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

 Exemption No. 12061A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA−2015−1269

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 

Administration (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 determined 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 petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. The 

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 is 
2

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 except 

as follows. Condition No. 2 has been updated 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. 

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
Dismissed and Opinion Filed March 6, 2017 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-01517-CV 

WILLIE ARTHUR JACKSON, Appellant 

V. 

SHALANDA MESHELL JACKSON, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-02736 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By 

postcard dated December 29, 2016, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We 

directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that 

failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated December 29, 

2016, we informed appellant the docketing statement in this case was due. We cautioned 

appellant that failure to file the docketing statement within ten days might result in the dismissal 

of this appeal without further notice. By letter dated January 31, 2017, we informed appellant 

the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We 

directed appellant to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s 

record or to provide written documentation he had been found entitled to proceed without 
 –2– 

payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of 

this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the 

required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this 

appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b) (c). 

161517F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

WILLIE ARTHUR JACKSON, Appellant 

No. 05-16-01517-CV V. 

SHALANDA MESHELL JACKSON, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-02736. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered March 6, 2017.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7891

JOHN DASTA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

GARY RICHARDS; KATHY JONES; BOBBY SHEARIN; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; 

ISAM ELAYAN; DR. MOUBAREK; LEONARDO F. GIRON; LORI SINES; 

POISINAIRE; W.I. LEBLANC, JR.; BERNIE RICHARDS; JORGE 

CASTENADA; JOHN ASHCROFT; TODD GENZER; JULIE HAYES; TOM 

HEFFELFINGER; DR. R. ILVEDSON; ALICIA R. SOUVIGNIER; UNKNOWN 

U.S. MARSHALS, Defendants, In Their Official and Individual 

Capacities; HOWARD NELSON, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08-

cv-00387-AMD) 

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John Dasta, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

John Dasta appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Dasta v. Richards, No. 1:08-cv-00387-AMD (D. Md. filed 

Sept. 8, 2009, entered Sept. 9, 2009). 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
OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

201) ll-K-(I)-14 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:55 AM Sheet 201 of 325 

P.1 
P.2 

II-K-(I)-14 

THE SUBSTITUTION POTENTIAL OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR 

NATURAL GAS IN SELECTED INDUSTRIES. 

EEA, Inc. 

June 8, 1978. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-14
# C_2016204EN.01000101.xml

| 8.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 June 2016

(2016/C 204/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1348 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,16 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4364 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,77880 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2238 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0979 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2225 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,48 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3486 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5073 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2897 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5260 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4505 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8145 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6320 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5362 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 311,68 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,8695 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4579 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5128 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 032,70 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6050 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,229 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,7121 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,990 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,9788 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,0712 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,7405 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1348

JPY

Japanese yen

122,16

DKK

Danish krone

7,4364

GBP

Pound sterling

0,77880

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2238

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0979

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2225

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,48

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3486

RON

Romanian leu

4,5073

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2897

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5260

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4505

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8145

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6320

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5362

KRW

South Korean won

1 311,68

ZAR

South African rand

16,8695

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4579

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5128

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 032,70

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6050

PHP

Philippine peso

52,229

RUB

Russian rouble

73,7121

THB

Thai baht

39,990

BRL

Brazilian real

3,9788

MXN

Mexican peso

21,0712

INR

Indian rupee

75,7405

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
### SERVE D JANUAR Y 11,201 0 .,.. , ^ ]Bf>;?FORTAllO H

" ' * " • r- , ; • \ /"•

. • ,• • ~ " 0 U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N2

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
I NTH EMATTERO F SMIT H CABL ESYSTEMS , INC
. FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP009AL001 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No
. FAA-2009-097 6 

### PROCEDURA L ORDE R Paragrap h# 2 o f

th e Procedura l Orde r

i s amende da s follows : WHEREFORE , th e partie s b e an dar e hereb y ORDERE D t o adher e t o th e followin g procedura l schedule :

.. . O n o r before Jun e 15 , 2010 , th e partie s shal l conclud e al l discovery including , but no t limite dto , depositions , documen t production , response s t o productio n request s and/o r

interrogatories
. I f

th e partie s canno t

resolv e adiscovery disput e they shal l submi t

th e disput e t o th e undersigne dfo r resolutio ni n atimel y manner.. .
jodwi n U.S
. Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP09AL001 2 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Ronal dG
. Smith , Presiden t Smit hCabl e Systems , Inc
. Throug hCounse l Bren t R
. Cole , Respondent' s Counse l Marsto n& Cole , P.C
. 82 1 NStreet , Suit e 20 8 Anchorage , A K

99501-213 6 TEL : 907-277-800 1 FAX : 907-277-800 2 Gler mH
. Brown , Complainant' s Counse l Senio r Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counsel , AAL- 7 AlaskanRegio n Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 22 2 Wes t 7 * Avenue , #1 4 Anchorage , A K

99513-758 7 TEL : 907-271-527 1 FAX : 907-271-280 0 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r

202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , use th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio nAdministration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.
# C_2016259EN.01000202.xml

| 16.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 259/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 259/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7860 — KH/Strabag/SPPD)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 259/04)

On 12 July 2016, 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) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English 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 32016M7860. 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 32016M7860. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6043
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PATRICK JERMAINE ROBERTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00295-PMD-1; 2:07-cv-70047-PMD) Submitted: October 16, 2008 Decided: November 7, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick Jermaine Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Patrick Jermaine Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roberts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
JOYCE ANGELO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3972

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County.

John H. Skinner, Judge.

Christopher F. Busch and Benjamin R. Kelley, Busch & Kelley, Special Assistant 

Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

WOLF, J. 

Appellant challenges her conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly 

weapon. She argues the trial court erred in prohibiting her from testifying 

regarding prior specific acts of violence committed by the victim. The State 

concedes that the trial court erred. We agree. See Savage v. State, 99 So. 3d 1001, 
2

1002-03 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding that pursuant to section 90.404(1)(b), 

Florida Statutes, once the defendant presents evidence that the victim committed 

an overt act at or near the time of the incident that reasonably indicated the need 

for self-defense, the defendant may present evidence of prior specific acts of 

violence by the victim to prove the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension 

at the time of the incident). 

The parties dispute whether the error was harmless. The State argues that it 

met its burden to show the error was harmless because appellant was still able to 

present her theory of defense, and appellant’s version of the events was 

contradicted by the eyewitnesses. However, while there were two eyewitnesses 

who testified to the events around the time of the incident, neither witness testified 

that he or she saw how the conflict began or was watching when the victim was 

cut. Thus, the State cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not 

contribute to the verdict. See Grace v. State, 832 So. 2d 224, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2002) (finding the error in excluding testimony of prior specific acts of violence of 

the victim was not harmless even though three eyewitnesses testified that the 

defendant hit the victim unprovoked, reasoning “the fact that [the defendant] did 

not have any corroborative testimony to support his defense supports [his] 

argument that the error contributed to the verdict”). As such, we REVERSE.

BILBREY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 99(iv)


                                  Certification



                      STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                        OF OCEAN WEST HOLDING CORPORATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    (S)906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ocean West Holding
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Daryl S. Meddings, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

                 1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of
         Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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: February 11, 2003
                                           /s/ Daryl S. Meddings
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Daryl S. Meddings, Executive Vice
                                              President/Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Longhai Steel, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 20, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 2, 2015.

By the Commission.

Jill M. Peterson,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-06800 Filed 3-20-15; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
# C_2016348EN.01000102.xml

| 23.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8155 — Computer Sciences Corporation/Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 348/02)

On 19 September 2016, 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) 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 32016M8155. EUR-Lex is the online 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 32016M8155. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---