; and

2. Petitioner’s July 10, 2006 late reply to respondent’s opposition does not change

the court’s findings and recommendations issued July 10, 2006. An additional ten days from the

filed date of this order will be provided for the filing of objections as provided in those findings,

after which the findings will be referred to the district judge assigned to this case. 

DATED: July 26, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp; magg2196.110

Case 2:04-cv-02196-GEB -KJM Document 28 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fidelity D&D Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Joseph J. Earyes, Executive Vice President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as added byss.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. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
              financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

|Date: March 28, 2003 | By:  _________________________
|-------------------- | ------------------------------
|                     | Joseph J. Earyes,             
|                     | Executive Vice President and  
|                     | Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7604

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 02-7889

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES EDWARD ELLERBE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CR-97-100)

Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Ellerbe, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler,

Assistant United States Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Ellerbe appeals the district court’s orders

denying his motion for a court order, denying his supplemental

motion for a court order, denying his second supplemental motion

for a court order, and denying his motion for a downward departure.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. See United

States v. Ellerbe, No. CR-97-100 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2002; filed

Nov. 5, 2002 & entered Nov. 6, 2002). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case No. 9,081.

#### The MARIA PIKE. SAWYER et al. v. The MARIA PIKE.

[6 Adm. Rec. 630.]

District Court, S. D. Florida.

Feb. 9, 1861.

Salvage — Piloting through Dangerous Shoals.

[Piloting a vessel through dangerous shoals, where she could not have made her way unaided, is salvage service, if performed in connection with other salvage services.]

[Cited in Pent v. The Ocean Belle, Case No. 10.961.]

[Libel for salvage by George A. Savage and others against the schooner Maria Pite and cargo.]

W. C. Maloney, for libellants.

John L. Tatum, for respondent.

MARVIN, District Judge.

This schooner, laden with cotton and molasses, got ashore on the North Key Flats, one of the Tortugas Shoals. Three smacks, carrying 20 men, went to her assistance. They found the master employed in staving his deck load of molasses to lighten the vessel. She was lying easy, but surrounded with intricate and extensive shoals. On the arrival of the smacks, the master ceased the business of staving the casks of molasses, and the next morning forty barrels of molasses were put on board one of the smacks, and, sail being made she went off the reef into deep water, by an inner channel, known to the salvors, but unknown to the master. Considerable skill and good judgment were displayed by the salvors in managing the sails to get the vessel clear of the shoals, and by subsequently piloting the vessel through the channel out to sea. The master could have got the vessel afloat by throwing overboard the forty barrels of molasses, but he could not have got her out of her difficulties without a pilot The chief value of the service consists in the piloting, which very likely has been the means of saving vessel and cargo. The value of the vessel may be estimated at $S,000, and the cargo at $25,000. I think $3.200 is a reasonable salvage. It is therefore ordered and decreed that the sum of $3,200 be allowed the libel-lants in full compensation for their services rendered in saving said vessel and cargo, and that upon the payment thereof, and the costs and expenses of this suit, the marshal restore said vessel and cargo to the master thereof, for and on account of whom it may concern; that the wharfage, storage and other bills be examined, and allowed by the court among the expenses.