alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:15 AM

To: 'amarino@nutrinetcorp.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha (FAA); Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Ferritto, Michelle (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Low Country RC, Corporation

January 7, 2015 

Mr. Anthony J. Marino 

President 

Low Country RC, Corporation 

3104 River Drive 

Thunderbolt, GA 31404 

Dear Mr. Marino: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0803). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration to process your 

petition. Please submit the additional information to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any 

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to nia.daniels@faa.gov. 

 Describe the aircraft make and model for the proposed UAS operation. The description should include 

the size. 

 List the aircraft’s cruise speed. 

 Provide information regarding the radio frequency spectrum. This information can be located in the 

aircraft manual. 

 Describe the process used to document UAS discrepancies and the corrective action taken in the aircraft 

record. Examples of processes include (1) the petitioner has elected to use its own process to maintain 

its UAS and ensure that only airworthy and safe UAS will be allowed to operate in the NAS and (2) the 

petitioner has elected to maintain its UAS in accordance with the manufacturer maintenance and 

inspection recommendations. 

 Your petition references an flight operations manual, however it was not submitted for the 

record. Please provide a copy of the aircraft. 

Please provide the additional information by January 21, 2015. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-7626. 

Sincerely, 
2

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             249,688
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,162,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                       202,810
<INVENTORY>                                      5,814,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,059,004
<PP&E>                                             825,715
<DEPRECIATION>                                     351,463
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,906,580
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,951,050
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            87,127
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,934,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,906,580
<SALES>                                         17,283,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,374,041
<CGS>                                           12,988,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,988,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,184,544
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 151,414
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     51,267
<INCOME-TAX>                                        23,623
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 27,644
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        27,644
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 657 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 657

 To repeal the prohibition in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
   Act, 1993, on purchasing any lock which has not been certified as 
   passing certain security lock specifications, and to prohibit the 
 Secretary of Defense from carrying out a retrofit program to replace 
              locks which do not meet such specifications.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 1993

  Mr. Burton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the prohibition in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
   Act, 1993, on purchasing any lock which has not been certified as 
   passing certain security lock specifications, and to prohibit the 
 Secretary of Defense from carrying out a retrofit program to replace 
              locks which do not meet such specifications.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON PURCHASING CERTAIN LOCKS.

    Section 9027A of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 
(Public Law 102-396, 106 Stat. 1906) is hereby repealed.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON RETROFIT PROGRAM TO REPLACE CERTAIN LOCKS.

    The Secretary of Defense is prohibited from carrying out a retrofit 
program to replace locks which do not meet specifications contained in 
regulation FF-L-2740, dated October 12, 1989. The Secretary shall 
ensure that the Defense Logistics Agency does not provide to the 
military departments or Defense Agencies any locks necessary to 
initiate such a retrofit program.

                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Wallace WADE, Relator, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections for the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-1452.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 18, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas Corpus denied.
Exhibit 32.2



SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS, INC.



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, William R. Brooks, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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







|                     |  |     |  |                                                                        |  |  |  | 
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|Date: March 12, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ William R. Brooks                                                 
|                     |  |     |  | William R. Brooks Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to, and
will be retained by, Speedway Motorsports, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Mack Hoover WALDEN alias William B. Davis v. STATE of Mississippi (L. B. Williams).

No. 45933.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 16, 1970.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1970.

Jacobs, Griffith & Hatcher, Cleveland, Fountain D. Dawson, Greenville, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Velia Ann Mayer and Timmie Hancock, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Jackson, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Forest Laboratories,Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), I, Howard Solomon, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

            1.          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            2.          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.

 

/s/ Howard Solomon       Howard SolomonChairman of the Board,Chief Executive Officerand DirectorAugust 9, 2006
** EXHIBIT 32.1**

FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Hartford Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),

INeil H. Ellis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

2.         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

             /s/ Neil H. Ellis               Neil H. EllisPresident and ChiefExecutive Officer

Date: September 19, 2006
#### Rupert J. DINVAUT v. The PHOENIX OF HARTFORD INS. CO. et al.

No. 54516.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 5, 1974.

In re: Rupert J. Dinvaut applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles, 288 So.2d 423.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### KEY REALTY OF JAX, INC. v. I & H CONSTRUCTION CO.

No. 37947.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 212 So.2d 901.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8045 

To require the Department of Homeland Security to develop a threat assessment on the potential homeland security vulnerabilities associated with 

genome modification and editing, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 14, 2020 

Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. TRONE) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Department of Homeland Security to develop 

a threat assessment on the potential homeland security 

vulnerabilities associated with genome modification and 

editing, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Genome Editing 

5 Threat Assessment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GENOME EDITING THREAT ASSESSMENT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8045 IH

1 for the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office 

2 of the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination 

3 with the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis of 

4 the Department, the Under Secretary for the Science and 

5 Technology Directorate of the Department, and other 

6 Federal partners, as appropriate, shall develop a threat 

7 assessment on the potential homeland security 

8 vulnerabilities associated with genome modification and 

9 editing. Such threat assessment shall include information 

10 relating to the following: 

11 (1) The dual-use of emerging biotechnology. 

12 (2) The ability of gene editing to maliciously 

13 proliferate infectious diseases and pandemics on 

14 human, animal, and plant populations. 

15 (3) The cybersecurity vulnerabilities in com16 puter systems analyzing genomic data. 

17 (4) Privacy concerns associated with analyzing 

18 genomic data. 

19 (b) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Upon completion of the 

20 threat assessment required under subsection (a), the Sec21 retary of Homeland Security shall make a determination 

22 if any changes to future operations of the Department of 

23 Homeland Security are required to address security 

24 vulnerabilities identified in such assessment. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8045 IH

1 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the com2 pletion of the threat assessment required under subsection 

3 (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, consistent 

4 with the protection of classified information, report to the 

5 Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Rep6 resentatives and the Committee on Homeland Security 

7 and Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the findings 

8 of such threat assessment, any identified recommenda9 tions, plans for incorporating such recommendations into 

10 future operations of the Department of Homeland Secu11 rity, and any proposed legislative changes informed by 

12 such threat assessment. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
|Exhibit 31(d)                                                                                      
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification                                                             
|I, Moray P. Dewhurst, Chief Financial Officer of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), certify that:
|1.                                                                                                 
|2.                                                                                                 
|3.                                                                                                 
|4.                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|5.                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|Date:   May 5, 2005                                                                                
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|
#### G. E. McLENDON, Sr. v. William O. BREWSTER.

No. 54232.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 25, 1974.

In re: William O. Brewster applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo, 286 So.2d 513.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
#### In re ESTATE of Serena SCHERMER, Deceased.

No. 70-282.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal from County Judges’ Court, Broward County; Joe Easthope, County Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Philip Gordon MOON, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Richard B. MORITZ, as Municipal Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Largo, Florida, Respondent.

No. 69-627.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 9, 1970.

Certified question dismissed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jill Wagner CONNOLLY, Appellee.

No. 70-778.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LEESBURG, Appellant, v. HECTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 69-627.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1972.

John F. Cherry, Davis, McLin, Burnsed & Austin, Leesburg, for appellant.

Feibelman, Friedman, Britton & Stettin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

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

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on June 2, 1970 (236 So.2d 204) affirming the summary judgment of the Civil Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed October 27, 1971 (254 So.2d 777) and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings consistent with the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida,

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the opinion and judgment of this court heretofore filed in this cause on June 2, 1970 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the summary judgment appealed from in this cause is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the Civil Court of Record (Rule 3.16b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.4


            1997 BONUS PLAN REPLACEMNT - MILLENNIUM STOCK OPTION PLAN

PRIMARY FEATURES:

o        Voluntary replacement program, any employee may stay with existing
         Bonus Plan

o        Establishes a viable Long Term shareholder value linked performance
         incentive Plan for all employees and employees yet to come

o        Does not replace annual Short Term merit based performance incentive
         cash bonus plan

o        Modeled after Matador's existing Stock Option Plan except for SAR's

         - Vesting 20% at inception, 20% per year thereafter
         - Ten year period to Option expiration
         - Excludes SAR provision (Runway Plan requires we are public)
         - 100% vested at retirement (age 65) or change in control
         - Expandable via adding new Option allocations in subsequent years

o        Partial Cash payment when $50/share valuation threshold is met

o        Number of Options tied by formula to base salary amount

SPECIFIC FEATURES:

o        Cash payment equal to 25% of Base Salary upon satisfaction of $50/share
         value threshold, no deadline for threshold achievement

o        250 Options per $10,000 in salary for Runway participants electing to
         convert

o        100 - 200 Options per $10,000 in salary for Non-Runway participants
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-2938) of Horizon Health Corporation and the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-36953) of Horizon Health Corporation
of our report on Horizon Health Corporation dated October 12, 1998 appearing on
Page F - 2 of this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference
of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule, which appears on page S - 2
of this Form 10-K.



PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Dallas, Texas
November 24, 1998
#### Robert R. Sylvester, Appellant, v Beth Sylvester, Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 261]

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered May 17, 1996, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered June 11, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, to amend a qualified domestic relations order of the same court entered May 17, 1996, to meet the requirements of his employer’s retirement pension, and (2) a qualified domestic relations order of the same court, entered June 14, 2001.

Ordered that the appeal from the qualified domestic relations order entered June 14, 2001, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that order entered June 11, 2001, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

*502No appeal lies as of right from the entry of a qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter QDRO) which functions to implement those portions of the judgment of divorce awarding one spouse an interest in the marital portion of the other spouse’s retirement pension *(see,*CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; *Gormley v Gormley,*238 AD2d 545, 546). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to grant the plaintiff leave to appeal from the QDRO entered June 14, 2001.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, to amend the QDRO entered May 17, 1996, to meet the requirements of the retirement pension of the plaintiff’s employer *(see, Majauskas v Majauskas,*61 NY2d 481). The plaintiffs objections thereto are either unpreserved for appellate review, barred by laches, or without merit *(see, Larson v Albany Med. Ctr.,*252 AD2d 936; *Gormley v Gormley, supra).*Smith, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
WILMA GRAHAM and RINIA 

GRAHAM,

Petitioners,

v.

TRENTON APARTMENTS, 

LTD. dba TRENTON 

APARTMENTS,

Respondent.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3000

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 3, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Original Jurisdiction.

Glorimil R. Walker of Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc., Gainesville, for 

Petitioners.

Conrad C. Bishop, III of the Bishop Law Firm, P.A., Perry, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.