alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINTON, DC

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-3281

FAA 333 Exemption No. 14062

February 04, 2016

Mike Hagler has proudly been issued an exemption, Regulatory Docket No FAA-2015-3281 and

exemption numbered 14062 (hereinafter the Exemption) for the purpose of aerial videography 

and photography of construction sites, real estate, and landscape. Mike Hagler hereby

respectfully requests an amendment to the exemption to allow two additional type of 

unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the Exemption.

Mike Hagler wishes to additionally operate a DJI S1000 and Sensefly eBee under the same terms 

and conditions contained in the Exemption. Sent under separate cover, is the Flight Operations 

and Procedures Manual (FOPM) for the additional UAS. All operations of the additional UAS will 

be in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption.

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking only for the addition of another type of 

unmanned aerial vehicle, Mike Hagler respectfully submits that good cause exists so that notice 

does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment.

Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any question or concerns 

concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption.

Respectfully submitted,

Mike Hagler

786 Rancho Trails

Ramona, CA 92065

619.247.5077

mhagler68@gmail.com
# C_2007170EN.01001102.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2007 — Derby SA v Belgian State

(Case C-232/07)

(2007/C 170/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Derby SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgian State

Defendant:

Question referred

Is the supply of the following services by an agent, acting on behalf of a principal who operates a business of taking bets on horse-races and other sporting events, exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 13(B)(d)(3) (1) of the Sixth Directive, which exempts transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts, ..., payments ...: namely, taking of the bets in the name of the principal; recording the bets; confirming to the customer, by the issue of a betting slip, that the bet has been made; collecting the monies; paying out the winnings; assuming sole responsibility, vis-à-vis the principal, for management of the collected monies and for any thefts or losses of money; and receiving remuneration for those activities in the form of a commission from the principal?

1

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

1

---
exv10w4







EXHIBIT 10.4




FORM OF AMENDMENT

TO THE

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     In accordance with Section 10.04, which allows the parties to amend this Executive Employment
Agreement (“Agreement”), the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:




	1.	 	Section 5.01 shall be deleted and replaced with the following provisions:






“Executive shall be entitled to twenty-two (22) business days of paid
time off (“PTO”) for each twelve (12) months of employment, in addition
to the Company’s normal holidays. PTO includes sick days and leaves of
absence. PTO will be scheduled taking into account the Executive’s
duties and obligations at the Company. Effective January 1, 2008, all
unused PTO starting with the 2007 carry forward shall be accumulated
from year to year, in accordance with the Company’s PTO Policy. PTO and
sick leave and all other leaves of absence will be taken in accordance
with the Company’s stated personnel policies. Upon termination or
expiration of the Executive’s employment, Executive shall be entitled to
compensation for any accrued, unused PTO time in accordance with the
Company’s PTO Policy as of date of termination.”



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated: May 8, 2008	 	Executive:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated: May 8, 2008

	 	By:	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Wireless Ronin
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Planning update. SacramentoRiver National Wildlife Refuge [electronic resource].**
 
Number: 0102030405
 
SuDoc Number:I 49.44/3:SA 1/5
Item Number:0612-C (online)
CGP systemNumber:000551937
 
February 6, 2020
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

 
| **Subsidiaries**                                | ** ** | **PLACE OF   INCORPORATION** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|------------|
|                                            |       |                              |       |
| ChinaCache North America Inc.                   |       | California, USA                   |       |
|                                            |       |                              |       |
| JNet Holdings Limited                           |       | BVI                               |       |
|                                            |       |                              |       |
| ChinaCache Networks (Hong Kong) Limited         |       | Hong Kong                         |       |
|                                            |       |                              |       |
| ChinaCache Network Technology (Beijing) Limited |       | PRC                               |       |
|                                            |       |                              |       |
| **Variable Interest Entities**                  | ** ** |                              | ** ** |
|                                            |       |                              |       |
| Beijing Blue I.T. Technologies Co., Ltd.   |       | PRC                               |       |
|                                            |       |                              |       |
| Beijing Jingtian Technology Co., Ltd.      |       | PRC                               |       |
|                                            |       |                              |       |
| Shanghai JNet Telecom, Co., Ltd.      |       | PRC                               |       |

 

1

----
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6971

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. THOMAS CREIGHTON SHRADER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Bluefield

. Irene C. Berger , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00270

- 1 )

Submitted : December 15, 2022 Decided: December 20, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , and WILKINSON and DIAZ , Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Thomas Creighton Shrader, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6971 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Thomas Creighton Shrader appeals the dis trict court’s order denying his “Motion for Immediate Release and Order Null and Voiding Defendant/Petitioners 2010 Federal Conviction(s) and Sentence Pursuant to Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Holding and
Order , ” as supplemented, and his “Motion for Void able Application.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. United States v. Shrader , No. 1:09

- cr - 00270

- 1 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 2, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6971 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
[Letterhead of Morse, Zelnick, Rose & Lander]

                                            March 23, 2001

Mr. Bruce G. Wilcox
Cumberland Associates LLC
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

                  Re: Milestone 20% Secured Promissory Notes

Dear Bruce:

      As per my conversation with Barry Konig, Milestone hereby offers to
exchange new 20% Secured Promissory Notes (the "New Notes") for the 20% Secured
Promissory Notes (the "Old Notes") now held by Cumberland Benchmarked Partners,
L.P. and LongView Partners A, L.P. The New Notes will be identical to the Old
Notes, except that Paragraph 2 will be revised to prevent prepayment of the New
Notes in common stock until July 31, 2002 unless the stock issued in prepayment
is valued at $5.00 or more under the New Notes. Paragraph 2 of the New Notes
will read as follows:

      "2. Principal Payments. The Principal Amount of this Note and any Interest
      Payment Note and any accrued interest thereon, shall be due and payable on
      the Maturity Date (as defined in Paragraph 3 below) in such coin or
      currency of the United States of America as at the time of payment shall
      be legal tender for the payment of public and private debts ("cash") or,
      at the option of the Maker, in shares of Common Stock, valued as set forth
      in Paragraph 7. The Maker shall have the option to prepay the Principal
      Amount and the Principal Amount of all related Interest Payment Notes, if
      any, together with accrued interest on all such notes to the payment date
      (a) in cash at any time before the Maturity Date, (b) in shares of Common
      Stock at any time after issuance but before July 31, 2002 if the Common
      Stock, valued as set forth in Paragraph 7, is at least $5.00 per share, or
      (c) in shares of Common Stock, valued as set forth in Paragraph 7, on or
      after July 31, 2002."

<PAGE>

            If the Noteholders consent to the exchange as set forth herein,
please indicate such consent by signing this letter where indicated below and
returning it to our office together with the Old Notes.

                                                     Very truly yours,


                                                     /s/ Stephen A. Zelnick
                                                     Stephen A. Zelnick

Consented and agreed to:


Cumberland Benchmarked Partners, L.P.
By:  Cumberland Associates LLC

By: Bruce G. Wilcox
   ------------------------------------
       Bruce G. Wilcox


LongView Partners A, L.P.
By: Cumberland Associates LLC

By: Bruce G. Wilcox
   ------------------------------------
       Bruce G. Wilcox


                                       8
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
I, Carl E. Vogel, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CCH II, LLC and CCH II Capital Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrants as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrants and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrants,including their consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) [Reserved]; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrants’ disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrants’ internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrants’ most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrants’ fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrants’ internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants’ auditors and theaudit committee of the registrants’ board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrants’ ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrants’internal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 13, 2004
/s/ Carl E. VogelCarl E. VogelChief Executive Officer
No. 54166.

#### C. L. Huisking & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 148165-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in *Roche-Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
**AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE 

Arkmael Ray Sales,

Plaintiff

 v.

Mr. K. Smith, et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-00239

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge Abel

[] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have

been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

[X] Decision by Court. This action was decided by the Court without a trial or hearing.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED That pursuant to the

January 3, 2012 Order, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s

Unopposed Motion to Dismiss. This action is DISMISSED.

Date: January 3, 2012 James Bonini, Clerk

 s/Betty L. Clark 

 Betty L. Clark/Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00239-ALM-MRA Doc #: 30 Filed: 01/03/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
March 23,2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood

U.S. Deparlment of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines' application for SAN-DCA, Docket No. DOT-OST-2012-0029

Dear Secretary LaHood:

The University of San Diego (USD) wishes to add its support to the application of

Alaska Airlines for air service between San Diego and Washington Reagan National

Airyoft (DCA). As the eighth n.rajor city in the United States, San Diego is the

largest region without regular, nonstop service to DCA. Additionally, due to the

profound community of interest between San Diego and the nation's capital, the

region generates the largest passenger market demand without nonstop service to the

convenient and close-in airporl seruing our nation's capital.

San Diego's sheer market size to Washington coupled with the fact that San Diego

Dr"rlles average airfares are the highest of west coast cities should qualify it for a pair

of the limited slots available. The high airfare is exacerbated when factoring in taxi

fares flom Dr-rlles to Washington's city center that average about $60 each way. Thrs

means travelers between Washington's city center and San Diego via Dulles can pay

on average close to $400 one-way.

As a private (non-profit), Roman Catholic institution of higher learning, the

University of San Diego enrolls about 7,800 undergraduate, graduate and law

students from around the country. USD ofTers a rigorous academic program through

six schools: College of Arts and Sciences, School of Business Administration, School

of Law, Hahn School of Nursing and Health Science, Joan B. Kroc School of Peace

Studies and the School ofLeadershin and Education Sciences.

Alaska Airlines service would add a needed nonstop option to a primary gateway to

Washington, DC. USD joins with the San Diego County Regional Airporl Authority,

the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, the World Trade

Center San Diego, and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce rn supporl of

Alaska Airlines' application for San Diego - Washington Reagan National slots.

We thank the Deparlment of Transporlation for the opportunity to comment on the

above ref-erenced docket and we hope to hear of a favorable review of Alaska

Airlines' San Diego DCA proposal soon.

Sincerely,

Thomas Cleary

Senior Director, Community and Govemment Relations

Office of Public Relations

Maher Hall, Room 264

5998 Alcal;i Park, San Diego, CA 921 10-2492

Phone: (61 9) 260-4659. Fax: (61 9) 260-6820

www.sa ndiego.ed u
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:11-cr-146

Leslie K. Todd 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 9) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the information,

and she is hereby adjudged guilty on those counts. The court will

defer the decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until

the sentencing hearing.

Date: July 14, 2011 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

Case: 2:11-cr-00146-JLG-NMK Doc #: 13 Filed: 07/14/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2007170EN.01003302.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/33

---

Action brought on 25 May 2007 — Avon Products v OHIM (ANEW ALTERNATIVE)

(Case T-184/07)

(2007/C 170/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Avon Products, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: C. Heitmann-Lichtenstein, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 March 2007 in Case R 1471/2006-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 March 2007 in Case R 1471/2006-2;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ANEW ALTERNATIVE’ for goods in class 3 — application No 4 357 919

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and of the principle of equal treatment.

Pleas in law:

---
EXHIBIT 33.1
 
 REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA
 FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES
 
 Entergy Arkansas, LLC (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:
 
 (1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), (4)(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);
 
 (2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;
 
 (3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2019, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and
 
 (4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.
 
 
 Dated: March 27, 2020
 
 Entergy Arkansas, LLC, as servicer
 
 By:   /s/ Steven C. McNeal
 Name:  Steven C. McNeal
 Title:   Vice President and Treasurer
Exhibit 10(n)



                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                     TO THE
                  MET-PRO CORPORATION PENSION RESTORATION PLAN


This  amendment  to  the  Met-Pro  Corporation  Pension  Restoration  Plan  (the
"Restoration Plan") is made and effective this 4th day of April, 2001.

WHEREAS,  the  Board of  Directors  has  adopted  the  Restoration  Plan and the
Restoration Plan was thereafter approved by the Board of Directors on August 17,
2000.

WHEREAS,  Section 6 of the Plan  authorizes  the Board of Directors to amend the
Restoration Plan.

WHEREAS,  the Board of Directors  desires to amend the  Restoration  Plan in the
following manner:

          1.   Section 1 of the Restoration Plan is hereby deleted.

          2.   A new Section 1 is hereby added to the Plan as follows:

               "1.  Purposes. The Restoration Plan shall provide for the payment
                    of supplementary benefits primarily to compensate William L.
                    Kacin,  Raymond J. De Hont and Gary J. Morgan (the "Eligible
                    Executives") for the amount of the reduction, if any, in any
                    such person's  respective benefits under the Pension Plan on
                    account of the application of Section  401(a)(17) or Section
                    415 of the Code.."

Except as expressly  provided herein, the Restoration Plan as amended remains in
force and effect, unamended and unmodified.


IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the Company has caused its  authorized  officer to execute
this Amendment on behalf of the Company.


WITNESS:                                          MET-PRO CORPORATION

                                                  By: /s/ William L. Kacin
------------------------------                       ---------------------------
                                                      William L. Kacin
                                                      Chief Executive Officer