alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition for Exemption, requesting relief from the FAA Modernization and 

 Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333.

Whereas, I Drone Your Home (IDYH) currently, under individual ownership, seeks relief from 

airworthiness certification requirements from the above mentioned regulations.

IDYH has been in existence since 4/24/2014 with the express purpose of providing aerial videography 

for Realtors and private homeowners. 

IDYH is represented by Ian Sebastian, Realtor, a 21 year member of the National Association of 

Realtors (NAR), the California Association of Realtors and the Southland Regional Association of 

Realtors (SRAR).

Personal Information of Applicant: Ian Sebastian

11771 Laurelwood Drive

Studio City, CA 91604

818-267-7375

ian@runningrealty.com

CalBRE 01138820 

Licensed since 6/3/92 member in good standing

IDYH seeks this exemption under the guidelines of Section333 specifically as it relates to the Real 

Estate Industry in the greater Los Angeles area under the small UAS rule. We believe that we have put 

together a program as responsible operators of an UAS that will stand as an exemplary model on whom

many others entering the market will emulate.

Under the terms of this exemption, it is our intention to safely fly an UAS, specifically a DJI Phantom 

2 with an H3 2D gimbal and mounted GoPro Hero3 camera. Additionally the drone vehicle maintains a

FPV connectivity utilizing an Immersion 5.8 GHz 600mW antenna linked with a Lilliput 7 inch HD 

field monitor, allowing the pilot to see exactly what the GoPro camera sees. Additionally, our pilot 

wears a camera mounted pair of glasses in order to record the actual drone flight, ensuring a recording 

of safe and responsible flight.

As air safety is of paramount importance, IDYH has developed a highly structured safety flight manual 

for our pilot as well as observer. As recent as the new proposed FAA regulation released as of February

of 2015, IDYH intends to operate well within the most stringent proposal required to operate an 

unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS). We are prepared to attend any required 

course of study, participate in flight evaluation and pay any required fee(s) that may be instituted. We 

have many hundreds of combined hours of safe flying in the recreational mode.
Along with this Petition we are respectfully submitting the following support documents.

Exhibit A: Presents our proposed safety guidelines and their implementation incorporated into our 

 IDYH POLICY & PROCEDURES Manual.

Exhibit B: Presents IDYH PERMISSION/WAIVER document.
#### JAKERY LAND & INVESTMENT CORP., Appellant, v. Michael CODELLA, Appellee.

No. 68-97.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 24, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, 1968.

Harris J. Buchbinder, Miami Beach, for appellant.

David Drucker, Miami Beach, for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Borst v. Gale, 99 Fla. 376, 126 So. 290; Higbee v. Dorigo, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 684; Brant v. Matlin, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 902; Thal v. Roth, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 174; Greyhound Corporation v. Carswell, Fla.App. 1966, 185 So.2d 171; Maule Industries, Inc. v. Watson, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 631; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, §§ 72, 313, and 345.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

PETE DEANGELO JACKSON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 461

[ July 13, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; James W. McCann

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562010CF003787A

.

Pete D. Jackson, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER

, D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2012072EN.01002402.xml

| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/24

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6216 — IHC/DEME/OceanflORE JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 72/04

On 22 February 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6216. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6216. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, a labor organization, Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, a labor organization, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, a labor organization, Ray Moore, an individual, Lowell Kennedy, an individual and T. C. Bolin, an individual, Appellants, v. JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 1-233.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

July 18, 1967.

Richard Horn, of Rutledge & Milledge, Miami, for appellants.

*254McCarthy, Adams & Foote, Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay and Cox, Grissett & Webb, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The question of jurisdiction of the State court over the matter involved herein' having been for all practical purposes determined by this court in its refusal to issue a writ of prohibition against the circuit judge hearing this case, and a refusal of the United States District Court to grant removal thereof to Federal court, and it appearing that the trial court exercised a proper authority in enjoining a violation of a valid state statute,1 the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.

WIGGINTON, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

1

.Radio Corporation of America v. Local 780, 160 So.2d 150, (Fla.App.2d 1964), cert. denied 380 U.S. 973, 85 S.Ct. 1335, 14 L.Ed.2d 269 (1965).
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-86 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030 Press kit  Blog post
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Host News Conference on 2010 Census  Coverage Measurement Results What:
 The U.S. Census Bureau will brief the media on the release of the 2010 Census Coverage Measurement results. The results will provide estimates of coverage of the census for the nation, major demographic groups, by key census operations and for states, large counties and places. In addition to estimates of net coverage, the Census Bureau will also release estimates of the components of census coverage, including erroneous enumerations and omissions. The coverage measurement results provide one way of analyzing the quality of the 2010 Census counts. The briefing will include a media question-and-answer session. Following the news conference, there will be a technical briefing about coverage measurement, which will include Census Bureau staff and other experts in the field. Members of the media are invited to attend.
 When:
 Tuesday, May 22, 2012
10 to 11 a.m. (EDT) - News Conference
1 to 4:30 p.m. (EDT) - Technical Briefing
 Who:
 Robert Groves, director, U.S. Census Bureau
Pat Cantwell, assistant division chief, Sampling and Estimation
Decennial Statistical Studies Division, U.S. Census Bureau
 Where:
 George Washington University
City View Room
Elliott School of International Affairs, 7th Floor
1957 E St. NW
Washington, DC 20052 Members of the media viewing the news conference online may ask questions by dialing in. (Please dial-in early to allow time for the operator to place you in the call.) Dial-in number: 888-989-4394
Participant passcode: CCM
Note: Stay on the line until operator asks for the passcode. Do not key in passcode. The entire event will be broadcast live on the Census Bureau's Ustream channel at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/us-census-bureau. Please RSVP by 5 p.m. (EDT), Monday, May 21 to the Public Information Office at 301-763-3030 or to <pio@census.gov>. If closed captioning is required: <http://livewrite.nccsite.com/view/cb522a>
  Follow @uscensusbureau on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and Ustream
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
p. 1



# OAR Box 1672 Prepped byCharmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# xjfyja) n-c-1 8 Docket Number: 

# A-98-1 3

Printed 9/30/2008 11:01:00AM Sheet 47 of 132

## A-98-1 3 ..H-C-1 8 Dat e sent : Tue # 1 7 Ma r 199 8 09:00:5 7 -050 0 From : STEV E SHED D<SHEDD.STEVE@epamail.epa.gov > Subject : Re : IC RMAILIN

GLIS T -Reply To : ZTCDCMOmai1 . arco . co m Copie s to : bhaneke@rtp.pes.com , bnorton@rtp.pes.com , glaflam@rtp.pe s

JHELMS@rtp . pes . co

m Denise , Thank s fo r you r continue d hel p o n thi s project . W e hop e t o hav e th e instruction s ou t soo n an d w e ar e trying t o b e a s clea r a s possible . O n refineries , w e pla n t o surveyth e non-gasolin e loading rack s becaus e the ydi d no t decid e o n a MAC T floo r leve l o f contro l i n th e refineryMACT . Als o w e pla n t o surve yonl ycertai n storag e tank s tha t opte d ou t o f th e refineryMAC T rule . D o yo u hav e an ythought s o n th e late r (storag e tanks) ? D o yo u kno wi f an yo f the tank s a t ARC O refinerie s opte d ou t o f the refineryMAC T an d coul d thes e tank s b e considere d "distribution " tank s fo r ethe r incoming o r outgoin g products ? Stev e >> > "Denis e C . Michelson " <ZTCDCMOmai1.arco.com > 03/16/9 8 06:59pm>> > Thank yo u fo r th e opportunit yt o revie wth e Organi c Liquid s Distributio n mailin g list . M ycomment s ar e provide d o n behal f o f the Atlanti c Richfiel d Compan y(ARCO) . Mr . Da n Hisey , Vic e President , Environmen t , Healt han d Safety , wil l b e co-ordinating th e interna l distributio n o f th e ICR Surveyfo r affecte d ARC O operatin g companies . Th e ICR Surve yshoul d b e addresse d t o :

Mr . Danie l T . Hise y Vic e President , Corporat e Cente r Environment , Healt hand Safet yAtlanti c Richfiel d Compan y44 4 Sout hFlowe r Stree t Lo s Angeles , CA.9007 1 AlthoughI hav e no t ye t receive d a copyo f th e fina l draf t ICR instructions , I woul d lik e t o offe r comment s regarding it' s "use r friendliness " . A t ou r las t roundtabl e meeting , w e discusse d limiting surve ydistributio n t o majo r source s an d are a source s greate r tha n 5/12. 5 HAPs . Also , a t tha t time , EPAwa s stil l tryin g t o limi t th e question s t o refinerie s b yreviewing th e HONan d Refiner yMAC T Rules . I t woul d b e veryhelpfu l t o includ e eithe r i n th e cove r lette r o r instructions , guidanc e regarding th e type s o f facilitie s an d th e siz e o f operatio n tha t wil l b e require d t o respond t o thi s survey . Thank s i n advanc e fo r taking thes e comment s int o consideration . Regards , Denis e Michelso n (562)728-223 6 

# Ii i Bernd Hanek e - - 1 - - Tue , 1 7 Ma r 199 8 12:46:2 1
# C_2011311EN.01000501.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/5

---

Designation of the judge to replace the President of the Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures

2011/C 311/05

On 10 October 2011, in accordance with Article 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal decided that, for the period from 7 October 2011 to 30 September 2012, Judge H. KREPPEL will replace the President of the Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures in the event of the President's absence or his being prevented from attending.

---
# Advanced Flight Maneuvers

# (* * * ) EJ Fly a 4 point square box clockwise and rotate the phantom in the dir&c:tion 

### oftravel.


# r---- ,.._--- '""',

, ' 

# - ...._../
-**--"yiiil: ~~r-**  • 1 • 

# 41 ' /, 

# \


# , ' 

# , ' , ' 

# . ------ ....,..---------

# -· D Fly e circle counter-clockwise end keep the camera pointed in the direction of travel. Be sure to keep the altitude the same end the circle ea uniform as possible.



# [J Fly a circle counter-clockwise with the camera pointed atthe center ofthecircle. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.

# Advanced Flight Maneuvers

# <* **) iJ Fly a figure 8 without rotating the Phantom. 

### Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.



# [J Fly a Figure 8 with the camera ofthe Phantom pointed in the direction of travel. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.



## r.'W Fly Figure 8 patterns wftile experimenting with different orientations. 

## U For example, camera alwaya pointed in a given direction or opposite/ left/rightthe direction oftravel, etc. Be aure to keep the altitude the Mme and the circle as uniform as poi'.Sible.

# Emergency Situations 

# II Return Home

# a Land Mode Be sure you are in a large open area. Before you take off, make sure you have a good GPS lock by ensuring your LED indicators are flashing Green. Fly the Phantom at least 50ft away from yourtake offpoint Tum offthe Remote Controller. The Phantom 

### will enter it's failsafe Return· To-Home Mode. 

### letthe Phantom finish it• a routine and land itselfwithin 2 metenJ ofthe take off point



### 15 meters

Intercepting Return Home

# a Land Mode Be sure you are in a large open area. Bafore you take off, make sure you have a good GPS lock by ensuring your LED indicators are flashing Green. Fly the Phantom 

### 50ftaway from yourtake off point. Turn offthe Remote Controller. The Phantom will enter it's failsafe Return· To·Home Mode. Whenthe Phantom 

### is returning home, you can intercept RTH Mode by switching the Sl Switch from the top position to the middle or lower position, then continue flying the Phantom.

# -=v**-- --**  .. •

, 15 meters

## www.dji.com
**Exhibit
32.2**
 
 **SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION**
 
 
 I,
James L. Koenig, Acting Chief Financial Officer of The Amacore Group, Inc.
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted by ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
    the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 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 this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Eye
      Care International, Inc.
 
 Dated:
May 16, 2005
 
 /s/*James
      L. Koenig*
      James
      L. Koenig
      Acting
      Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Paul J.B, Murphy, III, as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ofNew World Restaurant Group, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| November 14, 2003 | /s/ PAUL J.B.  MURPHY, III                                                           |   |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   | Paul J. B. Murphy, III  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  Principal Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Leonard STROBLE, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 73-27.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 16, 1973.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### Tommie Dozier SIKES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-103.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Thomas D. O’MALLEY, Jr., State Treasurer and ex officio Insurance Commissioner of the State of Florida and Receiver for Pan American Surety Company, Appellant, v. W. Haydon BURNS and Mildred C. Burns, Appellees.

No. O-493.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 19, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 5, 1971.

Moore, Welbaum, Zook & Jones, Miami, for appellant.

Martin Sack, Jr., Jacksonville, for appel-lees.

SPECTOR, Chief Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment entered pursuant to appellees’ motion for a directed verdict in an action seeking indemnification by the appellant surety company.

Appellees were principals in a corporate contracting firm. From time to time surety bonds were required to be furnished by the firm in connection with its bids for work on various construction projects. Apparently, Pan American Surety Company furnished the required bonds upon request therefor by appellees’ construction firm over a period of time prior to the incident or transaction giving rise to appellant’s claim in the instant action.

The indemnity agreement underlying this cause was executed by appellees on October 15, 1960. Appellant contends that by virtue of that indemnity agreement, appellees are liable for losses incurred by the surety on bonds issued prior to the execution of the agreement as well as thereafter. However, one of the appellees testified that they executed the indemnity agreement only on condition that the surety company would issue an acceptable bond on a job to be done on the Sapp School in Deland, Florida. The evidence before the trial court shows that such bond, the issuance and acceptance of which was a condition to execution and delivery of the indemnity agreement, although written by the surety was not acceptable to the general contractor on the Sapp job who refused and returned the same to the surety. The evidence further shows that appellees’ *279company thereafter obtained a bond from another surety company and executed an indemnity agreement to that company with respect to that bond. On this evidence, the trial court was amply justified in find-, ing as it did that the indemnity agreement forming the basis of appellant’s claim was conditionally delivered. That holding is fully in accord with the general rule that a conditional delivery or execution of a writing may be shown by parol. 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, Section 1095. Chappell v. A. C. Hasche Realty, 98 So.2d 808 (Fla.App.1957), and Kitchens v. Kitchens, 142 So.2d 343 (Fla.App.1962). Accordingly, there is no merit to appellant’s contention that the defense of conditional delivery is unavailable to appellees because it rests on parol evidence.

In view of our ruling on this issue alone, it becomes unnecessary to consider the remaining points raised by appellant.

The judgment reviewed herein is therefore affirmed.

JOHNSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
CROMPTON & KNOWLES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(In thousands, except per share data)


                                            BASIC
                                            YEAR ENDED
                                              Dec.27,    Dec.28,     Dec.30,
                                                1997       1996       1995
Earnings
Earnings(loss) before extraordinary charge  $  92,071  $ (22,054) $  139,922

Extraordinary loss on early extinguishment
   of debt                                     (5,242)      (441)     (8,279)

Net earnings(loss)                          $  86,829  $ (22,495) $  131,643

Shares

Weighted average shares outstanding            73,373     72,026      65,572

Per share
Earnings(loss) before extraordinary charge  $    1.25  $   (.31)  $     2.13

Extraordinary loss on early extinguishment
  of debt                                       (.07)         -        (.12)

Net earnings(loss)                          $    1.18  $   (.31)  $     2.01



                                             DILUTED
                                            YEAR ENDED
                                              Dec.27,    Dec.28,     Dec.30,
                                                1997       1996       1995
Earnings
Earnings(loss) before extraordinary charge  $  92,071  $ (22,054) $  139,922

Extraordinary loss on early extinguishment
  of debt                                      (5,242)      (441)     (8,279)

Net earnings(loss)                          $  86,829  $ (22,495) $  131,643

Shares
Weighted average shares outstanding            73,373     72,026      65,572

Common stock equivalents                        1,985         -          697

Average shares outstanding                     75,358     72,026      66,269

Per share
Earnings(loss) before extraordinary charge  $    1.22  $   (.31)  $     2.11

Extraordinary loss on early extinguishment
  of debt                                       (.07)         -        (.12)

Net earnings(loss)                          $    1.15  $   (.31)  $    1.99