alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Request for Inform ation FAA-2015-7197 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Moore: This letter is in regards to youramendment to exemptio n request Federal Aviati on Regulatory Docket No. FAA ­ 2015 ­ 7197. The amendment requests to operate a Skylift ­ built logistics support unmanned aircraft (UA) with a maximum take ­ off weight of up to 100 lbs. In response to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) request for information the petition er further noted its UA “...can sustai n lifts of external loads over 200 lbs.” The FAA requires the additional information to process your petition.

x A detailed description of the aircraft design a nd configuration fo r the referenced UA focusing on the UA systems’ features and flight ch aracteristics to include , but not limited to: o Detailed 3 view drawings with scale of the aircraft and any launch and recovery equipment if applicable o Operational history with supporting statistics; particularly where Skylift was the principal operator o Results of analysis and flight testing of UAS o Lessons learned from repairs and alterations performed dur ing operations to include design changes and fixes due to operational failure(s) o Details of any injuries or property dama ge resulting from f light/ground operations o Safety analysis of any failure modes such as lost link, fly ­ away, loss of control, etc. x Copies of manuals, photographs, videos/t elemetry may be provided as support x Any other information to support an analysis of operational safety with unmanned aircraft in excess of 55 lbs. Please submit the addi tional information (non ­ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information is submitte d, please save your tracking number and submit your tracking number along with the information submitted to the docket, and any proprietary information electronically via e ­ mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 12/07/2016 . If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket withou t notifying you further. FAA Office o f Rulemakin g Sent : Wednesday, November 23, 2016 7:56 AM To: j esse.moore@skyliftglobal.com Page 1 of 1 Request for Information FAA -201 5 -719 7

11 /23 /201 6 https://email.dot.gov/owa/9 -AWA -AV S -333Exemptions@faa.gov/? ae=Item&t=IPM.Not...
#### John Sebring BLACKWELDER, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 72-926.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14821]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

40 CFR Parts 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, and 
1508

[Docket No. CEQ-2018-0001]
RIN 0331-AA03


Update to the Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 
Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act

AGENCY: Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment 
period.

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

SUMMARY: On June 20, 2018, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) titled 
``Update to the Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions 
of the National Environmental Policy Act.'' The CEQ is extending the 
comment period on the ANPRM, which was scheduled to close on July 20, 
2018, for 31 days until August 20, 2018. The CEQ is making this change 
in response to public requests for an extension of the comment period.

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before August 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
number CEQ-2018-0001 through the Federal eRulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
https://www.regulations.gov. CEQ may publish any comment received to 
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (e.g., audio, video) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make.
    Comments may also be submitted by mail. Send your comments to: 
Council on Environmental Quality, 730 Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC 
20503, Attn: Docket No. CEQ-2018-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward A. Boling, Associate Director 
for the National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental 
Quality, 730 Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC 20503. Telephone: (202) 
395-5750.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 20, 2018, CEQ published an ANPRM 
titled ``Update to the Regulations for Implementing the Procedural 
Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act'' in the Federal 
Register (83 FR 28591). The original deadline to submit comments was 
July 20, 2018. This action extends the comment period for 31 days to 
ensure the public has sufficient time to review and comment on the 
ANPRM. Written comments should be submitted on or before August 20, 
2018.

Mary B. Neumayr,
Chief of Staff, Council on Environmental Quality.
[FR Doc. 2018-14821 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3225-F8-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edward GEORGE.

No. 53132.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 11, 1973.

Gahagan & Kelly, Henry C. Gahagan, Jr., Natchitoches, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald C. Martin, Dist. Atty., Charles R. Whitehead, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

DIXON, Justice.

Edward George was tried by a jury and convicted of the crime of aggravated battery. R.S. 14:34. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one year.

Defendant has perfected no bills of exceptions, but argues in his brief that a written statement made by him was erroneously admitted as evidence at his trial.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, article 920, provides:

> “The following matters and no others shall be considered on appeal:

> “(1) Formal bills of exceptions that have been submitted to and signed by the trial court in accordance with Article 845, whether or not the bills of exceptions were made a ground for a motion for a new trial; and

> “(2) Any error that is discoverable by a mere inspection of the pleadings and *182proceedings and without inspection of the evidence.”

An inspection of the pleadings and proceedings has revealed no reversible error.

Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
November 2012 page 1 of 1

PACKAGING AND

CONVERTING

AQUA-LAMTM 3001 AQUEOUS DISPERSION

Laminating Adhesive

Description

Aqua-Lam 3001 aqueous dispersion is a waterborne laminating adhesive designed for metallized-topolyolefin insulation facing. It is designed for use with fire retardant additives. Aqua-Lam 3001 aqueous 

dispersion adheres to a wide variety of substrates.

Typical Properties*

Solids 55 ± 1%

Viscosity 100 cps, Brookfield RVT, #2 spindle, 50 rpm @ 25°C

Weight/Gallon 8.6 lbs

Polymer Type Acrylic

Appearance Milky-white

Shelf Life 240 days

*These items are provided for general information only. They are approximate values and are not considered 

part of a product specification.

Application

Desired coating weight is 2.0-3.5 dry lbs/ream, depending on end use. This material is effective when loaded 

with fire retardant powders. Desired coat weight when filled with fire retardant powders is 10 dry lbs/ream, 

including filler.

Drying and Combining Conditions

Adequate drying is typically realized with a web exit temperature of 180°F or above. Evaluate completeness 

of drying based on your oven conditions and line speed.

Safety, Handling and Storage

 Store in cool, dry, well-ventilated area.

 Follow good manufacturing and handling practices.

 Wash thoroughly after handling. Wash contaminated goggles, face shield, and gloves. Professionally 

launder contaminated clothing before re-use.

 Follow label warnings even after container is empty. Contact the US EPA RCRA Hotline at 

800-424-9346, or your local/state regulatory authorities, for proper disposal of empty containers.

 Refer to Material Safety Data Sheet for more information.

Aqua-Lam is a registered trademark of Rohm and Haas Company.

These suggestions and data are based on information we believe to be reliable. They are offered in good faith, but without guarantee, 

as conditions and method of use of our products are beyond our control. We recommend that the prospective user determine the

suitability of our materials and suggestions before adopting them on a commercial scale.

Suggestions for uses of our products or the inclusion of descriptive material from patents and the citation of specific patents in 

this publication should not be understood as recommending the use of our products in violation of any patent or as 

permission or license to use any patents of the Rohm and Haas Company.

Visit us at http://www.rohmhaas.com/AdhesivesSealants

Rohm and Haas Company, Midwest Technical Center, 2531 Technology Drive, Suite 301, Elgin, IL 60123

Phone: 847-649-3800 Fax: 847-649-3760
[No. 580-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

June 14, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Charles G. Breckenridge, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King *911County, No. 51961, Lloyd Shorett, J., entered April 15, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
#### Virginia E. ENGLEBRIGHT, Appellant, v. Donald G. ENGLEBRIGHT, Appellee.

No. 72-749.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 6, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1973.

*288Arthur Lee Willner, Miami, for appellant.

Yates & Fann, Miami Shores, for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and LESTER, M. IGNATIUS, Associate Judge.

HAVERFIELD, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant appeals from a final judgment entered by the lower court denying plaintiff’s petition for partition of real property and granting defendant’s counterclaim to quiet title.

Plaintiff and defendant, as husband and wife, resided on the subject property until their divorce on February 2, 1962. In regard to this property, the divorce decree provided:

> “The plaintiff is to have the exclusive use and occupancy of the home of the parties located at 810 N. E. 106th Street, Dade County, Florida, and she is to have the same until she either abandon the same or remarries. If the plaintiff abandon the premises or remarries, the defendant is to have the use and occupancy of the home. *The home is to he owned jointly between the plaintiff and the defendant.*The defendant is to pay the mortgage, taxes and insurance on the above described property, and that the wife is to pay all utility bills from this day forward until she either abandon the premises or remarries.” [Emphasis Supplied]

In September 1967, plaintiff petitioned for modification of the divorce decree so that she might be permitted to move to Tallahassee to attend Florida State University without such move being considered or deemed an abandonment of the property. The decree was so modified and upon plaintiff’s removal, defendant took immediate possession of the property as authorized by the modification. Beginning on September 10, 1968 plaintiff filed a series of complaints, culminating in her amended complaint of December 16, 1971 in which she prayed for partition of the subject property. Defendant counterclaimed seeking to establish his rights in and to the subject property. The court below entered final judgment in favor of defendant.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the final decree of divorce operated to create a tenancy in common to the wife. It is well established in Florida and in many other jurisdictions in the United States that where there is an intent to create a tenancy in common, effect will be given to such intent, and the spouses will be vested with such an interest. Dixon v. Davis, Fla.App.1963, 155 So.2d 189; Cribb v. Cribb, Fla.App.1972, 261 So.2d 566; Annot., 161 A.L.R. 457 (1946). The wording of the decree sub judice was sufficient to convey title to the wife and F.S. § 689.15, F.S.A., is controlling.

Therefore, it is the opinion of this court that the trial court erred in not finding appellant’s interest in the subject property to be that of a tenant in common and in *289granting appellee’s counterclaim for absolute title and right of possession.

Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and remanded with directions to grant plaintiff’s petition for partition of the subject property and to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim.

Reversed and remanded.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1116

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the deduction for

expenses of certain home offices, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 16 (legislative day, June 15), 1993

Mr. BURNS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify

the deduction for expenses of certain home offices, 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. CLARIFICATION OF DEDUCTION FOR EX4 PENSES OF CERTAIN HOME OFFICES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 280A of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions

7 for certain business or rental use; limitation on deductions

8 for such use) is amended by adding at the end the follow9 ing new paragraph:
2

•S 1116 IS

1 ‘‘(7) TREATMENT OF HOME OFFICE AS PRIN2 CIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.—For purposes of para3 graph (1)(A), if—

4 ‘‘(A) management or administrative activi5 ties are essential to the trade or business of the

6 taxpayer,

7 ‘‘(B) the only available office for such ac8 tivities is in the dwelling unit of the taxpayer,

9 ‘‘(C) such office is essential to such trade

10 or business, and

11 ‘‘(D) the taxpayer spends a substantial

12 amount of time in such office,

13 the portion of such dwelling unit which is used ex14 clusively on a regular basis for such office shall be

15 treated as the principal place of business for such

16 trade or business.’’

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

18 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning on,

19 before, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
# C_2022171EN.01002901.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ v EUIPO — Bog-Fran (Furniture)

(Case T-1/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an item of furniture - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Disclosure of the earlier design - Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 - Decision adopted following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision - Res judicata)

(2022/C 171/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. (Ostrów Mazowiecka, Poland) (represented by: H. Basiński, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Mikosza and E. Guissart, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2020 (Case R 595/2020-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bog-Fran and Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k.. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k..

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.

---
Exhibit 21.1  NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.  Wholly Owned Subsidiaries of Registrant As of May 16, 2008   N.E.T. APLA, Inc. .  (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)  N.E.T. Cone Sul do Brasil Ltda. . (Incorporated Under the Laws of Brazil)  N.E.T. de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. . (Incorporated Under the Laws of Mexico)  N.E.T. Southeast Asia Pte Ltd.  (Incorporated Under the Laws of Singapore)  N.E.T. China, Inc.  (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)  N.E.T. Europe, Ltd. . (Incorporated Under the Laws of England)  N.E.T. Europe S.A.S. (Incorporated Under the Laws of France)  N.E.T. Federal, Inc. .  (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)  N.E.T. Japan, Inc.  (State of Incorporation:  Delaware)  Netdotcom Broadband Technologies, Inc. .  (Incorporated Under the Laws of Canada)  Network Equipment Technologies Australia Pty Limited...  (Incorporated Under the Laws of Australia)  Quintum Technologies, LLC..  (State of Incorporation: Delaware)  Quintum Technologies Asia Limited.  (Incorporated Under the Laws of the British Virgin Islands)  Quintum Technologies (Asia) Limited  (Incorporated Under the Laws of Hong Kong)  Quintum International Trading Company Limited..  (Incorporated Under the Laws of the Peoples Republic of China)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7558

DUY NGOC TRAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-79-3) Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 23, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duy Ngoc Tran, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, 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: Duy Ngoc Tran seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tran has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Tran’s motion for transcripts at government expense, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 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
[No. 988-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

February 28, 1972.]

#### Richard G. Holm, *Respondent,*v. Leona W. Holm, *Appellant.*
# C_2023063EN.01000202.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — X v Udlændingenævnet

(Case C-279/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – EEC-Turkey - Association Agreement - Article 9 - Decision No 1/80 - Article 10(1) - Article 13 - Standstill clause - Family reunification - National rule introducing new more restrictive conditions in the area of family reunification for spouses of Turkish nationals who hold a permanent residence permit in the Member State concerned - Requirement that Turkish workers successfully take a test demonstrating a certain level of knowledge of the official language of that Member State - Justification - Objective of ensuring successful integration)

(2023/C 63/03)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Udlændingenævnet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the association between the European Economic Community and Turkey,

must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, introduced after the entry into force of that decision in the Member State concerned, which makes family reunification between a Turkish worker residing legally in that Member State and his or her spouse subject to the condition that that worker has successfully taken a test demonstrating a certain level of knowledge of the official language of that Member State, constitutes a ‘new restriction’ within the meaning of that provision. Such a restriction cannot be justified by the objective of ensuring successful integration of that spouse, since that legislation does not allow the competent authorities to take account either of the spouse’s own ability to integrate or of factors, other than successfully taking such a test, demonstrating the effective integration of that worker in the Member State concerned and, therefore, his or her ability to help his or her spouse integrate into that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                   CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                              (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

The undersigned, Eric Claus, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. ("Company"), and Brenda M. Galgano, Senior
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies
that (1) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 17, 2006 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
the results of operations of the Company.


Dated: July 21, 2006                       /s/ Eric Claus
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Eric Claus
                                           President and
                                           Chief Executive Officer


Dated: July 21, 2006                       /s/ Brenda M. Galgano
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Brenda M. Galgano
                                           Senior Vice President,
                                           Chief Financial Officer