alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Terrestrial Imaging, LLC

1 Grand Court

Colts Neck, NJ 07722

Exemption #13608 

Amendment 

BASIS FOR THE AMENDMENT TO EXEMPTION #13608

Terrestrial Imaging, LLC received a 333 Exemption #13608 to operate DJI Phantom 3 

aircrafts and 3DR Solo aircrafts for aerial photography, aerial inspections, aerial data 

collection, and aerial photography for events and promotional purposes. The aircrafts

listed above are appropriate for certain missions, but not for all missions. Terrestrial 

Imaging, LLC is requesting an amendment to Exemption #13608 to operate additional 

UAS aircraft. Terrestrial Imaging, LLC will continue to use 3DR Solo and the DJI 

Phantom 3 technology when necessary. Terrestrial Imaging, LLC is requesting that 

additional UAS aircraft be added to the existing exemption by means of an amendment.

The additional aircraft and UAS systems that I would like to add to my exemption 

#13608 are as follows:

Yuneec Typhoon Q5004K

Yuneec Typhoon Q500G

Yuneec Tornado H920

DJI Inspire 1

All of the above systems have limited flying time capabilities (approximately 20-30 

minutes of flight on a single charge), do not carry anything other than a camera, operate 

by battery power, and do not carry flammable fuel. In fact, in the event of the loss of 

communications with the pilot, these devices are programmed to “return to home” 

and/or travel a pre-determined route to land safely.

Summary for Federal Register publication.

The rules from which Terrestrial Imaging, LLC seeks exemption: 
Conditions and limitations #1 of exemption # 13608

A. Brief description of the nature of the amendment Terrestrial Imaging, LLC 

seeks:

Terrestrial Imaging, LLC seeks an amendment to exemption #13608 to operate 

additional small UAS aircraft with an equivalent level of safety. The amendment 

requests use of a proprietary designs to perform aerial photography, aerial 

inspections, aerial data collection, and aerial photography for events and 

promotional purposes. I understand the only part of exemption #13608 that will 

be amended is section 1 of the conditions and limitations listed on the 

exemption.

Terrestrial Imaging, LLC is requesting an amendment to #1 of the conditions and 

limitations issued with exemption #13608 to include several new UAS aircraft. If you 

have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my at 

christophers@terrestrialimaging.com.

Sincerely,

Christopher LoPresti

President

Terrestrial Imaging, LLC
Exhibit 32.1


             Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated
(the "Company") certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that:

..    the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
     June 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

..    the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.


                            /s/ John W, Peters
Date: August 7, 2006        __________________________________
                            John W. Peters
                            Principal Executive Officer
                            Principal Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1579 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1579

   To amend title 37, United States Code, to provide that the basic 
 allowance for housing in effect for a member of the National Guard is 
 not reduced when the member transitions between active duty and full-
      time National Guard duty without a break in active service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 20, 2011

  Mr. Brown of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
       read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 37, United States Code, to provide that the basic 
 allowance for housing in effect for a member of the National Guard is 
 not reduced when the member transitions between active duty and full-
      time National Guard duty without a break in active service.

    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 ``National Guard Basic Allowance for 
Housing Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. NO REDUCTION IN BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING FOR ARMY NATIONAL 
              GUARD AND AIR NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS WHO TRANSITION 
              BETWEEN ACTIVE DUTY AND FULL-TIME NATIONAL GUARD DUTY 
              WITHOUT A BREAK IN ACTIVE SERVICE.

    Section 403(g) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(6) The rate of basic allowance for housing to be paid a member 
of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National 
Guard of the United States shall not be reduced upon the transition of 
the member from active duty to full-time National Guard duty, or from 
full-time National Guard duty to active duty, when the transition 
occurs without a break in active service.''.
                                 <all>
```
Skip Navigation

#         Archive-It      

Login

      - HOME
      - EXPLORE
      - LEARN MORE
      - CONTACT US

### The leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing cultural heritage on the web 

Built at the Internet Archive

        - Explore
        - Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive
        - National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

#  National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

**Collected by:** Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive 

**Archived since:**Sep, 2018

**Description:**
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The Act is notable for safeguarding the special character of these rivers, while also recognizing the potential for their appropriate use and development. It encourages river management that crosses political boundaries and promotes public participation in developing goals for river protection.  As of August 2018 (the last designation), the National System protects 12,754 miles of 209 rivers in 40 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; this is a little more than one-quarter of one percent of the nation's rivers. By comparison, more than 75,000 large dams across the country have modified at least 600,000 miles, or about 17% (possibly more than 20% – figures are best estimates), of American rivers.

**Subject:**    	    Government - US Federal,     	    Environment & Energy

**Collector:**    	    U.S. Government Publishing Office

**Contributor:**    	    U.S. Forest Service,     	    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,     	    National Park Service,     	    Bureau of Land Management

## Narrow Your Results

### 

            There are no further ways to narrow your results.           

Sites for this collection are listed below. Narrow your results at left, or enter a search query below to		      find a site, specific URL or to search the text of archived webpages.
Clear

              - Sites
              - Search Page Text

Page 1 of 1  (3 Total Results)

**Sort By:**
                - Title (A-Z)
                - Title (Z-A)
                - URL (A-Z)
                - URL (Z-A)

### URL:     https://wsr50.onlinepresskit247.com

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://www.flickr.com/photos/wild_rivers/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://www.rivers.gov/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

Page 1 of 1  (3 Total Results)

Archive It

#### Archive-It 

*Built at the Internet Archive*
2014 Archive-ItThe leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing  cultural heritage on the web 

      - Home
      - Learn More         - About Archive-It
        - News/Press
        - Meet the Team
        - Publications
      - Contact Us
#### In the Matter of Thomas P. ONDECK, Esquire. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

No. 99-BG-653.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

June 24, 1999.

Before RUIZ and REID, Associate Judges; and GALLAGHER, Senior Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of the affidavit of Thomas P. Ondeck, wherein he consents to disbarment from the Bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to § 12 of Rule XI- of the Rules Governing the Bar of the District of Columbia, which affidavit has been filed with the Clerk of this Court, the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility with respect thereto, and the letter from Bar Counsel taking no exception to the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, it is this 24th day of June, 1999

ORDERED that the said Thomas P. Ondeck, is hereby disbarred on consent effective forthwith.

The Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed or otherwise made available except upon order of the Court or upon written consent of the respondent.

The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving him notice of the provisions of Rule XI, §§ 14 and 16, which sets forth certain rights and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply therewith.
#### Fredk. Loeser & Co., Inc., Globe Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7464.

Invoices dated Hanley, England, January 1945, etc.

Certified January 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 15, 1945, etc.

Entry No. 721557, etc.

(Decided December 4, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney Géneral, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement 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 importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit
 32



CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
 connection with the report on Form 10-Q ofComCam
 International, Inc. for thequarterly
 period endedMarch 31, 2010,
 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,Don
 Gilbreath, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906
 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



| | (1) | This 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:May12,
 2010



/s/
 Don Gilbreath

Don
 Gilbreath,Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
 Officer



This
 certification accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
 required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange
 Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933,
 as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective
 of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



28
#### Gloria Grening WOLK and Bialkin Books, Appellants, v. LIFE PARTNERS, INC., Appellee.

No. 10-99-128-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

June 23, 1999.

*935Britton D. Monts, Law Offices of Britton D. Monts, Dallas, Tom C. McCall & Rit-chie, L.L.P., Austin, for appellant.

R. Scott Peden, Waco, for appellee.

Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Life Partners, Inc. (Life Partners) sued Gloria Wolk (Wolk) for defamation. The court entered an interlocutory default judgment on April 1, 1999, and after a hearing on damages, awarded $1.5 million in a final judgment dated April 9. Wolk, a resident of California, filed a special appearance under Rule 120a and a motion to vacate the default judgment. Tex.R. Civ. P. 120a. On April 27, within its 30-day plenary power under Rule 329b(d), the court denied the special appearance but granted a new trial. *Id.*329b(d).

Wolk filed an interlocutory appeal from the order denying her special appearance, as allowed by section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(7) (Vernon Supp.1999). Life Partners filed a notice of cross-appeal from the order granting the new trial.

On May 21, Wolk filed in this court a motion to dismiss the cross-appeal for want of jurisdiction, pointing out that an order granting a new trial is an interlocutory, non-appealable order. That motion also seeks sanctions for a frivolous appeal. On June 11, she filed a motion to dismiss her own appeal. Both motions will be granted, and the motion for sanctions will be denied.

A party may dismiss its own appeal under Rule 42.1(a)(2), which provides:

> (a) The appellate court may dispose of an appeal as follows:

> 

> (2) in accordance with a motion of appellant to dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order; but no party may be prevented from seeking any relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.

Tex.R.App. P. 42.1(a)(2). Thus, Wolk’s motion to dismiss her appeal is proper and is granted.

The next question is whether we may also dismiss Life Partners’ cross-appeal. As noted, Wolk’s motion to dismiss cannot preclude Life Partners from “seeking any relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.” *See id.*In this instance, however, Life Partners is seeking to set aside an order granting a new trial.

Our Supreme Court is explicit on this question:

> An order granting a new trial within [the plenary power] period is not subject to review either by direct appeal from the order, or from a final judgment after further proceedings in the trial court.

*Cummins v. Paisan Const. Co.,*682 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex.1984) (per curiam). Life Partners could not have appealed from the order granting a new trial; it cannot appeal the order as a cross-appeal. Thus, we grant Wolk’s motion to dismiss the cross-appeal.

Wolk’s motion for sanctions is denied.
# C_2012235EN.01000902.xml

| 4.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Harry Winston SARL

(Case C-273/12)

2012/C 235/17

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation (Supreme Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (Director-General of Customs and Indirect Taxes), Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (Head of the Investigation Agency of the National Directorate of Customs Information and Inquiries)

Applicants:

Defendant: Harry Winston SARL

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 206 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the theft, in the circumstances of the present case, of goods held under the customs warehousing procedure constitutes the irretrievable loss of the goods and a case of force majeure, with the consequence that, in that situation, no customs debt on importation is deemed to have been incurred? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 206 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the theft, in the circumstances of the present case, of goods held under the customs warehousing procedure constitutes the irretrievable loss of the goods and a case of force majeure, with the consequence that, in that situation, no customs debt on importation is deemed to have been incurred?

1

| 2. | Is the theft of goods held under the customs warehousing procedure such as to give rise to the chargeable event and to cause the value added tax to become chargeable pursuant to Article 71 of [Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax]? (2) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the theft of goods held under the customs warehousing procedure such as to give rise to the chargeable event and to cause the value added tax to become chargeable pursuant to Article 71 of [Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax]? (2)

2

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 164 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 164

  To repeal the imposition of withholding on certain payments made to 
                    vendors by government entities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

 Mr. Brown of Massachusetts (for himself and Ms. Snowe) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the imposition of withholding on certain payments made to 
                    vendors by government entities.

    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 ``Withholding Tax Relief Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF IMPOSITION OF WITHHOLDING ON CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE TO 
              VENDORS BY GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.

    The amendment made by section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention 
and Reconciliation Act of 2005 is repealed and the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such amendment had never been 
enacted.

SEC. 3. RESCISSION OF UNSPENT FEDERAL FUNDS TO OFFSET LOSS IN REVENUES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of all 
available unobligated funds, $39,000,000,000 in appropriated 
discretionary funds are hereby permanently rescinded.
    (b) Implementation.--The Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget shall determine and identify from which appropriation accounts 
the rescission under subsection (a) shall apply and the amount of such 
rescission that shall apply to each such account. Not later than 60 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget shall submit a report to the Secretary 
of the Treasury and Congress of the accounts and amounts determined and 
identified for rescission under the preceding sentence.
    (c) Exception.--This section shall not apply to the unobligated 
funds of the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans 
Affairs.
                                 <all>
```
[Cite as Paramount Advantage v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2021-Ohio-4441.]

{¶1} On October 14, 2021, a Special Master issued a Report and 

Recommendation in this public-records case. The Special Master recommends (1) 

finding that Respondent provided responsive records rendering seven of Requester’s 

claims moot within a reasonable period of time, (2) dismissing Requester’s remaining 

claims for production “as either moot, requests for non-records, or ambiguous and/or 

overly broad and therefore unenforceable,” and (3) assessing costs to Requester. 

{¶2} Neither party has timely filed written objections to the Report and 

Recommendation, as permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), 

if neither party timely objects to a special master’s report and recommendation, then this 

Court is required to “promptly issue a final order adopting the report and 

recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect 

evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” 

{¶3} The Court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on 

the face of the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation of October 14, 2021. The 

Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Judgment is rendered in favor of 

PARAMOUNT ADVANTAGE 

 Requester 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAID 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2021-00262PQ 

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 
Case No. 2021-00262PQ -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY 

Respondent. Court costs are assessed to Requester. The Clerk shall serve upon all 

parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 

 

 PATRICK E. SHEERAN 

Judge 

 

Filed November 9, 2021 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/17/21
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                             SUBSIDIARIES OF VLASIC


     NAME OF SUBSIDIARY AND NAME
     UNDER WHICH IT DOES BUSINESS              JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
     ----------------------------              -----------------------------

Freshbake Foods Limited                                 Great Britain
Stratford-Upon-Avon Foods Limited                       Great Britain
VF Brands, Inc.                                            Delaware
Vlasic Farms, Inc.                                           Ohio
Vlasic Foods Distribution Company                          Arkansas
Vlasic Foods Canada, Inc.                                  Ontario
Vlasic International Brands Inc.                           Delaware
Vlasic International Sales Inc.                           New Jersey
Vlasic Standards, Inc.                                    New Jersey




                                      (16)