alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Orlando Productio n, Inc.

8761 Atwater Loop Oviedo, F lorida 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 3D Robotics Aero

- M DJI M P330z 3D Robotics Iris DJ I Matrix 3D Robotics IRIS+ DJI Matrice 100 3D Robotics X8 DJI Phantom 3D Robotics DIY Quad Kit DJI Phantom 1 3DRobotics Fixed Wing DJI Phantom 2 3DRobotics Multirotor DJI Phantom 2+ 3DRobotics Quadrotor DJI Phantom 2 Vision 3DR obotics Solo DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ 3DR obotics Spektre DJI Phantom Vision + 3DRobotics Spektre Industrial Multi

- Rotor Aerial Vehicle

## Orlando Productio n, Inc.

8761 Atwater Loop Oviedo, F lorida 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 direct ly

. Respectfully,

Nicholas Schultz 5304 Peach Blossom Boulevard Port Orange, Florida 32128 C: 321-578-7269 Nick @ OrlandoProduction.com
EXHIBIT 12.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I,
Luis Pacheco de Melo, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Portugal Telecom, SGPS, S.A.;

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
company'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 company and have:



5.     The
company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company's auditors
and the audit committee of the company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
April 30, 2012

By:

/s/ LUIS PACHECO DE MELOName:

Luis Pacheco de MeloTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPW-15-0000574 

20-AUG-2015 

09:35 AM 

SCPW-15-0000574
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

SAMUEL CARTER, Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING


ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

By letter dated July 27, 2015, which was filed as a 

petition for a writ of mandamus, Samuel Carter (“Carter”) asks 

this court for assistance “to stop the State of Hawaii staff in 

Halawa Correctional Facility from violating [his] due process to 

the courts.” Upon consideration of the letter, the documents 

attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the 

record, it appears that Carter is not entitled to extraordinary 

relief inasmuch as he fails to demonstrate that he has a clear 

and indisputable right to relief and may seek appropriate relief 

through an administrative grievance or a HRPP Rule 40 proceeding 

in circuit court. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 

P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary 

remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a 
clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative
 

means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the
 

requested action). Accordingly, 


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
 

mandamus is denied without prejudice.
 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the appellate clerks’
 

office shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without
 

payment of the filing fee. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 20, 2015. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
 

2
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Charles Francis Williams, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00030

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 354th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 30,023 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss,

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cou rt

. We note that the appellant, Charles Francis Williams, has adequately indicated his

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RE NDERED DECEMBER 1, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
ENCLOSURE 

Freedom of Navigation FY 07 Operational Assertions 

COUNTRY MARITIME CLAIM CHALLENGED 

China* Claims jurisdiction of superadjacent 

airspace over the exclusive economic zone; 

domestic law criminalizes survey activity 

by foreign entities in any waters under the 

jurisdiction of the coastal state. 

India* Requirement for prior consent for military 

maneuvers in the exclusive economic zone. 

Indonesia* Conduct of archipelagic sea lanes passage 

through normal passage routes used as 

routes for international navigation or 

overflight through or over archipelagic 

waters. 

Iran* Claims to restrict right of transit passage 

through Straits of Hormuz to Law of the 

Sea signatories. 

Malaysia* Requirement for prior authorization for 

nuclear-powered ships to enter the 

territorial seas; claim for requirement for 

prior authorization for military maneuvers 

in the exclusive economic zone. 

Maldives* Claim for requirement for all foreign 

vessels to obtain prior permission to enter 

the exclusive economic zone. 

Oman* Claims to recognize only the regime of 

innocent passage and not international 

transit passage through Strait of Hormuz. 

Philippines* Claim of archipelagic waters as internal 

waters. 

Note: * designates multiple FON operational challenges during FY 07 

Enclosure
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50915-50916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25720]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-532-000]


Missouri Gas Energy, a Division of Southern Union Company v. 
Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Complaint

September 23, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 19, 1997, pursuant to Section 5 of 
the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. para. 717d, and Rules 206 and 212 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 
385.212, Missouri Gas Energy, A Division of Southern Union Company 
(MGE) filed a complaint requesting that the Commission order Williams 
Natural Gas Company (WNG) to comply with its tariff and allow MGE to 
nominate Trans-Storage Service (TSS) in its component parts. MGE states 
that WNG's FERC Gas Tariff, Service Revised Volume No. 1, in both the 
General Terms and Conditions, as well as the TSS Rate Schedule, 
describe TSS as being available in its component parts
    MGE argues that despite the clear language of WNG's Tariff, 
however, WNG has refused to allow MGE to nominate its new TSS (TA-0890) 
agreement in component parts. MGE requests that the Commission order 
WNG to honor the terms of its Tariff and allow customers to nominate 
TSS service in its component parts, before the commencement of the 
winter heating season in November. If the relief sought by MGE cannot 
be granted on the basis of the complaint, MGE requests a full and 
immediate evidentiary hearing.
    MGE states that copies of the filing have been served upon each 
person designated on the official service list compiled by the 
Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said complaint should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 214 and 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure 18 CFR 385.214, 385.211. All such motions or protests 
should be filed on or before October 3, 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 file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection.

[[Page 50916]]

Answers to this complaint shall be due on or before October 3, 1997.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25720 Filed 9-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### PEOPLES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI SHORES, as Administrator Cum Testamento Annexo of the Estate of L. G. Ball a/k/a Legrand Ball, Deceased, Appellant, v. Raymond E. GILSON, Jr., and Violet M. Gilson, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69-87.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 8, 1969.

Koppen & Watkins, Miami, for appellant.

Carl L. Laks, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from summary final judgments rendered in the Civil Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida.

No argument has been advanced to show that reversible error was committed in the rendition of a summary final judgment against Raymond E. Gilson, Sr. This summary final judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

The record on appeal shows that there were genuine issues of fact to be determined by a trial of the issues made by the pleadings and no conclusive showing was made in the trial court which would justify the entry and rendition of a summary final judgment for the defendant below, Violet M. Gilson. See Visingardi v. Tirone, Fla.1966, 193 So.2d 601; Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40.

The summary final judgment for the defendant, Violet M. Gilson, is therefore, reversed and the cause remanded for a trial of the issues therein.

It is so ordered.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25367]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 91N-0295]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB 
Approval

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Medical Devices: Medical Device 
Reporting Certification'' has been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret R. Wolff, Office of 
Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 20, 1997 
(62 FR 13302), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 
section 3507 of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507). An agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB 
control number 0910-0059. The approval expires on June 30, 2000.

    Dated: September 18, 1997.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 97-25367 Filed 9-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
#### State, ex rel. Levy, *v.*Taylor, Sheriff.

*Criminal law*— Nonsupport *of minor*— Section *13008, General Code*— Conviction *and sentence*— Execution *of support bond and suspension of sentence*— Section *13010, General*Code— *Modification of order for payments.*

(No. 17747

Decided March 20, 1923.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Lucas county.

*Messrs. Marshall & Fraser,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Roy R. Stuart,*prosecuting attorney, for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same hereby is, affirmed on authority of *Seaman*v. *State,*106 Ohio St., 177, 140 N. E., 108.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, ' JJ., concur.
Order entered February 24, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01413
- CR ERIK JAMAL JACKSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 63319
- H



### O RDER
The Court GRANTS appellant’s February 20, 2014 motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief

. We ORDER appellant to file the brief within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this
order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

SCOTT ALLEN RENNINGER, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

WARDEN GREENE, 

 Respondent. 

 No. 4:24-CV-01425 

 (Chief Judge Brann) 

 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of January 2025, in accordance with the 

accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner Scott Allen Renninger’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

 Matthew W. Brann 

 Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:24-cv-01425-MWB-MP Document 15 Filed 01/08/25 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JORGE A. MARTINEZ, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-1412

:

WARDEN L. U. ODDO : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

ORDER

July 28, 2015

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be

GRANTED for the sole purpose of the filing of this

matter with this Court.

2. Martinez’s habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3. Petitioner may seek authorization from the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for leave to file a

1

Case 4:15-cv-01412-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 2
second or successive § 2255 petition.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

5. Based on the Court’s conclusion herein, there is no basis

for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Mathew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

2

Case 4:15-cv-01412-MWB-JVW Document 7 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 4.19

                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

                                       OF

                          CAPITAL ONE CAPITAL III, LLC


     This Certificate of Formation of Capital One Capital III, LLC (the
"Company"), dated as of January 23, 2002, has been duly executed and is being
filed by Bernard J. Kelley, as an authorized person, to form a limited liability
company under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (6 Del. C. (S)18-101,
                                                            -------
et seq.), as amended from time to time.
-- ---

     FIRST. The name of the limited liability company formed hereby is Capital
One Capital III, LLC.

     SECOND. The address of the registered office of the Company in the State of
Delaware is c/o The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209
Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19801.

     THIRD. The name and address of the registered agent for service of process
on the Company in the State of Delaware are The Corporation Trust Company,
Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County,
Delaware 19801.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned authorized person has executed this
Certificate of Formation as of the date first above written.


                                         /s/ Bernard J. Kelley
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Name: Bernard J. Kelley
                                        Authorized Person
#### Kenneth H. GROSS and James M. Ruff, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2286.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 23, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1978.

*395Melvyn Kessler, Miami, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge.

The appellants were the pilot and co-pilot of a plane which, as a search initially inspired by the odor of marijuana emitting from it revealed, was carrying a very large quantity of cannabis when it surreptitiously landed and was detained at the Martin County Airport. They appeal their convictions, after a jury trial, for possession of more than five grams of cannabis. We affirm.

We hold that the evidence against both defendants was more than sufficient to support the charge of which they were convicted, see *Davis v. State,*350 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); *Shannon v. State,*320 So.2d 855, 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), rev’d on other grounds, 335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976); and that the warrantless search of the highly movable airplane was, under all the circumstances, entirely reasonable. *Miranda v. State,*354 So.2d 411, 413-414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); *State v. Toffolio,*349 So.2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); *Davis v. State,*supra; *Dixon v. State,*343 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); *U. S. v. Chadwick,*433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977).

The defendants’ final point concerns the fact that the prosecutor elicited, on direct examination of a customs agent who interviewed the defendants some thirty minutes after their detention, that both had refused to respond to his questions concerning their identity and activities. While this inquiry was indeed an impermissible comment on the defendants’ tacit invocation of their Fifth Amendment right to silence, *Doyle v. Ohio,*426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); *Bennett v. State,*316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975), we must nonetheless reject the appellants’ contention on this issue on the authority of the Supreme Court’s recent and decisive opinion in *Clark v. State*(Fla.1978). The record plainly shows that the objection was waived below by virtue of the defendants’ failure, as Clark requires, to move for a mistrial because of the incident or even to secure a ruling from the Court on the simple objection which apparently was made.

Affirmed.

DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Niku Corporation (the
"Company") for the quarter ended October 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Michael Shahbazian,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge, that:

     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: December 15, 2003                     /s/ MICHAEL SHAHBAZIAN
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Michael Shahbazian
                                                  Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Niku Corporation and will be retained by Niku Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 05-15013-WWB Doc 62 Filed 08/11/06 Entered 08/11/06 10:22:26 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
Case 05-15013-WWB Doc 62 Filed 08/11/06 Entered 08/11/06 10:22:26 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
Case 05-15013-WWB Doc 62 Filed 08/11/06 Entered 08/11/06 10:22:26 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
[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: 97-25546]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3764-000]


Cinergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

September 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 22, 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. 97-25546 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M