alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
R. Chris Sigmon LifeSong Video Productions, LLC 1260 Deerfield Dr Spartanburg, SC 29302 864-706-0317 chrissigmon@charter.net lifesongvisualarts.net January 27, 2016 Petition for Section 333 Exemption

Ihereby formally request FAA authorization for R. Chris Sigmon- dba/ LifeSong Video Productions, LLC (hereafter "PETITIONER") to operate a UAS for civil (non-governmental) purposes other than for recreation or hobby. PETITIONER requests to be exempted from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(l), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(l), 91.409(a)(1) and (2}, and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extentnecessaryto allow PETITIONER to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection, including butnot limited to aerial imaging. PETITIONER requests this exemption for its use ofUAS both within and withoutthe United States. PETITIONER frequently travels abroad for photographic endeavors and seeks to use UAS in accordance with all laws offoreign and domesticgovernmental authorities. PETITIONER requests this permission to pursue its use ofUAS models including DJI Phantom 3 Professional, or other similar commercially-available and widely-available UAS models. PETITIONER will conductits use ofUAS in a manner which will minimize risk to the NAS, other persons, and property. The following procedures will be followed: (1) UAS will be given a pre-flight inspection before each flight to examine airworthiness, (2) UAS will not be materially altered from commercial specifications exceptfor battery, prop, and battery alterations, (3) UAS will notbe flown over people, (4) UAS will always be flown within line ofsightto operator(s)- pursuantto Section 333(b)-(1)-, (5) UAS will never reach altitudes over exceeding those allowed, (6) UAS will never reach speeds exceeding 50 mph, (7) operatorwill perform a preflightvisual inspection ofthe NAS to determine nearby dangers such as low-flying manned or unmanned aerial vehicles, power lines, and buildings, (8) UAS will be checked for flight stability, proper connection to remote control, and proper performance at a very low altitude before reaching the NAS, and (9) non-participating spectators will be asked to stay a safe distance away from the flight path ofthe UAS andits landing location. PETITIONER is an experienced UAS operator with more than one year of experience......----·--··---- · -

..

# -·- ·------------------------------ ---------

This petition will benefitthe publicinterest. PETITIONER works with local City and County GovernmentAgencies, their Committees and Historical Boardsto Photograph and Video Public Buildings and Ground for prosperity andthe enjoyment offuture generations. PETITIONER will provide imagerywhich is not otherwise possible to be captured without the use ofa UAV, which will assist companies to which the images maybe sold, will enhance the public understanding of nature photographed by the UAS, and PE TITIONER willbe able to provide UAS safety information to those with whom he or she comes in contact. Please grantthe requested exemption under Section 333

.

R. Chris Sigmon dba/ LifeSong Video
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132611 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

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

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132611 

 COA: 261805 

Muskegon CC: 04-050755-FH

WARREN J. PIERCE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 10, 2006 

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

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

d0220 

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, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Maureen GAUGHAN, a minor, by and through her father and next friend Philip Gaughan and Philip Gaughan, individually Appellants, v. JORDAN MARSH COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-719.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 4, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40247

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JERRY WAYNE SEWELL, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:89-CR-44-1)

January 17, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE’, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

On November 1 5, 1989, a jury convicted Jerry Wayne Sewell,

along with fou r co-defendants, of three counts involving 1)

conspiracy to manufacture phenylacetone (P2P) and to manufacture,

to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute amphetamine

and methamphetamine; 2) manufacturing P2P; and, 3) manufacturing a

substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The

district court sentenced Sewell to 360 months imprisonment on each

count, such terms to run concurrently. This court affirmed2

Sewell's conviction and sentence. U nited States v. Sherr od , 964

F.2d 1501 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 113 S.Ct. 1367 (1993).

A fter his conviction became final, the United States

Sentencing Guideline Commission adopted Amendment 484 to U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1, which clarified the proper method for calculating the

amount of controlled substance in a mixture. On the basis of

Amendment 484, which applies retroactively, Sewell and his four codefendants sought resentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2),

alleging that the distric t court had miscalculated the amount of

controlled substances at the original sentencing hearing.

The district court recomputed the amount of controlled

substances, which had the effect of lowering Sewell's codefendant's offense levels by six levels. The district court,

however, refu sed to lower Sewell's base offense level because it

found that Sewell was a career offender pursuant to § 4B1.1.

Applying § 4B1.1, the district co urt concluded that Sewell's

offense level was 34, which yielded a guideline sentence of 262 to

327 months. Based on the guideline, the district court reduced

Sewell's sentence to 294 months.

On appeal, Sewell argues that the district court miscalculated

the amount of controlled substances to be used in determining his

sentence. Sewell's arguments are unavailing, however. The amount

of controlled substances was irrelevant to Sewell's sentence. The

district court sentenced Sewell on the basis of the career offender

provision of § 4B1.1, the application of which Sewell does not

challenge on appeal.3

We AFFIRM the district court's sentencing order.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC

v.

NORMAN ROSETSKY AND DIANE 

ROSETSKY A/K/A DIANA ROSETSKY 

A/K/A DIANE GOCHIN

PETITION OF: DIANE GOCHIN (F/K/A 

DIANE ROSETSKY)

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 80 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 2017, the Emergency Application for Stay of 

Sheriff Sale is DENIED.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3506 

To extend and modify training for Eastern European national security forces 

in the course of multilateral exercises. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

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

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To extend and modify training for Eastern European 

national security forces in the course of multilateral exercises. 

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 ‘‘Kosovo Defense Co5 operation Enhancement Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3506 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF TRAINING FOR 

2 EASTERN EUROPEAN NATIONAL SECURITY 

3 FORCES IN THE COURSE OF MULTILATERAL 

4 EXERCISES. 

5 Section 1251 of the National Defense Authorization 

6 Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (10 U.S.C. 333 note) is amend7 ed— 

8 (1) in subsection (c)(1), by adding at the end 

9 the following new subparagraph: 

10 ‘‘(C) The Republic of Kosovo.’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (h)— 

12 (A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘De13 cember 31, 2024’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

14 2026’’; and 

15 (B) in the second sentence, by striking 

16 ‘‘December 31, 2024.’’ and inserting ‘‘Decem17 ber 31, 2026’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27316]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission of OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Civil Aircraft Landing 
Permit System; DD Forms 2400, 2401, 2402; OMB Number 0701-0050.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement.
    Number of Respondents: 3,600.
    Response Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 3,600.
    Average Burden Per Response: 30 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 1,800.
    Needs and Uses: The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Pub. L. 85-726, 
section 1107) authorizes government agencies to regulate public use of 
government-owned airfields. Military airfields are established and 
funded to support the level of operations necessary to support the 
national defense mission; therefore, civil aircraft access to military 
airfields is not comparable to civil airports. The Military Departments 
have made military airfields available to civil aircraft operators, 
primarily to conduct official business; however, use for other purposes 
is also occasionally accommodated. The collection of information is 
necessary to ensure that the security and operational integrity of 
military airfields are maintained; to identify the aircraft operator 
and aircraft to be operated; to avoid competition with the private 
sector by establishing the purpose for use of military airfields; and 
to ensure the U.S. Government is not held liable, if the civil aircraft 
becomes involved in an accident while using military airfields, 
facilities, and services.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or Other For-
Profit; Not-For-Profit Institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DOD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: October 9, 1997.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-27316 Filed 10-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Lawrence Hagner, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Stephen Antignani, J.), rendered March 28, 2017, after a jury trial, convicting him of driving while intoxicated per se and driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Stephen Antignani, J.), rendered March 28, 2017, affirmed.</p><p>The verdict convicting defendant of driving while intoxicated per se and driving while intoxicated (<i>see </i>Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1192[2],[3]), was not against the weight of the evidence (<a href="../2007/2007_09814.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342</a>, 349 [2007]). On the contrary, we conclude that there was overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, including police testimony of defendant's erratic driving, slurred speech, flushed face, odor of alcohol and unsteadiness on his feet, which caused him to nearly stumble into traffic; defendant's videotaped statement that he had been drinking at a bar from 10:00 a.m. until about 11:00 p.m. (defendant was arrested at 11:29 p.m.); and the results of the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath testing device, which measured defendant's blood alcohol content at .180, more than twice the legal limit (<i>see People v Cruz</i>, 48 NY2d 419, 426-427 [1979], <i>appeal dismissed </i>446 US 901 [1980]).</p><p>We reject defendant's claim that the Intoxilyzer reading of ".180 insufficient" was unreliable. The police officer's testimony established that an "insufficient" instrument reading based on breath sample remains a valid measure of a subject's blood alcohol content, since such a reading understates the true blood alcohol content (<i>see People v DeMarasse</i>, 85 NY2d 842, 845 [1995]), which "typically favors the subject and, in this case, was more than twice the permissible amount" (<i>People v Nuesi</i>, 84 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2011]; <a href="../2013/2013_08333.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also People v Dauphin</i>, 112 AD3d 471</a>, 472 [2013]). </p><p>Defendant's argument that the jury, by acquitting him of aggravated driving while intoxicated (<i>see </i>Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 1192[2-a]), necessarily rejected the Intoxilyzer test results "calls for an impermissible invasion of the jury's deliberative processes" (<i>People v Williams</i>, 239 AD2d 271, 272 [1997], <i>lv denied </i>90 NY2d 899 [1997], <i>quoting People v Rivera</i>, 201 AD2d 377 [1994], <i>lv denied</i> 83 NY2d 875 [1994]; <a href="../2016/2016_50168.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Quirisumbay</i>, 50 Misc 3d 139</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50168[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016], <i>lv denied</i> 27 NY3d 1074 [2016]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: September 30, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### George CONYERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-633.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1971.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Barry Scott Richard and Joel Rosenblatt, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Baker v. State, 150 Fla. 446, 7 So.2d 792; State v. Demetree, Fla.1968, 213 So.2d 709, Rules 1.850 and 1.190(b) and (c) Cr.PR, 33 F.S.A.
EXHIBIT 4.2



 


Exhibit 4.2


PROMISSORY NOTE



	 	 	 
	Value: $400,000.00	 	
Dated: May 31, 2002



          FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ZIM TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC. (the “Debtor”)
hereby promises to pay on demand to or to the order of 160879 Canada Inc. (the
“Holder”) in the City of Ottawa, Ontario at such address as the Holder may from
time to time direct, the amount of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00),
in lawful money of Canada plus interest as herein provided. Interest shall be
calculated on the principal sum outstanding at the rate per annum of five (5%)
percent and shall accrue to the date of payment.



          Notwithstanding the other terms hereof, the Debtor shall have the right to
prepay at any time and from time to time without a bonus all or any portion of
the amount outstanding, including interest, under this Note.



          The Debtor and all endorsers of this Note hereby waive presentment of
payment, notice of non-payment, protest and notice of protest.



          This Note and the obligations represented hereby shall be binding upon the
Debtor and its permitted successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit
of the Holder and its successors and assigns.



          DATED at Ottawa, this 31st day of May 2002.








	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED	 	 	 	)	 	 
	 	 	 	 	)	 	 
	 	 	 	 	)	 	ZIM TECHNOLOGIES
	 	 	 	 	)	 	INTERNATIONAL INC.
	 	 	 	 	)	 	per:
	 	 	 	 	)	 	/s/ James Stechyson
	 	 	 	 	)	 	

	 	 	 	 	)	 	Name:  James Stechyson
	 	 	 	 	)	 	Title: Chairman
	 	 	 	 	)	 	I have the authority to bind the Corporation
#### T. D. SPILLER, Jr. v. Peggy Mattingly HERPEL, Individually and as Testamentary Executrix of the Succession of Ama Spiller Mattingly.

No. 62080.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1978.

In re: T. D. Spiller, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Lafourche. 357 So.2d 572.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32
                                      ==========




     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT






The certification set forth below is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b)
or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and with Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Derick Sinclair,
the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of Tactical Air Defense Services,Inc. hereby certifies that:


1. the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc.


                                          TACTICAL AIR DEFENSE SERVICES, INC.,
                                          Registrant

Dated: November 13, 2005                     /s/ Derick Sinclair
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          By: Derick Sinclair, President,
                                              Chief Executive Officer,
                                              Treasuer, Chief Financial
                                              Officer, Principal Accounting
                                              Officer and Director
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION

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

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,

UNITED STATES CODE)



In connection with the Annual Report of Rural/Metro Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kristine B. Ponczak, Senior 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, 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 14, 2007



|                                                                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                   
|/S/    KRISTINE B. PONCZAK                                                                         
|Kristine B. Ponczak Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     WONDERWARE CORP YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         26,487,553
<SECURITIES>                                   25,681,766
<RECEIVABLES>                                  13,509,051
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,132,010
<INVENTORY>                                    1,100,056
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               70,627,239
<PP&E>                                         22,589,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9,193,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 93,688,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,082,511
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       13,866
<OTHER-SE>                                     78,592,486
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   93,688,863
<SALES>                                        61,865,250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               64,924,342
<CGS>                                          4,298,174
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,298,174
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               18,788,930
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               241,302
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,526,012)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,405,220)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,120,792)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,120,792)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.45)
        


</TABLE>
#### Martha J. McBRIDE v. SHAINBERG’S STORES OF MISSISSIPPI, INC.

No. 49912.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 1, 1978.

Eaves & Eaves, John Arthur Eaves, Jackson, for appellant.

Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, Forrest W. Stringfellow, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; Francis S. Bowling, Judge.

Before SMITH, P. J., and ROBERTSON and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.