alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PHDATA 5191631_1 March 3 , 2015 Justine M. Kasznica Direct Dial 412 - 577 - 5114 E - mail: jkasznica@schnader.com U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management Sy stem 1200 New Jersey

Avenue , SE Washington, DC 20590 **Re: Petition**  **for Exemption from Federal Aviation Regulations**  **(“FARs”) and Request for Approval to Operate Unmanned Aircraft Systems**  **Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the FARs** Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find Identified Technologies Corporation’s (“Identified’s”) Request for Exemption from Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) and Request for Approval to Operate Unmanned Aircraft Sy stems Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the FARs (the “Petition”) . The P etition was filed on March 2 , 2015 using the Federal Docket Management System. Additionally , we are enclosing Identified’s CONFIDENTIAL Proprietary M aterial Supplement with this Petition . Ith as not been filed using the Federal Docket Management System. We ask that this Supplement be treated as confidential with no public access. Please do not hesitate to contact me wi th any questions by

phone at (412 ) 577 - 5114 or by email at jkasznica@schnader.com . Thank you for your consideration. Sincerel y, Justine M. Kasznica Counsel for Identified Technologies Corp.

JMK:caa Enclosures
#### Herbert J. DICKSON, Nominee of the Trustees of Cousins Mortgage and Equity Investments, Appellant, v. JUBELCA CORP. et al., Appellees.

No. 76-1525.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 25, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1977.

Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole and James M. McCann, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Rosenberg, Rosenberg, Reisman & Glass and James E. Glass, Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene, Anthony Villaamil, Miami, Albert I. Caskill, Opa Locka, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Crane Co. v. Fine,*221 So.2d 145 (Fla.1969).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49965-49966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-1-46-001]


Kentuky West Virginia Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Proposed 
Change in FERC Gas Tariff

September 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 12, 1997, Kentucky West Virginia Gas 
Company, L.L.C. (Kentucky West), tendered for filing to become part of 
its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff 
sheets to be effective October 1, 1997:

Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 4
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 5

    On August 21, 1997, Kentucky West made its 1997 Annual Charge 
Adjustment (ACA) filing to incorporate the unit surcharge of $0.0021 
consistent with the invoice received on August 6, 1997. After the 
filing was made, a revised invoice was received on August 26, 1997 
which changed the ACA unit surcharge to $0.0022. This revised filing

[[Page 49966]]

is being made to reflect the August 26, 1997 ACA unit surcharge. 
Consistent with the August 21, 1997 filing, minor typographical changes 
were made on Sheet Nos. 4 and 5 to capitalize the ``C'' in customer.
    Pursuant to Section 154.207 of the Commission's Regulations, 
Kentucky West requests that the Commission grant any waivers necessary 
to permit the tariff sheets contained herein to become effective 
October 1, 1997.
    Kentucky West states that a copy of its filing has been served upon 
its customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
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. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25293 Filed 9-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


ELAINE AND VICTOR SWANGER, 

as parents and legal guardians of 

B.J.S., and B.J.S., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 4:11-CV-894 

(JUDGE MARIANI) 

WARRIOR RUN 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, et at, 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

AND NOW THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015, upon consideration of the 

Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Warrior Run School District, Patricia Cross, 

Douglas Bertanzetti, Tammy Osenga, and Cynthia Del Gotto (Doc. 156) and all 

accompanying briefs and exhibits, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion for 

summary judgment (Doc. 156) is GRANTED. Judgment is hereby accordingly entered IN 

FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS Warrior Run School District, Patricia Cross, Douglas 

Bertanzetti, Tammy Osenga, and Cynthia Del Gotto and AGAINST PLAINTIFFS B.J.S. and 

Elaine Swanger and Victor Swanger as parents and legal guardians of B.J.S. 

Case 4:11-cv-00894-RDM Document 169 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.02


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Robert Klein, President and Chief Executive Officer of 2Uonline.com, Inc,
a Delaware Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
     period ended March 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
     requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
     of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: August 23, 2002


/s/ Robert Waters
    ---------------
    Robert Waters
    Director and Chief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129445 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129445 

 COA: 244245 
 Wayne CC: 02-001674

PONCIETTA ADRIENNE EARLE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2006 

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25544]



[[Page 50563]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3069-000]


Cinergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

September 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 6, 1997, Cinergy Services, Inc., 
tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced docket.
    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 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before September 30, 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. 97-25544 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Richard A. PAYNE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 52901.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 27, 1978.

*551Jerry L. Schwarz, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Benedict P. Kuehne, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, has certified its decision in this case1 for consideration of the same question which was posed in *Alvarez v. State,*349 So.2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), that is whether a sentence of imprisonment for a term of years greater than the life expectancy of the sentenced person is lawful under Section 813.011, Florida Statutes (1973), and Section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1975, 1977). In the *Alvarez*opinion, we answered this question in the affirmative. *Alvarez v. State,*358 So.2d 10 (Fla.1978), opinion filed April 4, 1978.

Accordingly, the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in the instant case which found lawful a sentence of one hundred one (101) years imprisonment for robbery pursuant to Section 812.-13, Florida Statutes (1977), is approved.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, SUND-BERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.

ENGLAND, J., dissents.

1

. *Payne v. State,*356 So.2d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                 MINORPLANET SYSTEMS USA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            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 Transition Report of Minorplanet Systems USA, Inc.(the
"Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ending August 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W.
Michael Smith, Executive Vice President 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.



/s/ W. Michael Smith
--------------------------
W. Michael Smith
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
November 22, 2002
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00409-CV

ISABELLE EDWARDS APPELLANT

V.

CENTERPOINT APARTMENTS 

COMPLEX

APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 393RD DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 14-06020-393

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On June 08, 2015, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as 

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P. 

38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless 

appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within 

 1

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

ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

Because appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 16, 2015
[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: Anannotated bibliography on interplanetary dust**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:SI 1.12/2:5/8
Item Number:0909-B (online)
CGP systemNumber:001068239
 
August 24, 2018
#### Keith Valjene STUNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-307.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 12, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1969.

Meyer, Weiss, Rose & Arkin, and William E. Shockett, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks review of his conviction, pursuant to a nonjury trial finding him guilty of unlawful possession and sale of marijuana. The appellant has preserved two points on appeal: (1) Alleged error in the admission into evidence of two matchboxes of marijuana, when the State failed to establish by live witnesses the continuous possession of the contraband from the time of its sale until the time of its introduction into evidence. (2) The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.

It is true that the record fails to reveal evidence by live witnesses as to who had in their possession or control the contraband involved from the time of its sale until the time of its introduction into evidence. However, it appears from the authorities cited that the test is whether or not there is an indication of probable tampering with the evidence. In this connection, see the following: Gallego v. United States, Ct. of App. 9th Cir. 1960, 276 F.2d 914; State v. Anderson, 242 Or. 368, 409 P.2d 681. It is clear from the record that the whereabouts of the contraband was fully explained at all times from the incident of the sale until introduction into evidence. The continuous whereabouts of the contraband was amply supported by the State’s witnesses and it was within the power of the trial judge to permit it into evidence. State v. Robinson, 203 Kan. 304, 454 P.2d 527; Oliver v. State, S.Ct.Nev.1969, 449 P.2d 252; Hilliard v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 290, 340 S.W.2d 494.

As to the sufficiency of the evidence, a review of the record reveals substantial competent evidence which, together with the reasonable inferences therefrom, were sufficient to support the conviction on the charges as made. Therefore, it should be affirmed.

Affirmed.
Case 4:08-cv-01972-WJN Document 123 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:08-cv-01972-WJN Document 123 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2
#### JUBAN PROPERTIES, LTD. v. Robert G. CLAITOR.

No. 61786.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Robert G. Claitor, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 354 So.2d 672.

Denied.
Case 4:97-cr-00207-YK Document 606 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                              EXHIBIT 11



                               PORTLAND BREWING COMPANY
                      CALCULATION OF NET (LOSS) INCOME PER SHARE



                                                 YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                 -----------------------
                                                    1996         1995
                                                 ----------   ----------
Actual weighted average shares outstanding        2,070,141    1,793,162

Dilutive common stock options using the
 treasury stock method                                --          74,840
                                                 ----------   ----------
Total shares used in per share calculations       2,070,141    1,868,002
                                                 ==========   ==========
Net (loss) income                                $ (380,150)  $  238,849
                                                 ==========   ==========
Net (loss) income per share (1)                    $(0.18)       $0.13
                                                 ==========   ==========

(1) Fully diluted earning per share is not materially different from primary 
    earnings per share in the periods presented.
Case 4:06-cv-00174-JEJ Document 21 Filed 08/11/06 Page 1 of 11
Case 4:06-cv-00174-JEJ Document 21 Filed 08/11/06 Page 2 of 11
Case 4:06-cv-00174-JEJ Document 21 Filed 08/11/06 Page 3 of 11
Case 4:06-cv-00174-JEJ Document 21 Filed 08/11/06 Page 4 of 11
Case 4:06-cv-00174-JEJ Document 21 Filed 08/11/06 Page 5 of 11
Case 4:06-cv-00174-JEJ Document 21 Filed 08/11/06 Page 6 of 11
Case 4:06-cv-00174-JEJ Document 21 Filed 08/11/06 Page 7 of 11
Case 4:06-cv-00174-JEJ Document 21 Filed 08/11/06 Page 8 of 11
Case 4:06-cv-00174-JEJ Document 21 Filed 08/11/06 Page 9 of 11
Case 4:06-cv-00174-JEJ Document 21 Filed 08/11/06 Page 10 of 11
Case 4:06-cv-00174-JEJ Document 21 Filed 08/11/06 Page 11 of 11
#### Lillian B. PARRY, Appellant, v. Alvin B. PARRY, Appellee.

No. 76-2493.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 20, 1977.

*611Benjamin Y. Saxon of Saxon & Richardson, P. A., Melbourne, for appellant.

H. C. Poe of Harvey C. Poe, Jr., P. A., Melbourne, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

The wife has appealed from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage in which the trial court entered an order giving the wife exclusive possession of the jointly owned marital domicile so long as the wife’s mother “uses the home for a place to reside and in which to be given care.” Additionally, the court required the wife to pay “all expenses for maintaining such residence, including, but not limited to, mortgage payments and taxes, during such exclusive possession by respondent (wife).” The judgment also denied the wife alimony in any form.

First we note that the record shows the appellee had no objection to the exclusive possession of the jointly owned home so long as his aged mother-in-law lived there. Absent his consent such an award would not have been proper.

We find no fault with the final judgment except in two respects; First, under the circumstances of this case we feel the trial court should have retained jurisdiction to allow alimony in the future if the circumstances of the parties should change substantially and warrant an award of alimony. *Evans v. Evans,*337 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Melton v. Melton,*251 So.2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).

Secondly, we believe that upon an eventual sale of the property the wife should be entitled to contribution from her co-tenant, the ex-husband, of the amount of any increased equity he receives as a result of her principal payments on the mortgage which encumbers the property.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment appealed from in part and reverse it in part and remand the cause with directions to modify the judgment in accordance with this opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DISH NETWORK L.L.C., : Case No. 4:15-CV-1157

ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C., :

and NAGRASTAR LLC, :

:

Plaintiffs, :

v. : (Judge Brann)

:

PATRICK LAUNDRIE, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

November 16, 2015

Upon default of the Defendant, the Court, having reviewed the record, evidence, and 

applicable law in this matter, hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendant Patrick Laundrie and anyone acting in active concert or participation with, or 

at the direction or control of Defendant, is hereby permanently enjoined from:

a. Circumventing or assisting others in circumventing DISH Network’s security 

system, or otherwise intercepting or assisting others in intercepting DISH 

Network’s satellite signal;

b. Testing, analyzing, reverse engineering, manipulating, or otherwise extracting 

codes, data, or information from DISH Network’s satellite receivers, smart cards, 

satellite data stream, or any other part or component of the DISH Network 

security system. 

2. This permanent injunction takes effect immediately.

3. Judgment is entered in favor of DISH Network on Count III of the complaint.

4. Statutory damages in the amount of $10,000 are awarded to DISH Network in accordance 

with 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)(B).

Case 4:15-cv-01157-MWB Document 10 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 2
2

5. Counts I and II of the complaint are dismissed with prejudice.

6. The Court retains jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of enforcing this final 

judgment and permanent injunction.

7. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgement in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant 

and to close the case file.

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-01157-MWB Document 10 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 2
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 102 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 102 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 102 Filed 04/03/06 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 102 Filed 04/03/06 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:05-cv-01818-JEJ Document 102 Filed 04/03/06 Page 5 of 5
### Upper Colorado River and its utilization

By: Robert Follansbee

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp617

#### Links

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

#### Abstract

This report presents, in form for ready reference, the available data pertaining to the present and future utilization of the surface waters of the upper Colorado River Basin, above the Green River and includes information relating to topography, climate, evaporation, water supply, transmountain diversions, storage, irrigation and agriculture, and water power as they existed in 1927.

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.
#### William Henry REMBERT v. STATE.

No. 38872.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.