alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## JBI AERIAL INSPECTIONS

Phantom2 Vision + Supplement Rev 1:1

The Phantom2 Vision + is designed for professional aerial photography and cinematography. It is a user friendly

ready assembled, ready to fly setup. It is safe, stabilized and easy to fly.

Quadcopter 4 blade configuration

Frame size: 350mm

UAV Take off weight: Approximately 1.5kg

Hover time: 25 minutes

Working temp: 0C - 40C (camera limit)

Max Speed: 35mph

Hover Accuracy: Vertical; 0.8m; Horizontal; 2.5m

Safety Features:

* Auto return-to-home / one key go-home. If the UAV loses connection with the flight controller during

flight, the systems failsafe protection will climb to 100’ in order to clear obstacles, then return to the

takeoff point and safely land.

* The Phantom2 can also be setup with a switch to automatically activate this fail-safe return home

feature.

* Automatic no fly zones around airports

* Maximum 400’ Altitude can be predetermined and set in the UAV software.

* Onscreen real time flight parameters can display radar positioning, flight parameters, return to home.

* If the GPS signal is lost it will alert the pilot.

* Low voltage protection, If the battery falls below a first stage voltage level, a visual and audible

warning is given to the pilot. If the battery voltage falls below a second predetermined level, the UAV will

return to a predetermined point and safely land.

* Ground station: The Phantom2 sends realtime flight information to the pilot via an iPad or iPhone link.

It gives accurate flight timings, real time alarms, GPS lat/lon, heading and distance from home point,

height, velocity, horizontal attitude, number of GPS satellites in view.

* The maximum flight distance can be predetermined so as not to be exceeded by the pilot.

* LED Flight Indicator Status, the UAV flashes different color LEDs indicating the status of the UAV, self

test status, battery level, GPS signal, Errors.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001012366
<NAME>                        PHYSICIANS INFORMATION EXCHANGE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1,686
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,686
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 52,436
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          889,073
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       76,254
<OTHER-SE>                                     (912,891)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   52,436
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,618,681
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,618,681)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,618,681)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,618,681)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-41981)  pertaining to the Travis Boats & Motors, Inc. 1995 Incentive
Plan, the  Registration  Statement  (Form S-3 No.  333-89557)  pertaining to the
registration of 86,005 shares of its common stock,  the  Registration  Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-46217) pertaining to the registration of 219,875 shares of its
common stock, and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-80343) pertaining
to the  registration  of 91,905 shares of its common stock,  of our report dated
November  21,  2003,  except  Notes 13, as to which the date is January 9, 2004,
with  respect  to the  consolidated  financial  statements  of Travis  Boats and
Motors,  Inc.  included  in the  Annual  Report  (Form  10-K) for the year ended
September 30, 2003.

                                    ........

Austin, Texas
January 13, 2004
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of -- ) 

) 

Exelis Systems Corporation ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W91RUS-06-C-0029 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 58919, 58920 

Steven M. Masiello, Esq. 

Kelly P. Garehime, Esq. 

McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 

Denver, CO 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 23 June 2014 

~~~ MARK N. STEMPLE 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 58919, 58920, Appeals ofExelis 

Systems Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit 32.2

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 the Annual Report of Salomon Smith Barney Mid-West Futures Fund L.P. II (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jennifer MagroJennifer MagroCitigroup Managed Futures LLCChief Financial Officer and Director


March 31, 2008Date


---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FIRSTCITY LIQUIDATING TRUST DECEMBER 31, 1998 FORM 10-K FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FIRSTCITY LIQUIDATING TRUST
DECEMBER 31, 1998 FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,474
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     44,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,189
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,489
<SALES>                                         37,883
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,534
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,675
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION


I, Joel Gardner, CEO and CFO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Megola, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us
by others within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date:  March 21, 2006

                              /s/ JOEL GARDNER
                              ---------------------------
                              Joel Gardner
                              CEO and CFO
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 28, 2021

NO. 03

- 20

- 00418

- CV

K. T., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFOR E JU STICES BAKER, TRIANA, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order terminating parental rights signed by the tr i a l court on July 30,

2020

. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no

reversible error in the order

. Therefore, th e C ourt affirms the trial court’s orde r terminating

parental rights

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is

made.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 the Quarterly Report of Kronos Advanced Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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

Date: November 14, 2006                         By:      /s/ Daniel R. Dwight
                                                         -----------------------
                                                Name:    Daniel R. Dwight
                                                Title:   Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sherb & Co., LLP and
will be retained by Sherb & Co. LLP and furnished to the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FOR DOCKET:Fw: EO 12866 13563 Interagency Comments EPA NPRM 

Tailoring Step 3

Juan Santiago to: Pam Long 02/24/2012 01:57 PM

From: Juan Santiago/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Pam Long/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

----- Forwarded by Juan Santiago/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/24/2012 01:57 PM -----

From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>

To: Juan Santiago/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Anna Wood/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/22/2012 04:33 PM

Subject: EO 12866 13563 Interagency Comments EPA NPRM Tailoring Step 3

Hi Juan and Anna,

Attached please find interagency comments received thus far. I'll give you a 

ring shortly.

Thanks!

Christine

Interagencycomments1 EO 1286613563EPA NPRM Tailoring Step 3.docx

Interagencycomments2 EO1286613563_EPA NPRM Tailoring_Rule_Step_3.docx
* 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 August 4, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41665 Summary Calendar

THOMAS FREDRICK BONNER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BECKY MALONE CASTLOO; SHIRLEY GOODE EVANS; MARCUS TAYLOR; CURTIS GLOVER; RANDY SCHAFFER; LAWRENCE MITCHELL, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:05-CV-311

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Thomas Fredrick Bonner, Texas prisoner # 923741, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, in which he sued two court reporters, a district attorney, his trial counsel, his appellate counsel, and his post-conviction counsel. Bonner alleged that during his criminal proceedings the district attorney breached his plea agreement, the court reporters inaccurately reported the subsequent events at his sentencing, and all defendants conspired to conceal the errors in the transcripts and to keep himNo. 05-41665 -2- imprisoned. He sought as relief money damages, a jury trial, and

an order directing the court reporters to produce the tape recordings of his criminal proceedings. The district court held that Bonner’s suit was barred by limitations and dismissed the case as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Bonner argues that the district court erroneously concluded that his conspiracy claim was unsupported and failed to toll the limitations period for various reasons. We conclude, however, that Bonner’s claims, which are premised on the alleged breach of his plea agreement, would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence and are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). The district court therefore did not err by dismissing the complaint, but the judgment should be modified to reflect a dismissal without prejudice. See Price v. City of San Antonio, 431 F.3d 890, 895 (5th Cir. 2005); Sojourner T. v. Edwards , 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). Bonner also argues that the district court failed to grant a motion to amend the complaint seeking to add a malicious prosecution claim and that the district court erroneously dismissed the case without providing him an opportunity to amend. The district court did not reversibly err. See Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 326-27 (5th Cir. 1999); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986).No. 05-41665 -3- Bonner moves for the appointment of counsel, for injunctive relief, and to correct the record. He also objects to the record and moves to file a supplemental brief. These motions are denied. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
### Office *>£$%*& Canadian 

# destransports 9&S||lp? Transportation du Canada C^^iFf Agency

December 1,2011 M4820-U5-19
BY FACSIMILE
Mr. Paul Gretch Director Office ofInternational Aviation U.S. DepartmentofTransportation X40, suite 6402 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Gretch Reference: OST 2006-24269 This letterconfirms that the Canadian Transportation Agency considers applications by US air carriers for approval to operate charters to and from Canada, including charters between Canada and third countries, in accordance withthe provisions ofthe AirTransportAgreement Between Canada and the United States ofAmerica, signed March 12, 2007 and, as established in the Agreement for those charters not specified in the Annex to that Agreement, on the basis of comity and reciprocity. f Yours sincerely 

## /UVJ/» Catherine MacDonald Manager International Agreements

cc Robert Ready, ANA Marc Rioux, ACEA. Brian Hedberg, US DoT Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0N9 Ottawa Ontario K1A 0N9 www.otc.gc.ca www.cta.gc.ca 

# Canada
Abatement Order filed July 26 , 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00838

- CV

____________ MATTHEW KENDALL AND KENDALL ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC , Appellant s
V.

TURN

- KEY SPECIALIST, INC. AND JAMES T. LEWELLE N, INDIVIDUALLY AND JOI NTLY AND SEVERALLY, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 72621



### ABATEMENT ORDER

Notice was filed on July 2, 2018, that appellee Turn

- Key Specialist, Inc. is in bankruptcy. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.1. According to the notice, on June 7, 2018
, Turn

Key Specialist, Inc. petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas under case number 18

- 33170 . A bankruptcy suspends the appeal from the date when the bankruptcypetition is filed until the appellate court reinstates the appeal in accordance with

federal law. Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal abated.
When a case has been suspended by a bankruptcy filing, a party may move the appellate court to reinstate the appeal if permitted by federal law or the bankruptcy court. Tex. R. App. P. 8.3. If the bankruptcy court has lifted or terminated the stay, a certi fied copy of the order must be attached to the motion. Id. A party filing a motion to reinstate shall specify what further action, if any, is required from this court when the appeal is reinstated. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a).
For administrative purposes only, and without surrendering jurisdiction, the appeal is abated and treated as a closed case until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Brown.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney Feury HAMMOND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4929.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 18, 2002.

Decided Aug. 22, 2002.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Corpening, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Rodney F. Hammond appeals his conviction and forty-one month sentence, after a jury trial, for breaking and entering into the Oak Island, North Carolina post office, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2115 (West Supp.2000), and theft of government property, specifically, cash and money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 641 (West 2000).

On appeal, Hammond argues that, under Fed.R.Evid. 403, the district court erred in admitting testimony from his state probation officer, notwithstanding the district court’s limiting instructions. We review the district court’s determination on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Powers,*59 F.3d 1460, 1469 (4th Cir.1995). Hammond’s claim is meritless. Fed.R.Evid. 403; *United States v. Hines,*943 F.2d 348, 353-54 (4th Cir.1991); *United States v. Silva, 745*F.2d 840, 844 (4th Cir.1984).

Accordingly, we affirm Hammond’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with *661oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0005700 23-FEB-2015 08:08 AM