alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May	1,	2015

Petition	for	Exemption	14	CFR	11.81

Dave	Kettering

801	Bluff	Street

Dubuque,	Iowa

52001

(563)-588-5715,	(563)	590-8205

14	CFR

Exemption for Section 333: As of March 23, 2015, the FAA will automatically grant a 

"blanket" COA for flights at or below 200 feet to any UAS operator with a Section 333 

exemption, provided the aircraft weighs less than 55 pounds, operations are conducted 

during daytime Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions and within visual line of sight (VLOS) 

of the pilots, and stay certain distances away from airports or heliports.

Aerial	photography	under	the	current	blanket	COA.

Photos	would	provide	a	unique	view	of	our	historic	community	and	farmland.		

Photos	will	provide	a	unique	eye	catching	and	informational	view	of	news.

A	professional	approach	to	any	situation	and	will	provide	a	“safety	first”	attitude	

during	the	flight	route.		In	our	case	we	have	a	separate	pilot	remote	as	well	as	an	

additional	remote	to	control	a	camera.		Line	of	sight	will	never	be	obstructed	and	

will	obide	by	all	rules	of	un-manned	flight	vehicles	including	a	safe	distance	from	

airports	as	well	as	all	flight	pads	or	heliports.

My	goal	in	obtaining	the	exemption	for	14	CFR	11.81 section	333	is	to	add	the	

advantage	of	aerial	footage	used	to	entertain	my	clients,	provide	them	with	a	

different	perspective	of	life	and	give	them	a	different	view	of	several	various	news	

situations.
#### Richard Dennis FRAZEE v. GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY, H.M. Daniels, H.E. Wiese, Inc. & Insurer, California Union Insurance Company.

No. 87-C-0015.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Frazee, Richard Dennis; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA-85-737; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 230612.

Prior report: La.App., 498 So.2d 47.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant the writ.
Exhibit 32.1

APD ANTIQUITIES, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of APD ANTIQUITIES, INC., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, CINDY K. SWANK, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date:  May 20, 2005



By: /s/ Cindy K. Swank

Cindy K. Swank, President

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
#### William T. Hallman et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Vincent Calabro et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

January 19, 1959.

*576*Griffing, Smith, Tasher & Lundberg*for plaintiffs.

*Dryer & Traub*for defendants.

L. Babeos" Hill, J.

This is an action for an injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant contained in a deed to one of the plaintiffs ’ predecessors in title.

In 1938, one Anna T. Burrell was the owner of a tract of land on West Neck Road, Shelter Island, New York. She lived in a house at the westerly portion of these lands and the remainder was vacant. In September of 1938, she conveyed a parcel immediately adjacent to her home containing 150 front feet to William T. and Madelaine Hallman, plaintiffs herein, who erected a substantial private dwelling. There were no restrictions in this deed. In 1940, Mrs. Burrell conveyed a parcel of 125 front feet adjoining the Hallman property on the east to Helen 0. Meyers. This deed contained the following covenant: “ The grantee covenants and agrees to and with the grantor that she will not use or permit to be used the premises hereby conveyed for any manufacture, trade or business, or remove any sand or gravel therefrom. This covenant shall be construed as a covenant running with the land ’ ’.

Thereafter, in 1942, Mrs. Burrell transferred the remainder of the original tract to the east of the Meyers’ parcel to a Mr. and Mrs. Piccozzi. This deed covered about 225 front feet of land and contained the same covenant recited in the Meyers’ deed. The defendants acquired title to the Piccozzi parcel through several mesne conveyances, the deed to them reciting that it was *“*subject to the covenants and restrictions and easements of record if any”.

Arma T. Burrell, the common grantor, died in possession of the unconveyed homestead portion of the original tract, and devised same to her daughter, Annabelle, who is also a plaintiff herein. Thus all the owners of the original Burrell property are parties to this action.

It appears from the testimony that prior to the commencement of this action, the defendants were preparing to use their property for the cottage or motel business.

*577I find that the restrictive covenants in the deed to Piccozzi was intended to run with the land, and was exacted for the benefit of the neighboring lands. To this extent, at least, it falls within the second class of cases described in *Korn*v. *Campbell*(192 N. Y. 490) and is enforcible by Annabelle Burrell, upon whom develoved the remaining neighboring land held by the promisee when the covenant was made. Actually, under a more liberal view, the covenant might be enforcible by the other plaintiffs (see, also, *Vogeler*v. *Alwyn Improvement Corp.,*247 N. Y. 131; 5 Powell, Real Property, ¶¶ 673-675), but I need not explore the unchartered fields when the relief requested will be granted if only one plaintiff has standing. The defendants will be enjoined from violating the covenant as requested in the complaint, though no monetary damages will be awarded.

Submit finding óf fact and conclusions of law.
Nutrient Pollution 

and the 2012 

Farm Bill

Are There Opportunities 

To Do Better?
Why Care About Nutrients 

in our Waters

Public Health Impacts: Drinking Water Supplies 

Public Health Impacts: Recreational Contact

Ecological Impacts: Coastal Water Quality and 

Aquatic Species 

Economic Impacts: Beach closures, loss of 

commercial and recreational fishing opportunities
Why Care About Nutrients 

in our Waters

USGS Circular 1350, 

2010
Sources of Nutrients

USGS Circular 1350, 

2010
Sources of Nutrients

USGS Circular 1350, 

2010

Conservation Effects 

Assessment Project (CEAP)

CEAP UMRB Report, June 2010
CEAP: Upper Mississippi 

River Basin(UMRB)

Assessment of the Effects of 

Conservation Practices on 

Cultivated Cropland in the UMRB:

- Complete and consistent use of nutrient 

management (rate, form, timing, and 

method) is generally lacking 

- Treatment of erosion alone can exacerbate 

nitrogen leaching problem

- Good nitrogen management practices are in 

use on only about 14% of the acres each 

year
CEAP: Upper Mississippi 

River Basin

• Land in long-term conserving cover: total 

nitrogen loss has been reduced by 81%, 

total phosphorus by 97%;

• Phosphorus reductions of 49%

• Models: 36 million acres under-treated 

with erosion and nutrient control:

– 43% total nitrogen reduction

– 51 % total phosphorus reduction

CEAP UMRB Report, June 2010
2012 Farm Bill 

Focus on Nutrients

• Prioritize nutrient control in 

nutrient-impaired watersheds

• Incorporate conservation 

compliance measures for better 

nutrient control as was done with 

highly erodible lands and 

wetlands

• Better monitoring data
Survey of Americans

• Some people believe that farmers willing to use 

university-tested practices to protect water and 

air from pollution should receive more federal 

payments than farmers who refuse to do so.... Do you 

favor more federal payments to farmers using antipollution practices?

- 58% support

• Do you approve or disapprove of the condition that 

farmers receiving federal payments should adopt 

university-tested practices to prevent pollution 

of streams or other bodies of water? 

- 88% Approve
Contact information: 

Patricia Sinicropi

Director, Legislative Affairs

National Association of Clean 

Water Agencies

www.nacwa.org

psinicropi@nacwa.org

202-833-2672
#### STATE ex rel. Anthony CAMINITA v. J.F. DONNELLY, Warden.

No. 87-KH-0987.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

In re Caminita, Anthony P.; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District, Div. “A”, No. 79-1045.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                  
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         104,280
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  230,080
<ALLOWANCES>                                   9,879
<INVENTORY>                                    8,825
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               375,433
<PP&E>                                         1,528,776
<DEPRECIATION>                                 292,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,733,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          332,991
<BONDS>                                        1,356,127
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       902
<OTHER-SE>                                     791,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,733,927
<SALES>                                        983,964
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               983,964
<CGS>                                          572,570
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  572,570
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               245,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2,893
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             85,387
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                81,176
<INCOME-TAX>                                   26,293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            54,882
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                53,205
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,677
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.14
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

I, Gary M. Clifford, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, of I-Link Incorporated;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         [Intentionallyomitted];

 

(c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

(d)         Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:October 25, 2004

 

By:

/s/  Gary M. Clifford

 

Gary M. Clifford

 

Chief Financial Officer
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Cascade Energy, Inc. (the "Company")
  quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ending May 31, 2005,
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  "Report"), I, Sam Johal, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                      
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
        in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
        of the Company.

Date: July 15, 2005

| | /s/Sam Johal            | 
| | ----------------------- | 
| | (Signature)             | 
| |                         | 
| | Chief Executive Officer | 
| | (Title)                 | 

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-50233 Summary Calendar

_____________________

LAWRENCE EDWARD THOMPSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JACK D. KYLE, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees,

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

USDA No. CA-A-93-669

_________________________________________________________________

January 17, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Thompson appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of the

defendants in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thompson asserted

that the district court did not give him adequate notice before

entering summary judgme nt; that the magistrate judge should have

been disqualified for personal bias; and that there were ge nuine

issues for trial concerning denial of his parole, the

constitutionality of parole policies in general, and his claims of-2-

retaliation. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error.

Further, we find that Thompson's ap peal is frivolous, and

accordingly, we DISMISS it pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Thompson

was warned in Thompson v. Jackson

, No. 94-40956 (5th Cir. Aug. 10,

1995) that filing future frivol ous appeals would result in

disciplinary sanctions. Accordingly, Thompson is BARRED from

filing any pro se

, in forma pauperis , civil appeal this court, or

any pro se

, in forma pauperis

, initial civil pleading in any court

that is subject to this court's jurisdiction, without the advance

written permission of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this

court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit

are directed to return to Thompson, unfiled, any attempted

submission inconsistent with this bar.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 14, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

Consolidated Cases Nos. 02-60159, 02-60166,

02-60204, 02-60206, 02-60213 

_______________________

Case No. 02-60159

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TYRONE DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60166

 

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ROBERT BLACKMON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60204

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LEADNER HACKETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60206

 
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 288 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2002).

2

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GWENDOLYN DIXON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Case No. 02-60213

BANK ONE NA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ISSAC RICHARDSON, JR., also known as Issac Richardson,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:01-CV-74-WS)

__________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants challenge the district court’s rulings

granting Bank One’s motions to compel arbitration and to stay the

Appellants’ pending state law claims. This case is

indistinguishable from those that we reviewed and ruled on in the

related cases of Bank One, N.A. v. Boyd1 and Bank One, N.A. v.
2 No. 01-60051 (5th Cir. April 5, 2002) (unpublished).

3 125 F. Supp. 2d 819 (S.D. Miss. 2001).

4 No. 4:01CV15-D-B (N.D. Miss. May 7, 2002) (order granting

petition to compel arbitration).

3

Lake.

2 For essentially the same reasons that are set forth in our

opinion in Boyd and in the district court’s opinion in Bank One,

N.A. v. Coates,

3 and Bank One, N.A. v. Taylor,4 the judgments of the

district court in these cases are, in all respects, AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Roy K. HENNICK, et al.

No. 86-KK-2057.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Roy K. Hennick, applying for reconsideration of writ denied December 5, 1986, 497 So.2d 1385, from the Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court, No. 104-230; Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. K 5959, Div. B.

Denied.
# Official Journal C 136/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 136 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6327 April 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 136

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6327 April 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 136/01 | Euro exchange rates — 24 April 2020 | 1 |
| 2020/C 136/02 | New national side of euro coins intended for circulation | 2 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2020/C 136/03 | Special Report 7/2020 Implementing Cohesion policy: comparatively low costs, but insufficient information to assess simplification savings | 3 |
| 2020/C 136/04 | Special Report 8/2020 ‘EU investments in cultural sites: a topic that deserves more focus and coordination’ | 4 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2020/C 136/05 | List of trusts and similar legal arrangements governed under the law of the Member States as notified to the Commission
  (This text annuls and replaces the text published in OJ C 434, 27.12.2019, p. 27 ) | 5 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 136/01

Euro exchange rates — 24 April 2020

1

2020/C 136/02

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

2

Court of Auditors

2020/C 136/03

Special Report 7/2020 Implementing Cohesion policy: comparatively low costs, but insufficient information to assess simplification savings

3

2020/C 136/04

Special Report 8/2020 ‘EU investments in cultural sites: a topic that deserves more focus and coordination’

4

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2020/C 136/05

List of trusts and similar legal arrangements governed under the law of the Member States as notified to the Commission
  (This text annuls and replaces the text published in OJ C 434, 27.12.2019, p. 27 )

(This text annuls and replaces the text published in OJ C 434, 27.12.2019, p. 27 )

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 136/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9447 – Hitachi/ABB (Power Grid Division)) (
  1
  ) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2020/C 136/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9447 – Hitachi/ABB (Power Grid Division)) (
  1
  )

1

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
1 

### Lorang, Phil

From: Long, Pam

Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:29 AM

To: Lorang, Phil; Sutton, Lisa; Brachtl, Megan; Coda, Tom; Wilcox, Geoffrey

Cc: Wood, Anna; Mathias, Scott; Johnson, Yvonne W

Subject: FW: Sent to OMB and OP Approved - 5623, 'SSM SIP Call - Startup, Shutdown, and

Malfunction'

FYI. The package has been submitted to OMB but I don’t see yet that OMB has started their review clock this morning. I

will keep checking.

From: Adams, Darryl

Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 3:35 PM

To: Owens, Nicole; Pritchard, Eileen

Cc: Cristofaro, Alexander; Kime, Robin; Curry, Bridgid; Rush, Alan; Dougherty, Joseph

‐ J; Henigin, Mary; Brown, Stephanie

N.; Stewart, Lori; Long, Pam; Balserak, Paul

Subject: Sent to OMB and OP Approved

‐ 5623, 'SSM SIP Call

‐ Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction'

Today, 7/21/2014, I uploaded to OMB OAR's 'SSM SIP Call

‐ Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction' (SAN 5623). This

package is a Tier 3 Supplemental NPRM action. This is an Expedited review. ADP Tracker has been updated.2 Thank you,

Darryl Adams

Regulatory Management Division

Office of Policy, U.S. EPA

202 564

‐ 6569

Mail Code 1803A, Room 3512D WJC North