alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization Act of 2012 (FRMA) for 

waiver of Airworthiness Certificate

Petitioner plans on operating an Unmanned Aircraft, more specifically a DJI Phantom 3 

Professional, for the following purposes:

1. To take videos or photographs of homes, commercial buildings, land or lots for sale to 

be used in marketing said properties.

2. For inspection of buildings, normally roof and gutters, for owners.

3. To take videos or photographs of watercraft for owners or for newsworthy purposes.

4. To inspect bridges, roads and railroads for maintenance purposes or such purposes 

requested by owners which may be government entities.

5. Aircraft may be used at times by the owner for recreational purposes for which the air 

certificate is not required.

Operation of the unmanned aircraft will:

1. Be by petitioner, a person over 17 years in age who is trained in the operation of the 

identified aircraft. Petitioner has a Homeland Security Redress Control Number and a 

TSA Case Number

2. Be at altitudes not to exceed 500 feet above the ground.

3. Remain in visual line of sight of the operator.

4. Be flown close enough to the operator for the operator to be able to see the aircraft 

with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses.

5. Be flown only when the visibility is 3 or more miles from the operator. 

6. Give due consideration for the safety of persons and property in the area of operation

and the aircraft will not be flown over persons not involved in the operation.

7. Not be flown dangerously or recklessly.

8. Be flown only between sunrise to sunset

9. Yield right-of-way to other aircraft whether manned or unmanned.

10. Not be operated at a speed over 35 mph, the maximum speed of the aircraft..

11. Be operated only outside a 5 miles radius of any airport.

12. Only be undertaken after a preflight inspection as set forth in Manufacturer’s Safety 

Guidelines and Disclaimer attached.

The DJI Phantom 3 Professional weighs less than 3 pounds, and has a top speed of 35 mph. 

It calculates speed, altitude and GPS information which is displayed on the operator’s 

consol. It also has a “go home” capability which will return it to the GPS location the flight 

started from on command or when battery voltage decreases beyond a certain value.
Manufacturer certifies that the aircraft and its controls comply with part 15 of FCC Rules in 

Safety Guidelines and Disclaimer attached. 

Petitioner seeks an exemption of the Airworthiness Certificate under the authority granted to

the Secretary by Section 333.
# Attendee Report GoToWebinar

Webinar Name Webinar ID ASRAC Commercial HVAC, CRE, and WH Working Group: Meeting and Webinar 159774640 Actual Start Date/Time Actual Duration (minutes) Jun 11, 2013 07:28 AM EDT 459 Total Attended 30 

# Session Details

First Name Last Name Email CountryAddress City StateOrganization Zip Code Rodney Beever US 491 E. Princess Street York PA United CoolAir Corp. 17403 Brice Bowley US Appliance Park Louisville KY GE 40225 Brian Buynacek US 138 Ashwood Ln Orchard Park NY Emerson 14127 Laura Degitz US 90 Park Ave New York NYNavigant 10016 bruce hierlmeier US 110 n oakridge dr north prairie WI Zero Zone 53153 Larry Howington US 1925 Ruffin Mill Road Colonial Heights VAAHRI 23834 Brian Jeanes US 908 HWY 15 North New Albany MSMaster-Bilt Products 38652 Stephen Kowalski US 2701 Wilma Rudolph Blvd.Clarksville TN Ingersoll Rand - Trane North America 37040 Bill Larson US 891 county road U Hudson WI Norlake, Inc. 54016 Stacey Maloney US 6 Campus Dr., 1st Fl. N. Parsippany NJ Hydraulic Institute 07054-4406 John McLaughlin US john.mclaughlin@daikinmcqua y.com Auburn NY Daikin McQuay 13021 David Mecadon US 539 Dunksferry Road Bensalem PA National Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 19020 John Morris US 539 Dunksferry rd Bensalem PA Continental Refrigerator 19020 charity njau US 770 garrison ave bronx ny NY Felix Storch Inc 10474 Elizabeth Noll US 400 North Capitol Street NWWashington DCAmerican Gas Association20001 Kent Peterson US 5000 East Spring St Long Beach CA P2S Engineering, Inc. 90815 Marc Richard US 531 North 4th Street Tipp City OHRegal Beloit America, inc.45371 Wes Roan US 1914 Randolph Drive Bryan OHBard Manufacturing Co., Inc.43506 Carl Roberts US 1401 Grandview Avenue Oconomowoc WI Zero Zone 53066 Joe Sanders US 4401 Blue Mound Rd Fort Worth TX Traulsen 76106 

# General InformationJason Sands US One Delfield Drive Covington TN The Delfield Company 38019 Stephen Schaefer US 618 Hwy 74 South Peachtree City GAhoshizaki america 30269 Louis Starr US 421 sw 6th suite 600 Portland ORNEEA 97204 Eric Truskoski US 200 Lafayette St. Middleville MI Bradford White Corporation49333 Tom Walsh US 4900 Technology Park BlvdAuburn NYdaikin mcquay 13021 kevin washington US 1250 conn ave nw washington DCitw 20036 Yoolanda Williams US AP2-121, Appliance Park Louisville KY General Electric 40225 Linda Wilson US 120 Broadway NY NYNYSOAG 10271 Michael Woodford US 2111 Wilson Blvd, Suite # 500Arlington VAAHRI 22201 Wes Wostal US 7300 sw 44th street Oklahoma City OKClimateMaster 73179
#### Donald Hartley et al., Appellants, v Spartan Concrete et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. B. M. Alter Erectors Corp. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.), entered September *58726, 1989, which denied their motion for partial summary-judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants Spartan Concrete, Paul Schmergel & Son, and Seymar Associates d/b/a Seagull Associates.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by the defendants third-party plaintiffs-respondents, and the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability is granted.

On March 27, 1985, the plaintiff Donald Hartley, an iron-worker, was injured while working on the roof of a construction site when the wood decking upon which he was standing collapsed. In the instant action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 as against the owners of the premises, the defendants Paul Schmergel & Son and Seymar Associates d/b/a Seagull Associates, and against the general contractor, the defendant Spartan Concrete. The Supreme Court denied the motion, concluding that “while the movant has established that defendants violated the Labor Law by failing to provide safety devices he has failed to demonstrate that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries”. We find otherwise and reverse.

It is well settled that, “[a] violation of the duty imposed by Labor Law § 240, which is designed to protect employees working on scaffolding or other elevated structures, imposes absolute liability on an owner or contractor regardless of degree of its control over the work” *(Klein v General Foods Corp.,*148 AD2d 968, 969; *see also, Smith v Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp.,*70 NY2d 994, 995; *Bland v Manocherian,*66 NY2d 452; *Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts,*65 NY2d 513). Moreover, it has been held that Labor Law § 240 encompasses the duty to protect “workers from hazards related to elevating themselves or their materials at the work site” *(Drew v Correct Mfg. Corp.,*149 AD2d 893, 894).

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, we find no triable issues of fact with respect to the question of proximate cause. It is uncontroverted in the record that the plaintiff’s injury was proximately caused by the collapse of the elevated decking material on which he was working. The defendants cannot escape liability under the statute by arguing that a “safety device” could not have prevented the accident, when the elevated structure was itself unsafe and where its collapse constituted the proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injury.

*588In light of the foregoing, the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability as against the defendants Spartan Concrete, Paul Schmergel & Son, and Seymar Associates d/b/a Seagull Associates, is granted. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3763 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3763

     To clarify the scope of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1994

 Mr. Glickman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To clarify the scope of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT 
              OF 1990.

    Paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of section 922(q) of title 18, United 
States Code, are each amended by inserting ``that has been shipped or 
transported in interstate or foreign commerce'' after ``firearm''.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

    Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``(q)'' and inserting ``(r)''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Yvonne Tiernan, as Limited Administratrix of the Estate of Mark Gorrow, Deceased, Appellant, v County of Monroe et al., Respondents, and City of Rochester, Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Jim Frederico Wrecking Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff Yvonne Tiernan, as Limited Administratrix of the Estate of Mark Gorrow, contends that Supreme Court erred in denying her motion for partial summary judgment because defendant owner and defendant general contractor violated their duty under Labor Law § 240. We agree.

Decedent Gorrow was employed as a laborer dismantling the Driving Park Bridge when he fell approximately 70 feet from the bridge superstructure and sustained serious injuries. When decedent was reached by other workers after the accident, he was wearing his safety belt and two six-foot lanyards which were provided to him to protect against falls.

Given those circumstances, we conclude that the owner and general contractor violated their duty under Labor Law § 240 to provide adequate safety devices and ensure that they were properly placed and operated to protect decedent *(see, Hayes v Eastman Kodak Co.,*143 AD2d 510, 511; *Conway v New York State Teachers’ Retirement Sys.,*141 AD2d 957; *Heath v Soloff Constr.,*107 AD2d 507). Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment therefore should have been granted. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
----

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 5 October 2004

in Case C-192/03 P: Alcon Inc. against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH (1)

(Appeal - Community mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Nullity of the Community mark - Article 51 of Regulation No 40/94 - Absolute grounds for refusal of registration - Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 - Word mark ‘BSS’)

(2005/C 6/41)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-192/03P: Alcon Inc., formerly Alcon Universal Ltd, established in Hünenberg (Switzerland) (lawyers: C. Morcom, QC, and S. Clark), the other parties to the proceedings being the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and A. Sesma Merino) and Dr Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH, established in Olching (Germany) (lawyer: S. Schneller) – appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 2 May 2003 – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, F. Macken and U. Lõhmus, Judges; Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: R. Grass, has given an order on 5 October 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.

----
Office o f

th e Secretary , DOT OST-2010-004 6 Dea r Sir : Pleas e allo w u s t o continu e t o prosper , w e ar e on e o f th e wealthies t

countie s i n ND . Let' s no t rui n agoo d thin g wit

h achang e tha

t wil l caus e grief

and harm . Merce r Count y Residen t
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




The Board of Directors
American Technology Corporation

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-09265, File No. 333-09269 and File No.
333-23845 and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-27455 and File No. 333-36003) of our
report dated November 5, 1997, relating to the financial statements of American
Technology Corporation appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended September 30, 1997.



/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
BDO Seidman, LLP


Denver, Colorado
December 1, 1997
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7511

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDREW JEROME MALCOLM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:08-cr-00232-DCN-1)

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, 

Kentucky, for Appellant. Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Jerome Malcolm seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Malcolm has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 

PROPOSED RULE 

Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best Available Retrofit 

Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation 

Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-0683 

DOCKET INDEX 

The docket for this proposed rule includes documents related to Four Corners Power Plant 

provided in the docket for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. EPA-R09-

OAR-2009-0598) 

Docket Section or Item Date of Item

I. Documents Submitted by Facilities 

 APS Submission to EPA plus attachments 1/2008 

 APS Submission to EPA plus attachments 12/2008 

 APS Submission to EPA plus attachments 3/2009 

 APS Submission to EPA plus attachments 8/7/09 

 APS Submission to EPA plus attachments 10/28/09 

 APS Submission to EPA plus attachments 4/22/10 

II. Documents from Affected States 

 For comment letters and other documents from affected states, 

please see electronic docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0598 

at www.regulations.gov 

III. Documents from Federal Land Managers

 For comment letters and other documents from FLMs, please see 

electronic docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0598 at 

www.regulations.gov 

IV. Documents from Tribes and Other Stakeholders

 For comment letters and other documents from Tribes and Other 

Stakeholders, please see electronic docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2009-0598 at www.regulations.gov 

V. Correspondence from EPA 

 ANPRM Docket Index 
 For correspondence from EPA, please see electronic docket 

number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0598 at www.regulations.gov 

VI. Documents Referenced in the Proposed Rule 

 See Excel Spreadsheet entitled “TSD ref. LIST of Citations” 10/6/10 

VII. Comments received during the ANPRM Comment Period 

 List of Comments Received on ANPRM 

 For comment letters and other documents received during the 

ANPRM comment period, please see electronic docket number 

EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0598 at www.regulations.gov 

VIII. Proposed Rule 

 Signed Proposal 10/6/10 

 Technical Support Document 10/6/10 

 Appendix A to Technical Support Document 10/6/10 

 Appendix B to Technical Support Document 10/6/10 

 Appendix C to Technical Support Document 10/6/10
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4046 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4046

 To amend subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code, 
      to prevent cost-of-living increases in the survivor annuity 
 contributions of uniformed services retirees from becoming effective 
 before related cost-of-living increases in retired pay become payable.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 1994

 Mrs. Thurman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code, 
      to prevent cost-of-living increases in the survivor annuity 
 contributions of uniformed services retirees from becoming effective 
 before related cost-of-living increases in retired pay become payable.

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

SECTION 1. COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES IN SBP CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE 
              EFFECTIVE CONCURRENTLY WITH PAYMENT OF RELATED RETIRED 
              PAY COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES.

    (a) Survivor Benefit Plan.--Section 1452(h) of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(h)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), when the initial payment of 
an increase in retired pay under section 1401a of this title (or any 
other provision of law) to a person is later than the effective date of 
that increase by reason of the application of subsection (b)(2)(B) of 
such section, then the amount of the reduction in the person's retired 
pay shall be effective on the date of that initial payment of the 
increase in retired pay rather than the effective date of the increase 
in retired pay.
    ``(B) Subparagraph (A) may not be construed as delaying, for 
purposes of determining the amount of a monthly annuity under section 
1451 of this title, the effective date of an increase in a base amount 
under subsection (h) of such section from the effective date of an 
increase in retired pay under section 1401a of this title to the date 
on which the initial payment of that increase in retired pay is made in 
accordance with subsection (b)(2)(B) of such section 1401a.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect with respect to retired pay payable for months beginning on 
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
**
**EXHIBIT 32.3**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2019 (the “Report”) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,RICHARD L. PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. 

 
  
/s/ RICHARD L. PETEKA
**Name:**  **Richard L. Peteka****Date:**  **November 4, 2019****
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Sloan, Appellant.

(No. 30484

Decided October 31, 1945.)

*Mr. Rex W. Hanna,*prosecuting attorney, for appellee.

*Mr. Roy Warren Roof*and *Mr. Fred W. Markley,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Bell, Williams, Turner, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 12 October 2004

in Case C-87/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova): Roberto Nicoli v Eridania SpA (1)

(Sugar - Price system - Regionalisation - Deficit areas - Classification of Italy - Marketing year 1998/99 - Regulations (EEC) No 1785/81 and (EC) No 1361/98 - Validity of Regulation No 1361/98)

(2005/C 31/06)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-87/00: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Giudice di pace di Genova (Italy), made by decision of 28 February 2000, received at the Court on 7 March 2000, in the proceedings between Roberto Nicoli and Eridania SpA – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998 fixing, for the 1998/99 marketing year, the derived intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and the amount of compensation for storage costs.

----

(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.

----