alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Albert THOMAS and Ellora Thomas, his wife, Appellants, v. Cecil ANDRUS [Roger C. B. Morton], Secretary of the Interior, Sam A. DeVilbiss and Laura DeVilbiss, his wife, William Howard and Diane Howard, his wife, Appellees.

No. 76-1548.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 28, 1977.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 16, 1977.

Hale C. Tognoni, argued, Phoenix, Ariz., Richard J. Riley, Bisbee, Ariz., for appellants.

Peter R. Taft, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward J. Shawaker, argued, Land of Natural Resources, U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., P. Michael Drake, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellees.

*872Before TRASK and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and TURRENTINE,* District Judge.

*

The Honorable Howard B. Turrentine, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Albert Thomas and wife appeal a judgment in the district court which affirmed a decision by the Secretary of Interior declaring invalid certain mining claims for want of a valid discovery. See *Thomas v. Morton,*408 F.Supp. 1361 (D.Ariz.1976).

The principal issue on appeal is whether the owners of surface (grazing) rights had standing to challenge the mineral discoveries claimed by the Thomas interests.

The district judge was confronted with a question that had not been squarely presented in this court. He reasoned by analogy from *Duguid v. Best,*291 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1961), *cert. denied,*372 U.S. 906, 83 S.Ct. 713, 9 L.Ed.2d 716 (1963), that if an owner of a special use permit under the Forest Service could challenge an encroaching mining claim, the owner of grazing rights ought to be able to pursue a similar remedy. We agree, and affirm on the basis of the reasoning of the district judge.

On the secondary issue, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of the administrative law judge, we agree with the district judge that substantial evidence in the record supports the essential findings of fact. Beyond that, we have no warrant to review the evidence as to its weight and credibility. *Multiple Use, Inc. v. Morton,*504 F.2d 448, 452 (9th Cir. 1974).

We express no opinion on other parts of the decision below which have not been brought before us in this appeal.

Affirmed.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA-2013-0332

Directorate Identifier: 2013NM009AD

601-0617, R02 --- 11/14/12

601-0617, R01 --- 11/12/12

601-0617 --- 7/31/12

604-34-065, R01 --- 10/15/12

604-34-065 --- 7/31/12

605-34-027, R01 --- 10/15/12

605-34-027 --- 7/31/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Leonard JOHNSON v. CLERK OF CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS.

No. 59816.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 1977.

In re: Leonard Johnson applying for remedial writs.

Writ refused. The appeal, including a transcript of the trial evidence, is lodged in this court. Relator is represented by appointed counsel.
Qualified Products List for Government Printing Papers

JCP Code O‐61 High Quality Xerographic Copy Paper  

The brand names of xerographic copy paper listed below have been tested by the U. S. Government Publishing

Office (GPO) and were determined to be in compliance with requirements of the JCP Paper Standards.  

Questions can be emailed to: qcimd@gpo.gov.

Brand Name       Manufacturer/Supplier

Finch Laser Opaque     Finch Fine Paper

Hammermill Color Copy     International Paper

Xerox Vitality         Xerox Corporation

Aspen Color Copy     Boise Paper

Polaris          Boise Paper

This information is current as of October 2018.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Brian Lee 177 Daisy St Woodland Park, CO 80863

Section 333 February 7, 2016 I will fly the aircraft in locations were it is unlikely to effect traffic or be a distraction to traffic. The aircraft will be set to maintain a maximum flight ceiling of 200 feet. I will not fly directly overhead of people. I will fly the aircraft within a visual line of sight at all times. I will not fly within 5 miles of an airport unless I have contacted the airport and control tower before flying. I will not fly near people or stadiums. The aircraft weighs less than the 55 pound limit. I will not be careless or wreckless with the aircraft. Granting the exemption will be in the best interest of the public by providing additional information and otherwise unavailable data from an aerial perspective for correctly determining liability of parties involved in insurance claims. Granting the exemption for mineral/precious gem prospecting will benefit the public by aiding in the location of precious metals that are necessary for the overall good of the economy. The aircraft will be used for multiple purposes including insurance claims handling such as accident scene investigation for aerial photographs and video and for accessing unsafe or difficult to access locations such as steep or dangerous roofs. Another use for this aircraft will be mineral/precious gem prospecting for locating potential mining locations to view and search areas that have difficult and or limited access and to record promising locations for further review. Frequent flight practice during a wide variety or weather and light conditions will be necessary.

The make of the aircraft is DJI the model is the Phantom 3 Advanced. My current registration number is FA3A3YFPMC Issued date is 12/25/2015 expiration date is 12 12/24/2012 /24/2018
No. 11167.

#### The Pennsylvania Company *v.*Enos; Admr.

Decided November 17, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Richland county.

*Messrs. Douglass & Mengert*and *Messrs. Carey & Mullins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. McCray*
      *441
      *& McCray*and *Mr. S. M. Douglass,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 435 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 435

  Directing the Committee on House Administration to make public all 
 transcripts of proceedings and documents related to the investigation 
  of the House Administration Committee Task Force to Investigate the 
           Operation and Management of the House Post Office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 1994

  Mr. Klug (for himself, Mr. Boehner, and Mr. Roberts) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Directing the Committee on House Administration to make public all 
 transcripts of proceedings and documents related to the investigation 
  of the House Administration Committee Task Force to Investigate the 
           Operation and Management of the House Post Office.

Whereas the Committee on House Administration ordered reported on July 22, 1992, 
        the findings of the Committee Task Force to Investigate the Operation 
        and Management of the House Post Office;
Whereas the House has voted three times to not make public all Task Force 
        transcripts and documents regarding the internal Committee on House 
        Administration investigation in light of the then-ongoing investigative 
        activities by the Department of Justice;
Whereas the Department of Justice has now completed the investigatory phase of 
        its House Post Office investigation; and
Whereas matters have been raised which impugn the integrity of the proceedings 
        of the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Committee on House Administration is directed to 
make public all transcripts of proceedings and documents related to the 
investigation of the House Administration Committee Task Force to 
Investigate the Operation and Management of the House Post Office 
leading to its final report.

                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 2 Benjamin Z. Smith

UAV Aviation Services Inc. (UAS,Inc.)

827 W. Trindle Rd.

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

717.278.7502

benjamin.smith@uavaviationservices.com

04 December 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Petition to Amend Exemption No. 12353 Issued to UAS, Inc.

(Docket No. FAA

- 20 1 5

- 1071)

Dear Sir or Madam:

UAS, Inc. was issued Exemption No. 12353 o n August 5, 2015 (hereinafter “the Exemption ”)

, allowing operation of the Hawkeye Mk

- III, Microdrones MD4

- 1000 and MD4

- 3000 models

. Petitioner hereby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow additional types of small

UAS under the same conditions a nd limitations of the Exemption.

UAS, Inc. seeks to add the NeiderTron V2 and the NeiderTron V3

.

UAS, Inc. believes this to continue to be in the public interest as these models reduce hazards

and emissions associated with manned aircraft, and the vehicles are light weight and do not carry

passengers

, crew

, or any flammable fuel.Page 2 of 2 The models to be consider ed for addition to the E xemption are all smaller aircraft than those cu rrentl y approved for use by UAS, Inc., wit h similar safety and operating capabiliti es.

All models are considered Micro, and The NiederTron V2 and V3 utilize s the DJI Naza V2 av ionics and GPS that is equipped in each DJI Phantom model. Each DJI Phantom model has been

approved by the FAA.

The Naza V2 manual may be found at http://www.dji.com/product/naza

- m

- v2?www=v1

, ho wever, for convenience, this manual is attached.

The flight characteristics of the NeiderTron V2 and V3 resemble s the flight characteristics of the

DJI Phantom and is equipped with the same fail safe features due having the same avionics and

GPS components as the DJI Phantom models. Attached is a copy of the operations manual and

manual list.

UAS, Inc. respectfully submits that good cause exists for gra nting the requested amendments

expeditiously. UAS, Inc. asks only to amend its existing Exemption to add additional micro

UAS, NeiderTron V2 and NeiderTron V3 unmanned aircraft, as that term is defined in the Small

UAS Proposed Rule. This request would not set any precedent, and any delay in acting on the

request would be detrimental to the petitioner, as they intend to conduct operations using the

listed types of micro UAS as soon as the requested amendment is approved.

Please do not hesitate to contact UAS, Inc. with any questions about this filing.

Sincerely,

Benjamin Z. Smith, President

827 W.Trindle Rd.

Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

Cell 717

- 278

- 7502

Office 717

- 691

- 8882

benjamin.smith@uavaviationservices.com
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 11.1
                                 PSINet Inc.


             Calculation of Loss per Share and Weighted Average
                       Shares Used in Calculation (1)

                                                                  YEAR ENDED
                                                               DECEMBER 31, 1996
                                                               -----------------
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
Shares outstanding at beginning of year......................        37,914,932
Weighted average shares issued during the year ended December
  31, 1996 (2,198,302 shares)................................         1,463,072
                                                               -----------------
                                                                     39,378,004
                                                               -----------------
                                                               -----------------
Net loss.....................................................   $   (55,097,000)
                                                               -----------------
                                                               -----------------
Loss per share...............................................   $         (1.40)
                                                               -----------------
                                                               -----------------

(1) For a description of loss per share, see Note 1 of the Notes to the
    Consolidated Financial Statements incorporated by reference in Part II,
    Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
# C_2020129EN.01001101.xml

| 20.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/11

---

Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

(Case T-104/20)

(2020/C 129/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 11 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 11 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 11 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 11 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.

---
EXHIBIT 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 333-06409, 333-25245, 333-35745, 333-57031, 333-68499, 333-83927, 333-86861, 333-32380, 333-46640, 333-58334, 333-73882, 333-99093, 333-100130, 333-112094, 333-118864, 333-131292, 333-133292, 333-138859 and 333-147617) of SkillSoft Public Limited Company of our report dated March 25, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SkillSoft Public Limited Company, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of SkillSoft Public Limited Company included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2010.









/s/  Ernst & Young LLP




Boston, Massachusetts


March 25, 2010
[No. 813-41384-1.

Division Three.

May 8, 1972.]

#### Glen Falls Insurance Company, *Appellant,*v. Verle R. Vietzke *et al., Respondents.*
Opinion issued March 8, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-17-00976-CR

———————————

IN RE VICTOR MANUEL LOPEZ, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Victor Manuel Lopez, has filed an “Emergency Writ of Exigi Facias 

and Mandamus,” which we consider as a petition for a writ of mandamus. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (West Supp. 2017) (providing court of appeals may 

issue writ of mandamus and “other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the 
2

court”). Relator seeks issuance of the writ to compel the trial court to dismiss the 

indictment in the underlying proceeding.

1

We deny the petition.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Lloyd, and Caughey.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Victor Manuel Lopez, cause number 

1528900, in the 337th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Herb 

Ritchie presiding.
EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated

We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  previously  filed
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-92119,  333-32586, 333-38560,
333-48990,  333-51640)  of  HomeSeekers.com,  Incorporated  and in  the  related
previously filed Prospectus and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No.
333-44786)  pertaining  to the Amended and  Restated  1996 Stock  Option Plan of
HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated of our report dated April 25, 2003 relating to the
financial  statements and financial  statement  schedule  appearing in this Form
10-K of HomeSeekers.com, Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2002.


/s/  STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.
Irvine, California
May 22, 2003
#### George SCHILLING and Jean Schilling, Appellants, v. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF HOLLYWOOD, a Florida banking corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-702.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 24, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; James F. Minnett, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
# Business Promotion and Counseling Record

                - Title:  Business Promotion and Counseling Record 
                - Form #:         GSA2945      
                - Current Revision Date:  Obsolete
                - Authority or Regulation:  

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
EX-4.8





 Exhibit 4.8 

Neither the securities represented hereby nor the Warrant Shares (as defined in the Warrant Instrument) arising from the exercise of the Warrants have been
registered under the Securities Act, as amended, or any state “blue sky” or other applicable securities law. These securities have been acquired for investment and not with a view to distribution or resale, and may not be sold, mortgaged,
pledged, hypothecated or otherwise transferred (other than in accordance with clause 5.5 of the Warrant Instrument) without an effective registration statement for such securities under the Securities Act, as amended, or an opinion of counsel
reasonably satisfactory to the Company that registration is not required under the Securities Act. The securities represented hereby are subject to the Warrant Instrument. 

LUMIRADX LIMITED 

Registered in the Cayman Islands (No. 314391) 

WARRANT CERTIFICATE 

Warrant Certificate Number [●] 
 This is to
certify that the person named below is a Warrantholder for the purpose of the warrant instrument issued by the Company on 1 July 2020 (“Warrant Instrument”) and has the right to subscribe in cash at the aggregate Subscription
Price for such number of Warrant Shares (as defined in the Warrant Instrument) as is equal to the number of Warrants specified below on the terms set out in the Warrant Instrument. The Warrants are issued with the benefit of, and subject to, the
provisions contained in the Warrant Instrument. Unless the context otherwise requires terms defined in the Warrant Instrument shall have the same meanings in this certificate. 

Warrantholder 
 Name: [●] 

Address: [●] 
 Number of Warrants represented by this
Certificate: [●] 
 (Subject to adjustment in accordance with clause 2.3 of the Warrant Instrument) 

Subscription Price per Warrant Share: $[●] 













							
	Date of Issue:                     	 		 		 	
				
	Executed by	 	)	 		 	
				
	Veronique Ameye as Company Secretary of	 	)	 	  
	 	            
				
	LumiraDx Limited	 		 		 	

 Notes: 
  

	(1)	 The Subscription Rights are transferable prior to exercise only in accordance with the provisions of the
Warrant Instrument. 


  

	(2)	 All transfers must be accompanied by this Warrant Certificate.
# C_2020087EN.01002601.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/26

---

Action brought on 28 January 2020 — Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation v EUIPO (Heartfulness)

(Case T-48/20)

(2020/C 87/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation (Manapakkam, India) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark Heartfulness — Application for registration No 1 433 232

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2019 in Case R 1266/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay for all expenses of this procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay for all expenses of this procedure.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---