alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PreFlight Checklist

1. Wiring

a. Ensure wires are secure and out of the way of the propellers

b. Ensure there are no cuts or rips in wires

c. Ensure that all wires are properly connected

2. Bolts

a. Ensure bolts are tight

b. Check torque striping

c. Check GPS stand is tight

d. Ensure no bolts are missing

3. Propellers

a. Check if propellers are balanced

b. Check if propellers are level

4. Motors

a. Ensure motors spin freely

5. Camera/FPV Monitor

a. Ensure cards have enough memory left for flight footage

b. Insert Micro-SD card into action camera

c. Insert SD Card into FPV Monitor

6. Batteries

a. Ensure batteries are charged

b. Mount batteries on copter

c. Insert battery into manual telemetry

d. Plug main battery in

e. Plug FPV battery in

7. Computer

a. Open Mission Planner

b. Ensure Mission Planner is setup to connect to the PixHawk telemetry (COM3 and 

57600 Baud Rate)

c. Hit "Connect" (Mission Planner will download saved parameters from the copter)

d. Ensure failsafes are setup

e. Disable/Enable Geofence (if necessary)

f. Calibrate the system - (Click wizard and follow the on-screen instructions)

g. Ensure there are no error messages or warnings (if there are warnings or errors 

refer to the troubleshooting guide)

h. Manual

i. Ensure remote is in desired mode and the throttle is all the way down prior 

to flying

ii. Arm the copter's saftey switch

iii. Start recording video on FPV monitor and action camera

iv. Arm the copter via the remote

v. Fly! 

i. Autonomous

i. Plan mission via "Flight Plan" tab in Mission Planner

ii. Setup waypoints for desired mission
iii. Ensure good GPS lock

iv. Ensure remote is in desired mode and the throttle is all the way down 

before initializing the autonomous flight mode

v. Arm the copter's safety switch

vi. Start recording video on FPV monitor and action camera

vii. Arm the copter via the remote or computer

viii. Test the throttle to ensure props spin

ix. Switch to autonomous flight mode

x. The copter will now carry out the planned mission!

How to tell if the drone is armed:

Not Armed: 

 The drone is not armed if the ESCs are beeping 

 Safety switch is blinking red 

 Mission Planner display is blank 

Armed: 

 Safety switch is solid red 

 Drone's ESCs are NOT beeping 

 Mission Planner says armed on the display
#### PARRIS v. STATE.

No. 23699.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 11, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of rape, and his punishment assessed at life imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for the consideration of this court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 211 (Tuesday, October 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27898]



[[Page 64938]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-3637-000]


Nicole Energy Marketing of Illinois, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of 
Order

October 25, 2000.
    Nicole Energy Marketing of Illinois, Inc. (Nicole Energy) submitted 
for filing a rate schedule under which Nicole Energy will engage in 
wholesale electric power and energy transactions at market-based rates. 
Nicole Energy also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. 
In particular, Nicole Energy requested that the Commission grant 
blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of 
securities and assumptions of liability by Nicole Energy.
    On October 18, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Nicole Energy should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Nicole Energy is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Nicole Energy's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is November 17, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http:
//www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27898 Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3477 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide support to university 

law school programs that are designed to provide legal assistance to 

veterans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2013 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide 

support to university law school programs that are designed to provide legal assistance to veterans, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Legal Sup5 port Act of 2013’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3477 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SUPPORT 

2 FOR UNIVERSITY LEGAL CLINICS THAT AS3 SIST VETERANS. 

4 (a) SUPPORT AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of Vet5 erans Affairs may provide support to one or more univer6 sity law school programs that are designed to provide legal 

7 assistance to veterans. 

8 (b) ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS.—Programs of university 

9 law schools which may receive support under subsection 

10 (a) may include programs that assist veterans with— 

11 (1) filing and appealing claims for benefits 

12 under laws administered by the Secretary; and 

13 (2) such other civil, criminal, and family legal 

14 matters as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

15 (c) FINANCIAL SUPPORT.— 

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—The support provided a pro17 gram under subsection (a) may include financial 

18 support of the program. 

19 (2) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT.—The total 

20 amount of financial support provided under sub21 section (a) in any fiscal year may not exceed 

22 $1,000,000. 

23 (3) FUNDING.—Amounts for financial support 

24 under subsection (a) shall be derived from amounts 

25 appropriated or otherwise made available to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 3477 IH

1 Medical Services account of the Department of Vet2 erans Affairs. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
O‘**LD c. MANIl

...r.n
..“...L

. **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 
February 10, 1939

Hon. Wm. W. Allen County Attorney Lavaoa County Hallett8ville, Texas Dear Sir:

a8 to whether or not COll8titUtiOn 8heriff who 1‘ ,to8er~e and s reoeipt or your quest 8n opinion Article lk of the avPfu1for a deputy lary lrom the oounty as a balllrf to the

help you Cod. ’ “Art. 367b. &Iilifs8 appOinted byD18- trlot Attorney

The Dletrlot Atforney may appoint one or more bailiffs to attend upon the Grand Jury and at the time OS the appointment theHon. Wm. **W.** Allen, February 10, 1939,Page 2

. Court ahall edmlnlater to eaoh OS thornthe following oath: 'You 8014mn1y 8wear that youwill ralthrully and lmpartlally perform all the dutlee oS balllff of the Grand Jury, and that you ~111 keep eeoret the prooeed1. lngs OS the Grand Jury, 80 help you God.’

Said bailiff8 shallbe paid the sum and in themanner now provided by law.* The oonpensatlon payable to theballlSS 18provided for inAatlole 1058, a8 amended by the Aots OS 1935, 44th Legislature, oh. 192 and it will be noted that thisprovision underwent several amendment8 prior to the 44thhgi8latkW4.

Prior to the amendment by the Aote OS 1925, 39th Legislature, said provlslons in sUb8tantl8lly the 8ame languagewere lnoorporated under Artlole 1161, Code OS Criminal Prooedure, adopted 1911,with the pO88lbl4 exoeptlon OS expressly provldlng therein that the deputy 8herlSS shallnot receive pay as ballltf. The study OS former Artiole 1161 and subsequent amendmen~dl8OlO848 no mention OS any CO!npen8atiOnpaid to the sherlri, hi8 deputlee or oonstablee.

In 1917,Hon. C.yi'. Taylor, formerAssistant Attorney General OS Texa8, wrote a conSer4noe opinion, Ko. 1740, inwhloh itwas held that theduties OS the offloe OS sheriffand his' d4pUti48, were inoompatible with those OS the oifioe OS bailiff with the Grand Jury. It was pointed out in eald.opinion that under the language OS saidArticle@417 and‘419 (substantially the same as ourpresent 4r4Lc -,--- -. les 307 r.@.~-.ze.6CCode OS Crlmlnal Prooedure, 1925 revised requiring each ballifS to take the oath prescribed and obey in8truotions of the foreman OS the Grand Jury, the oSSlc4 OSballifS v'a8 suoh, under the law, aswould oome within theprOVi8iOn8 oS Article 16, Sec. 40 OS the Constltutlon OS .Texas, prohlbltlng aperson Srom holding or exerolslng at the 88me timemore than one olvll OfSloe OS emolument, exoept that of Justioe CS the Peaoe, County Comml88loner, Notary Pub110 and Post Xaster and suohmilitary or reserved oifioersnamed therein. The language ueed in the. .

Hon. Wm. 71.Allen, February 10, 1939, Page 3

varfoua.emendmenta subsequently would not prevent the applloation of this opinion to the present statutes applioable.

We, there? ore, respectfully advise that it is the opinion oS.thls Department thet the deputy sheriffwould not be authorized to serve and aooept pay a8 

### balllrr to the Grand Jury. Very truly yours

**.WmK:AW** A8818tant

APFBovED:

ATTO3??3YGFXWAL OF TiXAS
- Y Yf
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-17-00220-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.B.R., W.C.R., and K.R.R., Children

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-19862

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s July 25, 2017 Nunc 

Pro Tunc Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship is REVERSED. We RENDER

judgment denying appellant Carlos R.’s petition to modify, denying Victoria R.’s cross-petition to 

modify, and dismissing Victoria R.’s request to have Carlos post a cash bond. The case is 

REMANDED to the trial court for the sole issue of determining the parties’ claims for attorney’s 

fees. It is further ORDERED that the costs of this appeal are taxed against the party incurring the 

same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4. 

SIGNED August 22, 2018.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ID-090-1020XQ]


Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Lower Snake River District, Bureau of Land Management, 
Interior.

ACTION: Meeting Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Lower Snake River District Resource Advisory Council will 
meet in Boise. Potential agenda topics are Off-Highway Motor Vehicle 
Funds, Fire Management and Restoration Workplan, Revised Priorities for 
Allotment Assessment, Conservation planning for Slickspot Peppergrass 
(lepidium papilliferum) and other resource management issues.

DATES: November 13, 2000. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. Public 
comment period will be held at 9:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Lower Snake River District 
Office, located at 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Jones, Lower Snake River District 
Office (208-384-3305).

Katherine Kitchell,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-27506 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FRONTIER TELEPHONE OF ROCHESTER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NIN MONTH
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>        0000936105
<NAME>       FRONTIER TELEPHONE OF ROCHESTER
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          51,379
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,697
<INVENTORY>                                        573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,381
<PP&E>                                       1,067,128
<DEPRECIATION>                                 673,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 548,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,039
<BONDS>                                         40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       232,165
<OTHER-SE>                                     164,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   548,938
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               258,961
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,688
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 68,865
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,932
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             44,933
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,933
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R OB ER TO JUAR

EZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R . R OC AM OR

A; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15-15642 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-02800-WHO M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W i llia m H. Orric k , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 26, 2016 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , C ANB Y, a n d C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. R obe rto Jua

re z , a C a lifornia sta

te prisone r, a

ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo, Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir.



# FIL ED AUG 03 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).2004), a

nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use Jua re z fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda

nts we re de libe rat e ly

indiffe re nt to his injure d wrist. Se eid . at 1057-60 (a prison offic ia l is de libe rat e ly

indiffe re nt only

if he or she knows of a

nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e s sive risk to a n inm ate ’ s he a lth; m e d ic a l m a lpra c tic e , ne glige nc e , or a diffe re nc e of opinion c onc e rning thec ourse o f tre atm e nt doe s not a m ount to de l ibe rate indiffe re nc e ). C ontra ry to Jua re z ’ s c onte ntion, thedistric t c ourt’ s de c i sion did not re st on the g rie va nc e re sponde r’ s m issta

te m e nt tha

t Jua re z wa s c a

pa ble of pla y ing ba ske t ba ll. W e do not c onside r argum e nts a n d a l le gations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

2 1 5 - 1 5 6 4 2
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-07-182-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF JOHN A. WILSON, SR., DECEASED	

	----------

	FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On September 18, 2007, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a).  TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).  We stated we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  We have not received any response.

	Because appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		

PANEL D:  GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.  

DELIVERED:  October 11, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             261
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,911
<ALLOWANCES>                                        40
<INVENTORY>                                         47
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,406
<PP&E>                                             268
<DEPRECIATION>                                     327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,718
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           259
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,995)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,982
<SALES>                                         13,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,133
<CGS>                                           10,469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 304
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15,050)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,219
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16,269)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,269)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.78)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1

                               AXEDA SYSTEMS INC.
                                  SUBSIDIARIES

United States Corporations, wholly owned subsidiaries of Axeda Systems Inc.:

1. RAVISENT IP, Inc.: a Nevada Corporation

2. RAVISENT Operating Company Inc.: a Delaware Corporation

3. Liuco, Inc.: a Delaware Corporation

4. RAVISENT Technologies Internet Appliance Group, Inc.: a Delaware Corporation


Israeli Entity:

5. Axeda Systems Ltd.: an Israeli corporation, wholly owned by Axeda Systems
Inc.

Wholly owned subsidiaries of Axeda Systems Ltd.:

6. Axeda Systems Operating Company, Inc.: US company incorporated in
Massachusetts

7. eMation R&D, Inc.: US company incorporated in Massachusetts

8. Axeda Systems S.A.S.: a French corporation

9. Axeda Systems B.V.: a corporation incorporated under the laws of the
Netherlands

10. Axeda Systems Limited: a UK corporation 11. Axeda Systems KK: a Japanese
corporation

German Entities:

12. Erste Cinco Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH: wholly owned subsidiary of Axeda
Systems Inc.

13. Viona Vervatungs GmbH: wholly owned subsidiary of Erste Cinco
Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH.

14. Viona Development Hard and Software Engineering GmbH & Co. KG: a limited
partnership owned by Erste Cinco Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH (12 above) and Viona
Vervatungs GmbH (13 above).

15. Axeda Systems GmbH: wholly owned subsidiary of Axeda Systems Inc.

Canadian Entities:

16. RAVISENT Nova Scotia: an unlimited liability Nova Scotia company wholly
owned by Axeda Systems Inc.

17. RAVISENT British Columbia: a corporation organized under the laws of British
Columbia wholly owned by RAVISENT Nova Scotia
#### BYRD v. STATE.

No. 25890.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 11, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant waived trial by jury and entered his plea of guilty before the court under an indictment for driving while intoxicated, with a prior conviction for a like offense. The court assessed his punishment at a fine of $250 and 30 days in jail.

The record brought forward on appeal contains neither a statement of facts nor bill of exception. The proceedings appear to be regular in every respect and nothing is presented for review by this court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.