alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 9, 2015

Exemption No. 12061A

Regulatory Docket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 1269

Mr. Matt Green

Massey Green AVP

2478 Red Bluff Lane, #H

West Chester, OH 45069

Dear Mr. Green :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter posted to the public docket on July 22, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation

Ad ministration (FAA) on behalf of MasseyGreenAVP (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for

an amendment to your current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ),

61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1),

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data

collection

. You requested an amendment to conduct closed

- set motion picture and television

filming to your operations.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has dete rmined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

. T he

unmanned aircraft authorized in the original grant are comparable in type, size, weight, speed

and operating capabilities to those in this petition

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 12061

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is2

granted an amendment to add closed

- set motion picture and television filming to its UAS

operations.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 12061 remain in effect exc ept

as follows. Condition No. 2 has been update d to permit closed

- set motion picture and

television filming

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed

- set motion picture and television filming

are permitted.

T his exemption terminates on July 31, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 8, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-990 Lower Tribunal No. K3000010

________________ Mario Cordoba, Appellant,
vs. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Division of Licensing,

Appellee. An Appeal from the State of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Licensing. Mario Cordoba, in proper person. Michael T. McGuckin, Senior Attorney (Tallahassee), for appellee. Before SCALES, HENDON and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4407

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CHARLES MANU,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, 

District Judge. (5:15-cr-00060-JPB-JES-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brendan S. Leary, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Wheeling, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United 

States Attorney, David J. Perri, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Manu pled guilty to possession of unauthorized 

access devices, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3), 1029(c)(1)(A)(i) 

(2012), and was sentenced to 24 months in prison. He now 

appeals, challenging the reasonableness of his sentence. We 

affirm.

The record reflects that the district court properly 

determined that Manu’s Guidelines range was 6-12 months, 

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors and 

the arguments of the parties, and provided a sufficiently 

individualized assessment based on the facts of the case. The 

court explained that it had varied above the Guidelines range 

because Manu had not cooperated fully with investigators, had 

recently committed a similar offense in Kentucky, and had not 

been truthful with his probation officer about his claimed past 

employment. We conclude that the sentence is procedurally and 

substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th 

Cir. 2009). 

We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Order entered March 26, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00057-CV

NOVO POINT, LLC, QUANTEC, LLC, RPV, LTD., AND JEFFREY 

BARON, Appellants

V.

ELISSA KATZ, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-01898-D

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from the trial court’s order denying appellants’ 

request for a temporary injunction. On February 25, 2021, after being notified by 

Dallas County Clerk John F. Warren that the clerk’s record had been prepared but 

would not be filed because appellants had not paid the fee for the record, we 

ordered appellants to file by March 8th written verification they had paid or made 

arrangements to pay for the record. 
Appellants did not pay or make payment arrangements for the record. 

Instead, appellant Jeffrey Baron filed a twenty-one volume sworn record, later 

supplemented by an additional volume, that total over 9,000 pages. The filing 

followed consultation with this Court’s clerk’s office and purported to be in 

accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.1(e). That rule allows an 

appellate court to dispense with the requirement of a formal clerk’s record in an 

accelerated appeal and hear the appeal “on the original papers forwarded by the 

trial court or on sworn and uncontroverted copies of those papers.” See TEX. R.

APP. P. 28.1(e). 

Before the Court are (1) appellants Novo Point, LLC, Quantec, LLC, and 

RPV, Ltd.’s (collectively, Novo Point) motion for clarification of our February 

25th order in light of the sworn record filed by Baron and for permission to join in 

the sworn record; (2) appellees’ objection to the sworn record; and, (3) Novo

Point’s response. 

We note rule 28.1(e) is a discretionary rule and its purpose is to allow an 

appellate court the opportunity to reach the merits of an accelerated appeal as soon 

as possible by dispensing with the time required for the trial court clerk to prepare 

the record. See In Re J.S., 136 S.W.3d 716, 717 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, order). 

We also note that a party wishing to avail itself of rule 28.1(e) must file a motion 

in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a) and demonstrate 
why proceeding under rule 28.1(e) would be proper. See id. Baron did not file a 

motion, and the sworn record was filed almost a month after the deadline for the 

formal clerk’s record as set out in rule of appellate procedure 35.1(b).

We decline to exercise our discretion to proceed without a formal record. 

Accordingly, we DENY Novo Point’s motion to join in the sworn record and 

STRIKE the sworn record and supplement. We again ORDER appellants to file 

written verification of payment or payment arrangements for the clerk’s record. 

We caution appellants that failure to file the requested verification by April 5, 

2021 will result in the appeal being dismissed without further notice. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 37.3(b).

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Mr. 

Warren and the parties.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH

JUSTICE
#### Riggs vs. Weise and another.

Evidence.

Wbere the correctness of entries in an account hook is established by the positive testimony of a witness, he may state what facts appear therefrom, although he does not now remember those facts, and the entries were not made by him, but by another person from his memoranda.

APPEAL from the County Court for *Outagamie*County.

Money demand, for sawing lumber. Plaintiff called, as his witness, William Gferry, who had done the sawing and kept the book in which the charges were entered. G-erry swore positively that the entries were correct; that they were made by his wife from memoranda furnished by him, usually every Saturday night, he reading them off to her, and looking over to see that she wrote them down, and to satisfy himself that they were correctly entered. Witness was then requested to make *546the computation from the book, and ascertain the quantity of lumber sawed; and was permitted to do so, against defendants’ objection. On the whole evidence in the case, the court found for the plaintiff; and from a judgment in his favor, the defendants appealed.

*Hudd &*Wigman, for appellants.

*W. S.*Warner, for respondent.

DixoN, C. J.

The question is, whether Gerry, after having sworn positively that he knew the entries in the book were correct, could be permitted to testify to the quantity of lumber sawed, as appeared from such entries, although, independently of the entries, he had no present, recollection of the facts stated therein. This was the precise question decided by this court in *Schettler v. Jones*(20 Wis. 417); and the court below was right in admitting the testimony. The correctness of the entries being thus established by a living witness to them, it was competent for such witness, or any other, to state their contents to the court., And the fact that the entries were made by the wife of the witness from memoranda furnished by him can make no difference. It is the positive oath of the witness, verifying the correctness of the entries at the time they were made, which makes the reading or statement of their contents to the court or jury admissible. See *Hill v. The*State, 17 Wis. 675, 679.

*By the Oourt.*—Judgment affirmed.
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Top Image Systems Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arie Rand, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.

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.

Date: March 31, 2005

| |  | /s/ Arie Rand
Name: Arie RandTitle: Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4725

_____________________________
S AMUEL B OYD , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Marianne L. Aho , Judge

. May 31, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W OLF , W ETHERELL , and M AKAR , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Samuel Boyd, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
# C_2016314EN.01000101.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 314/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 305, 22.8.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 296, 16.8.2016

OJ C 287, 8.8.2016

OJ C 279, 1.8.2016

OJ C 270, 25.7.2016

OJ C 260, 18.7.2016

OJ C 251, 11.7.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
Exhibit 32.2

                  Certification of Principal Accounting Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Ed Bailey, Chief Accounting Officer of LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. (the
"Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period March 31, 2007 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

By: /s/ Ed Bailey
-----------------------------------
Ed Bailey
Chief Accounting Officer

November 2, 2007

 * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to LightTouch Vein & Laser, Inc. and will be retained by LightTouch
Vein & Laser, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# C_2015314EN.01000101.xml

| 23.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7541 — IAG/Aer Lingus)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 314/01)

On 14 July 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7541. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7541. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
* 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 June 19, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40307 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARIO PENA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-1805-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mario Pena-Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pena-Lopez first argues that the district court erred in assessing a 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based on his prior felony conviction for sexual assault of a child under TEX . P ENAL CODE § 22.011(a)(2). According to Pena-Lopez, such an offense does not constitute a “crime of violence” within the meaning of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). As Pena-LopezNo. 06-40307 -2- concedes, we review this argument for plain error. See United States v. Gracia-Cantu , 302 F.3d 308, 310 (5th Cir. 2002). The district court committed no error, plain or otherwise. A violation of § 22.011(a)(2) “meet[s] a common-sense as well as a generic, contemporary definition of statutory rape.” United States v. Alvarado-Hernandez , 465 F.3d 188, 189-90 (5th Cir. 2006). It is thus the equivalent of an enumerated offense that triggers the § 2L1.2 enhancement. Pena-Lopez also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005). Pena-Lopez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
# C_2015057EN.01000101.xml

| 17.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7337 — IMS Health/Cegedim Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 57/01)

On 19 December 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7337. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7337. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Capella Education Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Stephen G. Shank, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen G. Shank                
|Stephen G. Shank                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|July 31, 2008                       

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

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.
# C_2016296EN.01000101.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 296/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 287, 8.8.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 279, 1.8.2016

OJ C 270, 25.7.2016

OJ C 260, 18.7.2016

OJ C 251, 11.7.2016

OJ C 243, 4.7.2016

OJ C 232, 27.6.2016

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ R. WAYNE JOHNSON, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 1651

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 21

- 8317

, Judge Amanda L. Meredith.

______________________
O R D E R

The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time permitted by the r ules, it is Case: 22-1651 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 05/25/2022J OHNSON V

. M C D ONOUGH 2

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

May 25, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 25, 2022 Case: 22-1651 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 05/25/2022