alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
07 June 2006

Air Transport Association ofAmerica 1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004-1707 Attention: Mr. Joseph White

Director, Engineering Subject: B737 Static Inverters NPRM References: (A)NPRM2002-NM-12-AD

(B)Boeing SIB 737-24-1165, rev 1, OCT 20,2005 (C)BoeingSIB 737-24AI166, rev 1, OCT 20,2005 Dear Mr. White, Alaska Airlines has reviewed the Notice ofProposed Rule Making (NPRM)and associated reference documents. We have been accomplishing the modifications at the vendor (AI2)per Boeing Service Bulletin recommendation of42 months from June 1, 2005. We agree with the safety assessment and will comply with the requirements as stated in the NPRMand service bulletin accomplishment instructions. We support the proposed compliance interval as long as the vendor (AI2)can support the industry in this time frame. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Ifyou have any questions or concerns, please call me at (206) 392-9700. Regards,

Joseph E. Gockowski III Manager ofRegulatory Compliance Alaska Airlines P.O. Box 68900-SEAMJ Seattle WA98168-0900
**Exhibit 3.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION**

** **

**OF**

** **

**AMERICAN HONDA RECEIVABLES LLC**

 

This Certificate of Formationof American Honda Receivables LLC(the “**Company**”),dated as of March 16, 2011, is duly executed and filed to form a limited liability company in accordance with the Delaware LimitedLiability Company Act (6 Del. C. §18-201, et seq.).

 

1.         Name. Thename of the limited liability company is American Honda Receivables LLC.

 

2.         Registered Office.The address of its registered office in the State of Delaware is c/o The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, in theCity of Wilmington, County of New Castle, 19801.

 

3.         Registered Agent.The name and address of its registered agent for service of process in the State of Delaware is The Corporation Trust Company,1209 Orange Street, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle, 19801.

** **

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**,the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation of American Honda Receivables LLC as of the 16th day of March, 2011.
# MG

- 1 SPECS

• Home



### • Products



### • MG

- 1



### • Specs 

# AIRCRAFT FRAME

Diagonal Wheelbase 1520 mm Frame Arm Length 625 mm

Dimensions 

### • 1471mm x 1471mm x 482mm (arm unfolded, without propellers)



### • 780mm x 780mm x 482mm (arm folded) 

# PROPULSION SYSTEM MOTOR

Stator Size 60mm x 10 mm

KV 130 rpm/V

Max Thrust 5.1 kg/rotor

Max Power 770 W Weight (with cooling fan) 280 g 

# FOLDABLE PROPELLER

Material High

- performance engineered plastics

Diameter / Pitch 21x7.0 inch (533x178 mm) Weight 58 g 

# ESC

Max Allowable Current (Continuous) 25 A Operating Voltage 12S LiPoSignal Frequency 30 to 450 Hz Drive PWM Frequency 12 kHz 

# SPRAY SYSTEM LIQUID TANK

Volume 10 L Standard Operating Payload 10 kg Max Battery Size 151mm x 195mm x 70mm 

# NOZZLE

Model TXVK

- 04 , XR11001
Quantity 4 Max Spray Speed 0.5 L/min (per nozzle, for water) Spray Width 4

- 6 m (4 nozzles, 1.5

– 3 m above the crops) Droplet Size* 

### • TXVK

- 04 : 80 ~ 190 μm



### • XR11001 : 130  250 μm *Droplet size may vary according to operation environment and spraying speed. 

# FLIGHT PARAMETERS FEATURES

Total Weight (without batteries) 8.8 kg Standard Takeoff Weight 22.5 kg Max Takeoff Weight 24 kg (@ sea level)

Max Thrust

- Weight Ratio 1.81 (with 22.5 kg takeoff weight)
Power Battery 2 x 6S LiPo (batteries of 12000 mAh, continuous discharging rateof 10C and charging rate of 1C to 2C recommended) Max Power Consumption 6400 W Hovering Power Consumption 3250 W (with 22.5 kg takeoff weight) Hovering Time 

### • 24 min (@ 12000 mAh, with 12.5 kg takeoff weight)



### • 10 min (@ 12000 mAh, with 22.5 kg takeoff weight)
Max Operating Speed 8 m/s Max Flying Speed 22 m/s Recommended Operating Temperature 0 to 40 °C 

# REMOTE CONTROLLER FEATURES

Model GL690B ( Japan Only ) , GL658C
Operating Frequency 2.400

- 2.483 GHz Max Transmission Range (unobstructed, free of interference) 

### • FCC: 5 km



### • CE: 3.5 km

EIRP 100 mW @ 2.4 GHz

Built

- in Battery 6000 mAh, 2S LiPo Charging DJI charger
Output Power 9 W Operating Temperature Range

- 10 to 40 °C
Storage Temperature Range 

### • Less than 3 months:

- 20 to 45 °C



### • More than 3 months: 22 to 28 °C
Charge Temperature Range 0 to 40 °C 

# REMOTE CONTROLLER CH ARGER

# FEATURES

Model A14

- 057N1A Voltage 17.4 V

Rated Power 57 W
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21968]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[GN Docket No. 20-32; FCC 24-89; FRS 246488]

Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding; 
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes an editorial correction to the date in a 
citation that appeared in the Federal Register on September 17, 2024. 
That Federal Register document, which invited comment on the 5G Fund 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, incorrectly listed the 
date on which a summary of the Commission's 2023 5G Fund Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking was published in Federal Register as September 
28, 2024. The correct date is September 28, 2023.

DATES: The corrections are effective September 26, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Barrish, Office of Economics 
and Analytics, Auctions Division, (202) 418-0660, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document makes an editorial correction 
in a citation that appeared in the summary of the 5G Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 89 FR 76016 on September 
17, 2024, which incorrectly listed incorrectly listed the date on which 
a summary of the Commission's 2023 5G Fund Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking was published in Federal Register as September 28, 2024, 
rather than September 28, 2023.
    In FR Doc. 2024-20979 appearing on page 76016 in the Federal 
Register of Tuesday, September 16, 2024, the following correction is 
made:
    1. On page 76017, in the first column, in the Synopsis in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, in paragraph number 2., the date ``(Sept. 
28, 2024)'' is corrected to read ``(Sept. 28, 2023)''.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-21968 Filed 9-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3394 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 13, 2016 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 to 

allow for the use of certain assets of foreign persons 

and entities to satisfy certain judgments against terrorist 

parties, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3394 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clarifying Amendment 

3 to Provide Terrorism Victims Equity Act’’ or the ‘‘CAP4 TIVE Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. USE OF BLOCKED ASSETS TO SATISFY JUDGMENTS 

6 OF U.S. PERSONS AGAINST TERRORIST PAR7 TIES. 

8 Section 201(d) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act 

9 of 2002 (28 U.S.C. 1610 note) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (2)— 

11 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

12 (A), by striking ‘‘means’’; 

13 (B) by amending paragraph (2)(A) to read 

14 as follows: 

15 ‘‘(A) means any asset seized or frozen by 

16 the United States under section 5(b) of the 

17 Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 

18 5(b)), under sections 202 and 203 of the Inter19 national Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

20 U.S.C. 1701; 1702), or under section 805(b) of 

21 the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act 

22 (21 U.S.C. 1904(b)); and’’; 

23 (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as para24 graph (5); and 

25 (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol26 lowing: 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 3394 RDS 

1 ‘‘(4) PERSON.—In subsection (a), the term 

2 ‘person’ means— 

3 ‘‘(A) a natural person who, at the time the 

4 act of terrorism described in subsection (a) was 

5 committed upon which the judgment described 

6 in such subsection was obtained by that person, 

7 was either— 

8 ‘‘(i) a national of the United States as 

9 defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immi10 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

11 1101(a)(22)); 

12 ‘‘(ii) a member of the Armed Forces 

13 of the United States; or 

14 ‘‘(iii) otherwise an employee of the 

15 Government of the United States, or of an 

16 individual performing a contract awarded 

17 by the United States Government, acting 

18 within the scope of the employee’s employ19 ment; or 

20 ‘‘(B) if the person described in subpara21 graph (A) is deceased, the personal representa22 tive of the estate of that deceased person.’’. 

23 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY. 

24 The amendments made by this Act apply to any judg25 ment described in section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 3394 RDS 

1 Insurance Act of 2002 (28 U.S.C. 1610 note) that is en2 tered before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this 

3 Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3647 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3647

  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that United 
      States citizens' sons and daughters with mental or physical 
    disabilities be considered immediate relatives for purposes of 
 exemption from numerical limitations on visas issued to such sons and 
                               daughters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2015

  Mr. O'Rourke (for himself and Mr. Pearce) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that United 
      States citizens' sons and daughters with mental or physical 
    disabilities be considered immediate relatives for purposes of 
 exemption from numerical limitations on visas issued to such sons and 
                               daughters.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness for Families Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF MENTAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITY.

    Section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(53) The term `mental or physical disability' means, in 
        the case of an individual, a mental or physical impairment, or 
        physical disability that--
                    ``(A) a licensed physician designated by the 
                Secretary of State pursuant to section 40.11 of title 
                22, Code of Federal Regulations for purposes of making 
                examinations pursuant to section 212(a)(1) has 
                determined, by examining the individual, renders the 
                individual unable to care for himself or herself as an 
                adult; and
                    ``(B) due to such impairment or disability, the 
                individual's parent or sibling is solely responsible 
                for the care of the individual.''.

SEC. 3. UNITED STATES CITIZENS' SONS AND DAUGHTERS WITH MENTAL OR 
              PHYSICAL DISABILITIES TO BE CONSIDERED IMMEDIATE 
              RELATIVES.

    Section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting after ``children, 
spouses,'' the following: ``sons and daughters with mental or physical 
disabilities,''.
                                 <all>
```
#### RICE v. STATE.

No. 16774.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 16, 1934.

Milton Greer Mell and Gus Morris, both of Gilmer, for 'appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is manufacturing intoxicating liquor; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented- for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
#### Adolph Coors Company, Respondent, vs. Pursel, Appellant. Same, Respondent, vs. Same and another, Appellants.

*February 25*

April *8, 1947.*

*175For the appellants there was a brief by *Crawford & Crawford*of Superior, and oral argument by *Brandon E. Crawford.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *S. J. Auringer*of Grantsburg, attorney, and *Douglas & Omernik*of Spooner of counsel, and oral argument by *Edward E. Omernik.*

Rosenbekry, C. J.

The determination of the issues in these actions depends almost entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses for the respective parties. Such documentary evidence as was offered and received tends to support the plaintiff’s contentions. The trial court gave the matter careful consideration. He saw and heard the witnesses. We have carefully reviewed the evidence offered upon the trial and find that the trial court reached the right determination. Certainly his conclusions upon the evidence are not against the *176clear preponderance and great weight of the evidence, and for that reason the court’s findings cannot be disturbed.

Inasmuch as the controversy deals almost entirely with questions of fact no useful purpose would be served by setting-out the evidence in detail. The claim of the defendant, Harry Pursel, that the plaintiff was indebted to him in the sum of $38,996.15, in view of the evidence offered by him upon the trial to sustain it, is sufficient of itself to cast doubt upon the probity and good faith of the defendant, Harry Pursel.

*By the Court.*— Judgment in each case is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2880 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2880

     To provide construction assistance for a project for a water 
  transmission line from the Missouri River to the city of Williston, 
                             North Dakota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 17, 2000

Mr. Conrad (for himself and Mr. Dorgan) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide construction assistance for a project for a water 
  transmission line from the Missouri River to the city of Williston, 
                             North Dakota.

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

SECTION 1. WILLISTON, NORTH DAKOTA.

    Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 
Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(44) Williston, north dakota.--$3,900,000 for a project 
        for a water transmission line from the Missouri River to the 
        city of Williston, North Dakota.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1(2)




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 Verdant Automotive Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel J. Elliott, 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, based on 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.




Date: August 15, 2011




/s/ Daniel J. ElliottDaniel J. Elliott

Chief Executive Officer
#### HEAVENER v. STATE.

No. 17460.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 27, 1935.

W. M. Futch, of Henderson, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of murder, and his .punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either, in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or, has been perceived. No •questioii is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of-the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7567
ANDERSON LEWIS TERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MRS. STEWART, Defendant - Appellee, andFRANKLIN FREEMAN; LYNN PHILLIPS; G. L. WOODARD; D. E. DAUGHTY; T. D. HOLDER; G. WOOTEN; T. CARROLL, Defendants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-735-5) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 20, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Anderson L. Terry, Appellant Pro Se. William Dennis Worley, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Terry v. Stewart , No. CA95-735-5 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion to forward his records and prior cases to the United States Supreme Court. Appellant's motion to cons olidate is similarly denied. Finally, we deny A ppellant's motion to be heard and 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.

AFFIRMED
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 101 SSM 3 Nancy Cruz, Respondent, v. Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, Appellant.

Submitted by Caryn L. Lilling, for appellant. Submitted by Blake G. Goldfarb, for respondent.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs. The Appellate Division correctly determined that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that defendant had constructive notice of the alleged defect. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur. Judge Abdus-Salaam took no part.
Decided March 24, 2016
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7297

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TYRONE DARNELL BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-272, CA-03-996-AW; CA-03-1077-AW) Submitted: February 23, 2004 Decided: March 10, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Darnell Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Laurie Simms, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tyrone Darnell Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Butler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### Vande Zande, by Guardian *ad litem,*Plaintiff, vs. Better Farms, Inc., Defendant and Appellant: Erdman, Interpleaded Defendant and Respondent.

*February 25*

April *8, 1947.*

*193The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *A. D. Sutherland*of Fond du Lac, and for the respondent on the brief of *Erwin Weinke*of Fond du Lac.

Fairchild, J.

The corn picker attached to appellant’s tractor was about twelve feet wide, part of it extending onto the shoulder on the right side of the road. Very little, if any, of the corn picker extended beyond the tractor on the left side. Near the center of the back of the tractor, just below the driver’s seat, between four and five feet from the ground, was a white light, powerful enough to make it possible to work with the corn picker at night. At the time of the accident this light was on, focused downward onto the corn picker. The testimony indicates that the light' was similar in appearance to an automobile headlight. There was no other light on the back of the tractor or corn picker.

Appellant urges that instructions were erroneous. We find no prejudicial error. Appellant’s failure to have a red light or reflectors in place on thfe tractor is not disputed, and the negligence chargeable to respondent as found by the jury did not under the circumstances of this case amount to a superseding intervening cause. The evidence sustains the findings of the jury, and the judgment must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.