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

LASIK is eye surgery done with a
laser to help you see better. The
laser makes tiny cuts that change
the shape of the clear cover over
the eye, the cornea. If done right,
it can reduce a person’s need for
glasses or contact lenses.

Most patients are very pleased with
the results. But there are risks, as
with all surgery.

Is LASIK right for me?

Things to think about

* Cost—Most medical insurance will
not pay for this surgery.

* LASIK won’t work well if your
sight changes often. Have you
needed a change in your contact
lenses or glasses in the past year?
Vision changes are more likely if
you are:

o In your early 20s

o Diabetic or have certain other
diseases

o Pregnant or breast-feeding

o Taking medicines that cause
vision changes, such as steroids

Laser eye surgery is not a good
choice for people who do
contact sports. Examples: boxing,
wrestling, martial arts.

Laser surgery is not approved for
anyone under age 18.

Eye Surgery

* Some jobs do not allow workers to
have certain kinds of eye surgery.
Check with your boss to make
sure.

Find the right doctor

* How many surgeries has the
doctor done with the same laser?

* Is this laser FDA-approved?

* Does this doctor take time to
answer all your questions?

Things your doctor must look for
before surgery

Your doctor needs to find out if you
have any of these conditions:

+ Past or current eye diseases,
such as glaucoma and ocular
hypertension

* Eye injuries or other laser eye
surgery

« Large pupils, thin corneas, or dry
eyes

If you choose LASIK
Before surgery:

* Your doctor should give you an
informed consent form. Read and
understand it. Get answers to all
your questions.

* Have a detailed eye exam.

« Plan not to drive or work right
after the surgery.

OVER



LASIK

Laser Eye Surgery

After surgery:

* Take at least two days off work to
rest and get better.

* You will have some pain for a few
days.

« You will not be able to see clearly

for a few days. Final results could
take months.

To Learn More:

To report a problem

The FDA controls the sale of the
lasers used for LASIK. If you have
a problem with LASIK eye surgery,
first speak with your doctor. Then
report the problem to FDA's
MedWatch program at
1-800-332-1088. Or visit
http://www.fda.gov and click on
“MedWatch: Medical Product
Reporting/Safety Information.”

FDA Office of Women’s Health http://www.fda.gov/womens

FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Phone: 1-888-463-6332.
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/lasik

TAKE TIME TO CARE... For yourself, for those who need you.
Case 1:05-cv-00059-MBC Document 24 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-103769, 333-101830 and 333-83552) of Computer Motion, Inc. of
our report dated March 7, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Computer Motion, Inc. included in the Form 10-K/A for
the year ended December 31, 2002.


/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP
-----------------------
Ernst & Young, LLP

Los Angeles, California
May 22, 2003
### Request for Additional Information - Northwest Aerial Perspectives 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Ethen:

This letter is to inform yo u that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-1460). Th is information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition. Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 10:44 AM

To: teimages@sbcglobal.net

Cc: May, Rick (FAA)

 Provide a copy of t he Motion Picture and Te levision Operations M anual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8 900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Secti on 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this ma nual and remove closed

- set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additi onal information (non

- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary inform ation to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 33 3exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must re ceive the information de scribed above by 9/10/20 15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket wit hout notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel fr ee to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Thank you for your intere st in aviation safety.
FAA Office of Rulemakin g Pa g e 1 of 1 Request for Additional Information - Northwest Aerial Perspectives

8/26/2015 htt p s://email.dot. g ov/owa/9-AWA-AVS-333Exem p tions @ faa. g ov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note

...
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40935

Conference Calendar

 

DEREK GLEN ADKINS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

N. L. CONNOR, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:01-CV-213

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Derek Glen Adkins, federal prisoner # 24400-077, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because Adkins’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence,

Adkins had to show that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provided him with an

inadequate or ineffective remedy. Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d

876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000). “[T]he savings clause of [28 U.S.C.] 
No. 03-40935

-2-

**347 U.S. 260 (1954).

§ 2255 applies to a claim (i) that is based on a retroactively

applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the

petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and

(ii) that was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the

claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal,

or first [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United

States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001).

Adkins argues that the indictment was defective and in

violation of the fair warning, Accardi v. Shaughnessy,

** and no

evidence doctrines because it failed to allege all elements of

the offenses charged. Thus, he pleaded guilty to non-existent

offenses and was actually innocent. 

Adkins’ claims are not based on a retroactively applicable

Supreme Court decision which establishes that he may have been

convicted of a nonexistent offense. See Reyes-Requena, 243 F.3d

at 904. To the extent that his claims are based upon the Supreme

Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),

Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral

review and an Apprendi claim does not satisfy the test for filing

a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the savings clause. See Wesson

v. U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, TX, 305 F.3d 343, 347-48 (5th

Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Adkins fails to qualify for relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255's savings clause provisions. The district

court’s dismissal of Adkins’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is
No. 03-40935

-3-

therefore AFFIRMED. Adkins’ motion for leave to file a reply

brief out of time is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
# L_2005029EN.01004901.xml

| 2.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 29/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 29/49

---

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2005/82/CFSP

of 31 January 2005

repealing Common Positions 2002/401/CFSP on Nigeria, 2002/495/CFSP on Angola, 2002/830/CFSP on Rwanda and 2003/319/CFSP on the Lusaka Ceasefire agreement and the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Council adopted conclusions concerning the EU policy towards Nigeria on 17 May 2003, towards Angola on 13 October 2003, towards Rwanda on 8 December 2003 and towards the African Great Lakes Region on 14 June 2004. These conclusions set out the broader EU policy with regard to these countries and that region. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Council adopted conclusions concerning the EU policy towards Nigeria on 17 May 2003, towards Angola on 13 October 2003, towards Rwanda on 8 December 2003 and towards the African Great Lakes Region on 14 June 2004. These conclusions set out the broader EU policy with regard to these countries and that region.

| (2) | Consequently, the Common Positions adopted by the Council with regard to these countries and that region which do not define common basic principles valid for a longer period of time and are not required as a legal basis for the implementation of EU policy, should be repealed, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Consequently, the Common Positions adopted by the Council with regard to these countries and that region which do not define common basic principles valid for a longer period of time and are not required as a legal basis for the implementation of EU policy, should be repealed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

Common Positions 2002/401/CFSP (1) on Nigeria, 2002/495/CFSP (2) on Angola, 2002/830/CFSP (3) on Rwanda and 2003/319/CFSP (4) on the Lusaka Ceasefire agreement and the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo, are hereby repealed.

Article 2

This Common Position shall take effect on the day of its publication.

Article 3

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 31 January 2005.

For the Council

The President

J. ASSELBORN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 167, 26.6.2002, p. 9.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 285, 23.10.2002, p. 3.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 115, 9.5.2003, p. 87.

4

---
#### Lee Harve F. YOUNG, Homer Shellnut, Lester Neil Deese, and Johnye Curtis, Appellants, v. WAKULLA COUNTY BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, Appellee.

No. M-182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 7, 1970.

Charlton L. Pierce, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Woods & Johnston, Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00029

- CV

Brenda Lund, in her individual
capacity, a nd Kristin Alrick, in her
individual capacity

v.

Eric and Ruth Giauque, Individually

and as Next Friend of H.G., N.G.,

M.G., C.G., and B.G., minor children §

§

§

§

§ From the 342nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (342

- 247746

- 10 )

October 31, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gabriel



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s order . It is o rdered that the order of the trial

court is reversed and we render a judgment dismissing appellees’ Eric and Ruth

Giau q ue, Individually and as Next Friend of H.G., N.G., M.G. , C.G., and B.G.,

claims against appellants Brenda Lund, in her individual capacit y, and Kristin

Al rick, in her individual capacity

, under section 101.106(f).It is further ordered that appellees Eric and Ruth Giauque, Individually and

as Next Friend of H.G., N.G., M.G., C.G., and B.G., shall pay all costs of this

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Lee Gabriel
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28609]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97-ANM-02]


Amendment of Class E Airspace; Alamosa, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On October 20, 1997, the FAA published in the Federal Register 
a final rule which revised Class E airspace at Alamosa, CO. The final 
rule inadvertently listed November 19, 1997, as the effective date. The 
FAA intended the effective date to be November 6, 1997. This document 
corrects the effective date.

DATES: This document is effective on October 29, 1997.
    The effective date of FR Doc. 97-27364 is changed from 0901 UTC, 
November 19, 1997, to 0901 UTC, November 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ted Melland, ANM-520.1, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 97-
ANM-02, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, WA, 98055-4056; telephone: (425) 
227-2536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 20, 1997, the FAA published in 
the Federal Register a final rule which revised Class E airspace at 
Alamosa, CO (FR Doc. 97-27364; 62 FR 54379). The FAA intended the final 
rule to be effective November 6, 1997; however, due to an 
administrative error, the final rule was not published sufficiently in 
advance of the intended effective date to meet the 30-day notice 
general requirement of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 
U.S.C. 553(a). Consequently, the effective date of the rule was altered 
to indicate a date 30 days after the date of publication.
    The October 20, 1997, final rule revised Class E airspace at 
Alamosa, CO, in part by expanding that portion of the airspace area 
which extends upward from 1,200 feet above ground level (AGL); this 
revision will appear on, and therefore must coincide with, instrument 
flight rules (IFR) aeronautical charts scheduled to become effective 
November 6, 1997. Any delay in the effective date of the revisions to 
the Alamosa, CO, Class E airspace beyond November 6, 1997, will cause 
the affected IFR aeronautical charts to be in error during the period 
of the delay and may lead to pilot confusion and a hazard to air 
navigation.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA finds that good cause 
exists, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), for making FR Doc. 97-27364 
effective in less than 30 days from its date of publication in the 
Federal Register.

The Correction

    In rule FR Doc. 97-27364 published on October 20, 1997 (62 FR 
54379), make the following correction. On page 54379, in the second 
column, revise the effective date of the rule to 0901 UTC, November 6, 
1997.

    Dated: October 21, 1997.
Glenn A. Adams III,
Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 97-28609 Filed 10-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-M
-78 -77 -76 -75 -74

38 39 40


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/24 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3605 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3605

 To require the Secretary of Transportation to develop guidelines and 
   best practices for local evacuation route planning, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 17, 2024

  Mr. Padilla (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Schatz, and Ms. Hirono) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Transportation to develop guidelines and 
   best practices for local evacuation route planning, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Vehicle and Community 
Planning Act'' or the ``EVAC Planning Act''.

SEC. 2. EVACUATION ROUTE PLANNING.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Administrator of 
the Federal Highway Administration and the Administrator of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, shall develop and publicly disseminate 
guidelines and best practices for States, territories, Indian Tribes, 
and units of local government to use when conducting transportation 
infrastructure planning to ensure necessary considerations for local 
evacuation route planning, including the routing of emergency response 
supplies, equipment, and workers, as part of natural disaster 
preparedness efforts.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit (d)**

**AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT**

AGREEMENT, dated as of May 1, 2008, among DWS Money Funds, a Massachusetts business trust (the “Trust”), on its own behalf and on behalf of each of the Funds listed on Schedule I to this Agreement (each a “Fund” and together, the “Funds”), and Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Adviser”), effective with respect to each Fund as of the date set out with respect to such Fund on Schedule I to this Agreement, as may be amended from time to time.

 

WHEREAS, the Trust is engaged in business as an open-end investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”);

 

WHEREAS, the Trust engages in the business of investing and reinvesting the assets of each Fund in accordance with the investment objectives, policies and restrictions specified in the currently effective Prospectus (the “Prospectus”) and Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”) of each Fund included in the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as amended from time to time (the “Registration Statement”), filed by the Trust under the Investment Company Act and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended;

 

WHEREAS, the Adviser is engaged principally in rendering investment management services and is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”);

 

WHEREAS, the Trust desires to retain the Adviser to provide investment management services to each Fund on the terms set out in this Agreement, and the Adviser is willing to provide investment management services to each Fund on the terms set out in this Agreement; and

 

WHEREAS, the Trust and the Adviser desire to amend and restate the current Investment Management Agreement for each Fund dated June 13, 2005.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants contained in this Agreement, the Trust, each Fund and the Adviser agree as follows:

 

|   | 1. | *Appointment and Services*. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------|

 

(a)       The Trust appoints the Adviser to act as investment manager to each Fund.  The Adviser accepts its appointment and agrees to provide the services set out in this Agreement for the compensation set out in this Agreement.

 

(b)       Subject to the terms of this Agreement, and the supervision of the Board of Trustees, the Adviser will provide continuing investment management of the assets of 

 

 

1

 

 

----
**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Target 2011 Fund, a series of DWS Target Fund, on Form N-CSRS; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSRS (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| March 31, 2009 | /s/Michael G. Clark                               |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|           | Michael G. Clark                                  |
|           | President                                         |
|           | DWS Target 2011 Fund, a series of DWS Target Fund |

 

 

 

 

 

**Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Paul Schubert, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Target 2011 Fund, a series of DWS Target Fund, on Form N-CSRS; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSRS (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or § 15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| March 31, 2009 | /s/Paul Schubert                                  |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|           | Paul Schubert                                     |
|           | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer             |
|           | DWS Target 2011 Fund, a series of DWS Target Fund |
#### Marsh Ellen PRESSMAN, Appellant, v. Ronald Michael RATNER, Appellee.

No. 72-1347.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 27, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.