alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.
 Social Security Administration
 In compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, SSA is providing notice of its information collections that require submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The information collection listed below has been submitted to OMB for clearance. Written comments and recommendations on the information collection would be most useful if received within 30 days from the date of this publication. Comments should be directed to the SSA Reports Clearance Officer and the OMB Desk Officer at the addresses listed after this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance package by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer on (410) 965-4145, or by writing to him. Statement for Determining Continuing Eligibility, Supplemental Security Income Payment—0960-0145. SSA uses Form SSA-8202-F6 to conduct low- and middle-error-profile (LEP-MEP) telephone or face-to-face interviews with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients and representative payees. The information collected during the interview is used to determine whether SSI recipients have met and continue to meet all statutory and regulatory requirements for SSI eligibility and whether they have been and are still receiving the correct payment amount. The respondents are recipients of SSI benefits or their representative payees. This notice is being published again to include the burden for Form SSA-8202-OCR-SM.
                    ( print page 66279) SSA-8202-F6
SSA-8202-OCR-SMNumber of Respondents
920,000
800,000Frequency of Response
1
1Average Burden Per Response (minute)
17
8Estimated Annual Burden (hours)
260,667
106,667
 (SSA Address), Social Security Administration, DCFAM, Attn: Frederick W. Brickenkamp, 6401 Security Blvd., 1-A-21 Operations Bldg., Baltimore, MD 21235. (OMB Address), Office of Management and Budget, OIRA, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, New Executive Office Building, Room 10230, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20503. Dated: October 30, 2000. Frederick W. Brickenkamp, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration.


[FR Doc. 00-28227 Filed 11-2-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4190-29-U
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                              EXHIBIT 12


                                                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
                                                                MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
                                                                 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                          (dollars in thousands)



                                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED              FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                      DECEMBER 26, 2003                  DECEMBER 27, 2002               DECEMBER 28, 2001
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------  ----------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED        PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                            CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V,L.P.   CAPITAL TRUST V  FUNDING  V, L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ----------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $ 63,795           $ 74,430        $ 63,795           $ 74,529         $ 63,795            $ 74,794
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -         $      -            $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                    61,880             63,795          61,880             63,795           61,880              63,795
                               --------           --------        --------           --------         --------            --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $ 61,880           $ 63,795        $ 61,880           $ 63,795         $ 61,880            $ 63,795
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17             1.03                1.17


</TABLE>
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 152

Concerning human rights and democracy in Vietnam.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 23, 1993

Mr. SKAGGS (for himself, Mr. PETERSON of Florida, and Mr. GILCHREST)

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Concerning human rights and democracy in Vietnam.

Whereas the ending of the Cold War provides an unprecedented opportunity for democratic reform and improvements in human rights throughout the world;

Whereas the government and citizens of the United States

view positively recent improvements in resolving POW/

MIA cases by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and wish

to promote even greater openness in that country;

Whereas recent economic reforms and initiatives undertaken

by the Vietnamese Government can best be encouraged

and built upon through political liberalization;

Whereas the interests of the United States and the people of

Vietnam, and the international community would best be
2

• HCON 152 IH

served by having a friendly and democratic government

in Vietnam;

Whereas the United States currently has no program to support political reform in Vietnam; and

Whereas greater respect for internationally recognized human

rights and a peaceful transition to democracy in Vietnam

would greatly reduce the threat to the stability of Southeast Asia, allow for the rapid resolution of the POW/MIA

issue, and enable the creation of a free-market economy

in Vietnam: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the United States should support the proc4 ess of nonviolent democratic reform in Vietnam;

5 (2) the Secretary of State should declare Unit6 ed States support for the democratization of Viet7 nam and reaffirm that measurable progress on the

8 MIA/POW issue is critical to normalizing economic

9 and diplomatic relations with the United States;

10 (3) the Administration should take the lead in

11 mobilizing the United Nations, ASEAN members,

12 human rights organizations, and the various other

13 interest groups to work toward the common goal of

14 promoting basic human rights, the rule of law, and

15 free and democratic elections in Vietnam; and

16 (4) the United States should increase its sup17 port for Voice of America programming in Vietnam.
3

• HCON 152 IH

Æ
August 6, 2015

Manager, Flight Standards Service
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office
Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence A venue, SW Washington, DC 20591

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

The purpose of this packet is to respectfully request an amendment to Exemption No. 12012 in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1474.

ArgenTech Solutions requests the addition of the following aircra ft to our existing Exemption No.12012 in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1474.

The additional aircraft requested is the DJI Inspire multi-rotor.

ArgenTech Solutions existing safety standards and procedures as outlined in our Flight Operation & Procedures Manual (F2500) will con tinue for the additional aircraft. We will follow the recommended Maintenance and operations parame ters set forth by DJI. All the statements made in our original petition would remain uncha nged with the exception of the " DJI Inspire, model being added to where the other model is listed. The Operations Manual, Maintenance Manual, and the updated specific ation document have been at tached for your information.

Respectfully,

Marcel Piet
President-UAS Services 603-836-0588 X122 | Cell: 207-651-3476
email: mpiet@agts.us
Aug 1, 2015

Submission by: Ryan Wellvang

723 S. Wisconsin Ave

Rice Lake, WI 54868

(715)-520-2968

ryanwellvang@icloud.com

Re: Request for more information for FAA-2015-1754

Dear Sir or Madam,

In reply to the request for more information I will provide you with how I feel that this exemption would 

be in the public interest. 

The uses in which I plan on using this aircraft would normally require some other type of human and or 

other manned aircraft to complete, thus either unnecessarily endangering the safety of a person or 

causing undue cost. 

Specifics:

Forestry consulting: flying over a track of land at a low elevation not safe for conventional aircraft, 

recording images for review by the client at a later time. This will allow the forestry industry to see up 

to date images at a lower cost and better resolution than hiring a conventional aircraft, or looking at out 

of date satellite imagery. Thus lowering operation costs that need to be passed on to the consumer.

Insurance claim investigation: In 2006 a State Farm independent contractor was killed while inspecting 

a damaged roof. Since then more and more insurance companies have been relying on independent 

contractors to inspect damages. With this technology we can eliminate the need to put people in these 

dangerous situations. I have the ability to fly above a damaged structure take high resolution images to 

be reviewed by a qualified claims adjuster back in the safety of their office with real time feeds via the 

internet, or on site looking a separate display and taking the pictures they need. Not only does this 

impact the safety of the job but will have a huge impact on unneeded insurance claims resulting in fewer 

fraudulent claims by independent contractors that are not looking out for the greater good of the public 

and just out to take advantage of a natural incident to take advantage of the insurance company. With 

all of these factors this will help lower the insurance premiums to millions.

Real estate photography: The ability to see properties from vantage points unobtainable by the normal 

home buyer, such as roof inspections, viewing large property from above without relying on out of date 

satellite images. With this powerful tool we can get real time images and get them into the purchasers’ 

hands so they can make a complete informed decision, resulting in fewer complications from 

incomplete disclosure.

As you can see the benefits of my intended uses are looking out for the greater good of the public. All 

flights would be made with homeowner approval.

Ryan Wellvang
#### GRIFFITH v. GRIFFITH.

No. 2955.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Oct. 24, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1952.

*518Billingsley & Bullington, Munday, for appellant.

Brookreson & Brookreson, Seymour, for appellee.

GRISSOM, Chief Justice.

On February 2, 1952, Wilma Dean Griffith sued Lloyd G. Griffith on a promissory note executed by defendant and payable to plaintiff at Benjamin, in Knox County, Texas. The note was for $15,000 principal, payable in two annual installments of $7,500, the first installment being due February 1, 1952, and the second February 1, 1953, bearing *6%*interest payable annually, and providing for ten percent attorney’s fees if placed in the hands of an attorney for collection. She also sued to foreclose a deed of trust lien securing same. The note contained an optional acceleration clause, applicable upon failure to pay any installment of principal or interest when due. The first installment not having been paid when it became due, on February 1, 1952, plaintiff, on February 2, 1952, placed said note in the hands of her attorneys and instructed them to file suit to collect both installments of principal, plus interest and attorney’s fees on the whole amount of the note and to foreclose the deed of trust lien, which was promptly done. Judgment was rendered for both installments of principal, for interest, for attorney’s fees on said total sum and for foreclosure. Lloyd G. Griffith has appealed.

It is undisputed that on or after February 1, 1952, the day the first installment was due and unpaid, plaintiff did not present the note to defendant and demand payment of the installment then due. Under the facts, it was a prerequisite to the right to exercise the option to declare the second installment due that plaintiff, after the default, present the note and demand payment of the installment due. Faulk v. Futch, Tex.Civ.App., 209 S.W.2d 1008, 1010, affirmed 147 Tex. 253, 214 S.W.2d 614, 616; 5 A.L.R.2d 963; Brown v. Hewitt, 143 S.W.2d 223, 227 (W.R.); Beckham v. Scott, Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W. 80, 83; Parker v. Mazur, Tex.Civ.App., 13 S.W.2d 174, 175 (Writ Dis.); Bischoff v. Rearick, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d 174, 176 (R.N.R.E.); Griffin v. Reilly, Tex.Civ. App., 275 S.W. 242, 248.

We think the correct rule is stated in 5 A.L.R.2d 977, Sec. 6, as follows:

> “Presentment and demand for payment are not necessary in order to charge the maker or acceptor of a negotiable instrument generally; the holder may nevertheless maintain an action thereon. The situation, however, is different where the holder of a negotiable instrument containing an optional acceleration clause wants to exercise his option. He must as a condition precedent to the exercise of his option present the instrument and make formal demand upon the payor to pay the installment due.”

We conclude there was error in that part of the judgment sustaining the acceleration of the maturity of the second installment of the note, allowing recovery of attorney’s fees thereon and foreclosing the deed of trust lien and ordering the land sold for payment of the entire note and additional attorney’s fees.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Slip Op. 99-116 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

___________________________________ : SKF USA INC. and SKF : INDUSTRIE S.p.A., : : Plaintiffs, : : Consol. Court No. v. : 97-01-00054-S1 : UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : THE TORRINGTON COMPANY, : : Defendant-Intervenor. : ___________________________________: JUDGMENT This Court having received and reviewed the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”) Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, SKF USA Inc. and SKF Industrie S.p.A. v. United States , 23 CIT __, Slip Op. 99-43 (May 13, 1999) (“Remand Results”), and Commerce having complied with the Court’s remand, and no responses to the Remand Results having been submitted by the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on August 12, 1999 are affirmed in their entirety; and it is further ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this case is dismissed.

______________________________ NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS SENIOR JUDGE
Dated: October 28, 1999 New York, New York
Justin Schofield

2900 SW 155 th LN
Davie, FL 33331 Top Notch Site Services LLC Justins@topnotchss.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I

, Justin Schofield on behalf of Top Notch Site Services LLC

, am requesting an exemption under

FAA Modernization and Reform Act o f 2012, Public Law 112

- 95 FEB 14, 2012, Section 333, to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) commercially to conduct aerial photography, aerial video production, marketing, real est ate, construction site inspection , and research & development.

All op eration s will be performed with the DJI “ Inspire 1 ” and “ P hantom 3 ”

. The Inspire 1 has a maximum gross weight of 6.47 pounds. It is equipped with four rotors that are driven by electric

motors

, powered by batteries. The Inspire 1 has a maximum airspeed of 22 m/s. The Phantom 3 has a maximum gross weight of 2.82 pounds. It is equipped with four rotors that are driven by electric motors, powered by batteries. The Phantom 3 has a maximum airspeed of 16 m/s.

All operations will adhere to the local and state l aws regarding UAS operation. All operations will comply with the criteria of: flights at or below 200 feet to any UAS operator with a Section 333 exemption for aircraft that weigh less than 55 pounds, operate during daytime Visual Flight Rules (VFR) condit ions, operate within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilots, and stay certain distances away from airports or heliports:

5 nautical miles (NM) from an airport having an operational control tower; or 3 NM from an airport with a published instrument flig ht procedure, but not an operational tower; or 2 NM from an airport without a published instrument flight procedure or an operational tower; or

2 NM from a heliport with a published instrument flight procedure

Safety

1. UAS will be inspected before and a fter every flight to ensure safe operation

2. UAS will be operated within the operator’s line of site

3. UAS will not be flown with low visibility or adverse weather conditions

4. UAS will not be flown over the traveling public

5. UAS batteries will be fully charged before use

6. UAS will discontinue flight once batteries have reached 20% of charge capacity

7. UAS is equipped with a “return to home” feature if GPS signal is lost

8. UAS will not be flown with out a GPS signal

9. Operator will check for any on ground or above grou nd hazards prior to flight

10. Operator will be trained and well versed in the safety in operation of the UAS prior to flight

11. Regular logs will be kept to record all flights.



### Thank	you	for	your	time	and	consideration	for	this	request	of	exemption.	If	any	oth er	items

need	to	be	addressed	or	amended,	we	wil l be	happy	to	work	with	your	office.	We	look	forward

to	hearing	from	you.

Sincerely,

Justin	Schofield
cLERi, u.s. C·L-i micr courn 

NO,'UIIE;::N o:sT. OF TX 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU:R:lUB2:C:, DIVlS!ON 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 2022 OCT 24 PH 3: 4 9 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 8EPUTY CLER!(~ 

§ 

§ 

v. § CASE NO. 5:22-CR-034-H-BQ-1 

§ 

§ 

JAMEY JIMENEZ § 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This case has been referred by the United States district judge to the undersigned 

for the taking of a guilty plea. The parties have consented to appear before a United States 

magistrate judge for these purposes. This Report and Recommendation on Plea is submitted 

to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

The defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the 

defendant of, and determined that the defendant understood, the admonitions contained in 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The defendant pleaded guilty (under a written plea bargain agreement with the 

government) to Count One of the Superseding Information, charging defendant with a 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(]), 841 (b)(J)(B)(viii)), that is, Distribution and 

Possession with Intent to Distribute Five Grams or More Methamphetamine (Actual). After 

examining Defendant under oath the undersigned magistrate judge finds the following: 

1. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing 

to enter this guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final 

approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge; 

Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BV Document 500 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1408
2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges (including each 

essential element of the offense(s) charged) and penalties; 

3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea 

agreement supplement; 

4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes 

to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right 

to appear before a United States district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for this plea; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of the defendant's plea of 

guilty. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and recommend acceptance of 

Defendant's plea of guilty, the United States district judge has the power to review my 

actions and possesses final decision-making authority in this proceeding. Thus, if 

Defendant has any objections to these findings or any other action of the undersigned, he 

is required to make those known to the United States district judge within fourteen (14) 

days of today. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Signed October 24, 2022. 

Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BV Document 500 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1409
R eport of the thirty

- fourth meeting of the Open

- ended Working Group of the P arties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer , p 27

A vailable at: http://conf.montreal

- protocol.org/meeting/oewg/oewg

34/reports/Conference%20Room%20Papers%20CRP/OEWG

- 34

- 6E.doc



## D. Draft decision on laboratory and analytical uses

Submission by the United States of America
Recalling decisions VII/11 and XXI/6, in which the Meeting of the Parties requested all parties to urge thei r national standards

- setting organizations to identify and review their standards for laboratory and analytical procedures that mandate the use of Montreal Protocol controlled substances with a view to adopting, where possible, laboratory and analytical pr oducts and processes that do not use controlled substances,
Recalling also d ecisions VII/11, XI/15, XVIII/15 and XIX/18, by which the Meeting of the Parties eliminated specific uses from the global exemption for laboratory and analytical uses,

1. To extend the global laboratory and analytical

- use exemption until 31 December 2021, under the conditions set out in annex II to the report of the Sixth Meeting of the Parties and decisions XV/8, XVI/16 and XVIII/15, for the controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol in all annexes and groups except Annex C, group 1;

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to report no later than 2018 on the development and availability of laboratory and analytical procedures that can be performed without u sing controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol ;