alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Endeavor Unmanned Solutions, LLC **senseFly eBee Checklist** 

**1. 72**  **- 24 H**  **OURS BEFORE**  **F LIGHT**  **:** NOTAM filed ( 1

-877

-487

- 6867 ) **2. MORNING OF FLIGHT**  **:** Verify NOTAM Check weather Batteries (fully c harged ) **– Go/No Go**  Micro SD Card ( i nstalled; check a vailable s pace) Tablet (check fully c harged ) Radio / Radio Batteries

- ICOMM and VO ( c heck) **– Go/No Go**  **CHECK COMPLETE 3**  **. SENSEFLY EBEE**  **UAV PRE** **- FLIGHT CHECKLIST**  Body and Wings (Check for cracks and other damage) Pitot Probe (attach, free of obstructions) Propeller (install with two (2) rubber bands) Camera and Compartment Lid (install) W ings (install) UAS (place o n a l evel s urface) Battery ( install ) A utomatic Self

- C hecks (verify complete ) **– Go/No Go**  **CHECK COMPLETE 4**  **. SENSEFLY EBEE**  **CO MPUTER**  **PRE -**  **FLIGHT CHECKLIST** Ground Modem to Computer (connect) eMotion Program (launch) Flight Plan (construct and upload to eBee) GPS Satellite (verify reception) **– Go/No Go**  VO Move into Position Radio Check with VO **– Go/No Go**  Radio Call (to Tower or nearby airport as required) **– Go/No Go**  **CHECK COMPLETE 5.**  **SENSEFLY EBEE TAKE** **- OFF**  **CHECKLIST** Launch Site (select) Wind Direction (determine) UAS (p ower o n – three (3) shakes fore and aft ) Launch UAS (into the wind)**CHECK COMPLETE**

**6 .**  **SENSEFLY EBEE IN**  **- FLIGHT CHECKS**  Visual Contact (Maintain) **– Go/No Go**  Battery Level (Monitor) **CHECK COMPLETE 7**  **. SENSEFLY EBEE**  **BEFORE -**  **LANDING CHECKLIST** Battery Level ( c heck

– no lower t han 30%) Return Route ( clear, safe for l anding ) Return Home (s elect if required ) Battery Level at Time of Landing (no lower t han 23% ) Land UAS ( o n a level s urface ) **C HECK COMPLETE**  **8. SENSEFLY EBEE AFTER LANDING CHECKLIST** Battery (remove) eBee (inspect) Propeller (remove) Radio Call (to Tower or nearby airport as required) Radio Call to VO **CHECK COMPLETE**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JOHNSTON
INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF APRIL 4, 1998 AND
FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1998
<CASH>                                         372,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               41,476,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,027,000
<INVENTORY>                                 50,002,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           104,604,000
<PP&E>                                     240,302,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             128,019,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             234,389,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      107,177,000
<BONDS>                                     59,553,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,246,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,943,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               234,389,000
<SALES>                                     79,839,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            79,839,000
<CGS>                                       64,967,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               77,370,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,350,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               143,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,213,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,333,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (398,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (935,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (935,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020255EN.01002201.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/22

---

Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND)

(Case T-297/20)

(2020/C 255/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fashioneast Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), AM.VI. Srl (Naples, Italy) (represented by: A. Camusso and M. Baghetti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Moschillo Srl (Avellino, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Applicants before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark RICH JOHN RICHMOND — European Union trade mark No 3 815 149

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 in Case R 1381/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the Applicant be discharged from the payment of all the fees and costs of the appeal and cancellation proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the Applicant be discharged from the payment of all the fees and costs of the appeal and cancellation proceedings;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2020215EN.01006002.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/60

---

Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

(Case T-263/20)

(2020/C 215/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genova, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — European Union trade mark No 12 313 797

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 in Case R 1545/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to render a new decision refusing the declaration of invalidity filed against the EU trade mark No 12 313 797, also for classes 11 and 40; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to render a new decision refusing the declaration of invalidity filed against the EU trade mark No 12 313 797, also for classes 11 and 40;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal appear before the Court, to pay its own costs and bear the fees and costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal appear before the Court, to pay its own costs and bear the fees and costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Ronald Collier GASKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-401.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 17, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, each of the undersigned, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | such Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 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 such Form 10-Q of Golden West Financial Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Golden West Financial Corporation.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                                                                                                       
|-------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|August 6, 2004 |  | /s/ Herbert M. Sandler                                                                                
|Date           |  | Herbert M. Sandler Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Golden West Financial Corporation
|               | 
|August 6, 2004 |  | /s/ Marion O. Sandler                                                                                 
|Date           |  | Marion O. Sandler Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Golden West Financial Corporation 
|               | 
|August 6, 2004 |  | /s/ Russell W. Kettell                                                                                
|Date           |  | Russell W. Kettell President and Chief Financial Officer Golden West Financial Corporation
#### The City of Tiffin *v.*The Public Utilities Commission.

*Supreme court*— Error *proceedings from Public Utilities Commission*— Application *for rehearing prerequisite.*

(No. 18279

Decided April 1, 1924.)

Error to the Public Utilities Commission.

*Mr. F. A. Hinchey,*city solicitor; *Mr. Mark L. Leister,*and *Mr. J. C. Royer,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. G. Grabbe,*attorney general, and *Mr. John W. Brisker,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no application for rehearing was filed before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.

Wanamaker, J., not participating.
<PAGE>   1
                                                               Exhibit 10.11(f)
                                   [BT LOGO]
                                                       Telephone      (0171) 250
                                                       International +44 171 250
                                                       Facsimile      (0171) 250
                                                       International +44 171 250


Andrew Fleming
Nynex CableComms Limited
11th Floor, The Tollworth Tower
Ewell Road
Surbiton
Surrey KT6 7ED

                                                                   13 June, 1996

Dear Andrew,

                       TERMINATION CONVEYENCE RATE (POLO)

Following negotiations between Nynex and BT I am writing to confirm BT's
acceptance to your offer for a terminating rate for Nynex CableComms Bolton,
from 1 April 1995 until 31 March 1997, of a rate payable which is equal to BT
Single Tandem rate. The agreed rate is as follows;

                 Daytime         Evening         Weekend

                 1.174           0.693           0.519

BT's acceptance is conditional on the acceptance of the review process detailed
in the pricing letter between BT and Nynex CableComms Bolton is that the rate
is to be applied to all calls conveyed under schedule 541 and 545 of the
Interconnect Agreement.

BT believes that termination payments to Operators should reflect the network
structure used for the delivery of calls and be based on relevant costs. BT's
acceptance of your offer is based on the arguments put forward by Nynex during
our discussions, which were also supported by Oftel, as to the level of those
Nynex costs.

It is also BT's expectation that Nynex CableComms Bolton costs will fall over
time and would therefore expect that this will be reflected in your offer to BT
following the 1 April 1997 review.

Yours sincerely



/s/Kevin Jackson
-----------------
Kevin Jackson
UK Carrier Services




                             BT UK Carrier Services
             Tenter House, 7th Floor, 45 Moorfield, LONDON EC2 9TH

                      BT is an ISO 9001 Registered Company
#### JOSHUA PHILLIPS *vs.*RACHEL CANNON.

On a hearing in defendant’s absence, though after an appearance, a magistrate must hear proof as well as allegations before giving judgment; and the record must show this.

Certiorari to Justice Conaway.

The record showed a service of the process; an appearance of the parties; an adjournment of the case; and that on the day the case stood adjourned to, the “plaintiff appeared; defendant absent; and after examining plaintiff’s account, judgment for plaintiff for $6 47’ debt and fifty-six cents costs.”

The exception was, that the judgment was rendered by default without hearing the plaintiff’s *proofs.*

*Layton,*for exceptant.

*The Court*

inclined, at first, that, as the defendant had appeared on a former day, and this could not be called strictly a judgment by default, for want of an appearance, it would not be required that the record should show that the case was *proved;*but, upon consideration, they held that the object of the act of assembly was to secure a hearing *on*proofs, as well as allegations, whenever the defendant was absent at the trial, and on that principle they reversed the judgment.
## MID-MICHIGAN

# ~~-/!-·....__ ..._.. BUSINESS TRAVEL 

# COALITION

The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx Secretary ofTransportation US Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington , DC 20590 The Honorable John F

. Kerry Secretary of State 

### US Department of 

### Stat e 2201 C Street NW Washington , DC 20520
Dear Secretaries Kerry and FoxxThe over 200 members of the Mid-M ichigan Bus i ness Travel Coalition is a unified voice for the business community throughout the capital region that includes some of the state's largest companies as well as many small businesses. We are interested in seeing the strongest possible air service in Lansing and across the state. That is why rece nt reports about government-owned Gulf carriers , Qatar Airways , Etihad Airways and Emirates Airline , violating the Open Skies policy by receiving over $40 billion in government subsidies is disturbing

. That is a clear violation ofthe spirit of Open Skies policy and i s detrimental to Michigan businesses that use the Cap ital Region International Airport

. This airport is a $1 billion regional asset and an economic engine for our region for the jobs it has created , the people it has employed, and passen gers who use the airport as a critical hub for their travel. Open Skies promotes st rong air service which creates jobs and has been essential in helpin g us attract, retain and grow businesses in the area
. Further, it has been an important factor for expanding airline access at Capital Region International Airport for business and personal travel. It is imperative that the U.S. open consultat ions with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates regarding the subsidies and other benefits these state-owned airlines are receiving

. As you well know, the strength of America ' s economy and the U.S. airlines industry depends on a fair and competitive playing f i eld

. More so, businesses in the mid-Michigan region cannot survive another econom ic downturn

. Simply , the current situation puts us at an economic disadvantage and the Mid-Michigan Bus i ness Travel Coalition urges you to put Open Skies on the front burner for the sake of saving Michigan jobs

. Sincerely,

Jim Robinson Board Chair of the Mid-Michigan Business Travel Coalition 

## 510-150424-015

### MID-MICHIGAN

# ~~ BUSINESS TRAVEL 

## COALITION



# s 10-150424-015 The Honorable Anthony 

### R. Foxx Secretary ofTransportation US Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590



### II·I·IIII,IIIIIJ·''IIIII.,,,,,,,,,IIIJI''''''I'''''I· 11 •111• 11 11 1 (
Foreword


The U.S. General Services Administration’s (GSA) Capital Program presents a uniquely 

powerful set of opportunities and responsibilities. The Capital Program helps to shape 

our nation’s federal legacy by creating venues for effective public service and by forging 

the physical symbols of our federal government in communities nationwide. 

Our public buildings symbolize the enduring form of American government. Structures 

as diverse as new courthouses, IRS district offices, and frontier border stations are 

monuments to the vision, leadership, and commitment of the nation. In turn, these 

public buildings contribute to the shape and definition of their communities. The 

Program shapes this legacy through the critical decisions that we make at the very 

beginning of every project. 

Certainly, this legacy becomes obvious during the construction process—as sites are 

prepared and as steel rises from the ground—and during the occupancy process— 

as employees move into their new offices. Of course, it remains visible every time the 

public arrives at the door and enters a place where national government meets local 

community. The brick, the stone, the glass and steel, the hustle and bustle to and 

from these buildings—all of these are clear messages about the federal government’s 

role in everyday life. 

It is equally clear that our planning studies, decisions, and strategies during project 

development shape these buildings and this legacy as much as the physical materials. 

With so much at stake and with such tremendous opportunities in our Capital 

Program, it is my hope that this Guide will assist each of us as we continue to strive 

for excellence in every federal project. 

F. Joseph Moravec 

Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service 

U.S. General Services Administration
# C_2020247EN.01003202.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/32

---

Action brought on 20 May 2020 — Molina Fernández v SRB

(Case T-304/20)

(2020/C 247/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laura Molina Fernández (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Rodríguez Bajón and A. Gómez-Acebo Dennes, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of the Single Resolution Board of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of which the resolution actions concerning Banco Popular Español S.A. have been effected.

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

| 1. | In the first place, the applicant submits that the Valuation 3 Report was not drawn up by a genuinely independent expert, as required by Article 20(16) to (18) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the first place, the applicant submits that the Valuation 3 Report was not drawn up by a genuinely independent expert, as required by Article 20(16) to (18) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

| 2. | In the second place, the applicant submits that the Valuation 3 Report is unlawful because the method of analysis used by Deloitte is incorrect, which led Deloitte to reach equally incorrect conclusions with seriously prejudicial effects on the applicant, who has unduly and unfairly been deprived of the compensation to which she is entitled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the second place, the applicant submits that the Valuation 3 Report is unlawful because the method of analysis used by Deloitte is incorrect, which led Deloitte to reach equally incorrect conclusions with seriously prejudicial effects on the applicant, who has unduly and unfairly been deprived of the compensation to which she is entitled.

| 3. | In the third place, the basis of the Valuation 3 Report on Banco Popular’s financial situation when it was put into resolution is incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the third place, the basis of the Valuation 3 Report on Banco Popular’s financial situation when it was put into resolution is incorrect.

---
261 La. 1060

#### Morley A. HUDSON v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY.

No. 52483.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 23, 1972.

In re: Maryland Casualty Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 260 So.2d 805.

Writ refused — On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.

DIXON, J., recused, having performed judicial act in case in another court.
#### GRAHAM CONTRACTING INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Archie B. RAULERSON and the Continental Insurance Company, a New York, corporation authorized to do business in Florida, Appellees.

No. 69-429.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 4, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# FBF Supplementary Time Summary

                - Title:  FBF Supplementary Time Summary 
                - Form #:         GSA2959      
                - Current Revision Date:  Obsolete
                - Authority or Regulation:  
                - Special Instructions:             Form was cancelled 08/2002.  No replacement indicated.    

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top