alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jan 18th 2017

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Amendment to Exemption 11426 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform

Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket NO. FAA-2015-

0173

Dear Sir or Madam:

Alaska Aerial Media LLC. was issued an Exemption numbered 11426 (hereinafter the

Exemption) for the purpose of aerial cinematography and videography. Alaska Aerial Media

requests a extension to exemption 11426 for another 2 (two) years.

Alaska Aerial Media LLC, offers the following reasons why granting this petition for a extension

to exemption 11426 is in the public’s interest. Approval of this extension will continue to allow

adequate response time for our existing energy utilities customers for inspecting power outages or

obstruction anomalies after a wind or snow storm. For assisting existing search and rescue

customers in emergency operations in which manned assets are not available in rapid response

time frame. For existing news customers in reporting breaking stories and live traffic assessments

for public knowledge. The existing waiver process for part 107 does not allow for our existing

rapid response contracted services. This makes our ability to respond to our large service area

with existing COAs impossible. We believe it is in the best interest of our local community to

allow us permission to the requested above.

Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this request for

amendment to the Exemption

Sincerely,

Ryan P. Marlow

Alaska Aerial Media

7960 Upper OMalley Road

Anchorage Alaska 99507

Cell # (907)-717-9794
#### BENDER v. CITY OF ABILENE.

No. 2885.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

June 15, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1951.

George W. Overshiner, Abilene, for appellant.

Wilson Johnston, Abilene, for appellee.

COLLINGS, Justice.

This suit was brought on December 9, 1950, by appellant, Yvonne Bender, against The City of Abilene for alleged personal injuries resulting from negligence on the part of the City in failing to keep a proper lid or cover in place on a water meter box. On January 23, 1951, the trial court, at the request of appellant’s attorney, entered an interlocutory default judgment in favor of Yvonne Bender and against the City of Abilene, which recited that the City, although duly served with process, failed to answer, but wholly made default.

On February 26, 1951, during an extension of the same term of court, the trial judge, without notice to appellant, entered an order vacating and setting aside such default judgment. The order recited that the court was of the opinion that justice would be better served by reinstating the cause and having a trial on the merits. Yvonne Bender has appealed from such order.

The order appealed from is not a final judgment. It did not dispose of the issues of the law suit, but merely set aside an interlocutory default judgment entered in appellant’s favor at an earlier date in the same *term.*Since the order was interlocutory and not a final judgment, no appeal lies therefrom to this court. Art. 2249, Vernon’s Revised Texas Civil Statutes; Lynn v. Hanna, 116 Tex. 652, 296 S.W. 280; Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass’n v. Lennox, Tex.Civ.App., 296 S.W. 325; Engler v. Hatton, Tex.Civ.App., 296 S.W. 328; Caldwell v. Halper & Baron, Tex.Civ.App., 298 S.W. 314; Clay Lumber Co. v. Patterson, Tex.Civ.App., 28 S.W.2d 825; Wise v. Lewis, Tex.Com.App., 23 S.W.2d 299; Hubbard v. Tallal, 127 Tex. 242, 92 S.W.2d 1022; Gann v. Hopkins, Judge, Tex.Civ.App., 119 S.W.2d 110; Barton v. Montex Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 295 S.W. 950; 3 Tex.Jur., 125.

For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3339 

To prohibit the use of funds by the Department of Education relating to 

multistate academic content standards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 24, 2013 

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds by the Department of Education 

relating to multistate academic content standards. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘One Size Does Not 

5 Fit All in Education Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN 

7 PURPOSES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—No funds appropriated or other9 wise available to the Department of Education may be 

10 used to— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3339 IH

1 (1) develop, implement, or evaluate any set of 

2 multistate academic content standards or any as3 sessments aligned with such standards; or 

4 (2) award any grant, contract, or cooperative 

5 agreement that requires or authorizes the develop6 ment, implementation, or evaluation of multistate 

7 academic content standards or assessments aligned 

8 with such standards. 

9 (b) APPLICATIONS.—The Secretary of Education 

10 may not require a State to adopt multistate academic con11 tent standards or assessments aligned with such standards 

12 as an eligibility requirement in an application for Federal 

13 funds. 

14 (c) WAIVER.—Section 9401 of the Elementary and 

15 Secondary Education Act (20 U.S.C. 7861) is amended 

16 by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

17 ‘‘(h) MULTISTATE STANDARDS.—The Secretary may 

18 not require a State to adopt multistate academic content 

19 standards or assessments aligned with such standards as 

20 a condition for receiving a waiver under this section.’’. 

21 (d) MULTISTATE ACADEMIC CONTENT STANDARD

22 DEFINED.—In this Act, the term ‘‘multistate academic 

23 content standard’’— 

24 (1) means an academic content standard adopt25 ed by more than one State; and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3339 IH

1 (2) includes the Common Core State Standards 

2 developed by the National Governors Association 

3 Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief 

4 State School Officers. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### THOMAS v. STATE.

No. 24035.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 5, 1948.

Archie S. McDonald, of Dumas, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Driving an automobile while intoxicated is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $50.

The conviction is predicated upon the count in the information charging that appellant, while intoxicated, drove and op erated an automobile upon U. S. Highway 287 in Moore County.

*827This allegation became descriptive of the offense charged and the State was required to establish, by proof, that averment. We have searched the statement of facts and nowhere do we find that the State met this burden.

Because of the failure to prove the descriptive averment, as alleged, the facts are insufficient to support the conviction. Spencer v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 42 S.W.2d 259; Malone v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 169, 117 S.W.2d 779; Walker v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 368, 125 S.W.2d 571; Mercer v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 196, 157 S.W.2d 919; Vaught v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 623, 171 S.W.2d 128.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 November 5, 2014

jam

Order 

Clerk

November 5, 2014

150237 (19)

RANDALL A. RAAR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 150237

COA: 321248

KINROSS CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY WARDEN, 

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $85.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$290.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil 

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
WINFIELD CAPITAL CORP.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                                                      EXHIBIT II


                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                          September 30,
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                    1996               1995
                                                  ---------           -------
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE

Weighted average number of
  shares outstanding ......................       5,023,361         3,183,361
                                                  ---------         ---------

Net loss ..................................        ($37,845)         ($47,638)
                                                  ---------         ---------

Net loss per share ........................        ($   .01)         ($   .01)
                                                  =========         =========



                                                         Six Months Ended
                                                          September 30,
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                    1996                1995
                                                  ---------            -------
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE

Weighted average number of
  shares outstanding ......................       5,023,361          2,470,005
                                                  ---------          ---------

Net loss ..................................        ($98,723)        $   49,948)
                                                  ---------         ----------

Net loss per share ........................        ($   .02)       ($      .02)
                                                  =========         ==========




                                      -13-
Exhibit 32.2

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Winfield
Capital Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Scot Perlin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


Dated:  August 12, 2004                   By: /s/ R. SCOT PERLIN
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              R. Scot Perlin
                                              Chief Financial Officer & Director


                  A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906, or other document authenticating, 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 the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                      -20-
EX-10.1
                      PROMISSORY NOTE

                      PROMISSORY NOTE

Principal Amount $10,000.00                        Date: July 12, 2002

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, RMD Technologies, Inc. hereby promise to
pay to the order of Steven J. Galliher the sum of Ten Thousand
Dollars, together with interest thereon at the rate of 1% per month on
the unpaid balance. Said sum shall be paid upon demand.

     This note shall at the option of any holder thereof be
immediately due and payable upon the occurrence of any of the
following:  1) Breach of any condition of any security interest,
mortgage, loan agreement, pledge agreement or guarantee granted as
collateral security for this note. 2) Breach of any condition of any
loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage, if any, having a
priority over any loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage on
collateral granted, in whole or in part, as collateral security for
this note. 3) Upon the death, incapacity, dissolution or liquidation
of any of the undersigned, or any endorser, guarantor to surety
hereto. 4) Upon the filing by any of the undersigned of an assignment
for the benefit of creditors, bankruptcy or other form of insolvency,
or by suffering an involuntary petition in bankruptcy or receivership
not vacated within thirty (30) days.

     In the event this note shall be in default and placed for
collection, then the undersigned agree to pay all reasonable attorney
fees and costs of collection. All payments hereunder shall be made to
such address as may from time to time be designated by any holder.

     The undersigned and all other parties to this note, whether as
endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain fully bound until
this note shall be fully paid and waive demand, presentment and
protest and all notices hereto and further agree to remain bound,
notwithstanding any extension, modification, waiver, or other
indulgence or discharge or release of any obligor hereunder or
exchange, substitution, or release of any collateral granted as
security for this note. No modification or indulgence by any holder
hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any indulgence on any
one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or future
occasion. Any modification or change in terms, hereunder granted by
any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the
undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgement of any of the
undersigned, and each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant
to each of the others a power of attorney to enter into any such
modification on their behalf. The rights of any holder hereof shall be
cumulative and not necessarily successive. This note shall take effect
as a sealed instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced
in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

RMD Technologies, Inc.


By: /s/  Pat Galliher
Pat Galliher, President
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MEAGEN LEEANN WILSEY
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 947

[ June 7, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Lawrence M. Mirman , Judge; L.T. Case No.

562020CF001285AXXXXX

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Christine C. Geraghty

, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy,

Assista nt Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Appellant appeals her conviction and sentence based upon the trial

court’s determination that she had violated probation. We affirm the conviction without further discussion, concluding th e issues which appellant raises are without merit.

As to the sentence, appellant sought a downward departure in her sentence based upon her claims of mental health issues. She contends that the court’s comments at sentencing evinced an impermissible policy against granting downward departures based upon mental illness. Our review of the record shows that the court did not announce any such policy, and that the court’s comments were directed to the specific facts of appellant’s case. Th us, we affirm her sentence.

We reverse, however, the imposition of costs in the sentence. The court imposed a $200 cost of prosecution without evidence from the State to support the cost

, nor an opportunity for appellant to object to the

enhanced cost. The State concedes that the cost of prosecution should2 have been $100 pursuant to section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2021),

because the State did not request a higher fee or provide proof of incurr ing higher costs. Bevans v. State , 291 So. 3d 591, 593

– 9 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Accordingly, the trial court erred in imposing the $200 in cost of prosecution . On remand, the trial court should reduce the cost to the statutory minimum of $100 or reimpose the additional costs if sufficient findings are made. B artolone v. State , 327 So. 3d 331, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

W ARNER
, D AMOORGIAN and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
consolidated financial statements of Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. as of 
March 31, 1998, and for the three months then ended, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.     
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            66,801
<SECURITIES>                                     268,221
<RECEIVABLES>                                    197,413 
<ALLOWANCES>                                      19,173
<INVENTORY>                                       33,863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 386,581
<PP&E>                                         3,474,978  
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,023,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,201,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            779,107
<BONDS>                                        1,292,311
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                175
<PREFERRED>                                       27,924
<COMMON>                                          61,673
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,996,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,201,108
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 392,118
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    407,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (212,476)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                36,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  160,124
<INCOME-TAX>                                      85,954
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               74,170
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      74,170
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       1.21 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       1.20
        


</TABLE>
#### BURKE v. BURKE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 2, 1952.

Sandusky & Krueger, Somerset, for appellant.

H. C. Kennedy, Somerset, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Allan and Nancy Todd Burke were divorced in 1943. Mrs. Burke was granted $50 per month as alimony for herself and $50 per month for the maintenance of an invalid child. In Burke v. Burke, 298 Ky. 292, 182 S.W.2d 786, we affirmed the award of $50 per month as alimony for Mrs. Burke. The child died in 1946, thus relieving Mr. Burke of that obligation.

In 1948, Mr. Burke filed a motion asking that the judgment allowing Mrs. Burke $50 a month as alimony be modified. The motion set forth that at the time of the entry of the divorce judgment the infant child required the constant attention of its mother because of its physical and mental infirmities, and, also, that Mrs. Burke stated at that time “the only reason she was seeking alimony for herself was due to the condition of said infant child, and the care and attention required of the plaintiff to said infant child.” Mrs. Burke’s demurrer to the motion was sustained. The appeal is from that ruling.

As said in Sandlin v. Sandlin, 289 Ky. 290, 158 S.W.2d 635, adjustments in an award for alimony may be made from time to time to meet changed conditions of the parties. The appropriate method for raising such a question is by motion, as was done in the case before us. We pass the question as to whether a demurrer is the proper method of responding to such a motion, because we think Mr. Burke’s motion set forth sufficient grounds to warrant the granting of a hearing on his motion.

Judgment reversed, with directions to set it aside, and for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
#### RAY v. STATE.

No. 26944.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 14, 1954.

No attorney on appeal.

William H. Scott, Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is driving, an automobile upon a public road while, intoxicated; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed,
# Euroopan unionin C 27A/27.

| | ISSN 1977-1053 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 27A |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 58. vuosikerta27. tammikuu 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1053

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 27A

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

58. vuosikerta27. tammikuu 2015

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Oikaisuja |
| 2015/C 027A/01 | Oikaisu kiinnostuksenilmaisupyyntöön – Sopimussuhteiset tutkimuspalvelun toimihenkilöt (tehtäväryhmä IV) parlamentin tutkimuspalvelun alalla — (EUVL C 55 A, 26.2.2014 ) | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

Oikaisuja

2015/C 027A/01

Oikaisu kiinnostuksenilmaisupyyntöön – Sopimussuhteiset tutkimuspalvelun toimihenkilöt (tehtäväryhmä IV) parlamentin tutkimuspalvelun alalla — (EUVL C 55 A, 26.2.2014 )

(EUVL C 55 A, 26.2.2014 )

1

---

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

Oikaisuja

| 27.1.2015 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CA 27/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2015

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CA 27/1

---

Oikaisu kiinnostuksenilmaisupyyntöön – Sopimussuhteiset tutkimuspalvelun toimihenkilöt (tehtäväryhmä IV) parlamentin tutkimuspalvelun alalla

(Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
  C 55 A, 26. helmikuuta 2014
  )

(2015/C 027 A/01)

Sivulla 4, VIII luvun viimeisessä virkkeessä:

on:

”Työsopimus tehdään muuhun henkilöstöön sovellettavien palvelussuhteen ehtojen 3 a, 84 ja 85 artiklan mukaisesti.”

pitää olla:

”Työsopimus tehdään muuhun henkilöstöön sovellettavien palvelussuhteen ehtojen 3 b, 84 ja 88 artiklan mukaisesti.”

---