alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Safer Medical of Montana and 

George Ackerson 

Complainants, 

v. 

City of Fort Benton, Montana and 

Chouteau County, Montana 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-12 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the 

above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for 

Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 

14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued 

in this matter is hereby extended to December 11, 2016. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination 

in this case. 

in C. Willis, Director 

1ce of Airport Compliance 

d Management Analysis 

Ol'5o~ 11 ZOIC, 

Date I 
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 6, 2016, I caused to be placed in the United States mail 

(ftrst class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the foregoing Order addressed 

to: 

Counsel for Complainants 

Adrian Miller 

HOLLAND & HART LLP 

401 North 31st Street 

Suite 1500 

Billings, Montana 59101 

aamiller@hollandhart.com 

Counsel for Respondent City 

Brian Lilletvedt 

BOSCH, KUHR, DUGDALE, MARTIN, & KAZE, PLLP 

335 Fourth A venue 

P.O. Box 7152 

Havre, Montana 59501 

blilletvedt@bkdlaw.org 

Counsel for Respondent County 

Mitchell A. Young 

MONT ANA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 

Defense Services 

2717 Skyway Drive, Suite F 

Helena, Montana 59602 

myoung@mtcounties.org 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis (AC0-1 00) 

laudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
Opinion issued October 1, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 20
- 00223
- CV NO. 01
- 20
- 00224
- CV

——————————— W.J . BILLY DEVILLIER AND PAULA WINSER , Appella nt s V. A.P. LEONARDS AND MIL D RE D G. LEONARDS , Appell e e s

On Appeal from the C ounty Court Chambers County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No s . P03986A , P03846A

MEMORANDU M OPINION2

Appellants, W.J. “Billy” Devillier and Paula W i nzer , seek permissi o n to appeal two virtually identical interlocutory order s on will construct ion issues. Appellees, A.P. Le o nards and Mildred G. Leonards , have not filed a resp onse to the petition s for permissive appeal

. To be entitled to a permissiv e appea l from an interl ocutory order that w o uld not otherwise be appealable, the requesting party must establish that (1) the order to be appealed involves a “controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion” and (2) a n immediate ap peal from the order “ may materially advance the ultimate termination of th e litigation.” T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51.014( d ); S e e T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 28.3( e )(4); T EX
. R.
C IV
. P

. 168. Both the trial court’s orders and relators’ p etitions for p ermissiv e appeal identify t h e enforceability of the exculpatory clauses in the wil ls as the controlling
issue of law and assert the issue is one of first impression in Texas

. Assuming enforceability of the exculpatory clauses is a controllin g question of law, the order s and the peti t ion s must still reflect substantial grounds for disagr eement as to the
issue. T he trial court’s orders state : T he Court’s ruling contained in this Amended Order on Will Construction Issues pertains to a controlling question of law, which is undecided in T exas and to which there is a substantial ground for dif ference of opinion. The controlling question of law is whether the exculpatory clause contained [in each of the dec edents’ wills] is enforceable under Texas law

.3

( Emphasis in or iginal.) Although the o rder s refer to the enfo rceability of the exculpatory cl auses as one of first impression, they do not e xplain how or why there is a “substantial ground for difference of opinion” on the issue.
F urther, t he trial court’s order s do no t explain how the deter mination of the appeal s would materially advance the ul timate termination of the litigation

. Nor do appellants explain in their petition s how resolution of the issue would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litig ation

. In fact, the only ref erence to this requirem ent in the petition s is a citati on to the trial court’s order s , which say the permissive appeal “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Because we conclude that the petition s fail t o establi sh each requir ement of
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3(3) (e )(4 ), we deny the petition s for permissiv e appea l

. P ER C URIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Lloyd, and Landau

.
Assignment letter dated December 20, 2006



 Exhibit 10.2 
  

			
	

	 	 Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.
 6215 Ferris Square, Suite 140
 San Diego, CA 92121
  
 Phone 858.450.4220
 Fax 858.450.4203
 www.path1.com


 Path 1 Network Technologies, Inc. (“Path1”) has conducted a good faith search of files and documents in
their possession or control, and has provided to Great Links G.B. Limited Liability Company (“GreatLinks”) all original inventor assignments and ribbon patents and patent certificates in its possession or control (except for those
indicated below), and does not knowingly retain any original documents described in the Patent Purchase Agreement entered into by and between Path1 and GreatLinks on November 17, 2006. 
 In the event any of the following original documents are located or discovered by Path1 to be in its possession or control, Path1 will immediately notify GreatLinks and
forward the original documents to the notice address specified in the Patent Purchase Agreement: 
 Inventor assignment of 09/222,183
(6,141,355) from Palmer, Fellman, Cruz to Path 1 
 Network Technologies, Inc. as recorded at 009882/0542 on
March 29, 1999 
 Inventor confirmatory assignment of 09/136,706 (6,215,797) from Fellman, Cruz to Path 
 1 Network Technologies, Inc. as recorded at 010195/0851 on August 26, 1999 
 Inventor assignment of 09/224,577 (6,246,702) from Fellman, Cruz, Palmer to Path 1 
 Network Technologies, lnc. as recorded at 009775/0373 on February 22, 1999 
 Inventor assignment of 10/688,787 from Fellman, Cruz, Palmer, Schade to Path 1 
 Network Technologies, Inc. as recorded at 014478/0436 on March 30, 2004 
 Inventor assignment of 10/141,630 (6,704,329) from Martin to Path 1 Network 
 Technologies, Inc. as recorded at 013185/0842 on August 12, 2002 
 EXECUTED on this 20th day of December, 2006. 
  

									
	PATH 1 NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.	 		 		 	
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Lester S. Briney
	 		 		 	(notary)
	Name:	 	Lester S. Briney	 		 		 	
	Its:	 	VP of Engineering & Operations	 		 		 	

  

							
	

	  		  	State of California, County of SAN DIEGO Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this 20th day of December, 2006 by LESTER S. BRINEY personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before
me.
				
		  		  	Signature:	  	 /s/ Angel Pado Antonio
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 (0.31 MB)

Tags:Battle Creek, Special Emphasis Program, DLA EEO Office

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the
Board of Directors




Mangosoft,
Inc




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-50764 and 333-58412 of MangoSoft, Inc. on Form S-8 and Registration
Statement No. 333-144317 on Form S-1 of our report dated March 30, 2009,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MangoSoft, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2008.





/s/ Stowe
& Degon, LLC




Worcester,
MA




March 30,
2009
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Crown Vantage Inc.:

We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of Crown Vantage, Inc. and
subsidiaries, as described in Note 2, as of December 31, 1995 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and changes in equity for
each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1995 which financial
statements are included on pages 25 through 46 of the 1996 Annual Report to
shareholders of Crown Vantage Inc. and incorporated by reference herein.  We
have also audited the financial statement schedule as of December 31, 1995 and
for the period since inception through December 31, 1995 listed in the index on
page 12 of this Form 10-K.  These financial statements and financial statement
schedule are the responsibility of the management of Crown Vantage Inc.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Crown Vantage Inc.
and subsidiaries, as described in Note 2, as of December 31, 1995, and the
consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the
two years in the period ended December 31, 1995, in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles.  In addition, in our opinion, the financial
statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basis
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material
respects, the information required to be included therein.

As discussed in the last paragraph to Note 9 to the financial statements and in
Note 1 to the financial statement schedule, the Company has revised certain
balance sheet amounts previously reported in the 1995 financial statements and
1995 financial statement schedule related to accounting for pension plans.



                                   COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Oakland, California
February 23, 1996



                                       23
\~ (,,,' 

Snowy Owl Productions 

20 Jan 16 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 

4200 James Ray Drive 

Suite 161 

Grand Forks, ND 58202 

Tel: 701-738-4825 

matt@skyskopes.com 

Re: Amendment to Snowy Owl Productions, LLC Exemption No. 11752 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0947 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Snowy Owl Productions, LLC ("Snowy Owl") requests an amendment to FAA Exemption No. 

11752, Docket No. FAA-2015-0947 for the purpose of adding UAS flight training to the grant of 

exemption under the same terms and conditions expressed in exemption No. 13465 and 13465A 

granted to Kansas State University. Snowy Owl has previously been permitted to use the DJI 

Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Inspire 1, Aeryon SkyRanger, and DJI SIOOO+ to conduct aerial data 

collection, and now wishes to conduct flight training with these aircraft as they are all electric, 

under 30 lbs, small in size, and similar to the aircraft approved in Exemption No. 13465 and 

13465A. The requested amendment will permit commercial training operations with the 

previously approved UAs under the same training terms and conditions as those expressed in 

Exemption No. 13465 and 13465A granted to Kansas State University. 

Ifwe can provide any additional information to assist your understanding or review of this 

document, please do not hesitate to contact us at 701-738-4825 or via email at 

matt@skyskopes.com. 

Thank you, 

Matt 

JH~ Dunlevy 

President and CEO
Exhibit 12



MINN DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVE

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF NET PROCEEDS TO FIXED CHARGES

(IN THOUSANDS)



Year Ended August 31,2009

        

        2008

        

        2007

        

        2006

        

        2005Earnings:Net proceeds before income taxes from Continuing operations

        

        96,053

        

        110,863

        

        148,415

        

        76,096

        

        88,088Fixed charges, excluding capitalized interest, see below

        

        2,018

        

        3,230

        

        4,297

        

        3,544

        

        2,899Amortization of capitalized interest

        

        94

        

        106

        

        106

        

        106

        

        106Net Proceeds

        

        98,165

        

        114,199

        

        152,818

        

        79,746

        

        91,093Fixed Charges:Interest Expense

        

        2,018

        

        3,230

        

        4,297

        

        3,544

        

        2,899Interest factor included in rentals (1)

        

        0

        

        0

        

        0

        

        0

        

        0Fixed charges, excluding capitalized Interest

        

        2,018

        

        3,230

        

        4,297

        

        3,544

        

        2,899Interest capitalized

        

        0

        

        0

        

        0

        

        0

        

        0Fixed Charges

        

        2,018

        

        3,230

        

        4,297

        

        3,544

        

        2,899Ratio of net proceeds to fixed charges

        

        48.64

        

        35.36

        

        35.56

        

        22.50

        

        31.42




(1)

        The company does lease certain items, such as office equipment. Due to the proportionately small amounts involved, interest on such lease payments has not been included in the total of the companys fixed charges of the calculation of this ratio.








---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00084-CV

In re Gregory Scott Mizer §

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 4 of 

Denton County (CA-2012-00001 CCA)

May 30, 2013

Opinion by Justice McCoy

JUDGMENT

This court has considered relator Gregory Scott Mizer’s petition for writ of 

mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be granted in part. 

Accordingly, Mizer’s petition is conditionally granted in part and we order 

Respondent, the Honorable Joe Bridges, to set aside the October 26, 2012 order 

dismissing Mizer’s appeal and to enter a scheduling order granting Mizer fifteen 

days to file a brief. All other relief requested is denied. A writ of mandamus will 

issue only in the event that the Honorable Joe Bridges fails to comply with our 

instructions within thirty days of the date of this opinion.
It is further ordered that each party shall bear their own costs of this 

proceeding, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Bob McCoy
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1331 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1331

 To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to index for 
  inflation the payment rate for payments under the milk income loss 
                           contract program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 23, 2009

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to index for 
  inflation the payment rate for payments under the milk income loss 
                           contract program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Dairy Fairness Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. MILK INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAM.

    Section 1506(d) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
(7 U.S.C. 8773(d)) is amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``and 
        Inflation'' after ``Feed Prices'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
        subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and indenting 
        appropriately;
            (3) by inserting after the subsection heading the 
        following:
            ``(1) Feed prices.--''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Inflation.--Effective on the first day of the first 
        month beginning after the date of enactment of the Dairy 
        Fairness Act of 2009 and each year thereafter, the amount 
        specified in subsection (c)(2)(A) used to determine the payment 
        rate for a month shall be adjusted to reflect changes for the 
        12-month period ending on the most recent date for which data 
        are available in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 
        Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the 
        Department of Labor.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER 31, 1997
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF IAC, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                   0000947431
<NAME>                                  IAC, Inc.

       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996          
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1996       
<CASH>                                  11,713          
<SECURITIES>                                 0          
<RECEIVABLES>                                0         
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0         
<INVENTORY>                                  0         
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        26,193         
<PP&E>                                       0         
<DEPRECIATION>                               0         
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          28,342         
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    6,222         
<BONDS>                                      0         
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0         
<PREFERRED>                            630,000         
<COMMON>                             4,272,578         
<OTHER-SE>                             695,125         
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            28,342         
<SALES>                                135,346         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       157,340         
<CGS>                                        0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       612,810         
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0         
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       6,741         
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (463,811)        
<INCOME-TAX>                             1,600         
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (463,811)        
<DISCONTINUED>                               0         
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0         
<CHANGES>                                    0         
<NET-INCOME>                          (463,811)         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (.11)        
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.11)           
        


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1727

_____________________________

HERBERT LEE BUTLER,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

February 5, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Herbert Lee Butler, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Gayla Grant, Assistant 

General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.