alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 10, 2015

Mr. Michael Bytner Weaver Consultants Group

1813 North Mill Street Naperville, IL 60563

Dear Mr. Bytner:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 14, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1580), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
### Evaluation of hydrogeology and hydrogeochemistry of Truckee Meadows area, Washoe County, Nevada

By: Philip M. CohenOmar J. Loeltz

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1779S

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### DEPENDENTS OF Jerry Lee FAIRLEY, Deceased, Claimants/Appellants, v. JACKSON COUNTY CIVIC ACTION COMMITTEE, INC., and Employers’ Assurance Group, Defendants/Appellees.

No. 45659.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 23, 1970.

John D. Gautier, Lester C. Franklin, Jr., Pascagoula, for appellants.

Hurlbert & O’Barr, Biloxi, for appellees.

PATTERSON, Justice:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County which affirmed an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. The commission denied the claimants’ compensation claim since it found the death of claimants’ decedent to have been the result of activities not related to his employment.

The issue before the Court is whether the commission correctly determined the decedent to have deviated from the course of his employment at the time of his death.

It is the opinion of the Court that the issue presented is controlled by Persons v. Stokes, 222 Miss. 479, 76 So.2d 517 (1954).

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and JONES, IN-ZER and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
Cite as 2014 Ark. 409



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-14-742 ISRAEL TODD WATSON APPELLANT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion DeliveredOctober 2, 2014 MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK;

REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FINDINGS OF FACT ON ATTORNEY ERROR; CLERK DIRECTED TO ACCEPT APPEAL.

PER CURIAM Israel Todd Watson, by and through his attorney, Darrell F. Brown, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. On September 19, 2013, the circuit court entered a judgment and commitment order. Watson timely filed a notice of appeal on October 2, 2013. On December 18, 2013, the circuit court granted Watson until April 19, 2014, to file the transcript. At that time, although Watson would later be found to be indigent, family members had arranged to pay $3,332.40 for what they believed was the full cost of preparing the record. However, upon attempting to pick up the transcript prior to the deadline for lodging the record, they learned that an additional $2,798.50 was due. When it became apparent that Watson could secure no more private funds, he successfully petitioned to be declared indigent. Although, pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 4(c) (2013), Watson’s transcript was due no later than May 2, 2014, on April 28, 2014, the circuit court entered an order extending the deadline for filingCite as 2014 Ark. 409

the record until August 19, 2014. The motion was untimely under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 4(c), and the circuit court’s assigned deadline also did not comport with the rule. In McDonald v. State , 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004), we said that there are only two possible reasons for an appeal not being timely perfected: either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or there is good reason. Id . at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891. When it is plain from the motion, affidavits, and record that relief is proper under either rule based on error or good reason, the relief will be granted, and if there is attorney error, a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See id

. In the matter before us, the motion and record do not plainly reveal whether fault on the part of Thompson’s attorney caused the failure to timely file a complete record. Therefore, we direct the clerk to accept the appeal and remand the issue of attorney fault to the circuit court to make findings of fact so that this court may make a decision on attorney

error. Moore v. State , 359 Ark. 370, 197 S.W.3d 447 (2004). Remanded.

2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 171 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46741-46742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23505]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 29, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Pat Marshall, Manager of 
Analytical Support, Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. California Community Financial Institutions Fund Limited 
Partnership; Belvedere Capital Partners, Inc.; and Newco, all of San 
Francisco, California; to become bank holding companies by acquiring 
63.2 percent of the votign shares of Security First Bank, Fullerton, 
California.
    In connection with this application, National Bancorp of Alaska, 
Inc., Anchorage, Alaska, has applied to acquire 9.9 percent of the 
voting shares of California Community Financial

[[Page 46742]]

Institutions Fund Limited Partnership, and thereby indirectly acquire 
Security First Bank, Fullerton, California.
    2. United Security Bancorporation, Spokane, Washington; to merge 
with Community Bancorporation, Pullman, Washington, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Bank of Pullman, Pullman, Washington.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 29, 
1997.
Barbara R. Lowrey,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-23505 Filed 9-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### James E. YOUNG, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 53116.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 22, 1978.

Alan H. Schreiber, Public Defender, and Stuart M. Lerner, Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ.

Upon further consideration of the cause and our recent opinion in *Henry v. State,*Case No. 52,705, 359 So.2d 864 (Fla., filed June 1, 1978), we conclude that no direct conflict of decisions exists as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

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

In connection with theAmendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of VCampus Corporation forthe period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in thecapacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

(1)             The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)             The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of VCampus Corporation as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report.

 
|        |   |   |   | /S/ NARASIMHAN P. KANNAN |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Narasimhan P. Kannan     |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer  |

 

April 26, 2007

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47797-47798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Closed Meeting of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) 
Executive Panel

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given that the Chief of Naval 
Operations (CNO) Executive Panel will meet September 26, 1997, from 
3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the office of the Chief of Naval Operations, 
2000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20350-2000. This session will be 
closed to the public.
    The purpose of this meeting is to conduct the final briefing of the 
Business Simulation Task Force to the Chief of Naval Operations. These 
matters constitute classified information that is specifically 
authorized by Executive order to be kept secret in the

[[Page 47798]]

interest of national defense and are, in fact, properly classified 
pursuant to such Executive order. Accordingly, the Under Secretary of 
the Navy has determined in writing that the public interest requires 
that all sessions of the meeting be closed to the public because they 
will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, 
United States Code.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS MEETING CONTACT: Janice Graham, 
Assistant for CNO Executive Panel Management, 4401 Ford Avenue, Suite 
601, Alexandria, Virginia 22302-0268, telephone number (703) 681-6205.

    Dated: September 4, 1997.
M.D. Sutton,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-24142 Filed 9-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### Henry James PERRY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 69-503.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 3, 1969.

Habeas corpus denied.
S. 2064

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and six

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 122 South

Bill Street in Francesville, Indiana, as the Malcolm Melville ‘‘Mac’’ Lawrence

Post Office.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MALCOLM MELVILLE ‘‘MAC’’ LAWRENCE POST OFFICE.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 122 South Bill Street in Francesville, Indiana,

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Malcolm Melville ‘Mac’

Lawrence Post Office’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Malcolm Melville ‘Mac’ Lawrence Post Office’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
### Preliminary summary of reconnaissance for uranium and thorium in Alaska, 1952

By: Helmuth Wedow

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir248

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Draft Tribal Minor NSR Implementation Plan

I. Pre-Promulgation (preparations to make before the date of rule 

promulgation)

a. Develop public notice procedures or guidance

b. Develop application form(s) for affected facilities

c. Identify sources potentially subject to the rule

d. Notify tribes of implementation activities and involve them in 

the process

II. Upon Promulgation (things to do when the rule comes out)

a. Notify Tribes of regulatory action

b. Propose/promulgate general permits

c. Propose / public notice streamlined ESA consultation process 

per agreement with US Fish and Wildlife Service

d. Roll out streamlined administrative process

III. Post-Promulgation (things to do after rule promulgation, as a 

matter of implementation)

a. Identify sources potentially subject to the rule and conduct 

outreach to them

b. Work with Tribes to keep them apprised of EPA’s 

implementation progress, permit backlogs, etc.

c. ITEP Training

d. Develop delegation kit for Tribes
#### Albert B. MUIR, III v. Mary Carol MUIR.

No. 38950.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 225 So.2d 175.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Robin Lynn Prince v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 002 6 9

- CR

Trial court case number: 1266918

Trial court: 182nd District Court of Harris County

This case was abated and remanded to the trial court for the trial court to appoint new

appellate counsel . The district clerk has filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial

court’s order appointing Wayne Hill to represent appellant

. Accordingly, we REINSTATE this

case on the Court’s active docket.

Appellant’s brief is due 30 days f rom the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 3, 2013
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles BROWN.

No. 60854.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1978.

In re: Charles Brown applying for remedial writs. Parish of Jefferson.

Denied.

DIXON, J.,

concurs in denial and is of the opinion the following cases should be overruled: *State v. Hubbard,*228 La. 155, 81 So.2d 844 and *State v. Jones,*220 La. 381, 56 So.2d 724.
#### Leroy ROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-257.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONNA DEITRICK, : Civil Action No. 4:06-CV-01556

 :

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

 :

v. :

 :

MARK A. COSTA, et al., : (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle) 

 :

 :

Defendants. :

ORDER

April 9, 2015

BACKGROUND: 

The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the

thorough October 21, 2014 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge

William I. Arbuckle, III. No objections have been filed. 

 Because this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s thorough and

well-reasoned analysis the Court will not rehash the sound reasoning of the

magistrate judge and will adopt the report and recommendation in its entirety. 

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 410 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1.

1. United States Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle III’s Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 372) is ADOPTED in full. 

2. Defendant Kevin Balascik’s Motion for Summary Judgment is

GRANTED.

3. Final Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Balascik and against

Plaintiff.

4. The clerk is directed to terminate Kevin Balascik as a named

Defendant. 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

 United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-01556-WIA Document 410 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1



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 PBS Holding, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 21,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick Matthews, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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:



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.



Date:

May 18, 2007







/s/Patrick MatthewsPatrick Matthews

President, Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer

PBS Holding, Inc.
Orlando Production, Inc. 

8761 Atwater Loop

Oviedo, Florida 32765

1 of 2 

August 28, 2015 

Exemption No. 12283 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–1924 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations 

Attn: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Administrator, 

This letter is to request that the FAA approve, accept, and amend the previously approved exemption 

referenced above. 

Orlando Production, Inc. (OPI) continues to grow and the future of OPI operations is being redefined as 

technology changes and the market becomes more defined. As this industry continues to stabilize OPI is 

seeking to add clarification to its current granted exemption. 

This clarification is regarding the specific make, model, and series to be employed under this exemption. 

Furthermore, as OPI continues to maintain transparency, would request, in addition to the below listed 

unmanned aircraft (UA), approval to operate UAs approved in other exemptions issued under Section 

333 of Public Law 112−95. This approval would be provisional to the pending approval for the same UAs 

for OPI operations and limited as provided under that UAs exemption. 

Please find below the list of unmanned aircraft (UA) requested. 

DJI Flame Wheel F450 DJI Spreading Wings S1000+

DJI Flame Wheel F550 DJI S800

DJI Inspire DJI S800 EVO

DJI Inspire 1 DJI T600

DJI Inspire 2 3DRobotics Aero-M

DJI M P330z 3DRobotics Iris

DJI Matrix 3DRobotics IRIS+

DJI Matrice 100 3DRobotics X8

DJI Phantom 3DRobotics DIY Quad Kit

DJI Phantom 1 3DRobotics Fixed Wing

DJI Phantom 2 3DRobotics Multirotor

DJI Phantom 2+ 3DRobotics Quadrotor

DJI Phantom 2 Vision 3DRobotics Solo

DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ 3DRobotics Spektre

DJI Phantom Vision + 3DRobotics Spektre Industrial Multi-Rotor Aerial Vehicle
Orlando Production, Inc. 

8761 Atwater Loop

Oviedo, Florida 32765

2 of 2 

DJI Phantom 3 3D Robotics Solo

DJI Phantom FC40 3DRobotics X8+

DJI Spreading Wings S900 3D Robotics X8-M

DJI Spreading Wings S1000 3D Robotics Y6

Should the Administrator require any additional information or clarification please do not hesitate to 

contact myself or Mr. William Shanley directly. 

Respectfully, 

Nicholas Schultz 

5304 Peach Blossom Boulevard Port 

Orange, Florida 32128 

C: 321-578-7269 

Nick@OrlandoProduction.com