alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 64241.

protest 58/9668 (New York).

#### S. S. Kresge Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of aquarium sea moss similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Westchester Aquarium, Supply Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 146, C.D. 1767), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 40234.

#### Protest 894819-G of Wilbur Ellis Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallingbr, J.

The evidence on the whole was found to be unsatisfactory and more or less contradictory. It was held that even if the exhibit could be said to represent the merchandise at bar the case of *Stone*v. *United States*(21 C. C. P. A. 206, T. D. 46729) is controlling as the merchandise had been advanced beyond the stage of steel flats into that of bands or strips of steel by a cold-rolling operation. It was therefore held properly classified at 25 percent under paragraph 313.
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 20 , 20 11

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 11

- 00 418

- CR

____________

MARIO RAMIREZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1211465



### MEMORANDUM OP IN ION

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal, personally signed by appel lant,

has been filed with this c ourt. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this c ourt has not

delivered an opinion, we grant appellant ’ s request.

Accordingly, we order the ap peal dismissed. We direct the clerk of the c ou rt to

issue the mandate of the c ourt immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson an d Christopher.

Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 4 7.2(b)

.
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 27, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 11660

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 9 9 6 - CV - T- 2 3 - M SS K A T H L E E N M I L L E R , R O D M I L L E R , h u s b a n d o f

K a th le e n M ille r , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s S C O T T S D A L E I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 27, 2006) B e f o r e E D M O N D S O N , C h ie f J u d g e , a n d T J O F L A T a n d K R A V I T C H , C ir c u it Ju d g es. P E R C U R I A M:The facts areset out in our initial opini on. Miller, 410 F.3d at 678-79. 1 2 Th i s c a s e r e tu rn s t o u s a f t e rw e c e r t i f

i e d a q u e s t i o n t o th e Fl o r i d aSu p r e me C o u r tr e g a r d i n g th e i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f § 6 2 7 . 8 4 8 , F l a . S t a t . ( 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e q u e s t i o n we c e r t i f i e d r e a d: “ W he the r§ 627. 848, F l a . S t a t . ( 2002) c ont e m pl a t e s a s i ngl e da t e of c a nc e l l a t i on f

orthe i ns ur a nc e c ontr a c ta s a w hol e orw he the rthe c ontr a c tc a n be c a n c e lle d a s to d if

f e r e n t in s u r e d s a t d if

f e r e n t tim e s d e p e n d in g o n w h e n a s ta tu to r ily r e qui r e d not i c e i s gi ve n t o tha ti ns ur e d? ” M i l l e rv. S c ott s da l e I ns . C o. , 410 F . 3d 67 8, 68 1-82 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). 1 T he F l or i daS upr e m e C our ta ns w e r e d tha t“ the pl a i n l a ngua ge of s e c t i on 627. 848, F l or i daS t a tut e s ( 2002) , c ont e m pl a t e s a s i ngl e c a nc e l l a t i on da t e f orthe i nsurance pol i cyas a w ho l e” and that“ al l st atut ory, re gu l at ory, or contra ctual re qu i re m ent s f

or ca ncel l at i on m ustbe sa t i sf i ed before apo l i cym aybe ca ncel ed. ” M i l l erv. S cott sdal e I ns. C o. , N o. S C 05 -936 , 20 06 W L 13 75 24 1, at*5 (F l a. M ay 18, 2006) . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tc ons true d the s t a tut e t o a l l ow f ortw o di f

f e r e nt ca ncel l at i on dat es , on e of w hi ch occurre d b ef ore the i nsurer , S cott sdal e I nsurance, com pl i ed w i th al l contra ctual re qu i re m ent s f or ca ncel l at i on and g ra nt ed sum m ary ju d g m e n t in f

a v o ro f th e in s u r e r . M ille r , 4 1 0 F .3 d a t 6 7 9 . T h is ru lin g p la in ly c o n f lic ts w ith th e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u rt’s a n s w e rto o u rc e r tif ie d q u e s tio n . T here fore , w e re vers e the di s tr i c tc our ta nd r e m a nd f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs3

c o n s is te n t w ith th e F lo r id aS u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n .
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF OFFICERS

OF ABLEAUCTIONS.COM, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 USC § 1350







Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) the undersigned officer of Ableauctions.com, Inc. (the Company) does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



This Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  March 31, 2006





/s/ Abdul Ladha

__________________________________

Abdul Ladha, President

and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

















1
PHANTOM 3 STANDARD 发布记录 

2015.11.26

Overview:

1. All-in-One Firmware Updated to:v1.2.0040

Bug Fixes:

1. Reduced purple fringing for RAW photos taken in HDR mode. 

2. Fixed issue of abnormal aircraft movement in Follow Me mode whenever the

mobile device GPS signal is weak. 

Notes:

The remote controller’s firmware will be updated in this release. Ensure the remote 

controller is powered on and that your mobile device does not enter screen lock 

mode during the update.
Thi s di spos i ti on i s not a ppropri at efor

publ i c ati on and i s not

pre c e de nt * e xc ept a s provi de d by

9th Cir . R. 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AA RON D OY LE , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. B R I AN C HA S E ; L AW OF F I C E S OF BRI A N CH A SE PLLC, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 35545 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 1 5 8 - R HW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R obe rtH . W ha l e y , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y2, 2011 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , M cK E O W N , an d C A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P l ai nt i ff A ar on D oyl e app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s grantof sum m ary j udgm e nti n hi s a c t i on unde rthe C om put e rF r aud a nd A bus e A c t( “ C F A A ” ) , 18 U . S . C . § 1 0 3 0 , ag ai n stB ri an C h ase an d th e L aw O ffi ces o f B ri an C h ase ( c ol l e c t i ve l y , “ C ha s e ” ) . D oy l e a s s e rt s tha tC ha s e vi ol a t e d the C F A A bya c c e s s i ng, 

# FI LED MA Y24 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

w i tho utD oyl e’ s autho ri za t i on , D oyl e’ s U S B thu m b d ri ve, w hi ch cont ai ned pe r s onne l r e c or ds s e a l e d by the C a l i f orni as t a t e c ourt . D oy l e c ont e nds tha the s a t i s f i e d the “ l os s ” r e qui r e m e nta s de f i ne d by18 U . S . C . § 1030( e ) ( 11) be c aus e of h is n e e d f

o raf o r e n s ic c o m p u te re x p e rt to d e te c t a n d d e le te a ll o f th e d o c u m e n ts th a t w e r e c o p ie d f

r o m th e th u m b d r iv e to C h a s e ’s c o m p u te r s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t e v e n a c c e p tin g D o y le ’s th e o ryo f lo s s , h is assessm en to f l o ss i s en t i rel y sp ecu l at i v e. W e ag ree. D o yl e b ases h i s l o ss a s s e s s m e n t s o le lyo n tw o e x p e rt d e c la r a tio n s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tly c onc l ude d tha tthe di s c us s i on of da m a ge s i n the f

i r s tde c l a r a t i on w a s t oo s p e c u la tiv e to s u rv iv e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See e. g . , So rem eku n v. T h ri f t y P a yless, Inc. , 5 0 9 F .3 d 9 7 8 , 9 8 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “C o n c lu s o ry , s p e c u la tiv e te s tim o n yin a f f i da vi t s a nd m ovi ng pape r s i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o r a i s e ge nui ne i s s ue s of f a c ta nd de f e a ts um m a ry j udgm e nt . ” ) . T he s e c ond, w hi c h a tt e m pt s t o c a l c ul a t e the ba s i s f or the f utur e e xpe ndi tur e of

m or e tha n $5, 000, w a s s ubm i tt e d w e l l be y ond the d is c o v e ry d e a d lin e s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yr e f u s in g to c o n s id e rth is u n tim e lyd e c la r a tio n . See, e. g . , Y et ib y Mo l l y, L td. v. D eckers O utdoorC or

p. , 2 5 9 F .3 d 1 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A FFI R M ED .
##### 



Certification of Periodic Financial Report 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;(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of MSW Energy Finance Co., Inc.; and
   /s/ Anthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    /s/ Mark A. PytoshAnthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    Mark A. PytoshChief Executive Officer and President
    
    
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerOctober 30, 2006
    
    
    
    October 30, 2006
 53
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I,Paul W.B. Stephenson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofmy knowledge, the Annual Report of Fargo Electronics, Inc. on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Fargo Electronics, Inc.

 

 
| March 16, 2005 |   |                      |   |
|----------------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|           |   |                      |   |
|           |   |                      |   |
|           | By:    | /s/ PAUL W. B. STEPHENSON |   |
|           | Name:  | Paul W. B. Stephenson     |   |
|           | Title: | Chief Financial Officer   |   |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Fargo Electronics, Inc. and will be retained by Fargo Electronics,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
No. 58095.

protests 185156-K, etc. (New York).

#### Brundage Merchandise Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of paper napkins the same in all material respects (except that they are of crepe paper) *494as those the subject of *Freund Mayer & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 123, C. A. D. 474). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the cited authority, it was held that the merchandise is dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1413, as modified, *supra.*
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of

- - )

)

Titan One Zero, LLC ) ASBCA Nos. 63106 , 63424

)

Under Contract No. N00014

- 20

- C

- 2043 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Matthew R. Keller, Esq.

Kristen L. Loesch, Esq.

Praemia Law, PLLC

Reston, VA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Adam A. Orr, Esq.

Catherine M. Kellington, Esq.

Trial Attorneys

Arlington, VA

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O ’ C ONNELL

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter

judgment in favor of appellant. The parties have stipulated that the property under the

subject contract was incorrectly added to the contract and that the contract ended on

July 30, 2021

.

It is the Board ’ s decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b) , and the

parties ’ stipulati on and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a

consent judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of

$1,800,000

. Appellant has agreed to waive Contract Disputes Act interest.

Dated: October 1 9 , 2022

Michael N. O ’ Connell

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

(Signatures continued)2 I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals I concur

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 63106

, 63424 Appeals of

Titan One Zero, LLC , rendered in conformance with the Board ’ s Charter.

Dated: October 20, 2022

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Gary R. Holland,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, theAnnual Report of Fargo Electronics, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in suchForm 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Fargo Electronics, Inc.

 

 
| March 15, 2006 |   |                     |
|----------------|--------|--------------------------|
|           |   |                     |
|           |   |                     |
|           | By:    | /s/ GARY R. HOLLAND      |
|           | Name:  | Gary R. Holland          |
|           | Title: | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to FargoElectronics, Inc. and will be retained by Fargo Electronics, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### City of Pittsburgh and Mayor Richard S. Caliguiri, Petitioners *v.*Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Milk Marketing Board, Respondent. R. Bruce Fike & Sons Dairy, Inc. et al., Intervenors.

Argued May 5, 1981,

before President Judge Crumlish and Judges Mencer, Blatt, Craig and MacPhail. Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Palladino did not participate.

*Marvin A. Fein,*Associate City Solicitor, with him *Mead J. Mulvihill, Jr.,*City Solicitor, for petitioners.

*Daniel T. Flaherty, Jr.,*Chief Counsel, for respondent.

*Harry Polihoff,*for intervenor, R. Bruce Fike *&*Sons Dairy, Inc.

*423*Willis F. Daniels*and *Harold W. Swope, Duane, Morris <& Heckscher,*-with them *Carroll F. Purdy, Thomas é Thomas,*for intervenors, Greater Pittsburgh Dairy Industry Association, Brookfield Dairy, Division of Hawthorn Mellody, Inc., Carl Colteryahn Dairy, Inc., Marburger Farm Dairy, Inc., Meadow Brook Dairy Co., Schneider’s Dairy, Inc., Taylor Milk Co., Inc., and Turner Dairy Farm, Inc.

July 8, 1981:

Opinion by

- President Judge Crumlish,

' The City of Pittsburgh appeals an order' of the' Milk Marketing Board raising minimum milk prices by $.05 per gallon in 15 western Pennsylvania counties. We.reverse and remand.

. On July 23, 1980, the Milk Marketing Board held hearings to review the minimum milk prices for the Western Milk Marketing Area. Testimony was presented by an accountant who represented seven independent dealers. Based upon the dealers’ composite statement of operations, the accountant testified that area dealers were not realizing a “fair return” as provided for in Section 801 of the Milk Marketing Law.1

Counsel for the City of Pittsburgh, during cross-examination, requested to see the seven individual statements of operations that comprised the composite from which the accountant had testified. The Board refused this request, stating that the individual statements were confidential pursuant to Section 310 of the Milk Marketing Law.. We disagree.

- Admittedly, Section 310 classified as confidential-certain information obtained by the Board while discharging its statutory duties. However, Section 310 •specifically provides “any evidence, statements or other testimony offered by parties other than board *424employes or agents during official hearings before the board shall be subject to full examination and cross-examination.” 31 P.S. §700j-310.

Since the individual statements were relied upon by the accountant in formulating his testimony, the Board erred in not permitting them to be examined.2

Reversed.

Oeder

The Milk Marketing Board order dated November 12,1980, is reversed. This matter is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with the decision rendered this date.

1

 Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 963, *as*amended, 31 P.S. §700j-101.

2

 We are careful to point out that the seven individual statements are dispositive of the issue as to whether the Board’s decision was based upon review of a cross-section of dealers who are representative of the average efficient dealers in the area. *See*31 P.S. §700j-801.
No. 53649.

protests 122954-K and 123228-K (Galveston).

#### Collin & Gissel *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of parts of vertical field balances and that the balances of which these articles are parts are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Asiatic Petroleum Corp.*v. *United States*(19 Cust. Ct. 3, C. D. 1058), *American Askania Corp.*v. *United States*(20 id. 302, Abstract 52267), and *American Askania Corporation*v. *United States*(21 id. 26, C. D. 1121). Since paragraph 372 provides that “parts, not specially provided for * * * of any of the foregoing, shall be dutiable at the same rate of duty as the articles of which they are parts,” it was held, upon the cited authorities, that the parts of vertical field balances in question are properly dutiable at 27% percent under paragraph 372 as parts of machines, not specially provided for. The protests were sustained to this extent.
CUSIP
                        VERYBESTOFTHEINTERNET.COM, INC.


               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

                                                               SEE REVERSE FOR
                                  COMMON STOCK               CERTAIN DEFINITIONS



                                    SPECIMAN


This
certifies
that







is the owner of


 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, $.0001 PAR VALUE, OF
                        VERYBESTOFTHEINTERNET.COM, INC.


(hereinafter  called  the  "Corporation"),  transferable  on  the  books  of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney,  upon
surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed.  This certificate and the shares
represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of
the  Articles of  Incorporation  and the Bylaws of the  Corporation,  as amended
(copies of which are on file at the  office of the  Transfer  Agent),  to all of
which  the  holder  of this  Certificate  by  acceptance  hereof  assents.  This
Certificate  is not valid unless  countersigned  and  registered by the Transfer
Agent and  Registrar.  Witness  the  facsmile  seal of the  Corporation  and the
facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.


DATE:


                                [GRAPHIC OMITTED]



                               Countersigned:
PRESIDENT                                    SECURITIES TRANSFER CORPORATION
                                             P.O. Box 701629
                                             Dallas, TX 75370
                                          By:


SECRETARY                                    ___________________________________
                                             TRANSFER AGENT-AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8519 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8519

    To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of Federal funds for 
        disinformation research grants, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2024

 Mr. Massie (for himself, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, Ms. 
    Boebert, Mr. Burlison, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Finstad, Ms. Greene of 
 Georgia, Mr. Gosar, Mrs. Luna, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Perry, Mr. Roy, and Mr. 
 Weber of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of Federal funds for 
        disinformation research grants, 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. PROHIBITION.

    No Federal funds may be obligated or expended by any Federal 
department or agency for the following:
            (1) Disinformation research grants.
            (2) Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace grants.
            (3) Programs within the National Science Foundation's Track 
        F: Trust and Authenticity in Communications Systems.
                                 <all>
```
October 5, 1950

No. 54735.

Suit 4602.

#### Mutual Supply Co. *v.*United States.

Reap. Dec. 7578 affirmed' June 30, 1950. C. A. D. 437.
ATTACHMENT 8 
3DR Y6 CHECKLIST

PREFLIGHT

1.	Controller	charged	

2.	Props	and	landing	gear	

secured	to	UAV	

3.	Airframe	is	nominal	–	no	

damage	

4.	Engine	mounts	secure	and	

aligned	

5.	Arms	tightened	

6.	Wind,	temperature,	and	

takeoff	altitude	within	UAV	

tolerances	

ARMING

1.	Controller	power	on	and	flight	

mode	confirmed	

2.	UAV	battery	connected	–	

power	applied	

3.		Sensor	package	on	and	

running/Fat	Shark	confirmed	

mode	

4.	Telemetry	antenna	in	line	of	

sight/Telemetry	link	established	

to	MP	device	

5.	GPS	position	locked	

6.	Upload	Mission	Waypoints		

7.	Visual	confirmation	of	secure	

battery	and	sensor	package	

TAKEOFF

1.	Auto	mode	switch	to	‘OFF’	

2.	Master	flight	mode	switch	to	

‘STABILIZED’	

3.	Loiter	mode	disable	switch	to	

‘OFF’	

4.	Arm/Start	motor	

5.	Takeoff

6.		Master	flight	mode	switch	to	

‘LOITER’	

7.	Hover	at	3	meters/Confirm	

battery	status	

8.	Clear	to	engage	auto	mode	

switch	to	‘ON’	

9.	Confirm	controller	throttle	at	

50%	

CONTINUOUSLY MONITOR

ALTITUDE, AIRSPEED, AND

POWER LEVELS.		

DISENGAGE AUTONOMOUS

MISSION MODE (APPROACH)		

1.	UAV	at	Approach	Waypoint	

(last	mission	waypoint)	

2.	Controller	throttle	at	60%	

3.	Takeoff/Landing	area	clear	

4.	Master	flight	mode	in	

“RETURN	TO	LAND”		

5.	Land

6.	Disarm	immediately	

DISARM

1.	Visually	confirm	motor	

shutdown		

2.	Disconnect	battery	–	UAV	

disarmed	

3.	BEFORE	CONTROLLER	IS	OFF	

log	flight	time	and	ending	

battery	voltage	

POSTFLIGHT

1.	External	modules,	landing	

gear,	sensor	package,	flight	

sensors	all	secure	

2.	Airframe	nominal	

3.	Controller	power	off