alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Volantex Ranger EX

Specs:

Wing span : 77.9 inches

Fuselage length : 46 inches

Take off weight : 6.5 .lbs

Pow er plant : O ne 1000 KV brushless motor with a 10 inch prop delivering 3.2 lbs. of thrust

Energy source: 2 Lithium Pol ymer 5200mAh 3 cell battery’s

Flight time: 45 min Landing with 20% reserves in the battery.

Payload : Gopro hero 4 and gimbal, secondary backup CCTV camera and VTX (video down link)

# Volantex Ranger EX

Flight computer: Eagle Tree Vector with GPS and OSD (on screen display ) for co nstant monitoring of flight parameters s uch as, air speed, attitude, altitude, battery voltage and home take off point

.

Ground control : Futaba 14 SG and dedicated quad diversity FPV monitor.

Max flight speed: 45 MPH

Fail safes: Return to home, in the event of signal los s the aircraft will fly to the take off point.

O nce in signal range the pilot can over ride fail safe and land the air craft safely

.
Map Created: August 2019

Data Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS, 2017

Relative Unemployment Rates in Appalachia, 2017

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

An unemployment rate is the number of unemployed persons as 

a percentage of the civilian labor force. The percent of the U.S. 

average is computed by dividing the county unemployment rate 

by the national average and multiplying by 100. The map uses 

critical breaks such as the national average to organize the data 

into groups of common values.

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

150.0% - 360.7%

100.1% - 149.9%

75.1% - 100.0%

72.3% - 75.0%

Percent of the U.S. Average

U.S. average = 4.4%

Appalachian average = 4.8%

(Critical Breaks Classification)
**Exhibit
      32.1**








KERR-McGEE
      CORPORATION


123
      Robert S. Kerr Avenue


Oklahoma
      City, Oklahoma 73102








**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**REGARDING
      PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING**


**FINANCIAL
      STATEMENTS**








I,
      Luke R. Corbett, the Chief Executive Officer of Kerr-McGee Corporation (the
      "Issuer"), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify in connection
      with
      the Issuer's Quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period that ended June 30,
      2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") that:





·
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and




·
            information
                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the
                financial condition and results of operations of the
                Issuer.








/s/
      Luke R. Corbett


______________________





Luke
      R. Corbett


Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      8, 2005
# C_2010301EN.01002902.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/29

---

Order of the General Court of 7 September 2010 — Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta and Umicore v Commission

(Case T-532/08) (1)

1

(Actions for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Classification, packaging and labelling of certain nickel carbonate compounds as dangerous substances - Directive 2008/58/EC - Directive 67/548/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Amendment of form of order sought - Temporal application of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

2010/C 301/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta Oy (Espoo, Finland) and Umicore SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and D. Kukovec, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicants: Nickel Institute (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, D. Anderson QC, S. Kinsella and H. Pearson, Solicitors)

Intervener in support of the applicants:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2008 L 246, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2009 L 235, p. 1), in so far as they amend the classification of certain nickel carbonate compounds

th

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta Oy and Umicore SA/NV are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta Oy and Umicore SA/NV are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the European Commission.

| 3. | The Kingdom of Denmark and the Nickel Institute are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Denmark and the Nickel Institute are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Belden Inc. of our report dated January 23, 2001, except for note 10 as to
which the date is March 1, 2001, included in the 2000 Annual Report to
Shareholders of Belden Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8) pertaining to the Belden Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (No.
33-66830), the Belden Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (No. 33-83154, No.
333-74923, and No. 333-51088), and the Belden Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock
Plan (No. 333-11071), of our report dated January 23, 2001, except for note 10
as to which the date is March 1, 2001, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Belden Inc. incorporated herein by reference in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 23, 2001
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00233

- CV

IN INTEREST OF S.G., A CHILD

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

FROM THE 323RD DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 323

- 98141J

- 13

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “Appellant ’ s Motion To Dismiss.” It is the court ’ s

opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, GARDNER, and WALKER, J J.

DELIVERED: August 14, 2014

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
**Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 December 2009 – Cattin v Commission**

**(Case T-194/08)**

Non-contractual liability – EDF – List of exporters eligible to receive payment of debts owed to them by the Central African Republic – Not included on the list – Limitation period – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute
– Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Action for compensation for damage caused by a Community
institution – Failure to comply with requirements – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c))
(see paras 55-58)*

2.                     *Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Account taken of a subjective assessment of
the reality of the damage – Not permissible (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras
69-71, 82)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following a Commission decision not to include them on the list of exporters eligible to receive payment, via funds of the European Development Fund (EDF), in respect of the debts owed to them by a State body of the Central African Republic. |

**Operative part**

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | R. Cattin & Cie and Yves Cattin are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
Exhibit 10.26


Summary of Director Compensation



For 2005, the board of directors has approved the
following annual compensation to directors who are not employees:


Cash compensation


	•
	 	Annual retainer of $30,000, paid in four equal quarterly
installments





	•
	 	$1,500 for each quarterly board meeting attended





	•
	 	$1,000 for each committee meeting or other non-quarterly board
meeting attended





	•
	 	Reimbursement for customary and usual travel
expenses





Stock compensation


	•
	 	Upon the date on which a person first becomes a non-employee
director, such non-employee director will receive a one-time stock option grant to purchase 40,000 shares of Macrovision common stock pursuant to the
1996 Directors Stock Option Plan





	•
	 	Upon each anniversary of the date on which a non-employee
director joined the board, such non-employee director will receive an annual stock option grant to purchase 15,000 shares of Macrovision common stock
pursuant to the 1996 Directors Stock Option Plan





	•
	 	Upon the conclusion of our annual meeting of stockholders each
year, the chairman of our Audit Committee will receive an additional annual stock option grant to purchase 7,500 shares of Macrovision common stock
pursuant to the 1996 Directors Stock Option Plan





	•
	 	Upon the conclusion of our annual meeting of stockholders each
year, the chairman of our Compensation Committee and the chairman of our Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee will each receive an additional
annual stock option grant to purchase 5,000 shares of Macrovision common stock pursuant to the 1996 Directors Stock Option Plan





	•
	 	Our directors may receive discretionary grants of stock options
and other awards under the Macrovision Corporation 2000 Equity Incentive Plan and the Macrovision Corporation 1996 Equity Incentive Plan
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Verdisys, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dan Williams, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

\s\              Dan WilliamsDan WilliamsPresident August 18, 2003

----
- Transmittal Letter
- Final Report - OIG Audit Report No. 11-11
- Scope and Methodology (Enclosure 1)
# C_2008107EN.01002101.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/21

---

Action brought on 7 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-107/08)

(2008/C 107/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | The Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels (1) by failing to adopt the regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the Directive or by failing to inform the Commission of their adoption. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels (1) by failing to adopt the regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the Directive or by failing to inform the Commission of their adoption.

1

| — | Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for implementation of the Directive expired on 11 August 2006.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 191, p. 59.

1

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-20-00281-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 442nd District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-9668-393

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN THE INTEREST OF C.V., A CHILD
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Appellant S.D. (Mother) attempts to appeal from the trial court’s 

interlocutory order denying her plea to the jurisdiction. Appellee A.D. (Stepfather) 

moves to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. The case is still pending in the 

trial court. Because we do not have jurisdiction to entertain this interlocutory appeal, 

we grant Stepfather’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

In her notice of appeal, Mother states that she is appealing from the trial 

court’s “order for standing.” In that order, entitled “Order on Plea to the 

Jurisdiction,” the trial court held that Stepfather had standing to bring the suit and 

denied Mother’s plea to the jurisdiction. On November 5, 2020, Stepfather filed a 

motion to dismiss Mother’s appeal in this court. In the motion, Stepfather contends 

that because the case is still pending in the trial court and because Mother is not a 

governmental unit, she cannot now appeal the denial of her plea to the jurisdiction.

Mother has not responded to the motion.

We have appellate jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments. Lehmann v. 

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195, 200 (Tex. 2001). We also have appellate 

jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders that the Texas Legislature has 

specified are appealable. Id. at 195; see, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 

§ 51.014. Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows 

an appeal from an interlocutory order that grants or denies a governmental unit’s plea 

to the jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8). Mother is not 
3

a governmental unit. See id.; In re I.C.D.N., No. 05-17-01426-CV, 2018 WL 580274, at 

*1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 29, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.); Clifton v. Burroughs, No. 2-

08-404-CV, 2008 WL 5401489, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 23, 2008, no pet.)

(per curiam) (mem. op.).

Because a governmental unit did not file the plea to the jurisdiction, the trial 

court’s order denying the plea is not subject to interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. 

& Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(8); I.C.D.N., 2018 WL 580274, at *1; Clifton,

2008 WL 5401489, at *1. Accordingly, we grant Stepfather’s motion to dismiss, and 

we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: December 3, 2020
Table 1

EPA APPROVED OREGON STATE STATUTES

477.51 5 Permits required for fires on forestlands; waiver; permit conditions; smoke management plan; restricted areas; rules; excepted areas. (1) It is unlawful to set or cause to be set on fire any forestland, including flammable forest growth, forest refuse, slashing or forest debris, or any grass, grain, stubble, debris or other such flammable material, within the boundaries of a forest protection district or within one

- eighth of

one mile of a f o rest protection district for which a closed season has been designated under ORS 477.505, or when required under rules promulgated pursuant to subsection (3) of this section

either on one's own land or on the land of another, without first securing a wri tten permit from the forester or a warden and complying with the conditions of the permit. The forester may waive the requirement that the permit referred to in this section be secured prior to burning

whenever conditions are such as to justify oral permission.

(2) In granting permits, the forester or any warden may prescribe conditions necessary to be

observed i n setting a fire and preventing it from spreading. Any permit obtained throu gh willful misrepresentation is void.

(3)(a) For the purpose o f maintaining air quality, the State Forester and the Department of Environmental Quality shall approve a plan for the purpose of managing smoke areas they shall designate. The plan shall delineate restricted areas to which this subsection applies. The p lan

shall also include but not be limited to consideration s of weather, volume of material to be burned, distance of the burning from designated areas, burning techniques, and provisions for cessation of further burning under adverse air quality conditions . All burning permitted within

the restricted areas shall be according to the plan. The plan shall be developed by the State

For estry Department in cooperation with federal and state agencies, landowners an d organizations which will be affected by th e plan . The approved plan shall be filed with the Secretary of State and may thereafter be amended in the same manner as its formation.

(b) The State Forester shall promulgate rules to carry out the provisio ns of the smoke

mana gement plan approved under this su bsection.

(4) The requirements of this section do not apply to lands protected pursuant to ORS 476.010 to

476 .730 and 476.990 or ORS chapter 478, or la nds protected within a city and for which lands a

b urning permit is required under such authority.

Stat e effective: 1971 ; EPA effective: 12/31 / 2001 ; 66 FR 5 5 105
EXHIBIT
13.1











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with this Annual Report of Canadian Zinc Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John
Kearney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:









(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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 26, 2009
            By:
            /s/  John
      KearneyJohn
      Kearney
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.


1
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Ms. EDWARDS:
       H.R. 6434.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article. I., Section 1.
       All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
     Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
     Senate and House of Representatives.
```
# C_2008223EN.01004601.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/46

---

Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Sanatur v OHIM — Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim (life light)

(Case T-222/08)

(2008/C 223/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sanatur GmbH (Singen, Germany) (represented by: M. Wiume, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG (Trier, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 in Case R 1257/2006-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 in Case R 1257/2006-1;

| — | Alter that decision so that the appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

—

Alter that decision so that the appeal is dismissed;

| — | Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sanatur GmbH.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘life light’ for goods in Class 32 (Application No 3 192 481).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German figurative mark ‘LIGHT live’ for goods in Class 32 (Mark No 302 00 216).

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annul the decision of the Opposition Division.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that no likelihood of confusion exists between the conflicting marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---