alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
April 22 , 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Manage ment

System 1200 New Jersey Ave SE

Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir or Madam,

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernizati on and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act)

and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Alaska Aerial Services, operator of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

(“sUASs”) equipped to offer on

- demand commercial UAS operations for a host of industries and

applications. These include:

• Flare stack inspection,

• Utility

- power generation and transmission system inspections and patrolling,

• Pipeline inspection and patrolling,

• Filmmaking, cinematography, and videography,

• Precision agriculture,

• Wildlife and forestry monitoring,

• Aerial surveying,

• Construction site inspection and monitoring, and

• Public Entity Support Operations.

hereby applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) to allow

commercial operation of its sUASs, so long as such operations are c onducted within and under

the conditions outlined herein or as may be established by the FAA in the future in the Federal

Aviation Regulations or official guidelines for operators at large, should those be less restrictive.



### The name and address of the applicant is:

Alaska Aerial Services

3875 Geist Rd Ste E #210

Fairbanks, AK 99709

info @ alaskaaerials ervices.comREGULATIONS FROM WHICH THE APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF

14 CFR Part 21 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b)

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b)

14 C.F.R. 91.7 (a)

14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2)

14 C.F.R. 91.103 14 C.F.R. 91.109 14 C.F. R. 91.119 14 C.F.R. 91.121 14 CFR 91.151 (a)

14 CFR 91.203 (a) & (b)

14 CFR 91.405 (a)

14 CFR 407 (a) (1)

14 CFR 409 (a) (2)

14 CFR 417 (a) & (b)

AIRCRAFT AND EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY

The aircraft re ques ted for operation have been approved by other exemption holders and are as

follows:

Aircraft Previous ly Approved E xemption Number

F450 11287

F550 11397

S800

, S1000 11401

S900 11256

X8, AERO

- M 11379

Alaska Aerial Services’ sUAS are rotorcraft and fixed wing aircraft, weighting 55 or fewer lbs.

including payload. Such operatio ns will ensure that the sUAS will "not create a hazard to users

of the national airspace system or the public.”

The applicant requests to be allowed to operate under the typical 31 bu llet point outline typically

granted to other S ectio n 333 Exemption holders. This will ensure the required “ equivalent level

of safety ” and offer an explicit outline as t o how this will be achieved, and a justification of the

request to be relived from the burden of the CFR ’s previously stated.

PUBLIC BENEFIT

Approval of this request would benefit the public by allowing legal professional use of this new

technolo gy under FAA guidelines where safety is a major concern

.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Alaska Aerial Services is made up of engineers, manned aircraft pilots, remote control

aircraft pilot s, and experience d UAV operators.

Sincerely,

Carl France

Alaska Aerial Services
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JESSE C. HARRELL a/k/a JESSE CLEVELAND HUNTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D13-559

[April 15, 2015]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Thomas H. Barkdull, III, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502013DR000533FC.

Jesse C. Harrell a/k/a Jesse Cleveland Hunter, West Palm Beach, pro 

se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Jesse Harrell, a state prisoner, appeals the order denying his 

petition for change of name and dismissing his case. Section 68.07(3), 

Florida Statutes (2013), presents the requirements for a facially sufficient 

petition for name change, which includes the requirement that “the 

petitioner’s civil rights have never been suspended or, if the petitioner’s 

civil rights have been suspended, that full restoration of civil rights has 

occurred.” § 68.07(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (2013). Appellant’s petition was denied 

for being facially insufficient as he admitted that his civil rights are 

suspended. 

On appeal, Appellant argues that the denial of his petition on this 

ground substantially burdens his exercise of religion in violation of the 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000cc-1 (2000), which specifically provides for the protection of 

religious exercise of institutionalized persons because of their particular 

vulnerability to governmental regulation. We disagree with Appellant, and 

therefore affirm. 
2

The RLUIPA has no application to Appellant’s claim because the 

purpose of the federal act is to protect inmates from governmental 

regulation within a correctional institution. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(b)(1)

(2000) (providing that the section applies when “the substantial burden is 

imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial 

assistance”). See, e.g., Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (addressing a 

claim that a prison regulation prohibiting inmates from growing beards is 

a violation of RLUIPA). The law at issue is a state statute that applies to 

all persons petitioning for a name change, not merely those incarcerated 

within a correctional institution.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

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

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000103

16-APR-2015

09:13 AM
Filed 4/16/15 P. v. Gonzales CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

STEVEN RAY GONZALES, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B259141 

(Super. Ct. No. 2011022408) 

(Ventura County) 

 Appellant Steven Ray Gonzales pled guilty to theft (Pen. Code, § 487, 

subd. (a))1 and was sentenced to 16 months in state prison. In 2012, he was placed on 

post-release community supervision (PRCS). (§ 3456.) He subsequently had several 

PRCS violations for which he served time in jail or in a residential drug treatment 

program. 

 In 2014, appellant requested that the trial court vacate a previously imposed 

PRCS no-contact order so that he could have contact with his pregnant girlfriend and 

child, whose birth is expected in May 2015. Upon the probation department's 

recommendation, the court denied the request without prejudice to its renewal once the 

child is born. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to 

represent him. 

 

1All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2 

 Appellant stole copper wire from a railroad yard. There was evidence that 

his girlfriend was with him at the time of the theft. 

 Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting our 

independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On January 23, 

2015, we notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to advise us of any claims he 

wished us to consider. We have received no response. 

 We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's 

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 

441.) 

 The judgment (order) is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 PERREN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P. J. 

 YEGAN, J. 
3 

Brian J. Back, Judge 

Superior Court County of Ventura 

______________________________ 

 California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and 

Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
|Exhibit 21                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries                                                                        
|Avcon Industries, Inc., a Kansas Corporation                                        
|Butler National Services, Inc., a Florida Corporation                               
|BCS Design, Inc., a Kansas Corporation                                              
|Butler National, Inc., a Nevada Corporation                                         
|Butler Temporary Services, Inc., a Missouri Corporation                             
|Butler National Corporation, a Nebraska Corporation, formerly Woodson Avionics, Inc.
|Kansas International Inc., a Kansas Corporation                                     
|Butler National Service Corporation, a Kansas Corporation                           
|AVT Corporation, a Texas Corporation                                                
|Indian Gaming Corporation, a Kansas Corporation
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6576

LEVON SPAULDING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES HILL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-95-395-5-BO)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Levon Spaulding, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Kendrick Cleveland,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's dismissal without

prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition for failure to

exhaust state remedies. Generally, dismissals without prejudice are

not appealable, unless no amendment to the complaint could cure the

defects in the plaintiff's case. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We

find that Appellant may be able to save this action through

amendment.

The district court dismissed Appellant's petition because it

contained exhausted and unexhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455

U.S. 509, 519 (1982). Appellant may either exhaust all the claims

in the petition and then refile his petition, or he may amend his

petition by deleting any unexhausted claims and resubmitting the

amended petition to the district court. Id. Thus, while the district court order here might be read to allow resubmission only

after exhaustion, it appears that the order merely did not

enumerate specifically all of Appellant's options. Because the

order which Appellant seeks to appeal is not an appealable final

order, we dismiss this portion of the appeal. See Domino Sugar

Corp., 10 F.3d at 1066-67.

Appellant also appeals from the district court's order denying

what he styled as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of this motion on the reasoning of the district court. Spaulding v. Hill, No. CA-95-395-5-BO
3

(E.D.N.C. Apr. 1, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel and for default judgment and dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
Presidential Documents

661 

Federal Register 

Vol. 78, No. 3 

Friday, January 4, 2013 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of December 28, 2012 

Waiver From Rescission of Unobligated Funds Under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Consistent with the authority provided to me under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5), as amended by section 

1306 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

(Public Law 111–203), I have determined that it is not in the best interest 

of the Nation to rescind after December 31, 2012, the unobligated amounts 

made available in Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act with respect to the accounts with the following Treasury Account Fund 

Symbol codes and names, not to exceed the amounts stated: 

Department of Defense: 97–0501—Military Construction, Defense-wide, $104 

million; 

Department of Energy: 89–0209—Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, $96 million; 

Social Security Administration: 28X8704—Limitation on Administrative Expenses, $148 million; and 

Small Business Administration: 73–4268—Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving 

Fund, $15 million. 

My determination is based on the following consideration: 

The retention of these unobligated balances will allow the executive agencies 

to continue to execute projects vital to the national interest in a fiscally 

responsible manner. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 1306 of Public Law 111–203, I am 

waiving the requirements for repayment for the stated amounts of unobligated 

funds made available in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act with 

respect to the accounts described above. 

In accordance with section 1603(b) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as added by section 1306 of Public Law 111–203, all 

amounts that are rescinded pursuant to section 1603(b) shall be returned 

to the General Fund of the Treasury where such amounts shall be dedicated 

for the sole purpose of deficit reduction and prohibited from use as an 

offset for other spending increases or revenue reductions. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
662 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2013 / Presidential Documents 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, December 28, 2012. [FR Doc. 2013–00042 

Filed 1–3–13; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3295–F3 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with OB#1.EPS</GPH>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6763

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BOBBIE RAY EDWARDS, a/k/a Tank,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (4:11-cr-00055-AWA-DEM-10; 4:14-cv-00050-AWA)

Submitted: December 14, 2016 Decided: December 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobbie Ray Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, 

II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; 

Dee Mullarkey Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bobbie Ray Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Edwards’ motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1331 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 9, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize certain programs relating to nonpoint source 

management, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1331 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Local Water Protection 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. 

5 Section 319(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

6 Act (33 U.S.C. 1329(j)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub7 sections (h) and (i) not to exceed’’ and all that follows 

8 through ‘‘fiscal year 1991’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (h) 

9 and (i) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 

10 through 2024’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 8, 2019. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of
ATEL Capital Equipment Fund XI, LLC (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 17, 2007



|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Paritosh K. Choksi                                                                                
|Paritosh K. Choksi Executive Vice President of Managing
Member, Principal Financial Officer of Registrant

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0001228

16-APR-2015

09:24 AM
#### Ellen Kazdan et al., Respondents, v Charles Merlis et al., Appellants.

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.), dated April 11, 1988, which, after a hearing, denied their motion to vacate their default in appearing and answering; and (2) a judgment of the same court dated June 16, 1989, which is in favor of the plaintiffs in the principal sum of $1,650.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 11, 1988, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, the order is vacated, the defendants’ motion to vacate their default is granted, and the action is dismissed.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Upon the record before us, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the defendants were properly served with process. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not prove that the process server exercised due diligence prior to resorting to substituted *712service or that he properly affixed and mailed copies of the summons and complaint to effectuate service *(see, Fattarusso v Levco Am. Improvement Corp.,*144 AD2d 626; *Werner v Schweit,*138 AD2d 592). In addition, no evidence was presented that service was ever completed by the filing of proof of service with the clerk of the court *(see,*CPLR 308 [4]). Accordingly, the action is dismissed. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 4

SECTION 4

THE COMMISSION

Article 244

In accordance with Article 17(5) of the Treaty on European Union, the Members of the Commission shall be chosen on the basis of a system of rotation established unanimously by the European Council and on the basis of the following principles:

| (a) | Member States shall be treated on a strictly equal footing as regards determination of the sequence of, and the time spent by, their nationals as members of the Commission; consequently, the difference between the total number of terms of office held by nationals of any given pair of Member States may never be more than one; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Member States shall be treated on a strictly equal footing as regards determination of the sequence of, and the time spent by, their nationals as members of the Commission; consequently, the difference between the total number of terms of office held by nationals of any given pair of Member States may never be more than one;

| (b) | subject to point (a), each successive Commission shall be so composed as to reflect satisfactorily the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

subject to point (a), each successive Commission shall be so composed as to reflect satisfactorily the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States.

---