alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 30, 2015

To whom it may concern. This is a request to fly a drone weighting under 5 pounds commercially in the National Air Space. Namely Real Estate photography (commercially). Also Public Service to be flown at my expense for organizations such as Fire, Police, Forestry and Search and Rescue upon request. I would operate the craft safely to minimize risk of injury to a person or persons, minimize risk of damage to property. Ob servation of the surrounding and keeping a safe distance from people and property is critical upon operation. This UAS is a DJI Phantom 3 that has safeguards built in. Such as Keeping the aircraft grounded taking off in a restricted area or landing immedia tely if the craft happens to enter the restricted area unintentionally. Upon every flight the craft is inspected for damage, recalibrated for maximum safety and control and examining the batteries for full power or lack there of

. Maximum performance of th e aircraft is required for a safe, successful flight. Making sure you have radio and visual contact with the craft is extremely important when operating a UAS. Specs for the DJI Phantom 3 can be found h ere . http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 3If you have questions please give me a call at 760 963 0424

Sincerely, John Pflughoft 12497 Kokomo Way Victorville, Ca. 92392 760 963 0424
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Patricia Giuliani-Rheaume, certify that

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of clickNsettle.com,
Inc. (the "registrant");

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 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) 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; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's second fiscal quarter
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 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 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; and

            (b) 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: February 10, 2004


/s/ Patricia Giuliani-Rheaume
-----------------------------------------
Patricia Giuliani-Rheaume - Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer


                                       24
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-14-00498-CV

_________________

IN RE CITY OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The City of Beaumont, Texas seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the trial 

court to rule on a plea to the jurisdiction before trial on the merits. Generally, a 

trial court deciding a plea to the jurisdiction has discretion to decide “whether the 

jurisdictional determination should be made at a preliminary hearing or await a 

fuller development of the case, mindful that this determination must be made as 

soon as practicable.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 

227 (Tex. 2004); see also Bland Indep. School Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 

(Tex. 2000). 
2

After reviewing the records and after considering the arguments presented 

by relator and by the real party in interest, Justin Jackson, we conclude that the trial 

court acted within its discretion in deciding to allow further development of the 

facts of the case before ruling on the plea to the jurisdiction. Accordingly, we deny 

the petition for writ of mandamus. 

PETITION DENIED. 

PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 26, 2014

Opinion Delivered December 18, 2014

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 11035 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JUSTIN RAY MONROE
,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 6

- 8

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Justin Ray Monroe has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Monroe has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allo w
us to make a fair evaluation of Monroe ’s claims of ine ffective assistance or coercion by counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 8, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-11035 Document: 00515409353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2020No. 19

- 11035

2 prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 ) ; United States v. Corbett , 742 F.2d 173, 176

- 78 (5th Cir. 1984)

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Monroe ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2

. Case: 19-11035 Document: 00515409353 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2020
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

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

I, Stuart Grayston, President and chief executive officer of the Company, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd.; 

2. Based on myknowledge, 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 respectto the period covered by this report; 

3. [omitted pursuant to Division of Corporation Finance: Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002—FrequentlyAsked Questions November 8, 2002 (revised November 14, 2002)]; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing 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, includingits consolidated 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 disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer 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 performingthe equivalent functions): 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably 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 or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 28, 2006
EXHIBIT
32.2




WRITTEN
STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with Quarterly Report of Lihua International, Inc. and its
subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned, Yang “Roy” Yu  Chief Financial
Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or
15d-14(b) 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.





Dated:
      May 14, 2009
            By:
            /s/ Yang “Roy” YuName:
      Yang “Roy” YuTitle:  Chief
      Financial Officer
# 22S-/5" ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA # 01-14-00206-CR 

## OFFENSE: 21.1 (Sexual Abuse of Child) Alan OmarRodriguezv. The State 

### STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Harris COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 177th District Court DATE:02/03/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1378403



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Alan OmarRodriguez v. The State of STYLE: Texas 

## PRO SE FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: JUDGE: 

# *//*?/.M)/jT Petition 

# rJiCc- 'AAyU^— 

# PflP SC PBTrnoN FORDISCRETIONARYREVIEW 

## IS re/us^S DATE JTuL J21 Z&JS

## r~ JUDGE CCA#: 

# 22«-/r CCA Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: ELECTRONIC RECORD
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4531

_____________________________

JOSHUA BRIAN NIBBELINK,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—

Original Jurisdiction.

June 28, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel is denied on the merits.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Joshua Brian Nibbelink, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         186,251
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,829
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,765
<INVENTORY>                                     15,270
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               239,358
<PP&E>                                         454,929
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 979,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,689
<BONDS>                                        504,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     186,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   979,797
<SALES>                                         24,405
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               133,231
<CGS>                                           44,321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               150,789
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,758
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (149,360)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (149,360)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (149,360)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northern Minerals Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Damian O'Hara, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
11th day of November, 2008.


/s/ Damian O'Hara
--------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
#### Will of Weiss : Volesky and others, Respondents, vs. Hartinger, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Jos. F. Studnicka,*attorney, and *Walter Schins, Jr.,*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

For the respondents : *Schloemer & Stolts*of West Bend.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24613]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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 24, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 15, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
391 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-90, K2025-88.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24613 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.3

                                   AGREEMENT

Dated this 1st Day of October 1999, between Michael McInerney of 10433 Wilshire
Blvd., Westwood, Los Angeles, CA 90024 & Save the World Air Inc., (STWA).

Michael McInerney to act as a consultant for the company and supply a Los
Angeles address for STWA mail and to supply fax and phone numbers for STWA and
to pass on all such mail and messages to STWA as it arrives.

This agreement is for a period of two years from today's date.

Michael McInerney has accumulated, as a part of this agreement, various expenses
including travel, automobile, etc.

Remuneration for the abovementioned services is to be 10,000 S-8 shares in STWA
at .60c in lieu of his services.

Pursuant to this agreement, it is acknowledged and agreed by the Company that
consultant carries no professional licenses, and is not agreeing to act as a
market maker or render legal advice or perform accounting services, nor act as
an investment advisor or broker-dealer within the meaning of applicable state
and federal securities laws. It is further acknowledged and agreed by the
Company that the services provided to the Company are not rendered in connection
with the offer and sale of Securities in a capital raising transaction.
Consultant does not undertake as part of this Agreement to provide loans,
investments or financing for the Company. Consultant will not perform any
activities that could subject Consultant or Company to violations of Federal or
applicable state securities law. Consultant is not engaged to act as agent,
broker, underwriter, or market maker for the securities of the Company.

Signed and agreed

/s/ Michael McInerney
--------------------------
Michael McInerney

/s/ Jeffrey A. Muller
--------------------------
Jeffrey A. Muller
Chairman, Save the World Air, Inc.
Exhibit 10.1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTis made
and entered into this 14th day of September, 2007, by and between MOVIE GALLERY US, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the Company), and JOE MALUGEN (the Employee).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS,the Company and Employee
entered into that certain Employment Contract, dated June 9, 1994, providing for the employment of Employee as Chief Executive Officer, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Employment Contract dated April 3, 2000 (the
Agreement);

NOW, THEREFORE,for good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as
follows:

1. Paragraph 7.1 of the Agreement is hereby removed and deleted in its entirety, and a new Paragraph 7.1 is hereby added in its
place and stead as follows:

In the event of a termination of employment due to illness, disability or other incapacity to the extent
that the Employee is unable to perform the duties of his employment, the Company shall pay Employee a cash payment equal to 90 days of Employees salary, payable in a lump sum within thirty (30) days following such termination of
employment.

2. Paragraph 7.2 of the Agreement is hereby removed and deleted in its entirety.

3. This amendment shall be effective as of the date set forth above.

4. In all other respects, the Agreement is hereby ratified and affirmed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the
parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Employment Contract on the day and year first above written.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                                
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  |  | Movie Gallery US, LLC                                                          
|                   |  | 
|/s/ Martha Compton |  |  |  | /s/ S. Page Todd                                                               
|Witness            |  |  |  | S. Page Todd                                                                   
|                   |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary & Chief Compliance Officer
|                   |  | 
|/s/ Martha Compton |  |  |  | /s/ Joe Malugen                                                                
|Witness            |  |  |  | Joe Malugen
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 A1 80 2 . CALVI N PHI LLI PS v . AHMED HOLT, W ARDEN.

Cal v i n Ph il l i p s ap peal s fro m t h e t ri al co urt ’ s ord er d is m i s s i n g h i s p et i t i o n fo r

a wri t o f h ab eas co rp u s

. Un d er o u r Co n s t i t u t i o n , t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as ex cl u s i v e ap p el l at e ju ri sd i ct i o n o v er al l cas es i n v o l v i n g h ab eas co rp u s

. See Ga. Co ns t

. o f 1 9 8 3, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (4 ). Th i s ap p eal i s t h erefo re T R A N S F ER R ED t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt fo r d i s p o s i t i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. May 13, 2020

05/13/2020
1 Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1 United States Court of A ppeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 24, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 04-51386

_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee

v. ROBBIE WOOSLEY Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, Austin

--------------------- Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

IT IS ORDERED that the Appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate
the sentence is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellee ’ s unopposed
motion to remand the case to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas , Austin Division for resentencing
is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellee’s alternative2

unopposed motion for an extension of time to file the Appellee’s
brief fourteen (14) days from the Court’ s denial of the Appellee’s motion to vacate and remand is DENIED AS MOOT.