alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Wing ard Services, LLC

Raymond R Wingard Jr , Member
566 Southern Run Fairhope, AL, 36532 (251) 331

- 7107 rwingard@wingardservices.com

October 9, 2015

To whom it may concern,

This petition is submitted o n my behalf without legal counsel or consulting services.

I, Raymond R Wingard Jr and sole member of Wingard Services LLC , am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112

- 95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333 and the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, to be exempt from the Federal Aviation Regulations as specified
and seek exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R §§ 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b), to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and R eform Act of 2012 (FMRA).

This exemption request will permit Raymond R Wingard Jr , M ember, Wingard Services L L C

, to operate UAS for the commercial purpose of conducting a erial video and photography of real e state, perform home
and or busin ess exterior inspections, agricultural inspect ions, and general photography.

Unmanned aircraft , consisting of a DJI Phantom 2 and/or DJI Phantom 3

, w ill be used for commercial photography and video for h ire, namely, Real Estate Photography, home and or business exterior inspections, wedding and events, land and survey appraisals, and agricultural assessm ents on local farms
and to increase public knowledge of UAS and to promote safe UAS operations

.

I was granted an FAA Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic certificate 31 years ago and am experienced
wi th the above

- mentioned aircraft. The DJI Phantom 2 and Phantom 3 are GPS assisted to provide very stable and safe flight control , and for safety these UA ’ s will return to h ome in case of signal loss or low battery condition

. These UA ’ s are software limited to 400ft altitude. I will perform all pre

- flight and post flight checks, and system/vehicle mai ntenance in accordance with FAA and manufa cturer ’ s ins tructions

. Al l flights will be line of sight and will have a spo tter as needed. The Phantom UA ’ s weigh 3 p ounds and are battery operated

.

A primary benefit is t he use of these aircraft to substantially reduc e the need to climb ladders and walk roof
or other elevated surface s

. The fall risk elimination benefit is c lear. The ability to provide inspection of

e levated surfaces where personnel safety or financial burden would otherwise prevent it is a benefit to
clients and public overall as building and property maintenance is simplified and enhanced. The aircraft are
safe r and eliminate potential damage to property by aerial trucks, scaffolds, ladders, booms etc. Where aircraft must be used, these UA ’ s can access areas a full size aircraft can' t.

Sincerely,

Raymond R Wingard Jr

Member Wingard Services LLC
**From:** Szabo, Aaron [ mailto:Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov ]

**Sent:** Friday, July 24, 2015 4:09 PM **To:** Brachtl, Megan; Owens, Nicole; Ling, Michael **Cc:** Laity, Jim **Subject:** Conclusion of EO 12866 and 13563 Review: Data Requirements Rule for the One - Hour Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (RIN No. 2060 -AR19) This email serves as notice that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has concl uded its review under Executive Orders (EO) 12866 and 13563 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final rule titled Data Requirements Rule for the One - Hour Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (RIN No. 2060 -AR1 9). Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you. Aaron L. Szabo Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget 202 - 395 - 3621 Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
[No. 21041.

In Bank.—

January 26, 1894.]

#### Ex Parte AH CUE on Habeas Corpus.

Constitutional Law—State Chinese Exclusion Act—Regulation o® Commerce.—The act of March 20, 1891, to prohibit Chinese persons from coming into the state, and prescribing terms and conditions upon which those residing in the state shall be permitted to remain or travel therein, is in excess of the power of the state, and in conflict with the constitution of the United States, which gives exclusive power to the general government to regulate commerce with foreign nations; and Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional power, having prescribed the terms upon wfiich the Chinese now here shall be permitted to remain within the United States, it is beyond the power of the state to impose any further conditions.

Hearing in the Supreme Court upon a writ of *habeas torpus.*

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Thomas D. Riordan,*and *Harvey S. Brown,*for Petitioner.

*Attorney General W. H. H. Hart, contra.*

The Court.—

The petitioner was at the date of the issuance of the writ herein imprisoned by the chief of police of the city and county of San Francisco, charged with the alleged crime of “ unlawfully coming in, being, and remaining within the limits of the state of California,” in violation of an act of the legislature of this state approved March 20,1891 (Stats. 1891, p. 185), entitled: “An act to prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the state, whether subjects of the Chinese Empire or otherwise, and to provide for registration and certificates of residence, and determine the *status*of all Chinese persons now resident of this state, and fixing penalties and punishments for violation of this act, and providing for deportation of criminals.” The main purpose of this act, as shown by its title and by. its provisions, is to prohibit Chinese persons from coming into the state, and also to prescribe terms and conditions upon which *198those residing within the state shall be permitted to remain or travel between different points in the state. The power thus attempted to be exercised is one which belongs exclusively to the general government by virtue of its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations (section 8, article 1, of the constitution of the United States), relating, as it does, to a subject matter in which all the people of the United States are concerned, and not alone those of the state of California. Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional power, has prescribed the terms upon which the Chinese now here shall be permitted to remain within the United States; and it is beyond- the power of the state to impose any further conditions. *(Ah Kow*v. *Nunan,*5 Saw. 563. See also *Chinese Exclusion Case,*130 U. S. 604; *Fong Yue Ting*v. *United States,*149 U. S. 711, 712.) The Statute under which the petitioner is held is so plainly in excess of the power of the state, and in conflict with the constitution of the United States, that any extended discussion of its provisions is wholly unnecessary. The petitioner is discharged.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8840 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8840

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to modify the rules with 
  respect to the consideration in the House of Representatives of any 
   resolution providing for an adjournment period of more than three 
 calendar days until the House of Representatives has approved annual 
              appropriation bills, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2024

 Mr. Edwards introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to modify the rules with 
  respect to the consideration in the House of Representatives of any 
   resolution providing for an adjournment period of more than three 
 calendar days until the House of Representatives has approved annual 
              appropriation bills, 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 ``Do Our Job Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPLETION OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ACTION ON REGULAR 
              APPROPRIATION BILLS.

    Section 309 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 640) 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``It shall not be in order'' and inserting 
        ``(a) In General--It shall not be in order'';
            (2) by striking ``to consider any resolution providing'' 
        and inserting ``to consider any resolution or motion 
        providing'';
            (3) by striking ``during the month of July'' and inserting 
        ``or for the House to convene solely in a pro forma session for 
        a period of more than 7 calendar days during the period 
        beginning July 1 and ending December 31''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It shall not be 
in order in the House of Representatives to consider a rule or order 
that waives the application of subsection (a).
    ``(c) Question of Consideration.--As disposition of a point of 
order under subsection (b), the Chair shall put the question of 
consideration with respect to the rule or order, as applicable.
    ``(d) Debate and Intervening Motions.--A question of consideration 
under this section shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member 
initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but 
shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion.''.
                                 <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 9277)

#### Finwood Industries, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5581, etc.

(Decided December 22, 1958)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for tbe parties have stipulated and agreed in these cases as follows:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the market values of the merchandise at the time of exportation to the United States covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on schedule “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof at which time 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 quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption including costs of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States were the values set forth in the right hand column of the schedule attached hereto marked “Foreign Market Value” and that the export values, as defined in Section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 were no higher than said values.

On tbe agreed facts, I find that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is tbe proper basis for valuation of tbe merchandise covered by tbe appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part hereof, and that such value in each case is tbe value set forth in tbe right-hand column of tbe said schedule marked “Foreign market value.”

Judgment will issue accordingly.

> Schedule “A”

> FINWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC.

> Foreign Reappt. Entry market No. No. Description value Per M sq. feet net pkd.

> 287901-A 5581/53 BJ-WG-)£ — small sizes_ $46. 57

> BJ-BB-J4 — -small sizes_•_ 48. 33

> WG-J4 — small sizes_ 39. 96

> 287902-A 2791/53 BJ/BB-96 x *48*— % correct value $309.58 per 244. 66 M sq. ft. less 25% net packed.

> 287904-A 3044/54 4mm-BBJ/WG — small_ 61. 34
Exhibit 35.1




Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation








NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION






OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE






The undersigned, Mark Kaczynski, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:




(1)           The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2012 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, as amended and as supplemented by the 2010-A SUBI Servicing Supplement, dated as of May 25, 2010 (as supplemented, the “Agreement”), by and among Nissan-Infiniti LT, as titling trust, NILT Trust, as UTI beneficiary, and the Company, as servicer, to be conducted under his supervision; and




(2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.




This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 15th day of June, 2012.




/s/ Mark Kaczynski


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer
EX-4.21



 Exhibit 4.21 

This is an English Translation 

Equity Transfer Agreement 

This agreement is signed by each of the following parties in the company’s conference room on April 23, 2014. 

Transferor: WANG YONG (hereinafter “Party A”); Identity Card Number:
                     

Transferee: LIN ZHIMIN (hereinafter “Party B”); Identity Card Number:
                     
 Shanghai
The9 Information Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Target Company”) has a registered capital of RMB23 million, to which Ji Wei has contributed RMB14.72 million, accounting for 64% thereof, and Wang Yong has contributed RMB8.28 million, accounting
for 36% thereof. According to the relevant laws and regulations, Party A and Party B have reached the following agreement after friendly consultation: 

ARTICLE ONE      TRANSFER TARGET AND TRANSFER PRICE 

1. Party A shall transfer its 36% equity interest in the Target Company to Party B with a consideration of RMB0. 

2. Other rights affiliated to the equity interests shall be transferred together with the transfer of such equity interests. 

ARTICLE TWO      UNDERTAKING AND WARRANTY 

Transferor warrants that the equity interests to be transferred to Transferee under Article One hereof are legally owned by Transferor.
Transferor has the full and effective right to dispose of such equity interests. Transferor warrants that the equity interests to be transferred are free from any pledge or other security right and from any recourse by a third party. 

ARTICLE THREE      DEFAULT LIABILITY 

In case either party breaches this Agreement, the breaching party shall pay to the non-breaching party RMB10,000 as liquidated damages. 

ARTICLE FOUR      DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the relevant PRC laws. 

Any dispute arising from or in connection with this Agreement shall be resolved through friendly consultation between both parties. If such
dispute cannot be resolved through consultation, it shall be submitted to the Shanghai Arbitration Commission for arbitration. 
 ARTICLE
FIVE      MISCELLANEOUS 
 1. This Agreement shall have four original sets, with each party hereto holding
one set and the Target Company holding two sets for the purpose of handling relevant formalities. 
 2. This Agreement shall take effect
upon the execution of both parties. 








					
	Party A (Signature)				Party B (Signature)
			
	 /s/ WANG YONG
				 /s/ LIN ZHIMIN


 April 23, 2014
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A1 22 4 . KYLE RI CHARD BI SHOP v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 0 0

, Ky l e Ri ch ard Bi s h o p was co n v ict ed of on e co un t o f ch il d m o l es t at i o n,

t wo co u n t s o f ag grav at ed ch i l d m o l es t a t i o n , a n d o n e co u nt o f ag grav at ed s ex u al

b at t ery

. Th i s Co u rt affi rm ed Bi s h o p ’ s co n v i ct i o n s o n d i rect ap peal

. Bi s h op v. S t a t e , 2 5 2 Ga. Ap p

. 2 1 1 (5 5 5 SE2 d 5 0 4 ) (2 0 0 1 ). Recen t l y , Bi s h o p fi l ed a m o t i on fo r o u t -o ft i m e ap p eal

. T h e t ri al co u rt d i s m i s s ed t h e m o t i o n , an d Bi s h o p fi l ed t h is ap p eal

. W e

l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

“ An o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal i s a ju d i ci al cre a t i o n t h a t s erv es as t h e rem ed y fo r a

fru s t rat ed ri g h t o f ap peal .” Ki l go r e v. S t a t e , 3 2 5 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 4, 8 7 5 (1 ) (7 56 SE2 d 9 )
(2 0 1 4)

. B e cau s e Bi s h o p al read y h as h ad a d i rect ap p eal

, h e is no t en t i t l ed t o an

o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal

. See Ri ch ar d s v. S t a t e , 27 5 Ga. 1 9 0

, 1 9 1 (5 6 3 SE2 d 8 5 6 ) (2 0 0 2 )
(“ [T] h ere i s n o ri g h t to d i rect l y ap p eal t h e d en i al o f a m o ti o n fo r o u t -o f-t im e ap p eal

fi led b y a cri m i n al defen dan t w h o s e co n vi ct i o n h as b een affi rm ed o n d irect ap p eal .”)
(p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). A cco rd i n g l y , t h i s ap peal i s h ereb y DI SM ISSED fo r l ack o f
ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.
W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. April 20, 2021

04/20/2021
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 01, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 01, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0405. ZULMA RODRIGUEZ v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 15A03950
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. MAX SCHMITTER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Mr. Guy W. Oalissi*and *Mr. Harold N. Springstead*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Lebson & Prigof*and *Mr. Robert Y. Gray*for the respondent.

April 18, 1967.

Denied.
Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 201 Filed: 09/29/14 Page: 1 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 201 Filed: 09/29/14 Page: 2 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 201 Filed: 09/29/14 Page: 3 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 201 Filed: 09/29/14 Page: 4 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 201 Filed: 09/29/14 Page: 5 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 201 Filed: 09/29/14 Page: 6 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 201 Filed: 09/29/14 Page: 7 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 201 Filed: 09/29/14 Page: 8 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 201 Filed: 09/29/14 Page: 9 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 201 Filed: 09/29/14 Page: 10 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00131-MHW-NMK Doc #: 201 Filed: 09/29/14 Page: 11 of 11  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T15:19:32-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8972 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to update certain regulations to allow for expanded use of lap held child 

restraints during flights, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2024 

Mr. POSEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to update certain regulations to allow for expanded use of lap held child restraints during flights, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safety for Our Babies 

5 Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LAP HELD CHILD RESTRAINTS. 

7 Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

8 of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation AdVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:29 Aug 13, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8972.IH H8972

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8972 IH

1 ministration shall update sections 91.107, 121.311, 

2 125.211, and 135.128 of title 14, Code of Federal Regula3 tions, and any such other related regulations as the Ad4 ministrator determines appropriate, to remove any prohi5 bition, restriction, or condition on an adult accompanying 

6 a child under the age of 2 on an aircraft choosing to secure 

7 such child in a lap held child restraint approved and pro8 vided by such adult during movement on the surface, take9 off, or landing. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB