alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Tuesday,	June	30,	2015	at	9:43:40	PM	Central	Daylight	Time

Page	1	of	2 Subject: Re:	Request	for	Addi/oanl	Informa/on	-	SkyCam	Media	(Docket	No.	FAA-2015-1240) Date: Tuesday,	June	30,	2015	at	9:39:03	PM	Central	Daylight	Time From: Joe	Doran To: Jake.Troutman@faa.gov,	333exemp/ons@faa.gov CC: rob.pappas@faa.gov
Dear	Jake, Thank	you	for	returning	my	phone	call	today.	I	am	submiTng	out	MPTOP,	and	our	list	of	AircraVs	and	specs. Please	treat	the	following	documents	as	confiden/al	to	SkyCam	Media.	We	will	make	note	of	this	email	in	our docket	for	the	record. Thank	You Joe	Doran

Joe	Doran Owner SkyCamMedia.com 512	368	4102

From: " Jake.Troutman@faa.gov "	< Jake.Troutman@faa.gov > Date: Tuesday,	June	23,	2015	at	11:12	AM To: Joe	Doran	< joe@skycammedia.com > Cc: " rob.pappas@faa.gov "	< rob.pappas@faa.gov > Subject: Request	for	Addi/oanl	Informa/on	-	SkyCam	Media

Dear	Mr.	Doran:
This	leaer	is	to	inform	you	that	the	following	informa/on	is	missing	from	your	pe//on	(Docket	No.	FAA2015-1240).		This	informa/on	is	necessary	for	the	Federal	Avia/on	Administra/on	(FAA)	to	process	your pe//on.

*	Describe	the	aircraV	make(s),	model(s),	and	type(s)(i.e.	-	fixed-wing,rotorcraV,	lighter-than-air)	for	the proposed	UAS	opera/on.		The	descrip/on(s)	should	include	the	maximum	weight	(including	payload).		This informa/on	can	be	located in	the	aircraV	manual(s).
*	Provide	a	copy	of	the	Mo/on	Picture	and	Television	Opera/ons	Manual	(MPTOM)	which	is	required	byPage	2	of	2 Order	8900.1,	Volume	3,	Chapter	8,	Sec/on	1.		If	you	wish	for	us	to	proceed	without	this	manual	and remove	closed-set	filming	from	your proposed	opera/on	please	inform	of	us	of	your	inten/on	by	the requested	response	date	listed	below.

Please	submit	the	addi/onal	informa/on	(non-proprietary)	to	your	docket	at	www.regula/ons.gov	and submit	any	proprietary	informa/on	to	the	FAA	Headquarters	or	electronically	via	e-mail	to 333exemp/ons@faa.gov .		If	you	want	us	to	process	your	request	any	further,	we	must	receive	the informa/on	described	above	by	7/8/2015.		If	we	do	not	receive	the	informa/on,	we	will	close	the	docket without	no/fying you	further.
If	you	have	any	ques/ons,	please	feel	free	to	contact	me	at	(202)	267-9521.
Sincerely,

Jake	J	Troutman Program	Analyst	|	Rulemaking FAA	Office	of	Avia/on	Safety Airmen	and	Airspace	Rules	Division 202-267-9521
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jearld Faber, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On the record before us, defendant has not sustained his burden of demonstrating "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for defense counsel’s failure to request a suppression hearing *(People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709). Consequently, we cannot conclude that defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Rivera, supra).*Defendant’s claim that his attorney promised him that he would be sentenced to probation is belied by the record. During the plea colloquy, defendant stated on the record that he understood that, as a condition of the plea, he would be sentenced to an indeterminate term of 1 to 3 years. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, McLaughlin, J.—attempted criminal possession of controlled substance, fourth degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
|                                                                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                                
|                                                                                                             
|No chart available.                                                                                          
|No chart available.                                                                                          
|                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                             
|Texas - RRC District 5 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2009

s1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

139411

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139411 COA: 280256 Wayne CC: 06-005613-FC EARL MCKINLEY CHADWICK, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 16, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4642 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Mesamoll. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. ALTMIRE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on Mesamoll. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MESAMOLL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.38.14 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Mesamoll) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘Free’’ and inserting ‘‘1.8%’’ in 

8 the general rate of duty column; and 

9 (2) by striking the date in the effective period 

10 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 subsection (a) apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4642 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32****Certification****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002****(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of DiscoveryHolding Company, a Delaware corporation (the **Company**), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that:     The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2007 (the **Form 10-K/A**) ofthe Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of December 31, 2007and 2006 and for the three years ended December 31, 2007.        Dated: April 29, 2008 /s/ John C. Malone   John C. Malone   Chief Executive Officer      Dated: April 29, 2008 /s/ David J.A. Flowers   David J.A. Flowers   Senior Vice President and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)      Dated: April 29, 2008 /s/ Christopher W. Shean   Christopher W. Shean   Senior Vice President and Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, UnitedStates Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K/A or as a separate disclosuredocument.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3(c)

                                                         STATE OF DELAWARE
                                                       SECRETARY OF STATE
                                                    DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
                                                     FILED 09:00 AM 05/23/1997
                                                        971170721 - 2008678

                               CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                          OF
                             CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                          OF
                           PERSONAL COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.


    The undersigned corporation, in order to amend its Certificate of
Incorporation, hereby certifies as follows:


    FIRST:    The name of the corporation is:

                           PERSONAL COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.


    SECOND:    The corporation hereby amends its Certificate of Incorporation
as follows:

    Paragraph FIRST of the Certificate of Incorporation, relating to the
corporate title of the corporation, is hereby amended to read as follows:


         "FIRST:  The name of the corporation is:

                          IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION"


    THIRD:  The amendment effected herein was authorized by the consent in
writing, setting forth the action so taken, unanimously signed by the holders of
all the outstanding shares entitled to vote thereon pursuant to Sections 228 and
242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto sign my name and affirm that the statements
made herein are true under the penalties of perjury, this 23rd date of May,
1997.

                                  PERSONAL COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC


                                  /s/EDWARD SAVERESE
                                     -------------------
                                     Edward Saverese, President


                                          37
|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                   
|                                                                                
|Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                
|                                                                                
|Alabama Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 17     | 17     | 0      | 6     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6235

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHNNY AVERY TODD, a/k/a Pee Dog,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-91-107)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Avery Todd, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

habeas motion, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110

Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Todd, No. CR-91-

107 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 25, 1996). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### ROSE v. ROSE et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 2, 1951.

Moss Noble, Jackson, for appellant.

Leeburn Allen, *Campton,*for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

The Chancellor enjoined appellant from interfering with appellees in burying their dead, conducting memorial services, and maintaining a graveyard located on property owned by him. Appellant has failed to file a bill of exceptions with the record on appeal, and consequently we cannot consider the transcript of evidence, which was not certified by the lower Court.

The petition alleges that appellees are brothers of appellant. Prior to his death, their father conveyed a tract of land to appellant. Included in the boundary was a graveyard of about one acre.

The petition alleges appellant knew of this graveyard; knew that it was being used for the 'burying of dead; and that the father and mother of the parties, with many friends and relatives, are buried there.

It was further alleged that appellant, within the last five years, has prohibited and prevented appellees from entering the graveyard for any purpose.

We think the petition alleges sufficient facts to show the graveyard had been dedicated for family use, and that appellant had full knowledge of its dedication when he acquired the property. The pleadings were sufficient to support a finding by the Chancellor that appellees had a right to use this graveyard for its proper purpose, and that appellees were entitled to the relief granted.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4533 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on yarn of carded camel hair. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Mr. COURTNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on yarn of carded 

camel hair. 

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

3 SECTION 1. YARN OF CARDED CAMEL HAIR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.86 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 yarn of carded camel hair) is amended by striking the date 

7 in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4533 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

KS/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS RUIZ NICOLAS; OLIVIA PEREZ

MONTEAGUDO,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-75125

Agency Nos. A079-521-902

 A079-521-903

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Jesus Ruiz Nicolas and Olivia Perez Monteagudo, husband and wife and

natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration

FILED

FEB 24 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KS/Research 2 06-75125

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal and

denying their motion to continue. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue and de novo

claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v.

Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not violate due process by denying petitioners’ motion to

continue because petitioners did not establish good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29

(an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown); see Lata v. INS,

204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation). 

We lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to

evaluate their hardship evidence in the aggregate, because it does not amount to a

colorable constitutional claim. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980

(9th Cir. 2009).

We also lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s February 

21, 2008, order because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 

Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 447 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 447

     To amend the Small Business Act to improve the Small Business 
          Innovation Research Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 2011

  Ms. Hirono introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Small Business, and in addition to the Committee on 
    Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Small Business Act to improve the Small Business 
          Innovation Research Program, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Innovation Research 
Enhancement Act of 2011'' or the ``SBIR Enhancement Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRED EXPENDITURE AMOUNTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 9(f)(1)(C) of the Small Business Act (15 
U.S.C. 638(f)(1)(C)) is amended by striking ``2.5 percent'' and 
inserting ``5 percent''.
    (b) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to the first full fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of 
this Act and to each fiscal year thereafter.

SEC. 3. FURTHER ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS TO POLICY DIRECTIVES.

    Section 9(j) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(j)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Further additional modifications.--Not later than 90 
        days after the date of enactment of this paragraph, and 
        notwithstanding paragraph (2)(D), the Administrator shall 
        modify the policy directives issued pursuant to this subsection 
        to provide for an increase to $200,000 in the amount of funds 
        which an agency may award in the first phase of an SBIR 
        program, and to $1,500,000 in the second phase of an SBIR 
        program, and an adjustment of such amounts once every 5 years 
        to reflect economic adjustments and programmatic 
        considerations.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Julius P. McCann et al., Appellants, v Mary F. Abdelmessih et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Kane, J. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kane, J .--summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.