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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2019 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to prescribe regulations to reduce helicopter noise pollution in certain residential areas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 16, 2011 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to prescribe regulations to reduce helicopter 

noise pollution in certain residential areas, 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 ‘‘Los Angeles Residen5 tial Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2011’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2019 IS

1 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS TO REDUCE HELICOPTER NOISE 

2 POLLUTION IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL 

3 AREAS. 

4 (a) REGULATIONS REQUIRED.—Not later than 3 

5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Ad6 ministrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 

7 prescribe regulations for helicopter operations in Los An8 geles County, California, that include requirements relat9 ing to the flight paths and altitudes associated with such 

10 operations to reduce helicopter noise pollution in residen11 tial areas, increase safety, and minimize commercial air12 craft delays. 

13 (b) EXEMPTIONS.—In prescribing regulations under 

14 subsection (a), the Administrator shall exempt helicopter 

15 operations related to emergency, law enforcement, or mili16 tary activities from the requirements described in that 

17 subsection. 

18 (c) CONSULTATIONS.—In prescribing regulations 

19 under subsection (a), the Administrator shall make rea20 sonable efforts to consult with local communities and local 

21 helicopter operators in order to develop regulations that 

22 meet the needs of local communities, helicopter operators, 

23 and the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
My name is Joel Coggins I am an electrical quality control manager on large construction sites. I fly a DJI 

phantom view plus on site to do quality inspections and site layout. I use the drone like any other tool in 

my trade. My drone has software that will not allow me to fly in restricted air space. I do not charge the 

companies for any of the photos that I take. I am asking for an exemption to continue using this in my 

work.
CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Halifax Corporation of Virginia;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:      June  30, 2009

/s/
Charles L. McNewCharles L. McNewChief Executive Officer
(Reap. Dec. 9130)

#### Fed. Tele. & Radio Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 856143-1/2, etc.

(Decided April 18, 1958)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule *“A,”*attached to and made part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain telephone equipment exported from Belgium.

By stipulation of the parties, it has been agreed that on or about the date of exportation such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in Belgium either for consumption or for export to the United States, nor was such or similar merchandise freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States, and that the cost of production of said merchandise, as such value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), is the invoice unit values, plus 2.91 per centum.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in said section 402 (f), is the proper basis of value for the merchandise in issue and that said value is the invoice unit values, plus 2.91 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
CERTIFICATION OF
                          CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Bytewatch
Technologies, Inc. for the quarter ending September 30, 2004, I, Rick
Plotnikoff, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bytewatch
Technologies, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
          30, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended September 30, 2004, fairly represents in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Bytewatch Technologies, Inc.

Dated:    November 22, 2004

BYTEWATCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


By:  /s/ Rick Plotnikoff
-----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 213 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 213

  To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor 
posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the United States Army for acts 
                    of valor during the Korean War.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 27, 2011

Mr. Roberts (for himself and Mr. Moran) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor 
posthumously to Captain Emil Kapaun of the United States Army for acts 
                    of valor during the Korean War.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO 
              EMIL KAPAUN FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING THE KOREAN WAR.

    (a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding the time limitations specified 
in section 3744 of title 10, United States Code, or any other time 
limitation with respect to the awarding of certain medals to persons 
who served in the Armed Forces, the President is authorized and 
requested to award the Medal of Honor posthumously under section 3741 
of such title to Emil Kapaun for the acts of valor during the Korean 
War described in subsection (b).
    (b) Acts of Valor Described.--The acts of valor referred to in 
subsection (a) are the actions of then Captain Emil Kapaun as a member 
of the 8th Cavalry Regiment during the Battle of Unsan on November 1 
and 2, 1950, and while a prisoner of war until his death on May 23, 
1951, during the Korean War.
                                 <all>
```
No. 39176.

#### Protest 754153-G of Landriani, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of *Downing*v. *United States*(11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 310, T. D. 39128) it was held that duty should have been assessed on the actual net landed weight and the protest was sustained.
No. 74-821.

#### Harding *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

dissenting.

Petitioner was convicted of receiving obscene materials which had been transported in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1462. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction. 475 F. 2d 480 (1973). We granted the petition for certiorari, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of *Miller*v. *California,*413 U. S. 15 (1973). 414 U. S. 964 (1973). On remand, the District Court determined that the material was obscene under the *Miller*standard, and reinstated the judgment of conviction. Again, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

For the reasons stated in my dissent from the remand of this case, 414 U. S., at 965, and because the present judgment was rendered after *Miller,*I would grant the petition and reverse the judgment.
<PAGE>

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

I, David Shamy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Digitalpreviews.com, Inc.
for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2003 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Digitalpreviews.com,
Inc.

Date:  July 31, 2003

By:    /s/   David Shamy
     -----------------------------------
             David Shamy
             Principal Executive Officer
             Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATE OF CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Network 1 Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Hunt, Acting Chief Accounting Officer (principal financial officer) hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.








Date: October 21, 2011
/s/ William HuntWilliam HuntActing Principal Accounting Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00254-CV

In re Epicurean Deli, LLC, A Texas Limited Liability Company; Flying Tomato Pizza

Kitchen, Inc., A Texas Corporation; and Denise Trevino, an Individual

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relators have filed a motion to dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus. In their

motion, they represent that the real party in interest agrees to the dismissal.

We grant the motion and dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus.

 

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Filed: July 20, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.01





CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of PDF Solutions, Inc. (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2010 (“the Report”), I, John K. Kibarian, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ JOHN K. KIBARIANJohn K. Kibarian

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
 Date: November 5, 2010
#### In the matter of the estate of John P. Pierce, deceased.

[Submitted June 4th, 1918.

Decided June 21st, 1918.]

On appeal from an assessment of inheritance tax, testimony will not be let in to revise the appraisement. Motion for that purpose may be made to the comptroller and from his refusal an appeal lies.

On appeal from an assessment of the comptroller of the treasury.

*Mr. Gilbert Collins*and *Mr. J. Stanley Griffin,*for the appellants.

*Mr. Herbert W. Boggs,*assistant attorney-general, for the state.

Backes, Vice-Ordinary.

This appeal is from an assessment of an inheritance tax upon the succession of a foreign decedent’s estate and in respect of so much as attacks the refusal of reduction in the appraisal to the extent of the federal war tax of September 8th, 1916, public laws, vol. 39, p. 777, amended 1917, *Ibid.*1002, is controlled by “Estate of Ferdinand *W.*Roebling,”' and the deduction will be allowed.

An appeal was also taken from an appraisement at $280 per share of fifteen thousand nine hundred and sixty-one shares of the common capital stock of the American Radiator Company, *172on the ground that it was excessive. At the hearing on the appeal, testimony was offered 'of elements of value which had not been previously submitted to the comptroller, and thereupon the assessment was remanded for further consideration by Mm. The additional factors moved the comptroller to reduce the appraisement to $260 per share and to revise the assessment accordingly, and by agreement the appeal stands'against the assessment as revised. It is not the duty .nor the privilege of this court, on appeal, to weigh the evidence or to substitute its judgment, as to values, for that of the comptroller, and assessments will be upheld if legal principles have been correctly applied and the appraisement is supported by the evidence. The presumption is in favor of the correctness of the assessment, and the burden is upon the appellant to point out and establish wherein it is wrong, and as the vaMation, fixed by the comptroller, is amply sustained by the proofs, it.is affirmed.

The practice which has grown up of introducing testimony, on appeal, on questions of values, is indefensible, and unfair to the comptroller. Jurisdiction is broadly conferred upon the court “to hear and determine all questions in relation to any tax levied under the provisions of this act,” but it certainly was not the intention of the legislature to burden the court with the labor of appraising estates *de novo.*That function is committed to the comptroller, and on appeal Ms judgment is to be reviewed in the light of the facts upon which it is founded. Hereafter, appeals will be heard upon the record made before that official and certified to the court. Applications to open and revise assessments, and for that purpose to let in additional testimony, will be made to the comptroller, and from his refusal an appeal may be taken.

The assessment will be corrected as indicated.
No. 55655.

#### Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 167095-K (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         521,472
<SECURITIES>                                   107,568
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137,828
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                      9,756
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               910,693
<PP&E>                                      10,416,864
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,274,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,285,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          650,541
<BONDS>                                      4,326,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       536,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,012,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,285,053
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,518,666
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,322,075
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             355,703
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                223,605
<INCOME-TAX>                                    85,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            138,505
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   138,505
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26


</TABLE>
August 1, 1938

No. 39185.

Suit 4080.

#### Hiram *Walker & Sons, Inc.*

T. D. 48780 affirmed.
#### Michael W. WALKER, et al., petitioners, v. FIRST COMMERCIAL BANK, N.A.

No. 98-392.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 2, 1998.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.
**Exhibit      32.1**

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                    |                                   |                            |
|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
| Dated:                November 14, 2007 | By:                          | /s/              Qinan Ji  |
|                                    | Qinan                Ji                |
|                                    | Chief                Executive Officer |

----
[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: FY... operating plan, a compilation of actions to implement the Gulf HypoxiaAction Plan 2008 [electronic resource].**
 
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011
 
SuDoc Number:EP 8.20:
Item Number:0473-E-06 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000671324
 
June 12, 2018
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY

27 Nov 12 MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/ARM-100

FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3OF 5901 Air Guard Dr. (AJW31AF) Bldg 1001 Oklahoma City, OK 73125

SUBJECT: 14 CFR Exemption 7687F Addendum (Docket No. FAA-2001-9501)

14 CFR Exemption 7687 was granted to the United States Air Force on 3 Jan 2002 and exempts the USAF from the provisions of Section 91.209 (a)(1) and (b). The exemption was last renewed on 12 Oct 12 (7687F) and will expire 30 Nov 15.

These new stipulations added to the Exemption 7687F make it unusable for USAF operations. Lights-out operations under this Exemption are used by aircraft to do practice intercepts, etc. with all participating aircraft operating lights-out and in nonstandard formations IAW procedures specified in an approved Letter of Agreement (LOA). This LOA has been agreed upon between the participating aircraft units and the ATC facility responsible for the airspace in which the operations will be conducted.

Under the Conditions and Limitations in Exemption 7687F, paragraph 5 specifies the requirements for a LOA that are required when executing operations. The immediate termination of lights-out operations is required for formation flights that exceed “the limits of a standard formation” as stated in paragraph 5.b.v. Also, paragraph 7 states this Exemption is not valid for “formation flights when operating in a nonstandard formation”.

The USAF respectfully requests one of the following addendums to Exemption 7687F. First, remove the guidance found in paragraphs 5.b.v and 7. Then add a sentence to paragraph 4 stating: This LOA must contain procedures for operations in nonstandard formations if so desired by the USAF unit

.

Alternatively, modify Exemption verbiage in paragraphs 5.b.v and 7 to allow nonstandard formation operations as long as they are specified in the LOA. The USAF suggested wording for the paragraph is as follows: 5.b.v. For formation flights: exceeding the limits of a standard formation (as defined in the FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary) unless operations as such are IAW an approved LOA .; 7. This exemption is not valid for formation flights when operating in a nonstandard formation unless operations as such are IAW an approved LOA.

Please contact me with any questions at e-mail: hqaffsa.a3of@tinker.af.mil or (405) 582-5024. We appreciate your assistance.

ALEX E. KRAUSE, Maj, USAF Chief, Flight Standards Division