alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit – A 

DJI PHANTOM 2 VISION+ TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

19HOP only utilizes safe and reliable UASs. DJI is an industry leader in small UAS 

production. DJI UASs are loaded with ground breaking software enabling the user to set 

parameters which will not allow flight into controlled airspace. Parameters can also be set

to limit flight to no higher than a predetermined and set altitude as well as limit flight to a 

predetermined and set distance. In addition, DJI software provides real-time altitude and 

location information to the PIC via the linked monitor (smart phone/tablet devices)

1.1 DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ 

1.1.1 Aircraft 

1.1.1.1 Supported Battery – DJI 5200mAH LiPo Battery 

1.1.1.2 Weight (Battery & Propellers Included) – 2lbs 11.810oz (1242g) 

1.1.1.3 Hover Accuracy (Ready to Fly) – Vertical: .8m; Horizontal: 2.5m

1.1.1.4 Max Yaw Angular Velocity - 2000/s

1.1.1.5 Max Tilt Angel - 350

1.1.1.6 Max Ascent Speed – 6m/s

1.1.1.7 Max Descent Speed – 2m/s

1.1.1.8 Max Flight Speed – 15m/s (NOT RECOMMENDED)

1.1.2 Gimbal 

1.1.2.1 Working Current – Static: 750mA; Dynamic: 900mA

1.1.2.2 Control Accuracy - ±0.030

1.1.2.3 Controllable Range – Pitch: -900 - 00

1.1.2.4 Maximum Angular Speed – Pitch: 900/s

1.1.3 Camera 

1.1.3.1 Operating Temperature Range - 320F - 1040F (00C - 400C)

1.1.3.2 Sensor Size – 1/2.3” 

1.1.3.3 Effective Pixels – 14M 

1.1.3.4 Resolution – 4384x3288 

4.1.3.5 HD Video Recording – 1080p30 & 720p 

4.1.3.6 Recording Field of View - 1100/850

1.1.4 Transmitter 

1.1.4.1 Operating Frequency – 5.728GHz – 5.85GHz 

1.1.4.2 Communication Distance (unobstructed) – FCC Compliance: 800m 

1.1.4.3 Receiver Sensitivity (1%PER) - -93dBm 

1.1.4.4 Transmitter Power – FCC Compliance: 100mW 

1.1.4.5 Working Voltage – 120mA@3.7V 

1.1.5 Range Extender 

1.1.5.1 Operating Frequency – 2412-2462MHz 

36
1.1.5.2 Communication Distance (unobstructed) – 500-700m 

1.1.5.3 Transmitter Power – 20dBm 

1.1.5.4 Power Consumption – 2W 

37
#### Talmadge MURPHY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27406.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 9, 1955.

Reynold M. Gardner, Amarillo, for appellant.

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

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for felony theft with one prior conviction for felony theft alleged for the purpose of enhancement; the punishment, ten years in the penitentiary.

O. A. Knight, a son of T. A. Knight, testified that he returned home about 11:30 P.M. on June 18, 1954, noticed that his father’s Buick automobile was gone, and shortly thereafter he saw it being driven from a lot near appellant’s apartment; that he followed the Buick for several blocks and that appellant was driving when it stopped; that appellant’s wife and children were in the rear seat and a man in the front seat with him; that he told appellant that the Buick belonged to his father and was stolen to which appellant replied “Well, let’s take it back where we got it,” and that he told appellant that it was a matter for the police and to go to the police station.' He further testified that appellant drove the Buick away and, after going a short distance, ran almost head-on into an automobile driven by Mrs. Artie Norris approaching from the opposite direction.

It was shown by T. A. Knight, the owner, that he did not give appellant or any other person permission to take the Buick.

The alleged prior conviction was properly shown.

Appellant did not testify but offered his wife and another witness who testified that appellant was at home at the time the Buick was stolen; that Charley Miller came to appellant’s residence with the Buick, stated that it belonged to his brother, and offered to take them to Oklahoma if they would pay for the gasoline and oil to which they agreed; and that they were on the way to Oklahoma when O. A. Knight stopped them.

Mrs. Murphy, appellant’s wife, testified that immediately after the collision Charley Miller stated that the Buick was stolen which was the first information she had about it being stolen, and that they all ran from the scene of the collision.

Appellant urges that the evidence is insufficient to show that the automobile was of over the value of $50.

T. A. Knight, the owner, testified that he had been driving automobiles for 35 or 40 years and that he thought he knew their *105market value. He further stated that this automobile, on the aution block, would bring $100 and was worth more. This testimony was sufficient to show that the automobile was of the value of more than fifty dollars.

Complaint is made of Mrs. Norris being permitted to testify that her automobile was damaged in the collision.

It was shown without objection that the collision occurred and that Mrs. Norris and a boy in her automobile received some injuries. We hold that no reversible error is shown.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and, no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 5, 2017

a1212 

# Order

Clerk January 5, 2017

154088

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154088

COA: 331913

Wayne CC: 13

- 008583

- FC

ALFRED DELANO CAMPBELL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2016 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, becau se the defendant has failed to

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 23



                   GLEIBERMAN SPEARS SHEPHERD & MENAKER, P.A.

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-70511 and No. 333-70513) of McRae Industries,
Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated October 20 2000 on the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of McRae Industries, Inc.
and subsidiaries included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
July 29, 2000.



/s/Gleiberman Spears Shepherd & Menaker, P. A.

Charlotte, North Carolina
October 20, 2000



                                                                              44
Exhibit 31.1



Certification
of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

and Securities and
Exchange Commission Release 34-46427



I, John P. Yeros,
certify that:



1.        I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of EVO Transportation & Energy Services, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2017; and



2.        Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report.



|Date:
    April 30, 2018 | /s/John P. Yeros                                             
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                         | John P.
        Yeros
        Chief Executive
        Officer
#### Cecil DAVIS et ux., Appellants, v. George PERKINS et al., Appellees.

No. 13279.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 22, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1958.

*892Leo Darley, Uvalde, for appellants.

Crawford & Crawford, Crystal City, for appellees.

POPE, Justice.

Plaintiffs, the administrator and heirs of the David A. Perkins Estate, sued Cecil Davis and his wife for the possession of 6,000 acres of land located in Uvalde County. After a trial before the court, plaintiffs obtained judgment for possession, and also for the sum of $3,266.66 as rent for defendants’ use of the land from January 1, 1957, to July 17, 1957, the date of the judgment. Defendants appeal on the point that they had an oral lease for the ranch for the year of 1957, and they also had a cross-action for damages, but none were proved.

Defendants claimed that they made an oral agreement to lease the Perkins Ranch for the year 1957, and that the lease was made with David A. Perkins, who was the agent for and one of the owners of the Perkins Estate. During his lifetime, he was the agent and made the leases each year for the ranch. He died during December, 1956. To prove that he had an oral lease for the ranch, defendant Cecil Davis undertook to testify about a conversation he had with David A. Perkins, deceased, and plaintiffs invoked the Dead Man Statute, Art. 3716, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. The court excluded the evidence. On the bill, Davis testified that he and Dave Perkins agreed in July of 1956 that Davis would have the land for 1957. This evidence was properly excluded. Pennybacker v. Hazlewood, 26 Tex.Civ.App. 183, 61 S.W. 153; accord, Parks v. Caudle, 58 Tex. 216, 221.

Defendant Cecil Davis, to avoid the exclusion of his proof about his oral agreement with decedent, then offered a letter from Mrs. Mary I. Perkins, one of the Perkins’ heirs who lived in California. Davis received the letter after the death of David Perkins. The court admitted the letter over the objection that it was hearsay and also violated the Dead Man Statute. However, the court did not regard the evidence as sufficient proof of a lease agreement. Only three sentences in the letter relate to any lease. The first two are: “Dave informed me that the ranch was leased for 1957. I was very happy it was leased.” The other is: “Am I right in presuming you are staying on at ranch for 1957?” These three sentences are the sole proof of any agreement for a lease. The first two state no terms and do not even mention the name of the lessee. The second does not make the statement that Davis is the lessee, but asks if he is to be the lessee. If admissible in evidence, the letter is not proof of an agreement.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit99.2**

 

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 thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Genaissance Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,Joseph Keyes, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
|                           | /s/ Joseph  Keyes        |   |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
| Dated: November  14, 2002 | Joseph Keyes             |
|                           | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 12-1

                  PECO ENERGY COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                   SEC METHOD
                                     ($000)

                                                                 6 MONTHS
                                                                   ENDED
                                                                 06/30/98
                                                                 --------

NET INCOME                                                       $265,067

ADD BACK:

- INCOME TAXES:
     OPERATING INCOME                                             178,973
     NON-OPERATING INCOME                                         (15,843)
                                                                  -------
  NET TAXES                                                       163,130

- FIXED CHARGES:
     INTEREST APPLICABLE TO DEBT                                  169,066
     ANNUAL RENTALS                                                 4,455
                                                                  -------
     TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                                          173,521

ADJUSTED EARNINGS INCLUDING AFUDC                                $601,718
                                                                 ========
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                   3.47
                                                                     ====
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

          - [Docket No. 24-05]

Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the “Commission”) by Impact Products, LLC and Safety Zone, LLC (the “Complainants”) against Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A. (the “Respondent”). Complainants state that the Commission has jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41301 through 41309 and personal jurisdiction over the Respondent as an ocean common carrier, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(18), that has entered into a service contract, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(21), with the Complainants.

Complainant Impact Products, LLC is a corporation located in Toledo, Ohio. Complainant Safety Zone, LLC is a corporation located in Guilford, Connecticut. Complainants are shippers as this term is defined under 46 U.S.C. 40102(23).

Complainants identify Respondent as a company existing under the laws of Switzerland with its headquarters located in Geneva, Switzerland and as a global ocean carrier.

Complainants allege that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) and 41104(a)(10) and 46 CFR 545.5. Complainants allege these violations arose from assessment of demurrage, detention, per diem, and yard storage charges during periods of time in which the charges were not just or reasonable because of circumstances outside the control of the Complainants and its agents and service providers, and from the acts or omissions of the Respondent that led to the assessment of these charges.

An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 25 days after the date of service.

                    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at                     *https://www2.fmc.gov/​readingroom/​proceeding/​24-05/​.*                     This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding judge shall be issued by February 14, 2025, and the final decision of the Commission shall be issued by August 29, 2025.                

David Eng,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-03508 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
S 10-100428-048



### VlllACiEOF ROSEMONT April 19,2010 The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590 DocketDOTMOST 201**O~** Dear Secretary LaHood: Thank you forthe opportunity to express our support for the application for antitrust immunity and proposedjoint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The proposed alJiance betweenthese two airlines is vital for the oneworld Alliance to compete effectively with the Star and Sky

### Team Alliances. This increased alliance competition wiH, in turn, enhance the benefits ofthe Department ofTransportation's Open Skies policy

- first by solidifYing U.S.MJapan Open Skies, then by serving as a foundation for further liberalization across Asia. After'athorough review, we encourage the Department ofTransportation to 'd:ppro'\feltiis'application as itwould enable these oneworld Alliance airlines to work closely together to deliverhighly competitive air transportation services. Approval for AAIJAL Alliance will have apositive impacton air travel by offering customer<:; more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from the competition afforded by three competitive air alliances. We respectfully urge you to quicklJ' apprO'\le tillS application. Thankyou for your consideration ofthis request.

" 

### .

' " .,' 

### .... , 

# . ,



# . • Of I '., .;**~** • .: , ># 1 > .:, ' '

... !**~.** .. . .

t \,

..

, . 9501 West Devon Avenue Rosemont. 11111'lO1$ 60018

Pnone 847 825-4404

Fax 647 696-2717
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,347
<SECURITIES>                                    21,912
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,332
<PP&E>                                          19,633
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,473
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,361
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        99,603
<OTHER-SE>                                    (75,446)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,790
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,812
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,474
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,603)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.66)


</TABLE>
#### Alice DEAN et al., Appellants, v. G. H. KINDRED et al., Appellees.

No. 13013.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 9, 1956.

Edgar P. Haney, Dallas, for appellants.

O. Kennedy, Beeville, for appellees.

W. O. MURRAY, Justice.

This is an appeal by Alice Dean and others from a judgment of the District Court of Bee County dismissing her attempted appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Bee County to the district court of that county approving . the final account of G. H. Kindred as-guardian of the estate of James A. Risenhoover, a person ' of unsound mind.

The judgment of the County Court was rendered on September 26, 1953, but the transcript from the County Court was not filed in the District Court until April 1, 1955, some eighteen months after the rendition of the judgment of the County Court. Appellants lost their right to appeal from the County Court to the District Court by failing to file the record within the thirty-day period required by Rule 330(a), T.R.C.P., which applies in Bee County. The District Court was prohibited, by the provisions of Rule -5, T.R.C.P., from enlarging the time for the filing of the record in that court and therefore properly dismissed the attempted appeal. Callahan v. Stover, Tex.Civ.App., 263 S.W.2d 630; Richards v. National Bank of Commerce, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.2d 761.

"The judgment is 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 Report of Kodiak Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William S. Tighe, 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.





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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated:  November 22, 2010
By:
/s/ William S. TigheWilliam S. TigheChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)