alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dear Administrator,

Hullco, Inc. (dba ChattaMedia), a professional video production company, hereby applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) to allow ChattaMedia to operate a small Unmanned Aircraft System (“sUAS”) under the conditions and limitations set forth in this Petition. The requested exemption would permit the operation of small, unmanned and relatively inexpensive sUAS under controlled conditions in airspace that is limited and predetermined. Approval of this exemption would thereby enhance safety and fulfill the FAA Administrator’s responsibilities to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.” Section 333(c) of the Reform Act. The name and a ddress of the applicant is: Hullco, Inc. (dba ChattaMedia) Attn: Matt Hullander Telephone: (423) 899

-2400 Email: matthullander@callhullco.com Address: 7110 East Brainerd Rd. Regulations from which the exe mption is requested:
14 CFR Part 21 , 14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b) , 14 CFR § 61.3 , 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 § 91.205(b) , 14 CFR § 91.215, 14 CFR § 91.405 (a) , 14 CFR § 407 (a) (1) , 14 CFR § 409 (a) (2) , 14 CFR § 417 (a) & (b) Hullco, Inc. (dba ChattaMedia) has bought a DJI Phantom 3 with a built

- in camera and have flown it for total of 30 hours over remote areas of the Chattanooga for recreational purposes, exploring the potential and limitations of its video capturing abilities

. Now, Hullco, Inc. (dba ChattaMedia) would like to use the DJI Phantom 3 for commercial video production use such as TV Commercials, Real

- E state videos, and film making. We will be fly a DJI Phantom 3 equipp ed with a three

-axis gimbal and 4K video camera. This quadcopter has built in capability to limit the height it flies above the ground, to limit the radius of the distance it flies from the operator, and to exclude it from class B, C, 5 and D airspace. The DJI Phantom 3 also has the built

- in capabili ty to return to the launching point if the wireless control link is interrupted or if the operator attempts to exceed any of the height, rad ius, or airspace limitations programmed into it. The DJI Phantom 3 weighs about five pounds empty and has a maximum gross weight of approximately ten pounds. It has a top speed of about 30 knots. It is powered by a lithium polymer battery.
We will progra m the DJI Phantom 3 so that it will not fly above 200 feet above ground level, or more than 1500 feet away from the pilot in command . We will carefully preflight the vehicle before each video shoot to assure that its comp ass and GPS system are properly calibrated and that the return

-to

home feature, altitude, and radius limitations work.
#### Lindsey SCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28177.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 4, 1956.

*797No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area with a prior conviction for a like offense alleged for enhancement; the punishment, six months in jail and a fine of $600.

No statement of facts on the main trial accompanies the record.

In appellant’s motion for a new trial it was alleged that while the jury was deliberating several of the jurors remarked that appellant was a professional -bootlegger and that he made his living that way. It was further alleged that one of the jurors remarked that a hung jury would cost the county a lot of money.

The affidavit of one juror was attached to appellant’s motion, and it, supports the allegations in said motion. .. Said affidavit was introduced on the hearing.

The state controverted the allegations 'in appellant’s motion and attached thereto the affidavits of ten of the jurors.

The affidavits of four jurors recited that no juror in the jury room stated that the appellant was a bootlegger; three of the jurors’ affidavits stated that nothing was' said in the jury room about the costs of a hung jury to the county; and the affidavits of three other jurors recited that they didn’t hear any statement in the jury room that appellant was a bootlegger or hear any remarks about the costs of a hung jury to the county.

The allegations in appellant’s motion for new trial which the state controverted and the’'supporting affidavits .made an' issue of fact. The trial, court, resolved such issue of fact against the appellant, and we find no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for a new trial.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### Lela S. CHRISTOPHER, Appellant, v. Roxie Hinton BROWNING et vir, Appellees.

No. 6939.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

Jan. 24, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1957.

*607Ernest May, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Lewis & Chandler, Jackonsville, for ap-pellee.

DAVIS, Justice.

Claude Brown died intestate in Tarrant County, Texas, on June 16, 1954. A temporary administration was taken out upon his estate which was closed on July 16, 1954, and all the proceeds and assets of the estate were delivered to Roxie Hinton Browning, his sole surviving heir. On August 17, 1954, Lela S. Christopher filed suit against Roxie Hinton Browning, joined by her husband, John T. Browning, in the County Court at Law of Tarrant County, Texas, for an alleged indebtedness of $333. Judgment was rendered on October 4, 1954, by the County Court at Law in favor of Lela S. Christopher for the sum of $333 against Roxie Hinton Browning as the sole heir of Claude Brown, deceased. An abstract of judgment was filed in the office of the County Clerk of Cherokee County, Texas, on October 20, 1954.

On August 11, 1955, Lela S. Christopher filed a petition in the District Court of Cherokee County, Texas, against the said Roxie Hinton Browning et vir, and alleged that the judgment of the County Court at Law of Tarrant County has not been paid and that:

> “Property of the decedent coming into possession of the defendant Roxie Hinton Browning by her inheritance included 47.8 acres of the W. S. Herndon survey in Cherokee County, Texas, and the proceeds of a bank deposit of more than $1,000.00. The defendant has refused to account to plaintiff for the personal property so received by her, or its proceeds. She and her husband reside upon the aforesaid land and claim a homestead exemption. But the homestead right is inferior to plaintiff’s statutory lien.”

She prayed:

> “Plaintiff prays that her lien be foreclosed; that she have discovery of the personal property of Claude Brown inherited by Roxie Hinton Browning, and accounting of its proceeds; for costs; and for general relief.”

In response to service of citation, appel-lees filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court alleging that the amount involved in the suit was within the exclusive jurisdiction' of the County Court.

Trial was to the court, without the intervention of a jury, and the court having-carried the plea to the jurisdiction along to the conclusion of the trial, then sustained the same and dismissed the suit, hence the appeal.

Appellant brings forward five points of error, the substance of which complains of the action of the court below in dismissing her suit for want of jurisdiction.

We are met at the very outset with the decision of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Jackson v. Hubert, 149 Tex. 451, 234 S.W.2d 414, which is controlling here. Under the holding of the Supreme Court in this case, if a suit is necessary, under the state of facts above outlined, to establish and foreclose a lien, the jurisdiction of such suit would be in the County Court. The points of error are overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As  independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the  inc
orporation of our report dated February 7, 1997 included in  this
Form  10-K,  into  the  company's previously  filed  Registration
Statements on Form S-3 No. 33-60893, and Form S-8 Nos. 2-89096, 2-
89094, 33-17499, 33-28640, 33-24847, 33-36030, 33-47492, 33-56163
and 33-59441.





/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

San Francisco, California
March 4, 1997
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



PACIFIC MERCANTILE BANCORP



Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for the Quarter ended June 30, 2005



The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Mercantile Bancorp (the Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable
requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 8, 2005 |  |  |  | /S/ RAYMOND E. DELLERBA                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|                     |  |  |  | Raymond E. Dellerba, President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                 
|                     |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | 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.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03413]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:

    Name and Committee Code: Proposal Review Panel for Materials 
Research--Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) 
Site Visit University of California, Irvine (DMR) (#1203).
    Date and Time: April 22, 2024; 7:30 a.m.-6:45 p.m.; April 23, 2024; 
8:00 a.m.-3:45 p.m.
    Place: University of California, Irvine, 3008 CalIT2, Building 325, 
Irvine, CA 92697.
    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Cosima Boswell-Koller, Program Director, 
National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 
22314; Telephone: 703-292-4959.
    Purpose of Meeting: NSF site visit to conduct a review during year 
4 of the award period as stipulated in the cooperative agreement.
    Agenda: To conduct an in depth evaluation of performance, to assess 
progress towards goals, and to provide recommendations.

Monday, April 22, 2024

7:30 a.m.-12:05 p.m.--Executive Sessions (Closed)
12:05 p.m.-1:00 p.m.--Lunch (Open)
1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.--Executive Sessions (Closed)
2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.--Facilities Overview and Lab Tour (Closed)
3:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m.--Poster Session (Open)
5:00 p.m.-6:45 p.m.--Executive Sessions (Closed)

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

8:00 a.m.-3:45 p.m.--Executive Sessions (Closed)

    Reason for Closing: The program being reviewed during the site 
visit will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, 
including technical information; financial data, such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
program. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) 
of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 14, 2024.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-03413 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-1747

 

ELKAY MINING COMPANY, a West Virginia

Corporation,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ATEL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a foreign

corporation; ATEL CASH DISTRIBUTION FUND V,

L.P., a limited partnership,

Defendants - Appellants.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-99-1144-2)

 

Submitted: June 3, 2003 Decided: June 18, 2003

 

Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit

Judges.

 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

 

David Marvin Wiseblood, BERG & PARKER L.L.P., San Francisco,

California, for Appellants. Richard J. Bolen, HUDDLESTON, BOLEN,

BEATTY, PORTER & COPEN, L.L.P., Huntington, West Virginia, for

Appellee. 
2

 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c). 

PER CURIAM:

Appellant ATEL Financial Corporation (“ATEL”) appeals the

district court’s resolution of cross-motions for summary judgment

in favor of Appellee Elkay Mining Company (“Elkay”) on Elkay’s

declaratory judgment claim that it did not owe any “termination

value” to ATEL on an expired lease for mining equipment. We have

reviewed the record below, the opinion of the district court, and

the briefs of the parties. Because we conclude that the district

court properly resolved the legal questions presented on summary

judgment, we affirm the judgment of that court on the reasoning of

its well-written opinion.

AFFIRMED
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 Soyo Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Ming
Tung Chok,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company  certifies,  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.


 /s/ Ming Tung Chok
-----------------------
Ming Tung Chok
Chief Executive Officer
April 20, 2007
# Multirotor sUAS Check List

Chameleon Revision date: 7/15/15Preflight

 Clear and set T/O and landing mat

 Multirotor check

 Arm bolts

 Motor bolts

 Props hand tight

 Video wires

 Video transmitter

 Video antenna

 Data radio antenna

 Camera wires

 5100 mah battery

(Check voltage over 12V)

 Aircraft transmitter set

 Mode switch manual

 Throttle idle

 Switches off

 Ch 7 Off

 Camera transmitter set

 Camera tilt down Site preflight Inspection

 Locate landing and take off points

 Locate forced landing points

 Define path of inspection flight

 Define hold points

 Define when pilot and VO will walk

to provide a better vantage point

 Pilot and VO are required to be in

agreement with the procedure and

path of flight 48

- 72 hrs NOTAM in place

24 hrs Charging and Testing

 Flight test aircraft and video system

 Operate in all modes and RTL

 Charge 5100mah batteries

 Charge video monitor

 Charge camera

 Turn on transmitters and replace

batteries if below 9.8 V stable SUAS ProceduresStart up and flight

 Aircraft transmitter on

 (Voltage over 9.8V stable)

 Camera transmitter on

 (Voltage over 9.8V stable)

 Camera on

 Connect 5100mah battery

 Place aircraft on flat surface

 Video monitor on

 (Video signal received)

 Aircraft self diagnostic (yellow light)

 Aircraft transmitter telemetry on

 (Signal strength good)

 (Aircraft battery over 12V)

 (Satellites acquiring)

 Aircraft transmitter

 Mode switch manual Green light

 Mode switch ALT Green light

 Mode switch LTR Green or blue light

 Aircraft transmitter set to manual

 Quadrotor safety switch activated (aircraft armed)

 Transmitter arm (Throttle lower right)

 Hover aircraft P, R, ALT control check in manual

 At 20 + ftLTR P, R, ALT control check back to manual

 LTR mode, fly aircraft to hold point and check drift

 Fly aircraft ready to switch in ALT or Manual modes

 (Warning GPS loss happens suddenly)

 (causing a fly away aircraft)

 Monitor voltage and signal strength

 Land aircraft at >10.8 volts Landing

 Fly aircraft to hold point and check

landing area

 20+ ft switch to ALT or manual

 Land aircraft on mat

 Hold throttle at idle for 20 seconds

 Slow move throttle to lower left to

disarm

 Props stop spinning select safety

switch on aircraft

 Disconnect 5100mah battery

 Camera off

 Transmitters off, Video

screen/receiver off

 Remove propellers and store
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit No. 15

November 5, 2001


Armstrong Holdings, Inc.
Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration Statement Nos. 333-74501;   33-91890; 33-18996; 33-29768; 33-
          18997; 33-65768; 333-74633; 333-79093; 333-43872.

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated November
5, 2001 related to our review of interim financial information of Armstrong
Holdings, Inc.

Our review report dated November 5, 2001, contains a paragraph that states three
of the Company's domestic subsidiaries, including Armstrong World Industries,
Inc., filed separate voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code on December 6, 2000 and Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. has also defaulted on certain debt obligations.  Our review
report also states that the filing under Chapter 11 and the resulting increased
uncertainty regarding the Company's potential asbestos liabilities raise
uncertainty about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.  The
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of these uncertainties.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


/s/  KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI:

PMN: 10-0476

Focus Ready Draft 8/16/2010

ENGINEER: Arnold \ CLM

PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

USE:

were found.

CRSS :Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (08/10/2010):

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P3B1T1

Health: 1-2 Inhalation

Eco: 1 No releases to Water

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3B

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

P2 Claim:EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI:

PMN: 10-0476INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI:

PMN: 10-0476CBI:

MEMORANDUM of CBI TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

CALL BY: Casey MacQueen

Organization: ERG for CEB

CALL TO:

Organization:

Date: 08/11/2010

Time: 1:30pm

Phone:

PMN: 10-0476

CBI: Yes

MEMORANDUM of CBI TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

CALL BY: Fredric C. Arnold

Organization: EPA

CALL TO:

Organization:

Date: 08/11/2010

Time: 4:30 pm

Phone:PMN: 10-0476
#### Abbie Raymond WELDON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 38760.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1965.

On Motion to Re-Instate Appeal Jan. 12, 1966.

*860Louis Dugas, Jr., Orange, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $50.

The caption found in the transcript fails to show the date of adjournment of the trial court.

For such reason, the appeal must he dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Holder v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 81, 18 S.W.2d 661; Thompson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 236 S.W.2d 619.

The appeal is dismissed.

Appellant is granted fifteen days from this date to perfect the record.

OPINION ON MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL

McDONALD, Presiding Judge.

By supplemental transcript, the defect in the caption has been corrected, and the record is properly before this Court for review. The appeal is re-instated.

The evidence, as revealed in the narrative statement of facts, consists of testimony by three police officers and by appellant. One police officer testified that his attention was attracted when he noticed a step-van truck make an improper turn, and by the fact that he observed no license plate on this truck. While following the vehicle he noticed that it was driven erratically. The officer then stopped the truck and identified its driver, but the statement of facts does not reveal who the driver was, or that appellant was in the vehicle.

It is uncontradicted that appellant had been drinking beer, and his conduct and demeanor tended to show that he was intoxicated when arrested near the truck. There is no evidence showing that appellant was driving a motor vehicle, however, and the evidence is therefore insufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction for driving while intoxicated. Article 802, Vernon’s Ann. P.C.; Brewster v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 177, 226 S.W.2d 124; Snider v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 59, 165 S.W.2d 904.

The judgment is reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 561 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 561

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
    coastwise trade for the vessel ISABELLE, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 1995

  Mr. Chafee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
    coastwise trade for the vessel ISABELLE, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. VESSEL DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, 
chapter 421; 46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46, United 
States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
coastwise trade for the vessel ISABELLE, United States official number 
600655.

                                 <all>
```