alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Harkins Builders Inc. owns a DJI Phantom 2 Vision +. We would like to use this UAS to take aerial

pictures and video of our job sites. We have approximately 20 sites in the Maryland/Virginia/DC/Pennsylvania area. We would comply with airport and DC restrictions. We would also make sure to get permission from the Owners of our projects before flying. Specifications of the UAS: 1. Weight (including battery and propellers) 2.74 lbs. 2. Max Ascent: 6 meters/second 3. Max Descent: 3 meters/second 4. Max flight speed : 15 meters/second 5. Built

- in camera 6. Operating Frequency: 5.728 GHz

– 5.85 GHz 7. Additional data can be found at this site: http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 2

-vision

- plus/spec

Operating p rocedure: 1. Before powering on any of the equipment, we check the batteries to make sure they are fully charged. 2. Turn on the Remote Controller 3. Place the Phantom on a flat surface on the ground and power on. 4. Connect to the Phantom Wifi on my iPhone 6. 5. Go to the DJI app on my iPhone 6 and tap the camera so I can see (on the phone) what the Phantom camera sees. 6. Connect my iPhone 6 to the clasp of the Remote Controller. 7. The app shows impo rtant data such as: battery life, distance, altitude, and number of connect ed GPS satellites. I can also control camera tilt, pictures, and video from the app. 8. The app also shows the “ready” status of the Phantom. The Phantom has four arms for the propellers. Under the arms are two red lights and two green lights. The red lights always stay red. The green lights indicate readiness. If they are not green, calibration needs to occur. 9. I only take off when the lights are green and the app shows that there are a minimum of 6 connected GPS satellites and that it is ready. 10. To start the propellers, I pull both control sticks down and towards each other. Then I let go of the sticks and make sure that the lights are green. 11. I make sure that there are no trees, poles, or other obstructions nearby before takeoff

. 12. The Phantom has the ability to hover in the same position if you do not touch either control stick. This is used for landing. I guide the Phantom slowly towards me and let it hover so I can grab the legs and power down the propellers.

I have over 50 hours’ experience flying the Phantom. I am comfortable with the controls and confident in my ability to safely fly the Phantom on our job sites. We specialize in building multi

-family structures that are typically 4 or 5 stories high. I alwa ys maintain a line of site with the Phantom while I am flying it. Our owners have expressed the desire for aerial photography to help chart the progress of the projects.Please grant us the exemption to fly this UAS on our job sites. Feel free to contact m e via email if you

have any further questions.

Brian Lombardo blombardo@harkinsbuilders.com
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DemandTec, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC Release 34-47986]c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: October 5, 2007
    /s/ Daniel R. FishbackDaniel R. FishbackPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 14

- 00009

- CV

DAVE & BUSTER ’ S INC.

, Appellant

v.

Sammy SHALABI

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 388436

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 29, 2014

DISMISSED

In this appeal, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice. Their

motion states they have resolved the underlying case to their satisfaction. They move this court to

dismiss this appeal with each party to bear its own attorney ’s fees and costs of court.

The parties’ joint motion is granted; this appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f); Caballero v. Heart of Texas Pizza, L.L.C. , 70 S.W.3d 180, 181 (Tex. 2001)

(per curiam).

PER CURIAM
#### Milton Pins *vs.*I. J. Fox, Inc.

January 31, 1939.

Exceptions overruled with double costs. The motion for a new trial was addressed to the discretion of the trial judge. It was for him *“to*determine in his discretion whether the verdict was against the *602evidence.” *McKin*v. *Siegel,*256 Mass. 269, 270. See also *Ridenour*v. *H. C. Dexter Chair Co.*209 Mass. 70, 76. This was a question of law which could have been raised, though in different form, at the trial on the merits. The record discloses no other question of law raised by the motion which could not have been raised at the trial by pertinent requests for rulings. Questions of law involved in the question whether the verdict was “against the law,” see *McKin*v. *Siegel,*256 Mass. 269, 270, or “inconsistent with the claim of either the plaintiff or the defendant” could have been so raised. “It is the long established and frequently applied rule of practice in this Commonwealth that a party cannot as matter of right raise a question of law on a motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, which might have been raised before verdict.” *Lonergan*v. *American Railway Express Co.*250 Mass. 30, 38, and cases cited. *Mantho*v. *Nelson,*285 Mass. 156, 158. No abuse of discretion is disclosed by the record. See *Murnane*v. *MacDonald,*294 Mass. 372, 375. Therefore no exception lies to the denial of the motion. *Restuccia*v. *Bonner,*287 Mass. 592, 593.

*J. M. Graham, J. S. Slater, & C. M. Goldman,*for the defendant.

*S. Markell & L. W. Black,*for the plaintiff.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 of Blue Calypso, Inc. (the “Company”). I, William Ogle, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that, based on my knowledge:

(1)                                  The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in this report.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
**Exhibit 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consentto the use in this Amendment No. 1 to Registration StatementNo. 333-145803 on Form S-4 of our report dated March 15,2007 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion on the financial statements and includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to a change in the method of accounting for defined benefit pensionand other postretirement plans as of December 31, 2006) relating to the financial statements ofSterling Chemicals, Inc. appearing in the Prospectus, which is partof this Registration Statement, and to the reference to us under the headings “Experts” in such Prospectus. /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP Houston, Texas October 16, 2007
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Gary L. Whitlock, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CenterPoint Energy Transition BondCompany II, LLC;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: August 10, 2007                                                         /s/ Gary L. Whitlock   Gary L. Whitlock   President and Manager (Principal Executive Officer)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 08, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 08, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0130. KENNETH A. PEAKE v. PROGRESSIVE PREMIER INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF ILLINOIS.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

16C04631 16C00305
1

ATTACHMENT 1 – FEDVIP 

TABLE 1 

NEW PLANS ENTERING THE FEDVIP PROGRAM 

State Plan Name Plan 

Type

General Location

Nationwide Delta Dental Dental Nationwide

Nationwide Aetna Vision Vision Nationwide

Nationwide FEP BlueDental Dental Nationwide

District of Columbia, 

Delaware, Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, parts of 

New Jersey, and parts 

of Virginia

Dominion Dental Dental Mid-Atlantic region

TABLE 2 

PLAN NAME CHANGE 

State 2013 Plan Name (Old) Plan Type 2014 Plan Name 

(New)

New York

Northern New Jersey

Part of Connecticut

Part of Pennsylvania 

GHI Dental EmblemHealth
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2785 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2785

           To suspend temporarily the duty on glyoxylic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 26, 2000

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on glyoxylic acid.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. GLYOXYLIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new headings:

      

``    9902.29.16    glyoxylic acid    Free, if          No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     (CAS No. 298-12-  imported on or                                        31/2002          ''
                     4) (provided      before 12/31/03                                                         .
                     for in
                     subheading
                     2918.30.90)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084, 8th Floor 401 South Tryon St.
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2012, by and among Citigroup Commercial
Mortgages Securities Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Operating Advisor, Citibank, N.A.,
as Certificate Administrator and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series CGCMT 2012-GC8 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms
used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I,
Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
#### MERSHON v. STATE.

No. 15758.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 21, 1932.

Norton Fox, of Waco, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, J.

Conviction is for burglary; the punishment being assessed at 9 years in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception. In *837appellant’s amended motion for new trial lie sets up misconduct of the jury in certain particulars. If the averments in the motion were supported by any evidence, the same is not brought forward by a statement of facts or bills of exception. Although the amended motion for new trial was sworn to by appellant and contained the averment of misconduct, it amounted only to a pleading. Johnson v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. R. 395, 13 S.W.(2d) 114; Rollins v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 53 S.W. (2d) 786.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### BECKMANN et al. v. BECKMANN.

No. 3784.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Dec. 8, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 5, 1939.

*1118Tom Martin, of Stonewall, for appellants.

Petsch & Usener, of Fredericksburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case was appealed from the District Court of Gillespie County. The transcript was filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court of Civil Appeals, Fourth Supreme-Judicial District on May 6, 1938, and thereafter the case was transferred to this Court. After 'due notice the case was submitted at El Paso on October 27, 1938, and notice was given that oral argument would be heard at San Antonio on November 7, 1938. No brief having been filed by appellant, appellee filed,in this Court on November 28, 1938, a motion to affirm upon two grounds. We think the motion should be granted upon the second ground, which is the failure of appellant to file brief. In view of the motion and the circumstances attending the appeal we deem it our duty to investigate the record to ascertain if it reveals fundamental error. Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.2d 811. We find no fundamental error. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Filed 6/13/24 In re Drake CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re

GARNETT DRAKE,

On Habeas Corpus.

F087862

(Kern Super. Ct. No. BF115244A)

OPINION

THE COURT*

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Peter Kang, Kern County Public Defender, and Kathleen Furlong, Deputy Public 

Defender, for Petitioner.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, and Max Feinstat, Deputy Attorney General, for 

Respondent.

-ooOooThis petition seeks a belated appeal from a September 15, 2023 judgment rendered 

at a resentencing hearing held pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75. Petitioner urges 

this court to apply the constructive filing doctrine to permit such a belated filing. 

In response to this court’s request to file an informal response, the Attorney 

General does not oppose petitioner’s requested relief. Pursuant to the Attorney General’s 

response, this court may grant relief without further proceedings. (People v. Romero

(1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7.) 

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.
2

In addition to the Attorney General’s nonopposition, having read and considered 

the declaration of petitioner’s counsel, petitioner demonstrates to this court’s satisfaction 

that his forthcoming notice of appeal should be deemed timely filed under the 

constructive filing doctrine. (In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72.) Accordingly, we grant 

petitioner’s request to file a belated notice of appeal.

DISPOSITION 

Petitioner is directed to file, on or before 60 days from the date of this opinion, a 

notice of appeal in the Superior Court of Kern County action No. BF115244A.

Let a writ of habeas corpus issue directing the Clerk of the Superior Court of Kern 

County to file in its action No. BF115244A said notice of appeal, to deem said notice of 

appeal timely filed, and to proceed with the preparation of the record on appeal in 

accordance with the applicable rules of the California Rules of Court if the clerk of that 

court receives said notice on or before 60 days from the date of this opinion. 

This opinion is final forthwith as to this court.
##### 



Exhibit 5.2




---



##### 



Stewart Enterprises, Inc.
    
    2-
    
    September 7, 2007




---



##### 



Stewart Enterprises, Inc.
    
    3-
    
    September 7, 2007