alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition for Exemption

Luis Lopez Luis Lopez Photograph y & Video 4102 I da St Longview, TX 75605 I, Luis Lopez, hereb y submit this petition for exemption under Section 333; FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112

- 95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333. I request this exemption in order to operate m y UAV/UAS, DJ I Phantom 2 Professional Quad copter Aircraft, in order to provide services for profit to include aerial photograph y, aerial cinematograph y, aerial filming and photography for real estate, co nstruction firms, aerial mapping, special events to include but not limited to weddings, private or public parties/events, business advertising, promotional events, geological survey ing, and environmental studies. The ability

to provide these services to other local businesses and individuals in my community

will benefit them by

opening up opportunities they otherwise did not have before. Traditional methods of aerial photography /videography

are simply not viable options for the average consumer as they ar e costly

and involve greater risks to every one involved; i.e. the use of larger aircraft carry ing humans and flammable fuel. By utilizing the UAV/UAS the same results can be achieved with much safer conditions. Prior to each flight/operation of the UAV/UA S, I will conduct a Pre

- Flight Safety Inspection. Only the manufacturers authorized repair facilities/ providers will perform any and all repairs. Flights will not take place over densel y populated areas or private propert y without the owner’s permission. The UAV/UAS will only be operated within visual line of sight and will not be flown near airports or above 400 feet. The FAA can be confident that operations of this UAV/UAS will achieve at least the equivalent or greater level of safet y. The requests of this petition are similar to those of Mr. Todd Thomas Drone Pics, and Mr. Mike L loy d & Associates, all of who have received Section 333 exemptions for comparable aircraft for similar operations. The specific sections of 14 C.F.R from which I am seeking e xemption are as follows: 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. 61.101(e)(4), & (5); 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. 61.133 (a); 14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) & (c); 14 C.F.R 91.7(a) 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2); 14C.F.R. 91.109(a);14 C.F.R. 91.119;

14 C.F.R. 91.121; 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a); 14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a); 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1); 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(2}; 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b). Please find the included User Manual, Quick Start Guide and Smart Flight Battery Safet y Guidelines I trul y thank you for your consideration.

Sincerel y, Luis Lopez Luis Lopez Photograph y & Video http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/phantom_2/en/PHANTOM2_User_Manual_v1.4_en.pdf http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/phantom_2/en/PHANTOM2_Quick_Start_Guide_en.pdf http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/phantom_2_vision_plus/Smart_Flight_Battery_Safety _Guid elines.pdf
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHAEL GONZALEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D17-2117 & 4D17-2118

[July 19, 2018]

Consolidated appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial 

Circuit, Okeechobee County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 47-

2014-CF-000347-A and 47-2014-CF-000745-A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. 

Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T H A RPREET K A U R, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 12- 71539 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 253- 935 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H arpr e e tK aur , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the 

# FI LED SEP 26 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 71539 2 d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , A vagyan v. H older , 64 6 F . 3d 67 2, 67 4 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 1 ) , an dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng K aur’ s m ot i on t o reopen as u n tim e lyw h e r e it w a s f ile dn in e y e ar s a f

te rh e rf in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l, se e 8 C. F. R. § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , and s he f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha ts he qua l i f i e d f ore qui t abl e t ol l i ng of th e f ilin g d e a d lin e , s e e A v a g y a n , 6 4 6 F .3 da t 6 7 9 - 8 0 ( e q u itab le to llin g is a v a ilab le t o ape t i t i one rw ho e s t abl i s he s tha the s uf f e r e d f r om de c e pt i on, f

r aud ore rr or , and exer ci se d d ue di l i gence i n d i sc ov er i ng such ci rc um st ance s) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
# 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 :

A1 6 E0 00 9 . TONER v . CHAVEZ

.

W al t er J o hn T o n er, IV h as fi l ed i n t h i s co u rt a n “ E m erg en cy Ap p l i cat i o n fo r

Leav e t o Ap peal In t erl o cu to ry Ord er. ” Wh i l e T o ner’ s m o t i o n p u rp ort s t o b e an

em erg en cy m o t i o n, it d oes n o t m eet t h e req u i rem en t s o f Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 4 0 (b ).

In ad d i t i on

, To n er can n o t ci rcu m v en t t h e i nt e r l o c u t o ry p ro ced u re b y i n cl u d i n g

“ Em erg en cy ” i n t h e cap t i o n o f h i s m ot i o n. To ap p eal fro m t h e t r i al co urt ’ s

i n t erl o cu t o ry ru l i n g

, To n er was req u i red to o b t ai n a cert ifi cat e o f i m m ed i at e rev i ew

an d o t herwi s e fo l l o w t h e req ui rem en t s o f Co u rt o f A p p eal s Ru l e 3 0 (b ) an d OCGA

§ 5 -6 -3 4 (b ). Fo r t h es e reas on s , h i s m ot i on i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

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 ti f y t h a t t h 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 t n e s s m y s ig 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

. 09/21/2015 September 21, 2015
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0853. SEAN RICHARDS v. THE HONORABLE GLEN ASHMAN,

MUNICIPAL JUDGE FOR THE CITY OF EAST POINT.

Following his conviction in municipal court of obstructing officers, Sean

Richards petitioned the superior court for a writ of certiorari. On July 11, 2014, the

superior court granted the writ of certiorari. However, after Richardsfailed to comply

with OCGA § 5-4-5 (a) by posting bond or filing an affidavit of indigence, the

superior court dismissed the petition. Richards filed a motion for reconsideration,

which the superior court denied. Richards filed a notice of appeal to this Court. We

lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), “[a]ppeals from the decisions of the superior

courts reviewing decisions of . . . lower courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings”

must be made by filing an application for discretionary appeal in this Court. See

Consolidated Government of Columbus v. Barwick, 274 Ga. 176, 177 (1) (549 SE2d

73) (2001). This procedure must be followed even where the superior court dismisses

the certiorari petition. See Brewer v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment of Atlanta, 170 Ga.

App. 351 (317 SE2d 327) (1984). Richards failed to comply with the discretionary

appeal procedure. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

January 16, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

01/16/2015
(Reap. Dec. 9715)

#### John P. Herber & Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 46, etc.

(Decided May 26, 1960)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

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

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties herein:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States concerning the merchandise referred to in the attached Schedule “A”, as follows:

> 1. Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which, in *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*C.D. 1519, this Court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of article.

> 2. At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities, in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States were the unit prices shown in Schedule “A” attached, plus the proportionate share of packing, freight to shipping port, storage, insurance premium, and lighterage and handling as set forth in the invoices.

> 3. The appeals for reappraisement are abandoned as to all entries and merchandise not listed in the attached Schedule “A”, and the said appeals for re-appraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold 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 in*736volved, and that such values for the involved items were the unit prices shown in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made part of our decision herein, plus the proportionate share of packing, freight to shipping port, storage, insurance premium, and lighterage and handling, as set forth in the invoices covering the merchandise in the involved appeals.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent, the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19739]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-2659-000]


Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Notice of Filing

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on June 12, 1997, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., as 
Transmission Provider, requested to withdraw its filing of the Service 
Agreement for Non-firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service (Service 
Agreement) with British Columbia Power Exchange Corporation (Powerex) 
as Transmission Customer in Docket No. ER97-2659-000. A copy of filing 
was served upon Powerex.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before August 1, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19739 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
(Reap. Dec. 9079)

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 7543; 4835.

(Decided on rehearing [not published] February 19, 1958)

*699*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the market values or the prices of the merchandise manufactured by Schumann & Schreider on the invoices covered by the above enumerated appeals for reappraisement, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany, the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised values less the amounts added under duress and that there were no higher foreign values.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals be submitted on this stipulation.

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 manufactured by Schumann & Schreider, and that such values were the appraised values, less the amounts added under duress.

Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise, they are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
1

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: 360 Degrees Beauty & Barber Careers v. Corinthian Land 

Corporation

Appellate case number: 01-16-00646-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-21068

Trial court: 129th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, 360 Degrees Beauty & Barber Careers, has filed a notice of appeal of a 

July 25, 2016 final judgment. The appellate record was due in this Court on September 

23, 2016. On September 28, 2016, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the court 

reporter responsible for preparing the record in this appeal had informed the Court that 

appellant had not paid, or made arrangements to pay, for the reporter’s record. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 35.3(b). On October 27, 2016, the court reporter notified the Clerk that 

appellant had requested preparation of the reporter’s record and “made arrangements to 

pay for the record.” Because the court reporter indicated that appellant had arranged to 

pay for preparation of the reporter’s record, we dismissed as moot appellant’s motion 

requesting an “extension to file the reporter’s record and pay associated fees.” We, 

however, extended the time for filing the reporter’s record to December 8, 2016. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c). 

On December 6, 2016, the court reporter notified the Clerk that appellant had not 

paid, or made arrangements to pay, for the reporter’s record, stating that “she had talked 

with [appellant’s] the attorney and sent him the invoice” but had not received any 

“payment (full or partial)” for the record. On December 8, 2016, the court reporter again 

notified the Clerk that appellant had not paid, or made arrangements to pay, for the 

reporter’s record, stating that she had received from appellant “$1500 of the total $4290 

to complete the full transcript.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 35(b)(3) (emphasis added) (providing 

court reporter is responsible for filing reporter’s record if party “has paid the reporter’s 

fee, has made satisfactory arrangements to pay the fee, or is entitled to proceed without 

paying the fee).
2

Accordingly, the Court may require appellant to file a brief, and consider and 

decide the appeal on those issues that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision 

unless appellant submits written evidence from the court reporter that it has paid or 

arranged to pay the reporter’s fee no later than 30 days from the date of this order. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2(c)(2).

If appellant believes that it is exempt from the reporter’s fee, please filed a written 

detailed explanation by the due date. A written explanation is required even if appellant 

has previously claimed that it is exempt from paying the reporter’s fee.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 13, 2016
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1709 

To temporarily reduce interest rates for certain small business disaster loans, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 13, 2011 

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

to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To temporarily reduce interest rates for certain small 

business disaster loans, 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 ‘‘Small Business Dis5 aster Assistance Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATES. 

7 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 7(d) of the Small Busi8 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 636(d)) is amended— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1709 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘Notwith2 standing’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in 

3 paragraph (8) and notwithstanding’’; 

4 (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘Notwith5 standing’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in 

6 paragraph (8) and notwithstanding’’; and 

7 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(8) PROPERTY DAMAGE TO BUSINESSES.—The in9 terest rate on the Federal share of any loan under sub10 section (b)(1) made to a business concern on or after Au11 gust 26, 2011, shall be— 

12 ‘‘(A) 1 percent per year, in the case of a busi13 ness concern unable to obtain credit elsewhere; and 

14 ‘‘(B) 3 percent per year, in the case of a busi15 ness concern able to obtain credit elsewhere.’’. 

16 (b) PROSPECTIVE REPEAL.—Effective September 30, 

17 2014, section 7(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

18 636(d)), as amended by subsection (a) is amended— 

19 (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘Except as 

20 provided in paragraph (8) and notwithstanding’’ and 

21 inserting ‘‘Notwithstanding’’; 

22 (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘Except as 

23 provided in paragraph (8) and notwithstanding’’ and 

24 inserting ‘‘Notwithstanding’’; and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1709 IS

1 (3) by striking paragraph (8). 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00325-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.P.M., A 

CHILD

------------

FROM THE 325TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

On September 30, 2010, and October 12, 2010, we notified appellant, in 

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this 

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 10, 2010

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil 

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing 

fees in courts of appeals).
# C_2012258EN.01002401.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/24

---

Action brought on 18 June 2012 — Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft v Council

(Case T-263/12)

2012/C 258/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Esclatine and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012;

| — | Order the Council to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law, six of which are in essence similar to the first six pleas in law raised in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft v Council. (1)

Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft

Council

1

The applicant raises an additional plea in law alleging that the contested regulation is unlawful by reason of the unlawfulness of the preceding measures which were annulled by the judgment of the General Court in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft v Council [2012] ECR II-0000.

Manufacturing Support and Procurement Kala Naft

Council

---

(1)  OJ 2010 C 346, p. 57.

1

---