alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SUAS’

The Phantom 3 Professional sUAS Operational User Manual describes, in detail, the 

policies and procedures for Petitioner’s supplement to the 333 Exemption request FAA2015-5593-0001. To assist the FAA in its safety assessment of Petitioner’s proposed

additional sUAS, below is a summary of operational limitations and conditions.

1. The sUAS weighs a maximum of 2.9 lbs. with permanently attached sensor.

2. Flights will be operated within line-of-sight of the trained PIC and VO.

3. Flights will be terminated no later than 25% power reserve.

4. Flights will be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet AGL (typically 200 

feet AGL)

5. Minimum crew for each operation will consist of the sUAS PIC and VO.

6. The sUAS PIC will be an FAA licensed commercial, private or sport utility pilot.

Below is an overview of the Petitioner’s Phantom 3 Professional specifications. Additional 

operational information is available in the Phantom 3 Operations User Manual (Attachment 

B) and Quick Start Guide (Attachment C).

Phantom 3 Professional

Battery 6000 mAh LiPo 2S

Phantom 3 Advanced 

Weight

1280g (with battery & propellers)
Hover Accuracy 

(Ready to Fly)

Vertical: +/- 0.1 m (when Vision 

Positioning is active) or +/- 0.5 m

Horizontal:1.5m

Max Ascent / Descent 

Speed

Ascent: 5m/s

Descent: 3m/s

Max Flight Speed 16m/s (ATTI mode, no wind)

Diagonal Length 590mm

Controllable Range of 

Gimbal

Pitch -90°to +30°
CAIR Replacement Rule

Consultation and Information Sharing Calls between Tribes and EPA

January 21, 2011 and February 4, 2011

I. Introduction

In December 2010, EPA sent letters to all federally-recognized Tribes in the country offering 

consultation on the proposed CAIR replacement rule. In addition, the January 7 NODA on 

allowance allocation methodologies specifically requested comment on allocating allowances 

to new units in Indian Country. EPA held two consultation and information-sharing calls with 16

interested Tribes on January 21, 2011 and February 4, 2011. Tribes participating on these 

consultation and information calls provided comments on the proposed rule and the allowance 

allocation NODA. 

II. Tribal Participation

The following tribes participated in these two calls as either consultation or information 

sharing:

1. Eastern Band of Cherokee Nation 

2. Fond du Lac Band 

3. Forest County Potawatomi Community 

4. Fort Belknap Indian Community 

5. Grand Portage Band

6. Kootenai Tribe 

7. Lac de Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 

8. Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe 

9. Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe 

10. Moapa Band of Paiutes 

11. Penobscot Indian Nation 

12. Red Lake Band of Chippewa 

13. Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas 

14. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe 

15. Southern Ute Indian Tribe 

16. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

III. Discussion Topics

The following topics were discussed over the course of the two calls:
1. Allowances

a. Distribution and use of allowances for new units in Indian country

b. Retirement of allowances

c. Allocation methodologies

d. Tribal set-aside for new and existing units

2. Non-compliance penalties

3. Potential impact of new ozone standard

4. Opt-ins

5. Exemption of cogeneration units

6. Proposed rule’s impact on nonattainment

7. Contribution from state in which Indian country is located

8. Modeling impacts on Indian country

9. Low-sulfur vs. high-sulfur coal

10. Non-EGU sources

11. Treatment-as-State

12. Air quality issues in areas outside proposed rule region
EXHIBIT 32.2

           WRITTEN STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     The  undersigned,  William C. Gray, is the Senior Vice  President and Chief
Financial Officer of Carver Bancorp (the "Company").

     This  statement  is being  furnished in  connection  with the filing by the
Company of the  Company's  Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2006 (the "Report").

     By execution of this statement, I certify that:

                A)         the Report fully complies with the requirements of
                           Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
                           of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

                B)         the information contained in the Report fairly
                           presents, in all material respects, the financial
                           condition and results of operations of the Company as
                           of the dates and for the periods covered by the
                           Report.

         This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report
so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.


            June 29, 2006                       /s/ William C. Gray
-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
            Dated                                   William C. Gray



* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Nasvik and another, Copartners, Plaintiffs and Appellants, vs. Seaboard Surety Company, Defendant and Appellant: Zukowski and others, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Rush &*Devos, attorneys, of Neills-ville, and *Pmil C. Thomas*of counsel of St. Paul, Minnesota.

For the respondents : *Goggins, Braseau & Graves*of Wisconsin Rapids.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1303 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1303

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the enrollment of 
   veterans in certain courses of education, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2015

 Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Tillis) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the enrollment of 
   veterans in certain courses of education, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Veterans Education Priority 
Enrollment Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY ENROLLMENT FOR VETERANS IN CERTAIN COURSES OF 
              EDUCATION.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 36 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 3680A the following new section:
``Sec. 3680B. Priority enrollment in certain courses
    ``(a) In General.--With respect to an educational assistance 
program provided for in chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, or 35 of this title or 
chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, if an educational institution 
administers a priority enrollment system that allows certain students 
to enroll in courses earlier than other students, the Secretary or a 
State approving agency may not approve a program of education offered 
by such institution unless such institution allows a covered individual 
to enroll in courses at the earliest possible time pursuant to such 
priority enrollment system.
    ``(b) Covered Individual Defined.--In this section, the term 
`covered individual' means an individual using educational assistance 
under chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, or 35 of this title or chapter 1606 or 
1607 of title 10, including--
            ``(1) a veteran;
            ``(2) a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty 
        or a member of a reserve component (including the National 
        Guard);
            ``(3) a dependent to whom such assistance has been 
        transferred pursuant to section 3319 of this title; and
            ``(4) any other individual using such assistance.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
3680A the following new item:

``3680B. Priority enrollment in certain courses.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Cleveland Bar Association *v.*Cicirella.

[Cite as *Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Cicirella*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 544.]

(No. 99-834

Submitted June 22, 1999

Decided September 8, 1999.)

*545*Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur*and *Daniel F. Gourash; Van Aken, Withers & Webster*and *Kevin L. Starrett,*for relator.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board. Although an indefinite suspension is generally warranted when a pattern of neglecting legal matters is coupled with a failure to cooperate in the ensuing disciplinary investigation, there is no such pattern of neglect related to multiple clients here. See *Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Rollins*(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 408, 704 N.E.2d 1210. The board was justified in relying on the lack of such pattern to impose a lesser sanction. Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio for two years, with one year stayed, and she is ordered to pay $1,000 to the Shaffers. Costs are taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code), each of the undersigned officers of Supreme Industries, Inc. (the“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended July 1, 2006 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form10-Q.
| DATE: August 11, 2006 |   |                    | /s/ Jeffery D. Mowery |   |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Jeffery D. Mowery       |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

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

----
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

| A. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| B. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: | May                10, 2007 |
|-------|-----------------------------|

|         |                                                 |                                                 |
|--------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|    |                                       | /s/              John              G. Copeland  |
|         | John G. Copeland                                     |
|         | EVP              & Chief Financial Officer  |

----
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1338 

To amend the Federal Power Act to provide licensing procedures for certain 

types of projects. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2015 

Mr. KING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Power Act to provide licensing 

procedures for certain types of projects. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Hydropower De5 pendable Regulatory Order Act of 2015’’ or the ‘‘Small 

6 HyDRO Act of 2015’’. 

7 SEC. 2. LICENSING PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF 

8 PROJECTS. 

9 Part I of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792 et 

10 seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1338 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 34. LICENSING PROCEDURES FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF 

2 PROJECTS. 

3 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF COVERED PROJECT.—In this 

4 section, the term ‘covered project’ means a project— 

5 ‘‘(1) that does not alter the existing flowrate of 

6 the body of water the project is on; and 

7 ‘‘(2)(A) that has a power production capacity 

8 that is not more than 5 megawatts; or 

9 ‘‘(B) to power a nonpowered dam. 

10 ‘‘(b) SPECIAL CATEGORY OF LICENSE.—Notwith11 standing any other provision of this part, a license with 

12 respect to a covered project shall only be issued in accord13 ance with this section. 

14 ‘‘(c) APPLICATION.—An applicant for a license for a 

15 covered project under this section shall submit to the Com16 mission an application for a license in such form and man17 ner and requiring such information as the Commission 

18 may require. 

19 ‘‘(d) REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION.—In deciding 

20 whether to issue any license for a covered project under 

21 this section, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that 

22 the license be issued. 

23 ‘‘(e) ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE.—For purposes 

24 of issuing a license under this section, if there is a conflict 

25 between any environmental analysis prepared by the Com26 mission under the National Environmental Policy Act of 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1338 IS

1 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to the covered 

2 project and any environmental analysis prepared by any 

3 other Federal or State agency under that Act, the Com4 mission shall resolve the differences. 

5 ‘‘(f) TERM OF LICENSE.—The term of a license for 

6 a covered project issued under this section shall be 10 

7 years. 

8 ‘‘(g) DEADLINE FOR ISSUANCE.—Not later than 180 

9 days after the date on which the Commission receives an 

10 application for a license for a covered project under sub11 section (c), the Commission shall— 

12 ‘‘(1) approve the license and issue the license; 

13 or 

14 ‘‘(2) disapprove the license.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NRO Successfully Launches Payload on Last 

Atlas 3 from Cape Canaveral

| 3 February 2005 | 

Amid dense fog, a National Reconnaissance Office payload successfully launched from Complex 

36 at Cape Canaveral at 2:41 a.m. this morning.

Placed into orbit by an Atlas 3 rocket, the launch was the 75th consecutive success for Lockheed 

Martin's Atlas family of rockets. It was also the last Atlas III launched from the United States. 

Launch officials had to deal with severe thunderstorms throughout the week. 

"The entire launch team was outstanding. The weather was not cooperating, but everyone stayed 

positive and worked hard to ensure our perfect record of Atlas launches. I couldn't be happier," 

said Col Chip Zakrzewski, mission director for the launch and the director of the Office of Space 

Launch.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1473 

To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety 

or gun violence prevention. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 2, 2015 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. WARREN, Mr. 

SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. MURPHY, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. HIRONO, Mrs. MURRAY, and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To authorize the appropriation of funds to the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention for conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FUNDING FOR RESEARCH BY CDC ON FIRE4 ARMS SAFETY OR GUN VIOLENCE PREVEN5 TION. 

6 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Centers 

7 for Disease Control and Prevention $10,000,000 for each 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1473 IS

1 of fiscal years 2016 through 2021 for the purpose of con2 ducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun 

3 violence prevention under the Public Health Service Act 

4 (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.). The amount authorized to be ap5 propriated by the preceding sentence is in addition to any 

6 other amounts authorized to be appropriated for such pur7 pose. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The State ex rel. Hirschvogel, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Miller; Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Hirschvogel, Inc. v. Miller*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 215.]

(No. 97-1630

Submitted July 28, 1999

Decided August 25, 1999.)

*217*Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease*and *Theodore P. Mattis,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Cheryl J. Nester,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellees Industrial Commission of Ohio and Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

*Per Curiam.*

The commission’s order contains an accurate recitation of the two specific safety requirements currently at issue — Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-12(D)(3)(a)(i) and (4)(a). Hirschvogel does not dispute noncompliance with these specific safety requirements. The Cratex 203-A grinding wheel was not attached to the wheel armature with flanges, and the wheel’s maximum rated speed was greatly exceeded by the minimum speed of the grinder.

Hirschvogel instead attempts to excuse its noncompliance by asserting that the provisions do not apply. Alternatively, it alleges that claimant acted negligently, thereby shielding Hirschvogel from liability. Neither contention is persuasive.

The employer’s initial argument is directed primarily to Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-5-12(D)(4)(a). Hirschvogel argues that because the rubberized nature of *218the grinding wheel made it nnconducive to “ring testing,” it was not encompassed by section (D)(4)(a). We disagree.

Claimant’s accident demonstrates the dangers of using a grinding wheel incapable of handling the R.P.M.s produced by the grinder. Yet Hirschvogel essentially argues that wheeVgrinder incompatibility is somehow ameliorated by a wheel’s inability to emit a ringing sound when tapped. We cannot ratify this premise. Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-12 applies to “abrasive grinding and * * * polishing * * * equipment.” Hirschvogel itself describes the equipment at issue as a “rubberized abrasive disc.” We find, therefore, that the commission did not abuse its discretion in applying Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-5-12(D)(4)(a) and in finding a violation of this section.

Hirschvogel also alleges that claimant was negligent in not using approved safety glasses and that this negligence immunizes it from penalty. Claimant’s alleged negligence, however, even if it existed, is a defense only where the employer has *first*complied with the relevant safety requirement. See *State ex rel. Frank Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.*(1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 162, 524 N.E.2d 482. Here, Hirschvogel did not satisfy either requirement at issue, negating our need to explore its assertion further.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
CHARTER OF THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF

ALMADEN MINERALS LTD. ( the Company)









CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE COMPOSITION



The Corporate Governance Committee shall be comprised of Directors who are unrelated as defined by the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX).







RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY OF THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE



The Committee has the general responsibility for developing the Corporations approach to corporate governance.

The Committee shall review and make recommendations to the Board as to any compensation payable to the Board or members thereof.

The Committee shall be responsible for authorizing the defraying of expenses of any director engaging outside counsel at the expense of the Corporation.

The Committee shall, not less frequently than once a year, review and recommend to the Board any matters concerning the size and composition (including nominees) of the Board, size, organization and responsibilities of Board committees and the evaluation process for the Chairman, Board and committees of the Board.

The Committee shall be responsible for administering the Boards relationship with management including the CEO. The Committee may convene meetings of the Board without management present.
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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: November 8, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Michael J. McCannMichael J. McCannChief Financial Officer