alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 05-41749 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS FLORENCIO JIMENEZ-ESTEBAN, Defendant, Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

Before DAVIS, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Appellant Florencio Jimenez-Esteban(“Jimenez”) pleaded guilty to being illegally present in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b). On October 31, 2005, the district court sentenced him to serve 24 months in1See United States v. Jimenez-Esteban, 195 F.App'x 267 (5th

Cir. 2006).

2127 S.Ct. 625 (2006). 3Lopez, 127 S.Ct. At 629-633. 2 the custody of the Bureau of Prisons followed by 2 years of supervised release. Jimenez appealed from the judgment of conviction and sentence, arguing that his prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance was not an aggravated felony and challenging the constitutionality of the sentencing enhancement he received based on this finding. We affirmed the judgment. 1 Jimenez filed a timely petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The Court granted the petition, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of Lopez v. Gonzales. 2 In Lopez, the Supreme Court held that a state felony conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance that was not punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act was not a “drug trafficking crime” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and hence not an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). 3 Jimenez argues that, in light of Lopez , his conviction for possession of a controlled substance does not qualify as an aggravated felony because that crime was punishable only as a misdemeanor under the federal Controlled Substances Act and,4See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, –-F.3d ---, 2007 WL

926832 (5th Cir. March 29, 2007). 3 accordingly, the district court erred in enhancing his sentence based on the conviction. On remand, the parties advise that Jimenez completed the imprisonment component of his sentence and was deported to Mexico, although his term of supervised release is ongoing. Under these circumstances, even assuming Lopez error, because the defendant has been deported and is unable (without the permission of the Attorney General) to reenter the United States and be present for a resentencing proceeding as required by Rule 43, there is no relief we are able to grant him and his appeal is moot. 4 The appeal is therefore DISMISSED.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 22, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22

- 0940 Lower Tribunal No. 19

- 3198 SP

________________


### United Automobile Ins urance Co mpany , Appellant,

vs. 

### Family Rehab, Inc. a/a/o Hugo Nelson Jimenez , Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami

- Dade County, Lawrence D. King , Judge.
Michael J. Neimand , for appellant. David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines) ; Corredor & Husseini, P.A., and Maria E. Corredor , for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES, and LINDSEY , JJ.
PER CURIAM.2 Appellant United Automobile Insurance Company appeals from a final judgment awarding $4,782.00 in attorney’s fees to Appellee Family Rehab,
Inc ., as assignee of the Insured. Though United Auto paid PIP benefits in response to Family Rehab’s demand letter, it did not initially pay the statutory late payment penalty and postage, totaling $10.55

. 1 The issue before us is whether Family Rehab is entitled to attorney’s fees afte r recovering solely on the late penalty and postage.
In South Florida Pain & Rehabilitation of West Dade v. Infinity Auto
Insurance Co. , 318 So. 3d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) , the Fourth District held that an insured’s assignee is not entitled to attorney’s fe es when the insurer timely pays all PIP benefits pursuant to a demand but does not initially pay the late penalty and postage. The parties do not dispute that this case is on
all fours. Family Rehab argues that South Florida Pain and Rehabilitation was

w rongly decided and that this Court should certify conflict. We disagree and decline to certify conflict. Based on the sound reasoning in South Florida
Pain and Rehabilitation , we conclude that Family Rehab is not entitled to attorney’s fees. Accordingly , we reverse.

1 On March 5, 2019, Family Rehab filed the underlying Complaint seeking payment of the late penalty and postage. United Auto paid the late payment and postage on June 29, 2019.3 Reversed and remanded.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 215 ) ll-K-(I)-2 8 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:55 AM Sheet 215of 325P. 2 

# PlPi
H-K-CI)-2 8 IFCA M MODE L REVIEW . EEA , Inc . Jun e 29 , 1979 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-2 8
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 19, 2023 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2023-3 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer.  I further certify as follows:





1. I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from July 19, 2023 through December 31, 2023, and its performance under the Agreement.





2. To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 4, 2024Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 67 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service relating 

to charitable contribution and estate tax deductions under section 170 

when a taxpayer receives or expects to receive a corresponding state 

or local tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2019 

Mr. GOTTHEIMER (for himself and Mr. KING of New York) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue 

Service relating to charitable contribution and estate tax 

deductions under section 170 when a taxpayer receives 

or expects to receive a corresponding state or local tax 

credit. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the In4 ternal Revenue Service relating to charitable contribution 

5 and estate tax deductions under section 170 of the Inter6 nal Revenue Code of 1986 when a taxpayer receives or 

7 expects to receive a corresponding state or local tax credit 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 67 IH 

1 (published at 84 Fed. Reg. 27513 (June 13, 2019)), and 

2 such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-955]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; Genetics of Heart, Lung and Blood Diseases 
Review.
    Date: February 8, 2012.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Michael P. Reilly, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7200, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 496-9659, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ee9c8b87828297839eae8086828c87c0808786c0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="186a7d717474617568587670747a7136767170367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 12, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-955 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
E.O. 12866 Review 2060-AQ42 Email 011811 .txt

From: Nizich.Sharon@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 2:56 PM

To: cortney_higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Fruh.Steve@epamail.epa.gov; tierney.jan@epamail.epa.gov; 

Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov; Hanzel, Veronica; Laney, Michael N.; 

Talcott.Fred@epamail.epa.gov; French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov; 

Topham.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov; Guinnup.Dave@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: EPA Staff Response to OMB questions 

pertaining 

to Primary Lead RTR, RIN 2060-AQ42

CortneyPlease find two additional answers to questions asked last week. Thank you.

1. What is the background on why elemental lead is exempt in Sec 112?

Jan couldn't find anything in the legislative history that addressed section 

112(b)(7). It looks like it was part of the Senate version of the CAA 

Amendments, but she could find no Senate Report language discussing that 

provision.

2. What was the litigation concerning the overlap of Sec 112 and lead NAAQS 

requirements?

The case that OMB is thinking of is National Lime, 233 F3d 625.

Industry claimed that our use of PM as a surrogate for metal HAP in the 

portland cement MACT was a de facto regulation of PM as a HAP. The Court 

referred to language in 112(b)(2), which prohibits EPA from adding to the list 

of HAP any criteria pollutant and stated that this prohibition would extend to 

any rule that "in effect treats a criteria pollutant as a HAP." The court 

found that EPA did not do so, as the regulations are particular to cement 

kilns and does not treat PM "generally" as a HAP. 233 F3d at 638.

CORTNEY - Jan is unable to make the call tomorrow so if you have any other 

legal questions, perhaps you can send to me with a cc to Jan so that she may 

have time to get back to us. THANK YOU.

Sharon V. Nizich

Metals and Minerals Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS - US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541-2825

Page 1
[Cite as Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 123 Ohio St.3d 87, 2009-Ohio-4081.]

M ILLER , A PPELLANT , v. O HIO D EPARTMENT OF R EHABILITATION & C ORRECTION ET AL ., A PPELLEES . [Cite as Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 123 Ohio St.3d 87, 2009-Ohio-4081.] Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — Res judicata bars petitioner from filing a su ccessive habeas corpus petition — Judgment affirmed. (No. 2009-0555 — Submitted August 11, 2009 — Decided August 19, 2009.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Belmont County, No. 08-BE-35, 2009-Ohio-697.

__________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Timothy A. Miller, for a writ of habeas corpus. Miller previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that raised the same issues as in this petition. Miller v. Eberlin , 116 Ohio St.3d 1434, 2007-Ohio-6518, 877 N.E.2d 987. Res judicata barred Miller from filing a successive habeas corpus petition. Amstutz v. Eberlin , 119 Ohio St.3d 421, 2008-Ohio-4538, 894 N.E.2d 1219, ¶ 7. Judgment affirmed.
M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ Timothy A. Miller, pro se. Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Jerri L. Fosnaught, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

______________________
# C_2004094EN.01004102.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/41

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 January 2004

in Case T-202/02 Makedoniko Metro and Michaniki AE against the Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Public works contracts - Failure to initiate the Treaty infringement procedure - Article 3 of Directive 89/665/EEC - Action for damages - Inadmissible)

(2004/C 94/118)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case T-202/02: Makedoniko Metro, established in Thessaloniki (Greece), and Michaniki AE, established in Marousi, Attica (Greece), represented by C. Gkonis, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Konstantinidis) — application for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants consequent upon the decision of the Commission to take no further action on their complaint No 97/4188/P lodged on 23 January 1997 concerning the award by the Greek State of a public works contract relating to studies for, and the construction, self-financing and operation of, the Thessaloniki Metro — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M.Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 14 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ No C 274, 9.11.2002.

1

---
Distribution of Pounds by Protein Level - FO 5

% Protein January 2016 May 2016 July 2016 October 2016

0 < p ≤ 2.5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

2.5 < p ≤ 2.6 0.03% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00%

2.6 < p ≤ 2.7 0.01% 0.42% 0.70% 0.00%

2.7 < p ≤ 2.8 1.43% 3.47% 11.31% 0.01%

2.8 < p ≤ 2.9 4.62% 17.85% 30.80% 5.65%

2.9 < p ≤ 3.0 18.07% 35.36% 33.06% 18.80%

3.0 < p ≤ 3.1 29.11% 28.22% 17.59% 31.91%

3.1 < p ≤ 3.2 24.25% 9.11% 3.56% 24.77%

3.2 < p ≤ 3.3 12.92% 2.67% 1.06% 11.43%

3.3 < p ≤ 3.4 5.03% 0.98% 1.05% 3.83%

3.4 < p ≤ 3.5 2.18% 1.05% 0.58% 1.20%

p > 3.5 2.35% 0.87% 0.27% 2.39%

% of Producer Milk 88% 87% 88% 84%

Distribution of Pounds by Protein Level - FO 6

% Protein January 2016 May 2016 July 2016 October 2016

0 < p ≤ 2.5 0.02% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02%

2.5 < p ≤ 2.6 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

2.6 < p ≤ 2.7 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%

2.7 < p ≤ 2.8 0.00% 7.26% 1.30% 2.63%

2.8 < p ≤ 2.9 16.91% 39.20% 27.33% 4.26%

2.9 < p ≤ 3.0 30.61% 19.29% 33.85% 27.91%

3.0 < p ≤ 3.1 29.94% 24.10% 24.18% 32.76%

3.1 < p ≤ 3.2 13.64% 10.00% 11.95% 23.02%

3.2 < p ≤ 3.3 3.71% 0.04% 0.99% 3.86%

3.3 < p ≤ 3.4 4.71% 0.00% 0.29% 3.77%

3.4 < p ≤ 3.5 0.09% 0.00% 0.04% 0.53%

p > 3.5 0.35% 0.08% 0.07% 1.25%

% of Producer Milk 74% 73% 73% 80%

Distribution of Pounds by Protein Level - FO 7

% Protein January 2016 May 2016 July 2016 October 2016

0 < p ≤ 2.5 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

2.5 < p ≤ 2.6 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

2.6 < p ≤ 2.7 0.01% 0.03% 0.35% 0.00%

2.7 < p ≤ 2.8 0.13% 1.04% 3.52% 0.33%

2.8 < p ≤ 2.9 2.08% 12.03% 18.80% 3.10%

2.9 < p ≤ 3.0 14.70% 27.06% 31.07% 10.82%

3.0 < p ≤ 3.1 21.76% 28.77% 25.31% 19.37%

3.1 < p ≤ 3.2 28.13% 13.96% 12.79% 28.69%

3.2 < p ≤ 3.3 17.18% 9.65% 4.27% 14.02%

3.3 < p ≤ 3.4 9.86% 4.18% 1.92% 11.89%

3.4 < p ≤ 3.5 2.74% 2.30% 1.31% 5.84%

p > 3.5 3.40% 0.96% 0.64% 5.93%

% of Producer Milk 67% 73% 74% 71%
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60664

FOUNTAINBLEAU MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.L.C., a Louisiana 

limited liability company; EVERGREEN APARTMENTS, L.L.C., an Illinois 

limited liability company; EVERGREEN APARTMENTS, L.L.C., a Delaware 

limited liability company, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

CITY OF TUPELO; TUPELO POTW, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:13-CV-157

Before JOLLY, HIGGINSON and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

After the district court granted summary judgment in this diversity case, 

the Mississippi Supreme Court issued two opinions that alter the law relevant 

to the disposition of this case. See Boroujerdi v. City of Starkville, No. 2012-

CA-01458-SCT, 2015 WL 574802 (Miss. Feb. 12, 2015); Brantley v. City of Horn 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60664 Document: 00512999593 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
No. 14-60664

Lake, 152 So. 3d 1106 (Miss. 2014). So long as the Mississippi state courts 

would apply these intervening state-court decisions retroactively, “it is the 

practice of this court to remand an issue to the trial court when there is a 

change in relevant state law during the pendency of an appeal.”1 Moorhead v. 

Mitsubishi Aircraft Int’l, Inc., 828 F.2d 278, 289 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, 

we VACATE the district court’s summary-judgment order and REMAND the 

case for review in the light of Boroujerdi and Brantley and for such further 

proceedings as the district court, in its discretion, may feel are necessary and 

appropriate.2

VACATED and REMANDED.

1 The Mississippi state courts will almost certainly apply Boroujerdi and Brantley

retroactively. See Thompson v. City of Vicksburg, 813 So. 2d 717, 721 (Miss. 2002) (“We have 

clearly held that newly enunciated rules of law are applied retroactively to cases that are 

pending trial or that are on appeal, and not final at the time of the enunciation.”).

2 On remand, the district court may also wish to consider the parties’ other arguments, 

including the statute-of-limitations issue and the question of whether Tupelo POTW is a legal 

entity capable of being sued.

2

 

 Case: 14-60664 Document: 00512999593 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A2083. RES-GA RW, LLC v. PRIDGEN et al.

“This [C]ourt has a duty to inquire into its jurisdiction to entertain each

appeal.” Eshleman v. Key, 326 Ga. App. 883, 884 (1) (755 SE2d 926) (2014). This

appeal arises from the entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants

(collectively “Pridgen”) in an action brought byRES-GA RW, LLC, seeking to avoid

certain alleged fraudulent transfers in order to collect on a judgment against certain

defendants obtained on a promissory note and guaranty. The appellant, RES-GA RW,

LLC, raises issues concerning whether Pridgen’s conduct and certain corporate

structures resulted in fraudulent transfers under OCGA §§ 18-2-74 & 18-2-75,

thereby allowing the plaintiff access to certain corporate distributions to satisfy a

judgment in its favor.

Both partiesstate in their appellate briefsthat the underlying judgmentserving

as the premise of the plaintiff’s claims was set aside during the pendency of this

appeal on March 20, 2014, by the United States DistrictCourt in the Northern District

of Georgia. This raises the question whether the case is moot because if there is no

judgment upon which to proceed, resolution of the appeal “would amount to the

determination of an abstract question not arising upon existing facts or rights.”

Collins v. Lombard Corp., 270 Ga. 120, 122 (1) (508 SE2d 653) (1998). Further, we

note that a provision of the corporate operating agreement being challenged – stating

that a husband’s interest in a company shall become 100 percent vested in his wife

if the husband’s interest becomes subject to an adverse priority lien by way of

judgment – potentially has not been implicated in light of the lack of an existing

judgment against the husband. Finally, the parties also do not dispute that another

March 23, 2015
action on the alleged debt has been filed in Cobb County Superior Court. 

Accordingly, in light of the above, the case is REMANDED for the trial court

to obtain the currentstatus of the relevant litigation and determine whether the instant

appeal has been rendered moot. That decision, including any issue remaining in this

appeal, may be appealed by the filing of a notice of appeal within 30 days after entry

of the order.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/23/2015
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 9:28 AM

To: 'paulhem@paulhem.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Block Communications, Inc. (Docket No. 

FAA-2015-1168)

August 17, 2015 

Dear Mr. Hem: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1168). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If 

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by August 

31, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov