alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 22, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 2059

RE: FAA-2015-2018-0002 Request for Additional Information

Attachments: (links provided as the files exceed maximum file size for this site)

1. Phantom 3 Professional Quick Start Guide V1.0

2. Phantom 3 Professional User Manual V1.2

References:

FAA Exemption No. 11452, Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–0233 in the matter of the 

petition of JASON YOUN PHOTOGRAPHY, LLC

Dear Sir or Madam,

Besides expanding on the reasons why my request for exemption will not adversely affect 

safety or how the exemption will provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the 

rule from which I seek an exemption, I am also amending FAA-2015-2018-0001 to add a DJI 

Phantom 3 in addition to my DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus.

Historically, aerial photography and videography for newsgathering and for real estate marketing used manned fixed wing aircraft and helicopters which carry volatile fuel. This presents a much higher risk to life and property than the small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS) 

for which I seek this exemption. My sUAS do not present this level of risk due to their small 

size and light weight.

Previously approved FAA Exemption No. 11452, Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–0233 in 

the matter of the petition of JASON YOUN PHOTOGRAPHY, LLC received exemptions for 

DJI craft including the Phantom 2 Vision Plus. My reasons are very similar:

FAA Modernization

and Reform Act of 

2012 (FMRA)

Phantom 2 Vision Plus Phantom 3

Weight Unmanned aircraft must weigh 

less than 55 lbs. 

(25 kg).

43.81 Ounces (1242g) 45.15 ounces (1280g)

Airspeed Maximum airspeed of 100 mph 

(87 knots).

29.16 knots (15m/s) 31.1 knots (16m/s)

I normally fly below 200 feet above ground level (AGL). This is below the 400 foot AGL ceiling 

set by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012). The only exception I request is for 

shooting Wind Energy projects which require 500’ AGL in order to provide clearance above 
the spinning blades while maintaining spacing below manned craft which are to fly at least 

500’ above the highest obstacle.

The sUAS batteries are far safer than the fuel necessary for manned aircraft or rotorcraft. 

They operate for less than 25 minutes per flight; the manufacturer provides numerous methods to assure safety: 

1. Visual and audible cues to battery level

2. DJI’s fail-safe feature automatically climbs to programmed height, returns the sUAS to

its point of origin then lands when battery power reaches a factory predetermined level.

I utilize my experience as a commercial pilot and airframe and powerplant mechanic when

performing preflight inspections to ensure safety;

I always obtain all necessary permissions prior to operation.

All the above ensure that my sUAS provides a level of safety at least equal to that provided by 

the rule from which I seek an exemption,

Respectfully submitted

James M Finch

DBA J Finch Photography
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3086 

To permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. COHEN, and Mr. 

CHABOT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act. 

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 ‘‘Permanent Internet 

5 Tax Freedom Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT MORATORIUM ON INTERNET ACCESS 

7 TAXES AND MULTIPLE AND DISCRIMINATORY 

8 TAXES ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1101(a) of the Internet 

10 Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3086 IH

1 striking ‘‘ during the period beginning November 1, 2003, 

2 and ending November 1, 2014’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxes imposed after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 23. CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

          We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-115672, 333-45249 and 333-45251) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-114730) of Getty Realty Corp. of our reports dated March 16, 2010 relating to the financial statements and the financial statement schedules and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form        10-K. 

|                           |
|--------------------------------|
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
|                           |
| New York, New York             |
| March 16, 2010                 |

----
Devany, Dennis (OSn 

From: James Rice [jwricemsu57@hotmail.com] 


Sent: .~Sunday, February 14, 2010 3:20 PM 


To: .. :. Devany, Dennis (OST) 


Subject: Cape Air 

I hope you decide in favorof Cape Air in the coming week. I am able to make great connections to Bpston 


for an Air Lingus flight to Dublin. I hope I won't be dissapointed when it comes time to make my . 


reservations. Why change an air carrier when Cape Air has a 


proven record of excellent service. Bigger aircraft and less service just dosen't make sense. 


Please vote for Cape Air to remain at Plattsburgh International Airport. 


James W. Rice 


Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. 

1
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

Page - 1

I. GENERAL

District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD Date Adopted: 3/21/01 

Rule No: Rule 205 Regulation Title: Provision of Sampling and

Testing Facilities 

Date Submitted To ARB: 1/22/01 Date Last Amended or Revised: 12/13/84 

Pollutants Regulated By This Rule (Check): 

 NOx SO2 PM10 VOC TAC (Name of TAC) 

Is this rule intended to be sent to the EPA as a SIP revision? X Yes No.

SUMMARY OF RULE CHANGES: New rule U Amended rule

Update rule to current District format.

 

II. NET EFFECT ON EMISSIONS Increase Decrease X No change N/A

Emissions reduction commitment in SIP for this source category: tons/year 

SCC/CES Code(s) Affected: na 

 Affected SIC Code(s): na 

Inventory Year to Calculate Changes in Emissions: na Affected Area: 

Future Year Control Profile Estimate ( VOC emissions): N/A

Tons/Year Baseline

Reductions Tons/year Control Percent Control Control

 Year (increases) Subject to Rule Level Control Level Factor

 N/A / = * 100 = % 1.00 - = 

 / = * 100 = % 1.00 - = 

 / = * 100 = % 1.00 - = 

 

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS District is: Attainment Nonattainment X Split

Approximate number of minor (<100 TPY) sources controlled by rule: na . Percent in nonattainment

area: na .

Number of major ($ 100 TPY) sources controlled: N/A . Percent in nonattainment area: 0% 
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

Page - 2

Location of Major Sources by City: N/A

 

IV. EMISSIONS REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY N/A

Does rule include emission limits that are continuous? Yes; No. 

If yes, those limits are in Section(s) of the rule.

Other methods in the rule for achieving emissions reductions are: 

 

 

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS The rule contains:

1) Emission limits in Section(s) N/A .

2) Work practice standards in Section(s) N/A .

3) Record Keeping requirements in Section(s) N/A .

4) Reporting requirements in Section(s) N/A .

 

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN X No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts Attainment

DISCUSSION:
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3253 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3253

 Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of 
            the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 2013

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of 
            the Federal Government, 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 ``Fiscal Sanity Act for 
Appropriations''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is hereby appropriated for 210 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act--
            (1) for each project or activity for which budget authority 
        was provided in the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
        Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), an amount equal to 
        the budget authority provided in such Act, as reduced pursuant 
        to the Presidential sequestration order dated March 1, 2013, to 
        remain available for a comparable period of availability; and
            (2) for entitlements and other mandatory payments whose 
        budget authority was provided in appropriations Acts for fiscal 
        year 2013, and for activities under the Food and Nutrition Act 
        of 2008, such amounts as may be necessary to maintain program 
        levels as they existed on September 30, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.02



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-53805) of Atlantic Data Services Inc. of our report dated
April 13, 1998, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of
Atlantic Data Services, Inc. as of March 31, 1998 and for the years ended March
31, 1998 and 1997 included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
March 31, 1999.


                                                              Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
June 23, 1999
<PAGE>

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 on Form 10-Q of Advanta Corp.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis
Alter, 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.

/s/ Dennis Alter
----------------
Dennis Alter
Chief Executive Officer
May 6, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2330

YORDANOS GHIRMAZION,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-612-251 )

Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 14, 2004

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,

Assistant Attorney General, Emily Radford, Assistant Director,

David T. Shapiro, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Ghirmazion does not challenge the immigration judge’s denial

of her applications for withholding from removal or withholding

under the Convention Against Torture. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Yordanos Ghirmazion, a native of Ethiopia and a citizen

of Eritrea, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s

denial of her application for asylum, withholding from removal and

withholding under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed

the administrative record and the immigration judge’s decision,

designated by the Board as the final agency determination, and find

that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s

conclusion that Ghirmazion failed to establish the past persecution

or well-founded fear of future persecution necessary to establish

eligibility for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating

that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility

for asylum); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)

(same). We will reverse the Board only if the evidence “‘was so

compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the

requisite fear of persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325

n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84).

We find the evidence does not compel a different conclusion.*

We deny Ghirmazion’s petition for review. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 31.01****CERTIFICATIONS**I, John C. Harris, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Viseon, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: February 10, 2006
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Brian R. Ervine, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofmy knowledge, the Annual Report of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K for theannual period ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of Evolving Systems,Inc.

| /s/ Brian R. Ervine                                  |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                 |   |   |
| Brian R. Ervine                                      |   |   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
| March 15, 2007                                       |   |   |

 

This certification is furnished with this AnnualReport on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the ExchangeAct, except to the extent that the we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----
#### Ex parte HOSKINS.

No. 24783.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 15, 1950.

No attorney for. appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Relator is a convict imprisoned in the state penitentiary. He seeks issuance of the writ of habeas corpus to the end that he may be discharged. The clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals was directed to file relator’s application and submit it to the Court in order that it might be determined whe'ther the writ should issue.

Copies of the judgment and sentence rendered against relator are made a part of the application for the' writ.

It appears from the application that in 1932 relator was under indictment in Tar-rant County for robbery by assault. On November 25, 1932, he waived a jury, and under the formalities provided for in such cases, entered a plea of guilty before the court. Upon said plea and the evidence submitted relator was found guilty, the judgment reciting that “it is therefore considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that said defendant is guilty of the offense of robbery as charged in the indictment, and that he be confined in the state penitentiary for the full period of 25 years.” In the sentence appears a recital that the court had theretofore assessed relator’s punishment at “not less than 5 years nor more than 25 years,” and that he be sentenced to serve in the penitentiary for not less than 5 years or more than 25 years.

It is relator’s contention that under the circumstances shown he has brought himself under the holdings in Ex parte Traxler, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 661, 184 S.W.2d 286, Edwards v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 219 S.W.2d 1022, and Ex parte East, Tex.Cr.App., 225 S.W.2d 833. In each of thesé cases the *judgment*was. indefinite as to the punishment assessed which rendered the judgment void. Such defect does not appear in the *judgment*in relator’s case. The punishment was there definitely fixed at 25 years. It is true there is in the sentence a misrecital that the judgment was for an indefinite time, but the certified copy of the judgment itself makes it clear that such recital in the sentence was not correct.

There is no merit in the complaint that the sentence recites a minimum and a max*821imum term of imprisonment. In no other way could effect be given to the “Indeterminate Sentence Law” which specifically provides that the sentence recite the minimum punishment fixed by statute and the maximum punishment assessed by the court or jury. See Art. 775, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., as amended by 42nd Legislature, p. 349.

It appearing from the face of relator’s petition that same is without merit, the writ of habeas corpus is refused.
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice #: 3446] 

The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, reauthorized pursuant to Public Law 106-113 (H.R. 3194, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000), will meet on Thursday, November 9, 2000 in Room 600, 301 4th St., SW, Washington, DC from 10:30 am to 12 noon. 

The Commission will discuss FY2001 activities, follow-up to its report on consolidation, and a review of the Smith-Mundt Act and its applicability in this day and age for public diplomacy. 

Members of the general public may attend the meeting, though attendance of public members will be limited to the seating available. Access to the building is controlled, and individual building passes are required for all attendees. Persons who plan to attend should contact David J. Kramer, Executive Director, at (202) 619-4463. 

Dated: October 23, 2000. 

David J. Kramer, 

Executive Director, U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.

[FR Doc. 00-27799 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-11-U