alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Talon Installation Installation Installation Installation instructions instructions instructions instructions

HOT News!!!

This new type UAV is sweeping over the FPV market like fire.

Talon can fly stably with large lifting force and small resisting force, and the thrust-weight ratio is only 0.2~0.3:1.

1. With 4S 15000MAH battery,the flying weight is only 2.4KG, and if you equip it with different kinds of aerial tools, its weights just 3KG and wing

load is only 48g/dm2.

2. Talon works well under the condition of strong breeze.

3. Easy for installment, detachment and carrying.

Welcome aeromodelling fans, FPV fans, and UAV fans to find our deficiencies!

Material: EPO

Wingspan: 1718mm

Length: 1100mm

Flying Weight: 2500~3000g(88~106oz)

Thrust Force:3000g

WingArea:60 m2(750sq.in)

Wingload:55~66g/d m2(18~21.6oz/sq.ft)

Drive System: 3648 KV1100 motor

ESC: 70A

Servo: 2*9g 2*17g servos

Propeller: ≤12in

Battery: 14.8V, Li-polymer

Control system:4 CH 2.4GHz Transmitte

The main distributor: FPV MODEL (http://www.fpvmodel.com)
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 

f· 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~ 
X-UAV NIO!!EL 

FP~
P. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 257 ) ll-K - (I ) -7 0 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:57

AM Sheet 257 of 325P. 2 

# Wo )

n -K-CI)-7 0
INDUSTRIAL BOILE RNSP S IMPAC T ANALYSIS , SEVENT H ROUND TES T CASES : IFCA

M MODE L RESULTS . EEA , Inc . Octobe r 8 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-7 0
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE>                 5
 <MULTIPLIER>           1000
        
 <S>                <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>      3-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>            FEB-28-1998
 <PERIOD-START>                MAR-1-1997
 <PERIOD-END>                 MAY-31-1997
 <CASH>                              1972
 <SECURITIES>                           0
 <RECEIVABLES>                       3803
 <ALLOWANCES>                          27
 <INVENTORY>                         4380
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                   11895
 <PP&E>                             13974
 <DEPRECIATION>                      8066
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                     18658
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               4798
 <BONDS>                                0
 <COMMON>                              17
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
 <PREFERRED>                            0
 <OTHER-SE>                         11696
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       18658
 <SALES>                             4987
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                    4987
 <CGS>                               3219
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                       1548
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                     (10)
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    43
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                      186
 <INCOME-TAX>                          18
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                  168
 <DISCONTINUED>                         0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
 <CHANGES>                              0
 <NET-INCOME>                         168
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                       0.14
 <EPS-DILUTED>                       0.14
#### Earl R. NORDQUIST, Petitioner, v. DOLAN CORPORATION, and Industrial Relations Comm., Respondents.

No. 42297.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 13, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                  1,161  
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             686   
<ALLOWANCES>                                0  
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS><F1>                        0
<PP&E>                                307,570      
<DEPRECIATION>                         44,826           
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        311,844      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES><F1>                   0
<BONDS>                               132,779      
<COMMON>                                  146 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                            107,705           
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          311,844      
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       11,824     
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           8,037     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      2,836    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         3,103    
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     3,103    
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            33
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            3,070    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .21 
<FN>                                        
<F1> Mid-Atlantic Realty Trust (MART) is in the specialized real estate
<F1> industry for which the current/noncurrent distinction is deemed in
<F1> practice to have little or no relevance.  Therefore, MART prepares
<F1> unclassified balance sheets wlhich do not report current assets or
<F1> current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 265/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.265.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 265 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 526 November 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.265.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 265

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 526 November 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Council |
| 2009/C 265/01 | Eleventh Annual Report according to Article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Council

2009/C 265/01

Eleventh Annual Report according to Article 8(2) of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6792
JOSEPH CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versusRONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of V irginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-747-3) Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberley Ann Whittle, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Carter v. Angelone , No. CA-96-747-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 1997). We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 99.29**

 

**CONSENT OF AL HAYDEN**

** **

March 14, 2012

 

Brigus Gold Corp.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

 

**Re: Brigus Gold Corp.**

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection withthe following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F forthe year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consentrelates: (A) the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report, Pre-feasibility Study, Brigus Gold Corp., GoldfieldsProject, Saskatchewan, Canada” dated effective October 6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s AnnualInformation Form for the year ended December 31, 2011 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis forthe year ended December 31, 2011, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Report in theRegistration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889, 333-162558 and 333-167757), as amended, and Form F-10 (File No. 333-174604),as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commissionpursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectusesor amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference inthe above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.

 

Sincerely,
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 780

To reauthorize the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Mr. MANTON (for himself, Mr. STUDDS, and Mr. YOUNG of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To reauthorize the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

Management Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF MAGNUSON FISHERIES

4 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title IV of the Magnuson Fishery

6 Conservation and Management Act (90 Stat. 359–361) is

7 amended to read as follows:
2

HR 780 IH

1 ‘‘TITLE IV. MISCELLANEOUS

2 PROVISIONS

3 ‘‘SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to the Sec5 retary, for purposes of carrying out the provisions of this

6 Act, not to exceed the following sums:

7 ‘‘(1) $102,000,000 for fiscal year 1993.

8 ‘‘(2) $106,000,000 for fiscal year 1994.

9 ‘‘(3) $110,000,000 for fiscal year 1995.

10 ‘‘(4) $114,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.

11 ‘‘(5) $118,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.’’.

12 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents

13 in the first section of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation

14 and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended

15 by striking the items relating to each of sections 402, 403,

16 404, 405, and 406 and inserting the following:

‘‘Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Russell LASSAI.

No. 62964.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Russell Lassai, applying for supervisory writ and stay order. Parish of Orleans.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Oliver P. Schulingkamp Judge of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 14th day of September, 1978, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this court at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 16 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 16

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any change in 
the current policy regarding homosexuals in the Armed Forces should be 
              made by law, rather than by Executive order.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Duncan submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that any change in 
the current policy regarding homosexuals in the Armed Forces should be 
              made by law, rather than by Executive order.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
any change in the current policy regarding homosexuals in the Armed 
Forces (stating that homosexuality is incompatible with military 
service and requiring the separation from the Armed Forces of military 
personnel who are homosexual) should be made by law, rather than by 
Executive order.

                                 <all>
```
#### WATSON *v.*WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 50,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided January 30, 1963.*

*644Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

PER Curiam.

For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of Judge Sodaro in the lower court, the application of Uzell Watson for leave to appeal from the order dismissing his third petition for post conviction relief from his imprisonment for murder is hereby denied. See *Watson v. Warden,*228 Md. 653, and *Watson v. State,*208 Md. 210.

*Application denied.*
Text of Proposed Amendments to

Regulation 61

- 62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards

July 24 , 2009

Text of Proposed Amendments to Regulation 61

- 62 for Public Comment:

Legend: Highlighted text = new text.

Strikeout text = text being deleted.

R.61

- 62.5, Standard No. 2

- Ambient Air Quality Standards:

Regulation 61

- 62.5, Standard No. 2 shall be revised as follows:

The following table constitutes the ambient air quality standards for the State of South Carolina.

The analytical methods to be u sed will be those applicable Federal Reference Methods published

in 40 CFR 50, Appendices A

- N as revised July 18, 1997. In the case of fluorides, either the

double paper tape sampler methods (ASTM D

- 3266

- 79) or the sodium bicarbonate

- coated glass

tube and particulate filter method (ASTM D3268

- 78) may be used.

Pollutant Measuring Interval Micrograms Per Cubic Meter

Unless Noted Otherwise (1) (2)

Sulfur Dioxide 3 hours

24 hours

annual 1300 (4)

365 (4)

80

Total Suspended Particulates Annual Geometric

Mean 75

PM 10 24 hours

annual 150 (3)

50 (3)

PM 2.5 (Primary and Secondary

Standards) 24 hours

annual 35 (3)

15 (3)

Carbon Monoxide 1 hour

8 hour 40 mg per cubic meter

10 mg per cubic meter

Ozone 1 hour 0.12 ppm (3)

Ozone 8 hours

8 hours 0.08 ppm (3) (5)

0.075 ppm (3)

Gaseous Fluorides (as HF) 12 hr. avg.

24 hr. avg.

1 wk. avg.

1 mo. avg. 3.7

2.9

1.6

0.8

Nitrogen Dioxide annual 100

Lead Calendar Quarterly 1.5Pollutant Measuring Interval Micrograms Per Cubic Meter

Unless Noted Otherwise (1) (2)

Mean

Rolling 3

- month

Ave rage 0.15

(1) Arithmetic Average except in case of total suspended particulate matter

(2) At 25 0 C and 760 mm Hg.

(3) Attainment determinations will be made based on the criteria contained in 40 CFR 50

Appendices H, I, K and N.

(4) Not to be exceeded more than once a year.

(5) The 1997 standard

– and the implementation rules for that standard

– will remain in

place for implementation purposes as EPA undertakes rulemaking to address transition from the

1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone sta ndard.
# C_2020222EN.01002701.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/27

---

Action brought on 4 May 2020 — JP v Commission

(Case T-247/20)

(2020/C 222/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JP (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision C(2020) 1195 final of 24 February 2020 of the Commission rejecting the confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2019/5394 to 5399; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision C(2020) 1195 final of 24 February 2020 of the Commission rejecting the confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — GESTDEM 2019/5394 to 5399; and

| — | order the defendant to pay a symbolic Euro in order to compensate the moral damage suffered by the applicant and all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay a symbolic Euro in order to compensate the moral damage suffered by the applicant and all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 4(1)(b) and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 related to the protection of privacy and of the integrity of the individual. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 4(1)(b) and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 related to the protection of privacy and of the integrity of the individual.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 related to the protection of the decision-making process. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 related to the protection of the decision-making process.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 related to partial access and of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 related to partial access and of the principle of proportionality.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration.

---
**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the annual report of *Pacific
      Harbour Capital Ltd* .,
      (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, *Thomas
      Pressello* ,
      Chief
      Executive 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
      the best of my knowledge:





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.





*“Thomas
      Pressello”*





Name:
      Thomas Pressello


Title:
      Chief Executive Officer


Date:
      September 18, 2006








*A
      signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided
      to
      the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*





*This
      certification accompanies the Form 20-F to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
      reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933
      or
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date
      of
      the Form 20-F), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
      in
      such filing.*
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 120

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives against the enactment

of any reduction or delay in cost-of-living adjustments for beneficiaries

under title II of the Social Security Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 9, 1993

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. ZIMMER, Mr. JOHNSON of

South Dakota, Mr. KING, Mr. EMERSON, Mr. MCCANDLESS, Mr. LIGHTFOOT, and Mr. DOOLITTLE) submitted the following resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives against

the enactment of any reduction or delay in cost-of-living

adjustments for beneficiaries under title II of the Social

Security Act.

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that no changes in current law should be en3 acted that would reduce or delay cost-of-living adjust4 ments for beneficiaries under title II of the Social Security

5 Act.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0497 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. RICHARD SORIA,

Defendant and Appellant,

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time until November 19 , 2021, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 6 2021

10/06/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0497
#### Ann LENTI a/k/a Ann Nawrocki, Appellant, v. M. I. DUNN, Sr., Appellee.

No. 73-1522.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 21, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.