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

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the matter of: 

Docket No.:

Supplemental proposed rule on FAA-2008-0677

qualification, service, and use of 

crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers 

Request by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) for a 180-day 

extension of the comment period

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) respectfully requests a 180 

day extension to file comments on the Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, “Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft 

Dispatchers,” published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2011. IATA and its

230 member airlines have a significant interest in the outcome of this rulemaking 

process. 

IATA is currently analyzing the proposed rule and gathering information from

member airlines to respond comprehensively. The response to this complex and 

significant proposal requires an extensive research and coordination effort, which 

is not possible in a 60 day comment period. Therefore, we request an additional 

180 days beyond July 19, 2011, which will afford the requisite time to provide 

valuable international input on this important proposal. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President, North America 

International Air Transport Association 

601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Suite 300, North Building 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Tel: 202-628-9292 

Fax: 202-628-9448 

lavind@iata.org
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1459 

To prohibit air carriers from charging a fee for the transportation of checked 

baggage by members of the Armed Forces traveling to or from an 

overseas contingency operation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. BAUCUS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To prohibit air carriers from charging a fee for the transportation of checked baggage by members of the Armed 

Forces traveling to or from an overseas contingency operation. 

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 ‘‘Four Free Bags for 

5 Freedom Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BAGGAGE FEES PROHIBITED. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—An air carrier (as defined in sec8 tion 40102(a) of title 49, United States Code) may not 


tjames on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1459 IS

1 charge any fee for the transport of 4 or fewer items of 

2 baggage checked by a member of the Armed Forces if such 

3 member— 

4 (1) is traveling in scheduled air transportation 

5 on official military orders; and 

6 (2) is being deployed on, or returning from, an 

7 overseas contingency operation. 

8 (b) LIMITATION.—As used in subsection (a), the term 

9 ‘‘item of baggage’’ does not include any item that weighs 

10 more than 80 pounds. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
1

Aetos Group Inc.

Tony Sauerbrey

5103 Rainflower Cir N 

League City TX 77573

Nov 3, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition for Amendment to 333 Exemption 11209, Docket number FAA-2014-0629

Dear Sir or Madam:

Aetos Group received FAA Exemption No.11209 on March 13, 2015 authorizing Aetos 

Group under section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to operate 

the Aeryon Sky Ranger and Aeryon Scout sUAS, for aerial inspections of various 

infrastructure and equipment. In this present petition for an amendment to Exemption No. 

11209, Aetos Group seeks to operate the eXom multi-rotor sUAS produced by Sensefly 

for the same purposes.

The eXom, weighting 3.7 pounds (Maximum Take Off Weight), contains a rich array of 

advanced integrated sensors. These sensors work together to provide the user with full 

situational awareness and support obstacle avoidance:

Five ‘Navcam’ vision sensors allow the operator to see in the direction the drone is 

moving via its flight control software, without needing to turn the system’s TripleView 

camera head. This technology is unique in such a lightweight UAS, similar to the visual 

parking sensors in modern cars, but brought into a 3D flight environment.

Five ultrasonic proximity sensors work in harmony with eXom’s Navcams to ensure the 

operator always knows the drone’s distance from nearby objects. (The drone’s shockabsorbent carbon fiber shrouding is also always on hand to protect its rotors in case of 

surface contact.)

Numerous other sensors, including inertial measurement units, barometers, 

magnetometers, GPS and magnetic encoders, maximize the drone’s stability and safety.
2

eXom offers different flight modes to suit every project: semi-automatic mode (waypoint 

navigation) or interactive ScreenFly mode (using the supplied joypad to navigate and 

orientate the drone via computer screen). The Screenfly mode includes flight assistance 

features such as cruise control and distance lock. In any situation, RC-based manual 

control always remains available as a backup function.

The eXom is particularly safe. It was developed with flexible material absorbing potential 

shocks, and SenseFly R&D team has developed also a unique carbon-fiber shrouding 

protecting the propellers. We have added also redundancy in our command and control 

system. In case something happens to the primary autopilot, the eXom will switch 

automatically to the secondary autopilot

We have attached the Operators Manual for additional detail on the eXom.

Other than the addition of this aircraft, there will be no change in the conditions and 

reasons relative to public safety that were the basis for the initial grant of exemption.

We trust that we have provided all of the necessary background and information needed 

to approve this request. Please contact me if you require any additional information or

clarification

Best regards,

Anthony Sauerbrey

Vice President 

Aetos Group
# P ROPOSAL UNDER THE 

# S MALL 

# C OMMUNITY



# A IR 

# S ERVICE 

# D EVELOPMENT 

# P ROGRAM

Docket #: DOT

- OST

- 2011

- 0119



# Arcata/Eureka **Airport**

**Eureka , California** 

Legal sponsor:

Humboldt County

DUNS: 143535529

Congressional District:

CA

- 01

Contact: Jacquelyn Hulsey

Airport Director

3561 Boeing Avenue

McKinleyville , California

95519

- 9358

Phone: (707) 839

- 5401

Fax: (707) 839

- 3596

jhulsey@co.humboldt.ca.us
**Exhibit 10.1**

**AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**THE AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**THE PBSJ CORPORATION 2008 EMPLOYEE**

**PAYROLL STOCK PURCHASE PLAN**

ThisAmendment to The Amended and Restated The PBSJ Corporation 2008 Employee Payroll Stock Purchase Plan (the “**Plan**”) is made on this      day of May, 2009, by **The PBSJ Corporation,** a Florida corporation (the“**Company**”). 

**RECITALS**

**WHEREAS**, the Company maintains the Plan to provide an opportunity to its eligible employees to purchase Company stock through payroll deductions; and 

**WHEREAS**, Section 18 of the Plan authorizes the Board of Directors of the Company to amend the Plan; and 

**WHEREAS**, the Board of Directors of the company has authorized and approved the amendments to the Plan contained herein; 

**NOW**, **THEREFORE**, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of May     , 2009: 

1. Paragraph (m) of Section 2 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

“(m) “Fair Market Value” means with respect to a Share, the fair market value of a Share as determined by the mostrecently completed independent appraisal of the Shares, subject to applicable law and in accordance with Company’s Bylaws, as amended from time to time.” 

2. All other terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain the same. 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, theCompany has caused this Amendment to be duly executed effective as of the day and year first above written. 

**COMPANY:**THE PBSJ CORPORATION, a Florida corporationBy:
(Reap. Dec. 9610)

#### Trans-World Shipping Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 959706.

(Decided February 25, 1960)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant

Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> Tbe submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by tbe parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to tbe c ourt, or by tbe court on its own motion. Where tbe plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or bis attorney, in a case does not appear when tbe same is called, and after tbe opposite party has bad opportunity to present evidence on tbe issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by tbe court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit
      32.1











**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. 1350)**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Competitive Technologies, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Donald J. Freed, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350),
      that
      to my knowledge:





1.
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





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








/s/ Dr.
      D. J. Freed


Dr.
      D. J.
      Freed


President
      and


Chief
      Executive Officer and Director


December
      14, 2006
#### Arthur H. Lee & Sons, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6800.

Entry No. 728134/1, etc.

-Invoices dated Manchester, England, November 1, 1941, etc.

Certified November 3, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 5, 1941, etc.

(Decided January 23, 1947)

*John R. Rafter*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kinchedoe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here'involved, and,that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 99.1 SCHOOL SPECIALTY, INC. SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS FISCAL 2017, FISCAL 2016, THIRTY-FIVE WEEKS ENDED DECEMBER 26, 2015, AND FISCAL 2015  Description

Date

Balance atBeginningof Period


Charged to Costsand Expenses


Charged toOther Accounts


Deductions


Balance at Endof Period


DateAllowance for doubtful accounts

April 26, 2014


984,000



372,000







(550,000
)


806,000


April 25, 2015April 25, 2015


806,000



282,000







(11,000
)


1,077,000


December 26, 2015December 27, 2015


1,077,000



750,000







(1,391,000
)


436,000


December 31, 2016January 1, 2017


436,000



753,000







(892,000
)


297,000


December 30, 2017Restructuring reserve

April 26, 2014


193,000



5,477,000







(4,091,000
)


1,579,000


April 25, 2015April 25, 2015


1,579,000



901,000







(2,105,000
)


375,000


December 26, 2015December 27, 2015


375,000



1,740,000







(1,554,000
)


561,000


December 31, 2016January 1, 2017


561,000



389,000







(900,000
)


50,000


December 30, 2017Reserve for Obsolete Inventory

April 26, 2014


8,416,000



405,000







(3,142,000
)


5,679,000


April 25, 2015April 25, 2015


5,679,000



2,109,000







(772,000
)


7,016,000


December 26, 2015December 27, 2015


7,016,000



2,416,000







(1,260,000
)


8,172,000


December 31, 2016January 1, 2017


8,172,000



7,749,000







(4,824,000
)


11,097,000


December 30, 2017
---

Exhibit 99.9

Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK 
Battery Co., Ltd. (the Company) and Shenzhen Hi-Tech District Branch,

Industrial Bank CO. Ltd (the Creditor) dated January 6, 2010

Main contents

- Contract number: Xingyinshen Gaoxinqu Shouxinduanjiezi(2009)021;
- Loan principal: RMB 50 million;
- Loan term: from January 6, 2010 to December 31, 2010;
- Fixed interest rate: annually 4.779%;

> Interest accrued and settled per month, interest settlement day is the 20th day of each month;
>       Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 4.779% plus 50% *4.779%;
>       Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 4.779% plus 50% *4.779%;

- Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for the Company;
- Advanced repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Creditor;
- Breach of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time limit; suspension of loan unprovided; release loan agreement, demand prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive interest
incurred due to delayed loan; imposition of punitive interest for embezzlement of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid interest; withdraw from any accounts of the Company the loan principal, interest and other fees; compensation for the
Creditors expenses incurred due to demanding the loan principal and interest in case of litigation, etc.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Termination and explanation
- Loan arrangement
- Interest clearing of the loan
- Payment of the loan
- Rights and obligations of both the Creditor and the Company
- Declaration and undertaking of the Company
- Interest penalty of loan
- Guarantee
- Continuity of Obligations
- Disputation settlement
- Validity
- Supplement articles

---
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
        U.S.C. 1350)**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Competitive Technologies, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2005, as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
        Michael D. Davidson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to
        my
        knowledge:
 
 1.
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and
 
 2.
              the
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                  Company.
 
 
 /s/
        Michael D. Davidson
 Michael
        D. Davidson
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 December
        12, 2005
Order issued January~, 2013

In The 

## ourt of App 

## of at No. 05-12-01003-CR CHRISTOPHER ROY MARSHALL, Appellant 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. FII-26457-N



### ORDER The Court GRANTS appellant’s December 19, 2012 motion to accept brief tendered. 

### We ORDER the Clerk of the Court to file the brief tendered as of the date of this order.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D22-988 

LT Case No. 2010-CF-2633-A 

_____________________________

HENRY LEE BAKER, IV, 

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County. 

John D. Galluzzo, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and George D.E. Burden, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J.

Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee. 

December 12, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________
EXHIBIT 10.1

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|   |   |                                      |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | By:    | /s/ Susan      B. Kilgannon          |   |
|   |   | Name:       Susan B. Kilgannon  |   |
|   |   | Date:  September      18, 2009  |   |
|   |   |                                      |   |

----

|   | URS Corporation,      a      Delaware corporation |                                               |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                              |                                               |   |
|   | By:                                               | /s/  H.      Thomas Hicks                |   |
|   |                                              | Name:  H.      Thomas Hicks         |   |
|   |                                              | Title:         Vice President  |   |
|   |                                              | Date:         September 25, 2009    |   |

----

----

----

----

|   | Name:    | Susan      B. Kilgannon |   |
|--------|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |                    |                    |   |
|   | Date:                   |                    |   |

----
No. 44241.

#### Protest 872998-G of Schwartz & Liebermann, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Bbown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is wool hat bodies similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protest was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 10.6

                                                                         Summary
                                                                         -------



Summary of Loan  Agreement by and between  Shenzhen  BAK Battery  Co.,  Ltd. and
Longgang Branch, Agricultural Bank of China dated March 25, 2005.

Main contents
>>   Contract No.: (Shenzhen Longgang) Nong Yin Jie Zi (81101200500000338)
>>   Loan Amount (RMB): 30million yuan
>>   Contract Term: 25th March 2005~ 25th September 2005
>>   Interest  rate:  5.22%;  repayment  principal  and interest are payable six
     months from date of agreement
>>   Purpose: Working capital
>>   Liabilities of Breach of Contract:  Breach of contract penalty;  withdrawal
     of loan,  prepayment of principal and interest before maturity,  attachment
     of assets; imposition of compound interest; lawyer's fee and travel cost in
     case of litigation due to the Company 's breach of contract etc.

Terms that have been omitted:  types of the loan; clearing of the loan interest;
condition  precedent to the drawing of the loan;  rights and  obligations of the
borrower;  rights  and  obligations  of the  lender;  prepayment  of  the  loan;
guarantee  of  the  loan;  dispute  settlement;  miscellaneous;   effectiveness;
validity; and attention.
# C_2016428EN.01001501.xml

| 21.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 October 2016 — Guccio Gucci v EUIPO — Guess? IP Holder (Representation of four interlocking Gs)

(Case T-461/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark representing four interlocking Gs - Earlier EU, national and international figurative marks G - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 428/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Guess? IP Holder LP (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2015 (Case R 2049/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Guccio Gucci and Guess? IP Holder.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Guccio Gucci SpA to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by Guess? IP Holder LP before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Guccio Gucci SpA to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by Guess? IP Holder LP before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

1

---
---

Exhibit 99.5

Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount (Credit

Facility Agreement) Entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd

(the Company) and Shenzhen Longgang Branch, Bank of China (the
Creditor) 
Dated March 8th, 2010

Main articles:

- Contract number: 2010 Zhenzhongyin Gang Exiezi 000119;
- Maximum amount of credit facilities to be provided: RMB 450 million;
- Term: from March 4, 2010 to March 4, 2011.
- Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for the Company;
- In the event of occurrence of any of the following during the term of loan, the Creditor is entitled to adjust the credit amount or even terminate the credit:

> Delay in repayment of interest for the loan;
>       Embezzling loan (i.e. using loan proceeds for purposes other than what is agreed in the contract without the consent of the Creditor);
>       Making untrue declaration or breach of promise;
>       Breach of other agreements

- Remedies in the event of breach of contract include adjustment of the credit amount, suspension of credit, imposition of punitive interest and overdue interest, an increase of guarantee deposit and the call back of loan principal
and interest before maturity.

Headlines of the articles omitted

- Procedure on using the comprehensive credit facility
- Guarantee
- Declaration and promise of the Company
- Rights reversed
- Modification, amendment, termination and invalidation of the Contract
- Disputation settlement
- Fee
- Attachment
- Other agreements
- Validity

---