alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November 6, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations. Exemption sought for regulations including: 14 CFR Part 21, 14 CFR 91.203, 14 

CFR 45.23 1, 45.29, 14 CFR 91.9, 14 CFR 61.113 1, 61.133, 14 CFR 91.1095 91.119, 14 CFR 91.121 1, 

91.151, 14 CFR Subpart E(91.401 - 91.417), 14 CFR 91.103 (b)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, vcYES 

Productions (VCYES), seeks an exemption from Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) detailed above for 

the DJI Phantom 2 Vision, DJI Phantom 2 Vision + and DJI Phantom 3.

VCYES will utilize these unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to provide aerial still and moving images for its 

clients which include educational, environmental, non-profit and commercial organizations and 

businesses. Many of the projects for these clients pertain to matters of land and water conservation and 

are therefore in the public interest.

These UAS will be flown by an operator with over two years of flying experience specific to these aircraft 

which all comply with weight requirements (less than 55 pounds) and have been demonstrated to be safe, 

non-polluting multi-rotor devices. They will be operated within FAA required parameters: Less than 400 

feet in altitude, under 87 knots and always within line of sight of the Pilot in Command (PIC) and Visual 

Observer (VO), and radio-controlled through FCC-complaint frequencies using DJI’s industry-leading 

flight control software systems. All UAS are periodically inspected and maintained for air worthiness and 

each flight cycles is preceded by a pre-flight inspection.

All overflights and visual recordings over private property are done with the explicit verbal or written 

consent of owners or duly authorized representatives/managers. Aircraft are only operated during 

daylight hours and never operated within 5 miles of airports or helicopter landing pads. 

Signed,

Robert Currie

vcYES Productions

250 Wimberley Hills Dr.

Wimberley, TX 78676
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2959 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2959

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two

                                 An Act

 
To provide that, due to the disruptions caused by COVID-19, applications 
    for impact aid funding for fiscal year 2023 may use certain data 
             submitted in the fiscal year 2022 application.

    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 ``Supplemental Impact Aid Flexibility 
Act''.
SEC. 2. IMPACT AID PROGRAM.
    Due to the public health emergency directly relating to COVID-19 
and notwithstanding sections 7002(j) and 7003(c) of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702(j), 7703(c)), a local 
educational agency desiring to receive a payment under section 7002 or 
7003 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7702, 7703) for fiscal year 2023 that also 
submitted an application for such payment for fiscal year 2022 shall, 
in the application submitted under section 7005 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
7705) for fiscal year 2023--
        (1) with respect to a requested payment under section 7002 of 
    such Act--
            (A) use the data described in section 7002(j) of such Act 
        relating to calculating such payment that was submitted by the 
        local educational agency in the application for fiscal year 
        2022; or
            (B) use the data relating to calculating such payment for 
        the fiscal year required under section 7002(j) of such Act; and
        (2) with respect to a requested payment under section 7003 of 
    such Act--
            (A) use the student count data relating to calculating such 
        payment that was submitted by the local educational agency in 
        the application for fiscal year 2022, provided that payments 
        for fiscal year 2023 shall be calculated by the Secretary using 
        the expenditures and rates described in clauses (i), (ii), 
        (iii), and (iv) of section 7003(b)(1)(C) of such Act that would 
        otherwise apply for fiscal year 2023; or
            (B) use the student count data relating to calculating such 
        payment for the fiscal year required under section 7003(c) of 
        such Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
[Civ. No. 9136.

*First*Appellate District, *Division One.*

June 29, 1934.]

#### In the Matter of the Estate of ELYSE C. RINDGE, Deceased. CARRIE M. MERRILL et al., Appellants, v. ADRIAN CAVAGNARO, Executor, etc., Respondent.

*455Treadwell, Van Fleet & Laughlin for Appellants.

Sullivan, Roche, Johnson & Barry for Respondent.

TYLER, P. J.

Motion for order recalling and correcting *remittitur*so as to include costs on appeal. The motion is based upon the contention that the judgment entered herein modified the judgment appealed from but contained no directions as to costs on appeal, and the clerk omitted to enter upon the record and insert in the *remittitur*a judgment that appellant recover costs.

The judgment appealed from was not reversed nor modified but simply contained a direction that upon final distribution the amount paid by the executor on account of inheritance taxes should be charged against the shares of the legatees on which the taxes were based. The direction is in no sense a reversal or modification and was not intended to be so understood. Respondent therefore is entitled to costs.

The motion is denied.

Knight, J., and Cashin, J., concurred.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 1, 2016 520574 

____________________________________

In the Matter of MARLEAH K. 

YERKES,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN C. HARDY,

Appellant,

et al.,

Respondent.

(And Two Other Related Proceedings.)

____________________________________

Calendar Date: October 13, 2016

Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Andrea J. Mooney, Ithaca, for appellant.

__________

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County

(Rich Jr., J.), entered January 22, 2015, which, among other

things, granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for custody of the subject

child.

Respondent Brian C. Hardy (hereinafter the father) is the

father of a daughter (born in 1998). In 2005, the child's mother

was incarcerated and, shortly thereafter, passed away. At that

time, respondent Helena Bell, the child's maternal aunt, was

granted sole custody of the child on default. From 2005 until

2014, the child resided with various relatives, including, most

recently, the father. In August 2014, petitioner, the mother of

one of the child's friends, commenced the first of these
-2- 520574 

proceedings seeking custody of the child. Bell and the father

then each commenced modification proceedings seeking an order

granting the father sole custody of the child. Ultimately,

following fact-finding and Lincoln hearings, Family Court awarded

sole custody to petitioner. The father now appeals.

During the pendency of this appeal, the child has turned 18

years of age. Inasmuch as Family Ct Act article 6 "authorizes a

court to adjudicate custody and visitation issues with respect to

minors, who are defined as 'person[s] who ha[ve] not attained the

age of [18] years'" (Matter of Troy SS. v Judy UU., 140 AD3d

1348, 1349-1350 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 902 [2016], quoting

Family Ct Act § 119 [c]), we are constrained to dismiss the

father's appeal as moot (see Matter of Gerber v Gerber, 141 AD3d

901, 902 [2016]; Matter of McCullough v Harris, 119 AD3d 992, 993

[2014]).

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07032]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 23, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior 
Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. CCBS Holding LLC, Irving, Texas; to become a bank holding 
company by acquiring up to 77.37 percent of the voting shares of Canyon 
Bancorporation, Inc., Tucson, Arizona, and thereby indirectly acquire 
voting shares of Canyon Community Bank, National Association, Tucson, 
Arizona.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 24, 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-07032 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 10.7
 Restricted Stock Agreement
 MARINER ENERGY, INC.
SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 Employee:Date of Grant:RS Grant Number:Number of Restricted Shares Granted:
 Notice of Grant
 Vesting of Restricted Stock
  Disability
 Death
 By the Company other than for Cause




---



##### 



Termination for Cause or other than for Good Reason
 For Good Reason
 Change of Control
   th
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Book Entry
 Nontransferability of Restricted Stock
 Entire Agreement; Governing Law
 Withholding of Tax
 Amendment
 Status of Stock
 - 3 -




---



##### 



General
 MARINER ENERGY, INC.By:Name:Title:[NAME]Signature
 - 4 -
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2016

No. 04-16-00030-CV

Patricia A. MAPLES,

Appellant

v.

Royce L. MAPLES,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1997-CI-14007

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On October 31, 2016, appellant filed a Plea in Abatement asking this court to abate this 

appeal pending resolution of an appeal before the United States Supreme Court. On November 

14, 2016, appellee filed an objection to the request.

On December 2, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of 

certiorari in Howell v. Howell, No. 15-1031, on the following question:

Whether the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act preempts a state 

court’s order directing a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for a reduction in 

the former spouse’s portion of the veteran’s military retirement pay, where that 

reduction results from the veteran’s post-divorce waiver of retirement pay in order

to receive compensation for a service-connected disability.

See Howell v. Howell, No. 15-1031. ___ S. Ct. ___ (Dec. 2, 2016).

Because we believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of the above question will either 

directly answer or provide substantial guidance to answer the issue presented in the appeal before 

this court, we GRANT the Plea in Abatement. For administrative purposes, this appeal will be 

treated as a closed case, unless and until either appellant or appellee files a motion requesting its 

reinstatement following the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of the issue in Howell. 
It is so ORDERED on December 7, 2016.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2859 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2859

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the use of certain 
                          taxes and revenues.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2021

 Mr. Warnock (for himself, Mr. Ossoff, and Mr. Padilla) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the use of certain 
                          taxes and revenues.

    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 ``State and Local General Sales Tax 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF REVENUES.

    (a) Written Assurances on Use of Revenue.--Section 47107(b) of 
title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in each of paragraphs (1) and (2) by striking ``local 
        taxes'' and inserting ``local excise taxes'';
            (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``State tax'' and 
        inserting ``State excise tax''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(4) This subsection does not apply to State or local general 
sales taxes nor to State or local generally applicable sales taxes.''.
    (b) Restriction on Use of Revenues.--Section 47133 of title 49, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) 
        by striking ``Local taxes'' and inserting ``Local excise 
        taxes'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``local taxes'' and 
        inserting ``local excise taxes'';
            (3) in subsection (c) by striking ``State tax'' and 
        inserting ``State excise tax''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Limitation on Applicability.--This subsection does not apply 
to--
            ``(1) State or local general sales taxes; or
            ``(2) State or local generally applicable sales taxes.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ending June 30, 2004 of Kushi Natural Foods Corp. (the "Company") as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Daniel A. France, Treasurer of the Company certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 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
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.


/s/ DANIEL A. FRANCE
-----------------------------
Daniel A. France,
Treasurer


August 16, 2004
#### P. S. Smith *against*E. and J. Alworth.

A. defendant, ofadeedfisen-ofHhe°a«esta-onh’e^vfíneTeí

wkils^nkied í° *0'*TM>ot t0 P.Ieai* with-elects to añ-waver'of Sthe thf the witnesses were not given , , _ . „ in me oyer, and cannot be a ground of demurrer to the declaration*

DEBT on a bond, conditioned, that whereas the plaintiff had obtained a judgment against *J. A.,*defendant, before *Nehemiah Huntington,*Esq. (a justice of the peace,) for 44 •dollars and five cents, on a verdict; that if the said *J. A.*should prosecute his appeal from the said judgment, with .all due diligence, to a decision in the Court of Common ■Pleas of *Madison*county, and pay the said judgment, together with the interest thereon, and the costs of such J>eai, in case judgment be had thereon against him,’’ &c.

The defendant, after craving *oyer*of the bond, condition, *446and an endorsement thereon, in these words : “ I approve of the security within given, *Nehemibh Huntington,*Justice of the Peace,” demurred to the declaration, and assigned for causes of demurrer: 1. That it did not appear, that the bond was executed in the presence of any witnesses; 2. That it did not appear, that the money mentioned in the condition of the bond, was to be paid to the plaintiff; 3. That it did not appear, that the judgment was obtained before JV. *H.,*by virtue of, or pursuant to any law of the state. There was a joinder in demurrer, and the cause was submitted to the Court without argument.

Woodworth, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The first cause of demurrer is, that it does not appear that the bond was executed in the presence of any witness. A defendant, who prays oyer of a deed, is entitled to a copy of the attestation and names of the witnesses, as well as every other part of the deed. (1 *Tidd Pr.*527. *Willes,*288.) And where the defendant is entitled to have *oyer,*it cannot be dispensed with by the Court; nor can he be compelled to plead without it. (1 *Tidd Pr.*528.) (a) But the defendant cannot avail himself of this objection on demurrer. He was not bound to plead until the names of the witnesses were given; but if he elects to answer, it is a waiver of the objection, and the Court will presume that the bond was well executed.

The remaining causes of demurrer appear to be frivo-’ lous. The money in the condition was payable to the plaintiff, by necessary intendment, he having obtained a judgment against *James Alwortk,*and the condition being to pay the same, with interest and costs.

This Court will presume, that the judgment set out in the condition, is a valid judgment, until the contrary appears, and that the bond was legally taken on an appeal to the Common Pleas. The condition is in the words prescribed by the act to extend the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace, sess. 41. ch. 94. sec. 17.

The endorsement by the Justice, approving the security,, *447is admitted by the demurrer, and must be considered as made in pursuance of the directions of the act.

The plaintiff is entitled to judgment, and the defendants have leave to plead *de novo,*in twenty days, on payment of costs.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

(a)

**Vide 1 *Dunlap's*Pr. 399.340.
Exhibit 99.2



SOHU.COM INC.



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 Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Derek Palaschuk,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 of the Company as of March 31, 2003 and results of operations of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2003.



/s/    Derek PalaschukDerek Palaschuk, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 12, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7751
ST. AUBYN SEBASTIAN GAYLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-6036
ST. AUBYN SEBASTIAN GAYLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cv-00681-REP) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 28, 2008- 2 - Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. St. Aubyn Sebastian Gayle, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* Though Gayle has filed a motion for production of documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Act is not applicable to federal courts. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1)(B), 552(f)(1) (2000). - 3 - PER CURIAM: St. Aubyn Sebastian Gayle appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to toll the limitation period for filing a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and his motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gayle v. Johnson , No. 3:05-cv-00681-REP (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2007 & Dec. 18, 2007). Additionally, we deny Gayle’s motion for production of documents. * 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