alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Phantom 3 Professional-Specifications

From DJI Wiki

Retrieved from "http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php?title=Phantom_3_Professional-Specifications&oldid=23039"

This page was last modified on 18 May 2015, at 21:39.

This page has been accessed 267 times.
**KFS** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 4 - 0178 STATE OF MONTANA ,

P la intiff and Appell ee , v. CRAIG ALLEN MCCREA ,

Defendant and Appell an

t . **GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including Ju ly 30 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court June 20 2024

06/20/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0178
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

|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 Annual Report of Electrameccanica
Vehicles Corp. on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

| | 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 conditions and results of
      operations of Electrameccanica Vehicles Corp.

|Date: April 27, 2017 | /s/ Jerry Kroll                  | 
|-------------------- | -------------------------------- | 
|                     | Name: Jerry Kroll                | 
|                     | Title: Chief Executive Officer   | 
|                     | (Principal Executive Officer)    | 
|                     |                                  | 
|                     |                                  | 
|Date: April 27, 2017 | /s/ Kulwant Sandher              | 
|                     | Name: Kulwant Sandher            | 
|                     | Title: Chief Financial Officer   | 
|                     | (Principal Financial Officer and | 
|                     | Principal Accounting Officer)    | 

A signed original of this written statement, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting each of the
signatures appearing in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement, has been provided to Electrameccanica Vehicles Corp. and will be
retained by Electrameccanica Vehicles Corp. in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
related rules and regulations.

This written statement accompanies the Annual Report on Form
20-F in which it appears as an Exhibit pursuant to Section 906 of the U.S.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 or other applicable law, be deemed filed by
Electrameccanica Vehicles Corp. for purposes of Section 18 of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited statements of assets and liabilities of Berthel Growth & Income Trust
I as of March 31, 1997, and the unaudited statements of operations of the Trust
for the 3 months ended March 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          24,120
<SECURITIES>                                 1,129,696
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,190,048
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,803,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          864,035
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,808,083
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,803,239
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,193
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                79,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,458
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,458
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,458
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.82
        

</TABLE>
May 19, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PRABHAKAR GUNIGANTI, INDIV IDUALLY, THE GUNIGAN TI CHILDREN’ S 1999 TRUST, AND TR IPLE PG SAND DEVELOP MENT, LLC
, Appellant s
NO. 14

- 14

- 00224

- CV V.

C & S COMPONENTS COM PANY, LTD

. , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the j udgment in favor of appellee, C& S Components Company, LTD

. , signed January 2, 2014, was heard on the t ranscript of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore REFORM the judgment of the court below to state that no privity of contract existed between C&S Components Company, LTD

. and the Guniganti Children’s 1999 Trust at the time the lien was filed and therefore C&S Components Company, LTD

. was not entitled to a lien against the Guniganti Children’s 1999 Trust’s property. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED except as modified in this judgment.

We o rder appellant s , Prabhakar Guniganti and Triple PG Sand Development, LLC, jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR )

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1999 (RWR)

)

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT )

AGENCY, )

)

Defendant. )

_____________________________ )

ORDER

On October 21, 2009, plaintiff filed its complaint, alleging

that the defendant had failed to disclose records responsive to

its Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. After both

parties filed dispositive motions related to the plaintiff’s FOIA

claim, the defendant filed a notice of document production,

stating that it had released to the plaintiff an unredacted copy

of a document responsive to the plaintiff’s FOIA request. In

light of the defendant’s notice of document production, the

plaintiff was directed to show cause why the case should not be

dismissed as moot. The plaintiff’s response to the show cause

order states that the defendant has disclosed the requested

document and that the only remaining issue in the case relates to

attorneys’ fees and expenses. Because the plaintiff has received

documents responsive to its FOIA request, its FOIA claim is now

moot and the complaint must be dismissed in the absence of a live
- 2 - 

controversy. See Drake v. F.A.A., 291 F.3d 59, 62 (D.C. Cir.

2002) (noting that the plaintiff’s “requests for information are

moot, because he [had] received all the documents to which he is

entitled” under FOIA); Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 (D.C.

Cir. 1982) (stating that the controversy becomes moot once the

disclosure which the suit seeks has already been made). 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendant’s motion [4] to dismiss be, and

hereby is, GRANTED, and plaintiff’s motion [12] for summary

judgment be, and hereby is, DENIED as moot. The complaint is

DISMISSED as moot. It is further 

ORDERED that the June 17, 2010 show cause order be, and

hereby is, DISCHARGED. It is further 

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion [18] for attorneys’ fees be,

and hereby is, REFERRED to a magistrate judge under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 54(d)(2)(D) for a report and recommendation. This is a final,

appealable Order. See Budinich v. Becton Dickinson and Co., 486

U.S. 196, 202-03 (1988) (holding that “a decision on the merits

is a ‘final decision’ . . . whether or not there remains for

adjudication a request for attorney’s fees attributable to the

case”). 

SIGNED this 30 day of June, 2010. th

________/s/_________________ 

RICHARD W. ROBERTS

United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28952]



[[Page 67717]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[110700A]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
Commerce.

ACTION: At-Sea Scale Certification Program.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Commerce has submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following 
proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0330.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 3,508.
    Number of Respondents: 49.
    Average Hours Per Response: 45 minutes for a daily scale test, 6 
minutes per day to retain printed scale output, 6 minutes to request a 
scale inspection, 6 minutes to attach a scale approval sticker, 6 
minutes for an application for authority to inspect scales, 2 hours for 
a request for an observer station inspection, and 30-190 hours for 
scale type evaluations.
    Needs and Uses: Fishermen on certain Federally-regulated fisheries 
off Alaska must weigh their catch at sea on approved scales. Vessels 
must request inspection of scales and observer stations, test their 
scales daily, and maintain output from the scales. Related information 
collection requirements are requests from scale manufacturers to have 
their scale approved, and requests from non-NOAA scale inspectors to 
have authority to conduct scale inspections.
    Affected Public: Business and other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: Daily, annually, and on occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#de939db2bfa7aab1b09ebab1bdf0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e737d525f474a51507e5a515d10595148">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: November 3, 2000.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-28952 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-22 -S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Office of Ground Water a nd Drinking Water January 27, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Basis for Expedited Approval of Standard Methods 6640 B and 6640 B-01 for the Analysis of Dalapon

FROM: Glynda Smith, Chemist Technical Support Center

TO: The Record

This memo documents the reviews conduc ted on Standard Methods 6640 B and 6640 B01 for the determination of dalapon in dri nking water. It provides the background information on why EPA is approving thes e methods using the expedited methods approval process.

Standard Method 6640 B published in the 21 st edition of Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and Wastewater:

EPA Method 515.4, Revision 1.0 was used as the basis for comparison because it is currently cited in the drinking water re gulations at 40 CFR 141.24(e)(1) for dalapon. Standard Method 6640 B was developed dire ctly from EPA Method 515.4, Revision 1.0 and thus uses the identical sample collectio n/handling protocols, sa mple preparation and derivatization steps, chromatographic conditions (speci fically the use of a secondary confirmation column) and electron capture dete ction. The methods have the same quality control requirements and the method perfor mance data (detection levels, accuracy and precision) are identical. Th erefore, Standard Method 6640 B is equally as effective as

EPA Method 515.4, Revision 1.0 in determini ng dalapon concentrations in drinking

water.

Standard Method 6640 B-01 published online at http://www.standardmethods.org : The version published online is identical to the version published in the 21 st

edition (6640 B) and thus equally effectiv e as Method 515.4, Revision 1.0 in determining dalapon concentrations in drinking water.
EX-31Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I,Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of theWells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-LC20 (the "Exchange Actperiodic reports");

 

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances ofnoncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report onForm 10-K. 

 

Ingiving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor,CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing FunctionParticipant, National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant,Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as PrimaryServicer for the 3 Columbus Circle Mortgage Loan, CWCapital Asset ManagementLLC, as Special Servicer for the 3 Columbus Circle Mortgage Loan, WilmingtonTrust, National Association, as Trustee for the 3 Columbus Circle MortgageLoan, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor for the 3 ColumbusCircle Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated:October 31, 2019

 

 

/s/Anthony Sfarra

 

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 26 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 26

   Expressing the sense of Congress in support of the United States 
                      military forces in Somalia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1993

   Mr. Solomon (for himself and Mr. Dreier) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of Congress in support of the United States 
                      military forces in Somalia.

Whereas, since 1991 over three hundred thousand Somalis, including one fourth of 
        the children under the age of five, died due to civil strife, disease, 
        and famine;
Whereas, prior to United Nations authorized operations in Somalia, at least one-
        half of Somalia's population of eight million people, were considered at 
        risk of starvation;
Whereas, in December 1992 the United Nations Security Council unanimously 
        approved the use of all necessary force to secure relief efforts in 
        Somalia;
Whereas, the number of deaths from starvation in Somalia has declined 
        significantly since the arrival of United States led coalition forces; 
        and
Whereas, the United States has contributed immeasurably to Operation Restore 
        Hope, including the deployment of over twenty thousand military troops 
        and the loss of American lives: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the United States Congress commends United States military forces 
for successfully establishing a secure environment for the humanitarian 
relief operations in Somalia.

                                 <all>
```
#### EVANS v. STATE.

No. 25529.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 28, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for driving a motor vehicle, to-wit, a pickup truck, on a public highway while intoxicated. He was assessed a fine of $250.00 and 30 days in jail.

Bill of Exception No. 1 sets out that while the defendant was testifying in his own behalf he was asked the question by his attorney: “You do not make a habit *844of driving up and down the highway drunk, do you?” To this he replied, “I have never been in trouble before in my life and have never been in court before.” The county attorney then asked him, “Isn’t it a fact that you have been twice convicted of the same offense in this court?” ' Defendant objected to this and the objection was overruled.

Such complaint is not well founded. Having opened the matter up, the state had a perfect right to make the inquiry which it did and to show the two former convictions.

Bill No. 2 complains that while the jury was at lunch the appellant saw some outside party talking to two of. the jurors. He did not hear their conversation but felt that they were talking about him in as much as the third party was looking at him while' the conversation was going on. This presents nothing for review.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-260-005]

      ( print page 67732)    
Take notice that on October 31, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing changes to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, in compliance with the Commission's Order on Compliance and Rehearing, and Referring Additional Issues for Hearing issued October 27, 2000, in the above-captioned docket (the October 27 Order):

Substitute First Revised Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1

Second Substitute Original Sheet No. 11D

Substitute Thirty-Second Revised Sheet No. 12

Original Sheet No. 12.01

Substitute Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 17

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 18

Original Sheet No. 19

Texas Gas requests an effective date of November 1, 2000, for the proposed tariff sheets.

Texas Gas further states that it has served copies of this filing upon the company's jurisdictional customers, interested state commission, and all parties appearing on the official restricted service list in Docket No. RP00-260.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.2111 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be reviewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28938  Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M