alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MG-1SPECS • 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 LiPo
Signal 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 rate 
of 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 CHARGER
FEATURES

Model A14-057N1A

Voltage 17.4 V

Rated Power 57 W
#### Umentum, Appellant, vs. Arendt and wife, Respondents.

*September 7*

October *5, 1954.*

*376For the appellant there was a brief by *Warne, Duffy & Dewane*of Green Bay, and oral argument by *Lloyd 0. ■ Warne.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Neumann & Slatky,*and oral argument by *Albert F. Neumann,*all of Kewaunee.

Martin, J.

Plaintiff does not take the position that the findings of the jury are not supported by the evidence nor does he ask for a new trial. He bases his case upon the theory that the law of bailment operates to require a bailee to redeliver the property at the end of the term and if he does not do so, the bailor has the right to consider the bailment as continued or renewed, citing *Nudd v. Montanye*(1875), 38 Wis. 511; *Enos v. Cole*(1881), 53 Wis. 235, 10 N. W. 377; *Bradley v. Harper*(1920), 173 Wis. 103, 180 N. W. 130; Anno. 144 A. L. R. 1024*et seq.*

The general rule of bailment as expressed in those authorities, however, does not preclude the making of a contract under which the bailor agrees to call for the property when the term of bailment ends. Plaintiff cites no authority holding that such a contract is not valid, and we are unable to find any. In our opinion the express provisions of the contract between the parties are controlling; and it was for the jury to decide whether, on the evidence presented, the agreement here did provide that plaintiff would remove the cattle from defendants’ farm on receiving notice at the end of the term that they no longer wished to rent them. Testimony as to the conduct of the parties and the circumstances here involved amply supports the jury’s finding that such was in fact the understanding between the parties.

*377Plaintiff complains that the court denied his motion made at the-end’of the testimony for amendment of the pleadings to the effect that if no agreement was found to have existed between the parties from 1949 to 1950, the defendants’ possession and use of the cattle during that time constituted a holdover under the bailment law, and that the court should answer the first question of the special verdict “No” as a matter of law. In pur view, the question presented was one of fact, not of law, and the court’s denial of the motion was proper.

Finally, plaintiff contends that defendants failed to prove that they proceeded legally in the foreclosure of their lien. It was not- incumbent upon defendants to do so. It was plaintiff’s burden to prove that the sale was invalid.' But nowhere does the recprd indicate, nor is it pointed out either in plaintiff’s brief or oral argument, that defendants failed in any respect to comply with the statutes governing the foreclosure of a lien acquired under sec. 289.43 (3), Stats. The record does show that in April, 1949, defendants made demand upon plaintiff for payment of the expenses incurred in feeding and caring for the cattle; that.plaintiff was duly served with a notice of sheriff’s sale; and that following such sale defendants offered to account to plaintiff for the balance of the proceeds of the sale.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
333-74513) on Form S-8 of our report dated February 23, 1999 (March 11, 1999 as
to the last paragraph in Note 12) relating to the consolidated balance sheet of
FlashNet Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the
related statements of operations, shareholders' deficit, and cash flows for the
years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997, which appears in the December 31, 1999
Annual Report on Form 10-K of FlashNet Communications, Inc.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Fort Worth, Texas
March 27, 2000
#### Estate of Van Schaick: Van Schaick, Appellant, vs. Van Schaick and others, Respondents.

*December 1*

December *30, 1949.*

*216*Kenneth L. Swanson*of Ellsworth, attorney, and *C. H. Bentley*of Red Wing, Minnesota, of counsel, for the appellant.

*R. Wilbur Brookshaw*of Ellsworth, and *Milton I. Holst*of Red Wing, Minnesota, for the respondents.

Martin, J.

It is clear that the petitioner could only be relieved from the legal impediment created by her first marriage by a divorce which had the legal effect of removing the impediment. Under the law of 1909, a final judgment was required in order to have that effect. She would only be free to marry again after final judgment, which could not be entered before the expiration of one year from the interlocutory judgment. *S&& Dallmann v. Dallmann*(1915), 159 Wis. 480, 149 N. W. 137. Obviously, since petitioner did not secure a final judgment in the divorce proceedings against Johnson Clinger, there could not be a common-law marriage between the petitioner and decedent prior to the death of her first husband, Johnson Clinger, in 1937, and the marriage between Allie Lester and petitioner in 1924, would be null and void.

It is conceded that the residence of petitioner and decedent since 1935 was in Wisconsin. Common-law marriages were abolished in Wisconsin in 1917 and, therefore, petitioner can claim no common-law marriage in Wisconsin.

Petitioner contends that a common-law marriage was established in Texas as petitioner and decedent lived and held each other out to the public as husband and wife and met every requirement of a common-law marriage in the state of Texas during the several months out of several *217different years between 1940 and 1947 that they vacationed in that state.

It .is unnecessary for us to discuss this contention for sec. 245.04, Stats., provides:

> “If any person *residing and intending to continue to reside in this state*who is disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state shall go into another state or country and there contract a marriage prohibited and declared void by the laws of this state, such marriage shall be null and void for all purposes in this state with the same effect as though such prohibited marriage had been entered into in this state.”

Since petitioner and decedent were residents of the state of Wisconsin, the above statute applies. Petitioner was not the wife of . decedent during his lifetime and is not entitled to any rights as widow and heir in A. D. Van Schaick’s estate.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### Herman Andrae Electrical Company, Appellant, vs. Grossman, Respondent.

*April 11*

May *6, 1958.*

*244The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Paul L. Moskowitz,*attorney, and *Samuel J. Schrinsky*of counsel, and for the respondent on the brief of *Kohner & Howard,*all of Milwaukee.

Fairchild, J.

Plaintiff acted in all respects as if he were dealing with the corporation as principal through Grossman as its officer and agent. Unless the fact that Grossman individually held the liquor license compels a different result, the civil court correctly concluded that Grossman was not personally obligated to plaintiff.

Plaintiff suggests that because Grossman held the liquor license he is estopped from denying that he was dealing with plaintiff in his own behalf rather than as agent for the corporation. Plaintiff relies upon *John Barth Co. v. Brandy*(1917), 165 Wis. 196, 161 N. W. 766. There Schwartz *245operated a saloon and Brandy, purely as an accommodation to Schwartz, obtained the liquor license in his own name. Brandy was in another business and had no connection with the saloon except that he held the license. Barth supplied liquor for the saloon, at Schwartz’s request, and upon Schwartz’s instructions it was consigned to Brandy. Barth billed it to Brandy and sued him when Schwartz failed to make full payment. This court decided that under these circumstances, Brandy, the licensee, must be presumed to be the owner and that he was estopped from asserting the contrary.

The instant case is different in two respects: In the *Barth Case,*Barth delivered and billed the goods as if the licensee were the principal; in the case before us, plaintiff treated the corporation (not the licensee) as the principal. In the *Barth Case*the goods supplied were liquor which only the licensee could lawfully sell; Brandy could not claim the liquor was sold to Schwartz without relying upon an arrangement between Schwartz and himself which contemplated unlawful sale of liquor by Schwartz. In the instant case the equipment repaired and serviced could well have been owned by the corporation and Grossman could have carried on the tavern business individually without any illegality in the arrangements between them.

A contract whereby Grossman would have agreed to act as agent for an unlicensed corporation in the sale of liquor would have been unlawful. *Brill v. Salzwedel*(1940), 235 Wis. 551, 292 N. W. 908. (We assume from the stipulation that the license was issued to Grossman, individually, and not to the corporation with Grossman its appointed agent. Sec. 176.05 (13), Stats.) But the record does not disclose the arrangement between the corporation and Gross-man with respect to the sale of liquor. No claim has been made that Grossman fraudulently induced plaintiff to deal *246with the corporation nor that there are circumstances other than the liquor license which would estop Grossman from claiming that in ordering repairs and servicing of equipment he was acting as agent for the corporation.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

Hallows, J., took no part.
**Exhibit 31.1****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification**I, Jon S. Brumley, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Encore Energy Partners LP; 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 included inthis 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 thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986]  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: November 5, 2007 /s/ Jon S. Brumley   Jon S. Brumley   Chief Executive Officer andPresident of Encore Energy
#### Schroeder, Appellant, vs. Stampfel and another, Respondents.

*September 13*—

October *11, 1955.*

*609For the appellant there was a brief and oral argument by *Max Raskin*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents there was a brief by *Hannan, Johnson & Goldschmidt,*attorneys, and *Herbert L. Wible*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Wible.*

Broadfoot, J.

The plaintiff contends that numerous errors were committed by the trial court during the progress of the trial. It is contended, among other things, that the trial *610judge made improper remarks to counsel and witnesses, that he unduly cross-examined witnesses, and that he gave erroneous and untimely instructions to the jury, all of which were prejudicial to the plaintiff.

We have carefully checked the record herein and have found that substantial error was committed during the trial. Such error could well have prejudiced the jury against the plaintiff and there is an indication that it was so prejudiced by finding no damages for discomfort, pain and suffering by the plaintiff caused by the injuries he received in the accident. This finding was made despite the fact that there was un-contradicted testimony, medical and otherwise, that the plaintiff was in the hospital for ten days following the accident, and that he was confined to his home for an additional twenty-four days upon the orders of his physician. There was also undisputed testimony that his doctor prescribed opiates and other medicine to relieve his pain. Therefore, under our discretionary powers, pursuant to sec. 251.09, Stats., we remand the case for a new trial upon all issues.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed. Cause remanded for a new trial.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 18, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 7, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 444 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-36, K2025-35.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24045 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 13.1



Officer Certifications Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code),
each of the undersigned officers of Globant S.A., a corporation organized under the form of a société anonymeunder
the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:



The annual report on Form 20-F for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: April 27, 2015



|/s/ Martín Migoya       | 
|----------------------- | 
|Martín Migoya           | 
|Chief Executive Officer |
EXHIBIT 99.7




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the Annual Report of Denison Mines Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and SEC Rule 13a-14(b), 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.







Date:
April 3, 2014By:
/s/ David D. Cates



By:
/s/ Ron F. HochsteinName:
David D. Cates



Name:
Ron F. HochsteinTitle:
VP Finance, Tax and CFO



Title:
President and CEO
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

I, Richard Findley, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of American Eagle Energy Inc. for
          the period ended January 31, 2010 (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 American Eagle Energy Inc.

Dated: March 23, 2010

                               /s/ Richard Findley
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Richard Findley
                               President, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
                               (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
                               Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
                               American Eagle Energy Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to American Eagle Energy Inc. and
will be retained by American Eagle Energy Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.