alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Prepared for: Federal Aviation Administration/FAA Aircraft Registration Branch, AFS-750 

Prepared by: Jerry Bruce /Caesars Entertainment Services 

PO Box 60332, Boulder City, NV. 89006

March 11, 2015

Contents 

Petition for Exemption Letter 

FAA UAS Civil COA Request 

Location of proposed operation with VFR Chart 

FAA N number Registration N6789X 

Proof of Ownership 

THE CASCATA GOLF COURSE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Objective 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, ligula suspendisse nulla pretium, rhoncus tempor fermentum, enim integer ad 

vestibulum volutpat. Nisl rhoncus turpis est, vel elit, congue wisi enim nunc ultricies sit, magna tincidunt. 

Maecenas aliquam maecenas ligula nostra, accumsan taciti. 

Goals 

Sociis mauris in integer, a dolor netus non dui aliquet, sagittis felis sodales, dolor sociis mauris, vel eu libero cras. 

Faucibus at. Arcu habitasse elementum est, ipsum purus pede porttitor class, ut adipiscing, aliquet sed auctor, 

imperdiet arcu per diam dapibus libero duis. Enim eros in vel, volutpat nec pellentesque leo, temporibus nec. 

Solution 

Ac dolor ac adipiscing amet bibendum nullam, lacus molestie ut libero nec, diam et, pharetra sodales, feugiat 

ullamcorper id tempor id vitae. Mauris pretium aliquet, lectus tincidunt. 

Project Outline 

Porttitor mollis imperdiet libero senectus pulvinar. Etiam molestie mauris ligula laoreet, vehicula eleifend. Repellat 

orci erat et, sem cum, ultricies sollicitudin amet eleifend dolor nullam erat, malesuada est leo ac. 

• Varius natoque turpis elementum est. Duis montes, tellus lobortis lacus amet arcu et. In vitae vel. 

• Wisi at id praesent bibendum libero faucibus porta egestas, quisque praesent ipsum fermentum tempor. 

Curabitur auctor, erat mollis sed. 

• Turpis vivamus a dictumst congue magnis. Aliquam amet ullamcorper dignissim molestie, mollis. Tortor vitae 

tortor eros wisi facilisis. 

COMPANY NAME
BUDGET 

Ut vehicula nunc mattis pede 

Curabitur labore. Ac augue donec, sed a dolor luctus, congue arcu id diam praesent, pretium ac, ullamcorper non 

hac in quisque hac. Magna amet libero maecenas justo. 

Description Quantity Unit Price Cost

Item 1 55 $ 100 $ 5,500

Item 2 13 $ 90 $ 1,170

Item 3 25 $ 50 $ 1,250

Total $ 7,920 

COMPANY NAME
P. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 84 ) IV-B- 8 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:21 AM Sheet 84 of 142P. 2 

# 131-13 ' 8 From : KARE

N BLANCHAR

D To : Crumpler-Denni s Date : 5/24/991:04p m Subject : Call w DebraJezoui t wh o work s wit

h Bil l Bumper s I n respons e t o acal l forwarded t o u s b y Lydi aWegman , I spok e wit h Debr aJezoui t

about her reques t t o mee t wit h u s abou t th e UAR G proposal . Sh

e indicate d fha

t sh e represent s adifferen

t grou p o f utilitie s tha

n UAR G an d wa s concerne d tha

t EP A woul d b e enterin g into agiv e an d take ' abou t th e UAR G proposa l o n Jun e 1 . If

thi s wa s so , she wante d to b e sur e tha t th e view s o f

th e utiltie s tha t sh e represent s ar

e als o considered , an

d aske d to b e a

t fh e tabl e whe n UARG meet s wit h EP A o n Jun e 1 , o r

alternatively aske d fo

r aseparat e meetin g wit

h EPA . Sh e indicate d fha

t their proposa l wa s submitte d to EP

A a t fh e Fe b 2- 3 stakeholde

r meeting . I responde d tha

t th e only meeting s w e ar

e havin g a t thi s point ar e wit h fh e variou s group s who ha d submitte d writte n proposal s t o EP A following th e Fe

b 2- 3 meeting . Thi s i s a

n opportunit

y fo r u s to as k question s about

th e proposal s t o mak

e sur e tha t w e understan d them . We are no t indicatin g whic h part s o f

th e proposals , i f

any , tha t w e like , and whic h w e thin k ar e no t acceptable . W

e simply wan

t to mak e sur e fha t w e understan d fhem . Sh e wa s clea r tha t there ar e part s o f fh e UARG proposa

l fha t fhe y d o no t support , an

d referred u s back to th e materia

l the y submitte d o n Fe

b 2-3 . I indicate d tiiat

I woul d check

wit h management , t o b e sure , but

unles s I tel l he

r otherwise , w e wil l no t

b e enterin g into an

y kin d o f negotiatin g session , or dialogu e about

th e pro' s an

d con' s abou

t di e UAR G proposal . Given that , sh e wa s comfortable fha

t the y di d no t

nee d to b e presen

t a t fh e meetin g o n Jun e 1 , no r

di d the y nee d a meetin g wit

h us . Bill...pleas e le

t m e kno w i f I a min error o n this . Dennis..pleas e pu t

thi s i n th e docket . CC : Harnett-Bill,Solomon-David,Wegman-Lydi a

, &^3 EPA AI R DOCKE T
#### Ambrose B. Guthrie, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Florida Commercial Company, for the use of John Carey, Defendant in Error.

Division A.

Writ of error to Circuit Court, DeSoto county; Joseph B. Wall, Judge.

H. J. Spence for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

This action was brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant takes writ of error. The judgment is affirmed.

Decision *Per Curiam.*
Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of TechPrecision Corporation (Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, James S. Molinaro, the Chief Executive Officer, and I, Richard F. Fitzgerald, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated: November 15, 2010
/s/  James S. MolinaroJames S. MolinaroChief Executive OfficerDated: November 15, 2010
/s/Richard F. FitzgeraldRichard F. FitzgeraldChief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 9, 2013

*

Decided May 10, 2013

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 12-3418

ALEX GU,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANEY ABRAHAM, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 12 C 1852

Robert W. Gettleman,

Judge.

O R D E R

Alex Gu, a surgical assistant in Illinois, appeals the dismissal of his complaint

alleging that St. Francis Hospital and two of its employees conspired to fire him because he

is Chinese and over 40 years old. See 29 U.S.C. § 623; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 2000e-2(a)(1).

We affirm the judgment.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

*

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP.

P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 12-3418 Page 2

As set forth in his complaint, Gu was fired for jeopardizing a patient’s safety after

walking out mid-surgery, but he maintained that the patient was not endangered by his

conduct and that a doctor had permitted him to leave early. Gu also asserted generally that

the hospital applied its policies differently to him because of his race, age, and national

origin.

Gu attempted twice to amend his pleading. After the defendants moved to dismiss

the complaint, Gu sought leave to file an amended complaint. The district court denied the

motion, noting that Gu had failed in his original and proposed amended complaint to

provide “a short and plain statement” of his claims. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). But the court

granted Gu’s motion for reconsideration, taking into account his pro se status, and invited

him to file a second amended complaint—with the proviso that he clarify his claims and

cut out irrelevant facts and caselaw. The court eventually dismissed the proposed second

amended complaint with prejudice, however, concluding that it “suffers from the same

fatal deficiencies” as the previous attempts.

On appeal Gu does not challenge the district court’s conclusions and generally

maintains that his second amended complaint sufficed to state a claim. But the district

court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept Gu’s pleading. See Soltys v. Costello,

520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th Cir. 2008). A complaint must give the defendants fair notice of the

claims against them and the grounds supporting those claims, Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d

792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011), and each allegation in the complaint “must be simple, concise, and

direct.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1). Gu did not comply with the court’s request that he clarify his

claims; the second amended complaint—like his two previous attempts—exhibits “the lack

of organization and basic coherence [that] renders a complaint too confusing to determine

the facts that constitute the alleged wrongful conduct.” Stanard, 658 F.3d at 798.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.44



ADDENDUM

TO

STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT



The following provisions are hereby incorporated into, and are hereby made a part of, that certain Stock Option Agreement (the Option
Agreement) by and between Borland Software Corporation (the Corporation) and Timothy J. Stevens (Optionee) evidencing the stock option (the Option) granted to Optionee under the terms of the
Corporations 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, and such provisions are effective immediately. All capitalized terms in this Addendum, to the extent not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Option Agreement.



SPECIAL ACCELERATION



1. To the extent the Option is assumed in connection with a Change in Control
or otherwise continued in effect or replaced with a substitute option, the Option (or such substitute option) shall not accelerate to any extent upon the occurrence of that Change in Control, and the Option (or such substitute option) shall
accordingly continue, over Optionees period of Service after the Change in Control, to become exercisable for the Option Shares in one or more installments in accordance with the provisions of the Option Agreement. However, upon termination of
Optionees status as an Employee of the Corporation for any reason other than for Misconduct as such term is defined in Optionees offer letter dated September 17, 2003 (the Offer Letter) or upon Optionees Constructive
Termination (as defined in the Offer Letter) within twelve (12) months following such a Change in Control, then fifty percent (50%) of the unvested shares under such Option (or such substitute option), shall automatically accelerate and such Option
(or substitute option) may be exercised for any or all of those accelerated Option Shares (or other securities) as fully-vested shares, together with any other Option Shares (or other securities) for which the Option has already become vested and
exercisable in accordance with the normal Vesting Schedule.



2.
In the event of any conflict, ambiguity, or inconsistency between the provisions of the Option Agreement and the provisions of this Addendum, to the extent possible such provisions will be interpreted so as to resolve any such conflict, ambiguity,
or inconsistency, and if that is not possible, the provisions of the this Addendum will prevail.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borland Software Corporation has caused this Addendum to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the Effective Date
specified below.



BORLAND SOFTWARE CORPORATIONBy:

/s/    Kenneth R. HahnName:

Kenneth R. HahnTitle:

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




EFFECTIVE
DATE: November 3, 2004
#### Dinorah Calderon et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*City of New York et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 16, 1958.

*Grey ■& Murphy*for. plaintiffs.

*Charles E. Tenney, Corporation Counsel,*for City of New York, defendant.

*Keegan ■& Clarke*for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., defendant.

Irving H. Saypol, J.

Motion to examine the defendant, etc., before trial is granted on consent, to be conducted at Special Term of this court on December 22, 1958, at 11:00 a,m.

The second branch of the motion, opposed, directing delivery of the report of the defendant’s physical examination of the plaintiff which was had on November 27, 1956, is denied. The *347asserted authority, subdivision 3 of section 50-h of the General Municipal Law was enacted April 7, 1958 and has neither applicable nor retroactive effect. This distinguishes this case from the general rule which may be applicable (cf. *Totoritus*v. *Stefan,*6 A D 2d 123, affg. 10 Misc 2d 881; *Nadav*v. *Kozlowski,*15 Misc 2d 343).
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (NOPR) TECHNICAL
 

SUPPORT DOCUMENT (TSD):
 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL AND
 

INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT:
 

Commercial Ice­Cream Freezers; Self­Contained Commercial Refrigerators,

Freezers, and Refrigerator­Freezers without Doors; and Remote Condensing

Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator­Freezers

August 22, 2008

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
                 

       

     

       

This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy
 

by staff members of
 

Navigant Consulting, Inc.,
 

and
 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
 

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 23.2
|   | (i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Dated: November 8, 2010 |
|--------|-------------------------|

|                    |
|-------------------------|
| /S/ D. FRANK HARRISON   |
| D. Frank Harrison       |
| Chief Executive Officer |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DALLAS NATIONAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

GLORIA DE LA CRUZ,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-12-00189-CV

Appeal from the

346th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2010-104)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see TEX.R.APP.P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Rivera, J., Rodriguez, J., and Larsen, J. (Senior)

Larsen, J. (Senior)(Sitting by Assignment)
EXHIBIT 32.1





WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES — OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of HMS Income Fund, Inc. (“the Company”), each hereby certifies that to his or her knowledge, on the date hereof:





(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017 , filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section l3(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:August 14, 2017By:/s/ SHERRI W. SCHUGARTSherri W. SchugartChairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentDate:August 14, 2017By:/s/ RYAN T. SIMSRyan T. SimsChief Financial Officer and Secretary
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 5, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
DERMA PEN, LLC, Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant, No. 15-4040 (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00729-DN-EJF) (D. Utah) v. 4EVERYOUNG LIMITED, doing business as DermapenWorld; BIOSOFT (AUST) PTY LTD, doing business as DermapenWorld; EQUIPMED INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD, doing business as DermapenWorld; STENE MARSHAL, doing business as DermapenWorld, Defendants Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v. MICHAEL E. ANDERER, Counterclaim Defendant Appellant, and JEREMY JONES; MICHAEL J. MORGAN; CHAD MILTON; MEDMETICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; JOHN DOES 1-25, Counterclaim Defendants.ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TYMKOVICH , Chief Judge, BRISCOE , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges. ** The parties are familiar with the complex procedural history of this case involving trademark infringement and counterclaims for breach of contract. 1 This is an interlocutory appeal in which Michael Anderer sought review over several injunctive orders as well as orders holding him in civil contempt. Anderer asserted we had jurisdiction to review the injunctive orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). As for the civil contempt orders, Anderer argued we should exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review them along with the injunctive orders. See Cox v. Glanz , 800 F.3d 1231, 1255 (10th Cir. 2015). 2 We noted jurisdictional issues and abated the appeal while the case proceeded below.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** In accordance with our order of March 21, 2018, this matter was submitted on the briefs.
1 See generally Derma Pen, LLC v. 4EverYoung Ltd. , 2017 WL 2258362 (D. Utah May 22, 2017); Derma Pen, LLC v. 4EverYoung Ltd. , 2015 WL 803148 (D. Utah Feb. 26, 2015), vacated , 2016 WL 4532106 (D. Utah Aug. 29, 2016).
2 Anderer made other jurisdictional arguments, but we find them unpersuasive. -2-We now dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. During the time this appeal was abated, the district court vacated all of the various injunctions. Anderer’s challenges to those injunctions are therefore moot. See Fleming v. Gutierrez , 785 F.3d 442, 445 (10th Cir. 2015). Since we do not have jurisdiction to review the now-vacated injunctions, we cannot have pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the contempt orders in this appeal (which have now merged with the final judgment). In any event, we have dealt with many of the same issues in Anderer’s appeal after final judgment in case 17-4105. We therefore DISMISS this appeal. We also GRANT Anderer’s unopposed motion to seal various parts of the record. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Timothy M. Tymkovich Chief Judge

-3-
Exhibit 23.1

       CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) of NeoPath, Inc. of our report dated
February 9, 1999, included in the 1998 Annual Report to
Shareholders of NeoPath, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of
NeoPath, Inc. listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the
responsibility of management.  Our responsibility is to express
an opinion based on our audits.  In our opinion, the financial
statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation
to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents
fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-72261) of NeoPath, Inc.
and in the related Prospectus, the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 No. 33-40371) pertaining to the NeoPath, Inc. Stock Option
Plan for Nonemployee Directors, as amended and restated on
February 27, 1997, the NeoPath, Inc. 1989 Stock Option Plan,
amended and restated on December 10, 1996, and the NeoPath, Inc.
1997 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated
February 9, 1999, with respect to the financial statements
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Seattle, Washington                               
March 26, 1999

<PAGE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.29 MB)

Tags:DLA Aviation, DSCR, Defense Supply Center Richmond, DLA Installation Operations Richmond, people and culture, Safety Stand Down

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery