alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sept. 25, 2015

To whom it may concern,

My name is Stephen L. Wiltsie and I am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 

Section 333 and the procedures contained within Title 14 CFR 11, to be exempt from the Federal Aviation 

Regulations as specified and seek exemption from the requirements of Title 14 CFR:

61.113(a) & (b),

91.7(a),

91.119(c),

91.121,

91.151(a),

91.405(a),

91.407(a)(1),

91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2),

9l.417(a) & (b), 

and related rules that simply cannot be followed by a small Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), in order to operate a

UAS pursuant to the Act.

This exemption request will permit Stephen L. Wiltsie, as the owner and operator of an Unmanned Aircraft System,

a 3d Robotics Solo, for the commercial purpose of conducting aerial video and photography of real estate, perform 

home and business exterior inspections, outdoor weddings and events, search and rescue support, and general 

photography and videography as needed. I am a Vietnam Veteran and have a college degree in television 

production and direction as well as many years of experience in wedding and event photography and videography. 

I owned and operated a computer business for 34 years prior to merging with a larger company in 2014. I also 

have a small photography business specializing in original patriotic prints and general photography. I hold a valid 

Indiana drivers license.

The above mentioned aircraft is GPS assisted for location based information, and includes a Return to Home safety 

feature in case of signal loss or low battery condition. It also has a “Pause Button” that acts as an immediate air 

brake stopping Solo at its current position immediately. I will perform all pre-flight and post-flight checks as well 

as system/vehicle maintenance. All flights will be monitored by line of sight and will have an additional spotter as 

needed. All flights will maintain less than 400’ AGL. The Solo weighs only 3.9 pounds. It is battery operated

and is very quiet so as not to disrupt surrounding neighbors and businesses. It carries no flammable fuel.

The use of this UAS is financially viable as the cost to the consumer is much less than hiring a full size aircraft and 

pilot. It is also safer and can access areas a full size aircraft cannot. For home inspections, for example, it allows

a total roof inspection without the need of climbing on the roof. This creates a safer method of doing this 

activity.

The latest Solo owner’s manual is available as a PDF document here: https://3drobotics.com/kb/solo-user-manual/

Thank you very much for your consideration and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. Wiltsie

830 Kirkwood Dr.

Evansville, IN 47715

812-453-5070

steve@theveteranscheck.com

PS: In a related note, I would be very interested in helping to test the B4UFly program on my Android tablet and/or 
phone whenever it is ready for testing in that environment.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28939]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-267-002]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Change in FERC Gas 
Tariff

November 6, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2000, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 
No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet to be effective November 1, 
2000.

Substitute Twenty-Eighth Revised Sheet No. 17

    ANR states that the filing is being filed in compliance with the 
Commission's order dated May 31, 2000 at Docket No. RP00-267-000, See 
ANR Pipeline Company, 91 FERC para.61,195. The Commission's order 
approved but suspended the effective date of ANR's proposed cashout 
price surchange from June 1, 2000 until November 1, 2000.
    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 385.211 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 viewed 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. 00-28939 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 of Western Power & Equipment Corp. &
Subsidiary (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, C.Dean McLain, 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 to the best of my 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 condition and results of operations
          of the Company.




                                           /s/ C. Dean McLain
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name: C.Dean McLain
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

                                           Date: March 15, 2005




     A signed original of the written statements required by Section 906 has
been provided to Western Power & Equipment Corp. & Subsidiary and will be
retained by Western Power & Equipment Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1 The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United St ates District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-1068

___________ Lonzo Howard, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Jerry Burt, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 7, 2009 Filed: December 16, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Iowa prisoner Lonzo Howard appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging hi s conviction for second-degree sexual abuse of his girlfriend’s 9-year-old gr anddaughter in violation of Iowa Code § 709.3(2). The district court granted a certificate on Howard’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a ne w trial or for additi onal findings based on his defense that he mistakenly believe d the 9-year-old, 65-pound victim was his 55- year-old, 300-pound girlfriend. The Iowa C ourt of Appeals rejected the claim on-2- direct appeal, explaining the trial court ha d disbelieved Howard, and a mistake-of-fact defense was not available to Howard under Iowa law because it w ould not negate any element of his general-intent offense. Th e appeals court concl uded counsel thus had no duty to continue to press the defense by seeking a new trial or additional findings, and even if counsel had done so, the trial c ourt would have rejected the effort given the court’s view that Howard’s mistake defense was not belie vable and unavailable under Iowa law. State v. Howard , No. 03-0734, 2004 WL 894127 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2004) (unpublished).
Having carefully reviewed the partie s’ submissions, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude the rejection of Howard’s ineffec tive-assistance claim by the Iowa Court of Appeals did not involve an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. See28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (standard for granting habeas relief to state prisoner on claim rejected on merits by state court). Federal habeas courts lack authority to review a state court’s interpretation and application of state law. SeeEvenstad v. Carlson , 470 F.3d 777, 782 (8th Cir. 2005). Given the Iowa Court of Appeals’s conclu sion that mistake is not a defense to a second-degree sexual abuse charge under Io wa law, the court reasonably concluded Howard did not receive ineffective assistan ce when his attorney failed to pursue the matter following the judgment. SeeBrewer v. State of Iowa , 19 F.3d 1248, 1251 (8th Cir. 1994) (where defense unavailable under state law, counsel not inadequate in failing to assert defense).
We grant Howard’s motion to amend his opening brief, and we summarily affirm the denial of Howard’s habeas petition under 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Oklahoma Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Oklahoma Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 13     | 11     | 10     | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 7      | 7      | NA     | 5      | NA     | 5     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 6      | 6     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
<PAGE>

                                                            Exhibit 4.9


                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO SEGUE SOFTWARE, INC.
                       1996 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


A.   The SEGUE SOFTWARE, INC. 1996 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (the "Plan"), is
     hereby amended:

     1    In Section 12 by deleting the entire subparagraph (a) and inserting in
place thereof the following subparagraph::

               "(a)   The maximum number of shares of the Company's Common Stock
     which shall be made available for sale under the Plan shall be 300,000
     shares, subject to adjustment upon changes in capitalization of the Company
     as provided in paragraph 18.  If the total number of shares which would
     otherwise be subject to options granted pursuant to Section 7(a) hereof on
     the Offering Date of an Offering Period exceeds the number of shares then
     available under the Plan (after deduction of all shares for which options
     have been exercised or are then outstanding), the Company shall make a pro
     rata allocation of the shares remaining available for option grant in as
     uniform a manner as shall be practicable and as it shall determine to be
     equitable.  Any amounts remaining in an Employee's account not applied to
     the purchase of stock pursuant to this Section 12 shall be refunded on or
     promptly after the Exercise Date.  In such event, the Company shall give
     written notice of such reduction of the number of shares subject to the
     option to each Employee affected thereby and shall similarly reduce the
     rate of Contributions, if necessary."

     2    In Section 24 by deleting the entire paragraph and inserting in place
thereof the following paragraph:

     "24. Term of Plan.  The Plan became effective upon its adoption by the
          ------------
Board of Directors in February 1996 and was subsequently amended (i) upon
approval of the Board in February 1998 and the stockholders of the Company in
June 1998 and (ii) upon approval of the Board in March 2000 and the stockholders
of the Company in June 2000.  The Plan shall continue in effect for a term of
twenty years from the most recent amendment unless sooner terminated under
paragraph 19."

B.   The effective date of this Second Amendment shall be June 23, 2000.

C.   Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan remains in full force and
     effect in accordance with its terms.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6356

STEPHEN C. SINNETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-348-3)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen C. Sinnett, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Leonard Taylor,

Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Sinnett v.

Angelone, No. CA-95-348-3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 26, 1995). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-343-Y

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL §

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS §

ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

The Court has considered the Application for Admission Pro Hac

Vice of Heather Abreu (doc. 22). The application is granted. The

clerk of Court shall deposit the application fee to the account of

the Non-Appropriated Fund of this Court.

Further, if Applicant has not already done so, she must

register as an ECF User no later than July 29, 2022, through the

Court’s website.1

 The registration instructions are attached to

this order. Failure to do so may result in the revocation of prohac-vice status and Applicant’s withdrawal from the case. See LR

5.1(f) and LCrR 49.2(g).

SIGNED July 1, 2022. 

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

 At www.txnd.uscourts.gov under filing/electronic case files/ECF User Registration

Form.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 25 Filed 07/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 177
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

ECF Registration Instructions

1. Determine if you are eligible to register as an ECF User in the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Texas. You may register if you are:

A. A non-prisoner pro se party who has made an appearance as a plaintiff or defendant in a

civil case in this court;

B. Admitted to practice to the bar of the Northern District of Texas; or

C. A licensed attorney who:

i. has applied or intends to apply for admission pro hac vice;

ii. has appeared or intends to appear in an MDL case (see JPML Rule 2.1(c)); or

iii. is exempt from admission to practice pursuant to LR 83.11 or LCrR 57.11.

Note: Registering for ECF in this court does not provide access to electronically file in the U.S.

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. You must follow the bankruptcy court’s

registration requirements found on their website at www.txnb.uscourts.gov.

2. Review the Local Rules and ECF Administrative Procedures Manual.

3. Complete the electronic User Registration Form; alternatively, you may complete a paper User

Registration Form and mail or fax it to the Clerk’s Office at:

Clerk, U.S. District Court

1100 Commerce St., Room 1452

Dallas TX 75242-1003

214.753.2266 (FAX).

If you are eligible to register as an ECF User in this court, the clerk’s office will email an ECF login

to the primary address you note on the registration form.

4. When you receive your login, follow the Maintaining Your Account procedures to change your

password from the one issued to you by the Clerk. You may also change your login if desired.

Use the same instructions to change your login/password at any time.

5. You may use the Forgot Your ECF Password? software to automatically receive a new password

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 25 Filed 07/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 178
**Exhibit 3.1(B)**

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OFCERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATIONOFIDEAMALL, INC.**

> 
IdeaMall, Inc., a corporation  organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of  the State of Delaware,

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST:  That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of IdeaMall, Inc. resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and directed that the amendment proposed be considered at the next annual meeting of the stockholders.  The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be, and it hereby is, amended to restate Article 1 to read in full as follows:

"Article 1.  The name of the Corporation is PC Mall, Inc."

> 
SECOND:  That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, an annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute was voted in favor of the amendment.

THIRD:  That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

FOURTH:  That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or by reason of said amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, IdeaMall, Inc. has caused this certificate to be signed by Ted Sanders, its Assistant Secretary, this 19th day of June, 2001.

BY:              	/s/ Ted Sanders                                

Name:              Ted Sanders

Title:               Assistant Secretary
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 146

Authorizing the use of the Capitol building and grounds for events to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the laying of the cornerstone of

the Capitol.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 15, 1993

Mr. MINETA (for himself and Mr. SHUSTER) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works

and Transportation

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol building and grounds

for events to commemorate the 200th anniversary of

the laying of the cornerstone of the Capitol.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL BUILDING AND GROUNDS.

4 The Commission on the Bicentennial of the United

5 States Capitol (hereinafter in this resolution referred to

6 as the ‘‘Commission’’) may use the Capitol building and

7 grounds on October 23, 1993, or on such other date as

8 the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the

9 President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly des-
2

•HCON 146 IH

1 ignate, for events to commemorate the 200th anniversary

2 of the laying of the cornerstone of the Capitol.

3 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

4 The events referred to in section 1 shall be free of

5 admission charge to the public and arranged under condi6 tions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and

7 the Capitol Police Board.

8 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

9 (a) STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.—Subject to the

10 approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the Commission

11 is authorized to erect upon the Capitol grounds such

12 stages, sound amplification devices, and other related

13 structures and equipment as may be required for the

14 events referred to in section 1.

15 (b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of

16 the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are authorized

17 to make any such additional arrangements, including the

18 use of voluntary and uncompensated staff and services,

19 as may be required to carry out the events referred to in

20 section 1.

21 (c) REPRESENTATIONS.—The Architect of the Cap22 itol shall take such actions as may be necessary to ensure

23 that sponsors of the events referred to in section 1 do not

24 make representations that such sponsorship in any way

25 constitutes an endorsement by the Federal Government.
3

•HCON 146 IH

Æ