alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Unmanned Aerial Vehicle & First Person View

Pre

- Flight Checklist

Environmental

Check for people, animals, property in the flight vicinity

Notify any bystanders or nearby property owner of intentions

When flying FPV, discuss flight plan with check pilot, observers

If Flying in controlled airspace, notify airspace auth ority of intentions



### Hardware/Equipment

– VISUALLY CHECK THE AIRFRAME

Check for c racks (especially in high stress areas like joints )

Check for l oose or damaged screws/fasteners/band s/straps/ties

Check for l oose or damaged wiring

Check for loose or damaged connections ( solder, plugs

, et c. )

Inspect prop mounts & screws & apply slight counter pressure on arms to check for

loosened construction

For FPV, inspect/clean FPV and/or Go Pro camera lens and ensure that camera is

s ecured

Check Batt ery/batteries are fully charged, pro perly seated and secured

Remov e props and test fail

- safe behav i o r (if applicable )

.

Check that Props are smooth a n d free of d amage/defect (check blade, surface & hub)

Tighten prop adapters (do not over tighten which may damage prop)

Ensure voltage alarm is connected

Ensure arming /idle timeout is properly configured

Check whether the right model is selected in the transmitter (if applicable)

Check RC transmitter show s the r ight range and centering for all sticks



### Pre

- Flight Run Up

– Power Up

Check batteries are charged & secured

Calibrate the Compass

Position quad

- copter in a level, safe location for takeoff

F or FPV, power up ground station, video receiver, goggles, etc.

Turn on Go Pro Camera

Check all transmitter controls move freely in all directions

Check all transmitter trims in neutral position

Check all transmitter switches in correct position

Transmitter throttle to zero

Radio transmitter is on

Connect / power on battery to airframe

Ensure LED indicators & audible tones are all correct

Stand Clear

– audibly, loudly announce the word “CLEAR ”

Scan for nearby peop le, animals , low flying aircraft or obstacles

Arm Flight Controls

### Pre

- Take

- Off

Increase throttle slightly listening for any abnormalities

Hover 20

- 30 seconds at 3 to 5 feet (listen for weird vibrations or anything that sounds

loose )

Verify all sticks operate correctly while hov ering at no higher than 10 feet

Pre

- Landing Check

Ensure Camera is fully up

Landing Zone is clear and safe

Post

- Landing Checklist

– Returning to flight immediately

Battery

– Removed and Replaced

Camera checked

Ensure LED indicators & audible tones are all correct

Stand Clear

– audibly, loudly announce the word “CLEAR ”

Scan for nearby peop le, animals , low flying aircraft or obstacles

End of O p s Checklist

Battery

– Off

Transmitter

– Off

Camera

- Off
Exhibit (n)

**DWS TARGET FUND**

**AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**MULTI-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PLAN**

 

WHEREAS, DWS Target Fund adopting this Amended and Restated Multi-Distribution System Plan (the “Fund,” and each underlying portfolio of the Fund, a “Series”) is an open-end investment management company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”);

 

WHEREAS, Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. (“DIMA”) serves as investment adviser and DWS Investments Distributors, Inc. (“DIDI”) serves as principal underwriter for the Fund;

 

WHEREAS, the Fund has established an Amended and Restated Multi-Distribution System enabling each Series, as more fully reflected in its prospectuses, to offer investors the option of purchasing shares of the Series with one or more of the following classes of shares: (a) with a front-end sales load (which may vary among Series) and Rule 12b-1 Plan providing for a service fee (“Class A shares”); (b) without a front-end sales load, but subject to a CDSC (which may vary among Series) and a Rule 12b-1 Plan providing for a distribution fee and a service fee (“Class C shares”); (c) solely to certain investors, without a front-end sales load, a CDSC, a distribution fee or a service fee (“Class S shares”); and (d) solely to eligible institutions and other eligible investors, without a front-end sales load, a CDSC, or a Rule 12b-1 plan providing for a distributionfee or service fee, but for certain funds with a service plan providing for a service fee (“Institutional Class shares”);****

 

WHEREAS, a Fund or a Series may offer or issue some or all of the classes listed above; 

 

WHEREAS, Rule 18f-3 under the 1940 Act permits open-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of voting stock representing interests in the same portfolio notwithstanding Sections 18(f)(1) and 18(i) under the 1940 Act if, among other things, such investment companies adopt a written plan setting forth the separate arrangement and expense allocation of each class and any related conversion features or exchange privileges;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Fund, wishing to issue multiple classes of shares in accordance with Rule 18f-3 under the 1940 Act, hereby adopts this Amended and Restated Multi-Distribution System Plan, as follows, on behalf of the Series:

 

1.        Each class of shares will represent interests in the same portfolio of investments of the Series, and be identical in all respects to each other class, except as set forth below.  The only differences among the various classes of shares of the Series will relate solely to: (a) different distribution fee payments or service fee payments associated with any Rule 12b-1 Plan for a particular class of shares and any other costs relating to implementing or amending such Rule 12b-1 Plan (including obtaining shareholder approval of such Rule 12b-1 Plan or any amendment thereto), which will be borne solely by shareholders of such class; (b) different service fee payments associated with a service plan for a specific class and any other costs 

 

----
#### W. B. McCARTNEY OIL COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brantley G. RENFROW, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 4437.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Oct. 15, 1973.

*97Gaharan & Richey by Joseph Wilson, Jena, for plaintiff-appellant.

Smith, Taliaferro, Seibert & Boothe by Leo Boothe, Jonesville, for appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, HOOD and MILLER, JJ.

ON MOTION TO REMAND

MILLER, Judge.

Plaintiff appellant W. B. McCartney Oil Company, Inc. filed a motion to remand this suit to the District Court to retake certain testimony. The motion is unopposed. We remand.

McCartney alleges in its Motion to Remand that, at trial of this case, unbeknown to counsel and to the court reporter, the recording device was not properly functioning. Certain indispensable testimony is unavailable for transcription. McCartney attaches to its motion the sworn affidavit of the court reporter reciting that because of a mechanical malfunction in the recording device, a portion of several witnesses’ testimony was not recorded, including:

> “1. Eleven minutes of the testimony of W. B. McCartney both on direct and cross-examination.

> “2. One-half minute of the testimony of Doug Robinson, on direct examination.

> “3. Fifteen and one-half minutes of the testimony of Gerald Sanson, both on direct and cross-examination, and the direct examination of O. C. Stevens.

> “4. One and one-half minutes of the testimony of Bill Allen, on cross-examination.”

The affidavit further states that it was not until the court reporter attempted to transcribe the testimony that the failure of the recording device became known to either the court reporter or to the parties. The court reporter also states that because of the malfunction of the recorder she will not be able to transcribe the above testimony.

In Neal v. Neal, 268 So.2d 723 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1972) an identical situation was presented. This court remanded the case to the lower court for the retaking of testimony. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2164, and official note (c) thereunder. The ruling in the Neal case, supra., is applicable to this case. See also LSA-C.C.P. 2132 and Grosch v. DeBautte, 228 So.2d 692 (La.App. 4th Cir., 1969).

This case is remanded for retaking that portion of the testimony of those parties which is unavailable due to the malfunction of the recorder. The assessment of costs will await a final determination of this litigation.

Remanded.
cc: Hon. David Hardy, District Judge 

Eloy Pa dilla-Saldana 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1580 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit the use of 

certain psychological evaluation via telehealth for Medicare coverage of 

neurostimulation services for the treatment of chronic pain. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2021 

Mr. LATTA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 

and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit 

the use of certain psychological evaluation via telehealth 

for Medicare coverage of neurostimulation services for 

the treatment of chronic pain. 

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 ‘‘Improving Access to 

5 Alternative Pain Management Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1580 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITTING CERTAIN PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUA2 TIONS VIA TELEHEALTH FOR MEDICARE COV3 ERAGE OF NEUROSTIMULATION SERVICES 

4 FOR THE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC PAIN. 

5 (a) PERMITTING USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUA6 TION VIA TELEHEALTH FOR PURPOSES OF CERTAIN COV7 ERAGE OF NEUROSTIMULATION SERVICES.—Section 1834 

8 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is amended 

9 by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(z) USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION VIA

11 TELEHEALTH FOR PURPOSES OF COVERAGE OF

12 NEUROSTIMULATION SERVICES FOR THE TREATMENT OF

13 CHRONIC PAIN.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

14 this title, beginning January 1, 2022, for coverage under 

15 this part of neurostimulation services, as identified under 

16 the National Coverage Determination section 160.7, titled 

17 Medicare National Coverage Determination for Electrical 

18 Nerve Stimulators, as in effect on January 1, 2020, for 

19 the treatment of chronic pain, any requirement for a psy20 chological evaluation prior to receipt of the service may 

21 be satisfied through such an evaluation via telehealth.’’. 

22 (b) INCLUSION OF CERTAIN PSYCHOLOGICAL EVAL23 UATIONS AS TELEHEALTH SERVICES.—Section 

24 1834(m)(4)(F)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

25 1395m(4)(F)(i)) is amended by inserting before the period 

26 at the end the following: ‘‘, and, beginning January 1, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1580 IH

1 2022, shall include psychological evaluations (identified by 

2 CPT codes 96130, 96131, 96136, 96137, 96138, and 

3 96139 and any successor codes and additional codes the 

4 Secretary determines may be necessary to perform the 

5 psychological evaluation furnished prior to the provision 

6 of neurostimulation services) furnished prior to the provi7 sion of neurostimulation services (as described in section 

8 1834(z)) for the purpose of treating chronic pain’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit (a)(3)

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 9, 2016

No. 04-15-00469-CV

CASH BIZ, LP, Redwood Financial, LLC, Cash Zone, LLC dba Cash Biz,

Appellants

v.

Hiawatha HENRY, Addie Harris, Montray Norris, and Roosevelt Coleman Jr., et al.,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-01545

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice1

Jason Pulliam, Justice

The panel has considered the appellees’ motion for rehearing, and the motion is hereby 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of September, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

 

1 Dissents to the denial of the motion for rehearing without requesting a response. See Tex.R. App.P.49.2.
^^^^^^H 

OAR Box 1878 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

v£\ 

l 

Document Number: 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/28/2008 1:21:26 PM Sheet 135 of 145 

P.1 
IT7 

^*08X 

A-90-19 

H-E-18 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

/ - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

2 2 JAN 1991 

MSMQBA-NDUM 

D£C \ B199Z 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

SUBJECT: Coordination with Trade Association Representing Small 

Businesses Potentially Affected by the Hazardous 

Organic NESHAP (HON) Rulemaking 

FROM: Robert E. Rosensteel, Chief ^G^/^2^^ 

Chemical Manufacturing Section, CPB/ESD (MD-13) 

TO: Susan R. Wyatt, Chief 

Chemicals and Petroleum Branch, ESD (MD-13) 

Ms. Karen Brown of the Environmental Protection Agency's 

Office of Small Business Ombudsman was contacted on January 4, 

1991, to determine if she might identify trade associations 

representing small businesses operating facilities that may be 

affected by the HON rule. It was explained that coordination 

with the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association 

(SOCMA) had already been initiated, but she was asked if there 

were other trade associations that might represent small chemical 

producers. Ms. Brown identified two organizations in addition to 

SOCMA that may represent such small businesses, one of which is 

the Small Chemical Manufacturers Association of the National 

Association of Manufacturers (NAM). 

On January 9, 1991, I contacted Ms. Teresa Pugh of NAM and 

provided her a general background of the HON and the scope of the 

rule as we see it at the present time. I then offered to meet 

with them at their office in Washington, D.C. to provide 

additional information and provide them an opportunity to 

interact with us as we develop the rule. Ms. Pugh responded that 

although she is interested in the rule she does not have time to 

devote toward any coordination with us on the HON since their 

organization has only one other staff person. They are 

interacting with EPA regarding the permit program and simply do 

not have sufficient time to get involved in rulemakings such as 

the HON. 

Ms. Pugh did ask if we were coordinating with other industry 

trade groups and I pointed out that we had met and discussed the 

HON with both SOCMA and the Chemical Manufacturers Association 

(CMA). We also discussed the NAPCTAC meeting and it was pointed 

out that member company representatives of CMA did sit on the 
I 

•/ mAJ* 

NAPCTAC. Ms. Pugh then responded that she believed that their 

positions would be adequately represented by SOCMA and CMA. She 

also indicated that she would coordinate with Ms. Mary Legatski 

of SOCMA to keep apprised of HON progress and to make sure NAM'S 

views were provided through SOCMA.
Page 31.0

Automotive Industries Pension Plan

Checklist Item #31

Does the application include the required plan sponsor information, including

 name

 address

 telephone number

 email address

 fax number

 employer identification number (EIN) and

 3-digit plan number (PN)?

See section 7.01.

Yes. Required plan sponsor information:

Plan Sponsor: Trustees of the Automotive Industries Pension Plan

Address: 1640 South Loop Road

Alameda, CA 94502

Telephone: (800) 635-3105

Email: AIPension.MPRA@atpa.com

Fax: (888) 919-4907

EIN: 94-1133245

PN: 001
**Exhibit 13(2)**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 20-F**

**FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012**

**OF CHINA ENTERPRISES LIMITED**

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), the undersigned officer of China Enterprises Limited, a Bermuda company (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that: 

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company. 

Date: March 25, 2015 

 

The certification set forth above is being furnished as an Exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 20-F or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officer.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 09-721.3 

________________________________________________________________________ 

WEAPONS 

Explosive Remnants of War 

(Protocol V) 

 Protocol Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and OTHER GOVERNMENTS to the 

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the 

Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may 

be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have 

Indiscriminate Effects of October 10, 1980 

Adopted at Geneva November 28, 2003 

 
 

NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 

 MULTILATERAL 

 Weapons: Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V) 

Protocol to the convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use 

 of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be 

 excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects 

 of October 10, 1980. 

Adopted at Geneva November 28, 2003; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate June 20, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-10C, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-22, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 23, 2008; 

Ratified by the President December 23, 2008; 

Ratification of the United States of America deposited January 21, 2009; 

Entered into force July 21, 2009.
#### W. Clark HERSEY, Petitioner, v. Thomas E. JEFFERS, Respondent.

No. 40866.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 21, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 243 So.2d 17.

ROBERTS, C. J., CARLTON and DEKLE, JJ., and MASON, Circuit Judge, concur.

ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., dissent.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28651]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-300480A; FRL-5751-5]


Aminoethoxyvinylglycine; Pesticide Tolerances; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of May 7, 1997 (62 FR 24835) (FRL-
5713-5), EPA established time-limited tolerances for residues of the 
plant regulator aminoethoxyvinylglycine in or on the food commodities 
apples and pears. The reference dose (RfD) was incorrectly stated. This 
document corrects the RfD. On page 24836, column three, third full 
paragraph, line 11, the RfD was incorrectly stated as ``0.0002''; the 
correct RfD is ``0.002.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Greenway, Biopesticides and 
Pollution Prevention Division (7511W), Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone 
number, and e-mail address: Rm. 5-W57, CS #1, 2800 Crystal Drive, 
Arlington, VA 22202, 703-308-8263, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbdcc9deded5ccdac295dfded5d2c8defbdecbdad6dad2d795decbda95dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92f5e0f7f7fce5f3ebbcf6f7fcfbe1f7d2f7e2f3fff3fbfebcf7e2f3bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.

List of Subjects in Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 15, 1997.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of 
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 97-28651 Filed 10-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 11-627 

________________________________________________________________________ 

ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and INDONESIA 

Signed at Jakarta June 27, 2011 

with 

Annex 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
INDONESIA 

Environmental Cooperation 

 Memorandum of understanding signed 

 at Jakarta June 27, 2011; 

 Entered into force June 27, 2011. 

 With annex.
VOICES

ORAL HISTORY ARCHIVES

Collecting and sharing oral history interviews related to the changing environment, climate, oceans and coasts since 2003. Search the collection, listen and learn from a diversity of experiences. Create your own collection to archive and share.