alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Event 38 Unmanned Systems

www.Event38.com

Sales@Event38.com

 

The E384 is a low cost, high performance UAS designed specifically to carry out photogrammetric surveys. By 

processing the overlapping images of any area, very accurate maps and 3d terrain models can be produced. When 

used in conjunction with properly collected ground control points the results can be used for high precision 

measurements.

The E384 has several features which make it ideal for organizations needing accurate geographical data:

- Low flying weight, about 2.3kg

- Autonomous operation during flight, optionally during takeoff and landing as well

- Only requires 1 person to operate

- Map up to 960 geo-referenced acres per flight at 5.0cm/pixel (388 Ha or 3.9 km2)

- Additional battery packs allow for successive flights

- Low upfront cost, low replacement cost for damaged/worn out airframes

- Standard platform carries 12.1MP or 20.3MP GPS enabled camera producing 3.5cm resolution imagery at 

100m flight altitude
Event 38 Unmanned Systems

www.Event38.com

Sales@Event38.com

Specifications

Metric English

Dimensions

Length 130 cm 51.2”

Wingspan 190 cm 74.8”

Wing Area 452 cm2 70 in2

Wing Loading 5.6/4.4 g/cm2 1.3/1.0 oz/in2

Weights

Empty 2kg 4.4 lbs

Max Weight 2.5kg 5.5 lbs

Max Useful Load 500g 1.1 lbs

Flight Stats (35% throttle, 1000m above MSL)

Time 90 Minutes 90 Minutes

Range 70km 44 Miles

Motor

Power 650W 0.9HP

Current 35A

RPM 10400

Propeller APC 12x8E”

Takeoff (To Clear 5m Obstacle)

Ground Roll Hand Launch

Length of Clearing Required 20 m 66 ft

Landing (To Clear 5m Obstacle)

Minimum Area (Auto Landing) 30 x 60 m 100 x 200 ft

Minimum Area (Skilled Operator) 7 x 30 m 23 x 100 ft

Speeds

Cruise Speed 47 kph 29 mph

Max Speed 80 kph 50 mph

Stall Speed 18 kph 11 mph

Max Rate of Climb 300 meters/min 985 ft/min

Service Ceiling (Tested to) 3000m MSL 9840’ MSL

Maximum Conditions

Maximum Sustained Wind (Manual Flight) 43 kph 26.7 mph

Maximum Sustained Wind (Autonomous Flight) 29 kph 18 mph

Minimum Temperature (Tested to) -12° C 10° F

Maximum Temperature 35° C 95° F

Rain Not Tested

Mapping

Max Area Per Flight (120m Altitude ~4cm/pix) 388 Ha 960 acres

Max Resolution (90m Altitude) 1.90cm/pix 0.75in/pix
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

RAYMOND F. DOYLE, III, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:12-CR-173-1

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raymond Doyle pleaded guilty to production of child pornography. 

Pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement with the government that the district 

court accepted, Doyle was sentenced to a 30-year prison term and lifetime of 

supervised release. On appeal, the only arguments he adequately briefs 

contend that two of the conditions of release are unreasonable.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 7, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30728 Document: 00513788889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2016
No. 15-30728

2

Doyle first challenges the requirement that he accept mental health 

treatment as directed by his probation officer. This argument is not ripe for 

review because his probation officer may never actually require him to undergo

any such treatment. See United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 227 (5th Cir. 

2013). If the officer ever does require that treatment, at that time Doyle may

petition the district court for a modification of the condition. See id. (citing 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2)).

Our precedent also forecloses Doyle’s contention that the district court 

plainly erred in imposing the internet restriction. As this argument was not 

raised below, Doyle must show plain error. Although we recently found an 

absolute, lifetime ban on internet use unreasonable, we distinguished in the 

same breath scenarios in which the defendant could access the internet with 

the approval of the court or a probation officer. United States v. Duke, 788 F.3d 

392, 399–400 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Because Doyle’s internet use is 

permitted if he obtains approval from his probation officer, he cannot show 

plain error. See Ellis, 720 F.3d at 225 (upholding special condition prohibiting 

man guilty of possessing child pornography from accessing the internet 

without the permission of the court).

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-30728 Document: 00513788889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2016
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Rafael Torres, Chief Financial Officer of PLX Technology, Inc.,certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form
10-Q of PLX Technology, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 3, 2003



/s/ Rafael Torres	  Rafael Torres
   Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)

---
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Superclick, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Sandro Natale, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           the Periodic 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 Periodic 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.





Dated: June 8, 2011
/s/ Sandro NataleName:  Sandro NataleTitle: President & Chief Executive Officer
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20

- 0274 F iled January 21, 2021

TIMOTHY WEAKLEY, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

vs. KEVIN YETMAR, Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela L. Doyle , Judge.

Timothy Weakley appeals following the dismissal of his civil petition at law.
AFFIRMED.

Timothy Weakley, Johnson City, Tennessee, self

- represented appellant. William H. Habhab, Fort Dodge, for appellee.

Considered by Doy le, P.J. , and Mullins and Greer, JJ.2

MULLINS , Judge

. Timothy Weakley appeals following trial on, and dismissal of, his civil petition at law alleging Kevin Yetmar violated the real

- estate
- disclosure requirements contained in Iowa Code chapter 558A (2019) and engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation. He generally argues the court erred in concluding Yetmar’s disclosure was timely tendered and accurate. He also claims the court erred in “failing to reach whether [Yetmar’s] violation of [chapter] 558A was al so a violation of the parties’ purchase agreement which entitles [Weakley] to recover his down payment pursuant to the terms of the agreement.” Absent from the record on appeal are the transcripts from trial and hearings on motions for summary judgment. 1 As the appellant, it was Weakley’s duty to provide us with a record adequate for us to decide the appeal. See In re F.W.S. , 698 N.W.2d 134, 135 (Iowa 2005). While some facts can be determined from the exhibit evidence, without the trial transcript, we a re without a full picture and are unable to adequately determine the facts underlying Weakley’s claims. While the court’s ruling contains its factual determinations, “[t]he district court’s recitation of these matters in its ruling is not a substitute for the required appellate record.” Smith v. Iowa Bd. of Med. Exam’rs , 729 N.W.2d 822, 828 (Iowa 2007). It would be improvident for us to speculate on what the evidence and testimony 2 at trial showed or did not show, and we decline to do so. F.W.S. , 698 N. W.2d at 135

– 36. And we do not afford Weakley a deferential standard due to his status as a self

-

1 In his initial combined certificate, Weakley stated “[t]he entirety of the trial transcript” is ordered. See Iowa Rs . App. P. 6.803(1), .804(2). He filed an amended combined certificate requesting the transcript not be ordered. 2 The district court’s ruling makes clear testimony was received at trial.3

represented litigant. Kubik v. Burk , 540 N.W.2d 60, 63 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). We have no choice but to affirm the dismissal of Weakley’s petition.
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                State of Organization                       Percentage Owned
----                                ---------------------                       ----------------
<S>                             <C>                                           <C> 
Odd Job Holdings, Inc.              Delaware                                    100%

Odd Job Acquisition Corp.           Delaware                                    100%(1)

ZS Peddlers Mart, Inc.              Delaware                                    100%(2)

Odd Job Trading Corp.               New York                                    100%(2)

HIA Trading Associates              New York                                    100%(3)

Central Processing Associates       New York                                    100%(3)

VCM, Ltd.                           Ohio                                         50%
</TABLE>

--------------
(1)      Wholly-owned subsidiary of Odd Job Holding, Inc.
(2)      Wholly-owned subsidiary of Odd Job Acquisition Corp.
(3)      General Partnership with Odd Job Acquisition Corp.
               and Odd Job Trading Corp. as partners.
Process flow diagram for the us e of the new chemical at sites controlled by submitter

Processing of emulsion containing PMN substance with additives to make
Sorghum 2022

Planted Acres by County

for Selected States

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

Acres

Not Estimated

< 2,000

2,000 - 4,999

5,000 - 9,999

10,000 - 24,999

25,000 - 49,999

50,000 +
<PAGE>


                                                                            99.1

                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 Annual Report of The Judge Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Martin E. Judge, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 position and results of operations of
          the Company.



/s/ Martin E. Judge, Jr.
-------------------------
Martin E. Judge, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
March 7, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RIVER MASCARI,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00280-CR

Appeal from the

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20120D06123)

O R D E R

The trial court judge has verbally informed the Clerk’s Office that Appellant does not 

have a right to appeal. The trial court has not, however, entered a written certification of the 

Appellant’s right to appeal as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.R.APP.P.

25.2(d), Appendix D. Accordingly, the trial court is ordered to enter the required certification 

and file it with the trial court clerk within thirty days of the date of this order. See Cortez v. 

State, 420 S.W.3d 803 806-07 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013). If the trial court is unable to obtain the 

defendant’s signature on the certification, the trial court should nevertheless certify whether 

Appellant has a right to appeal and file the certification without the Appellant’s signature. The 

trial court clerk shall provide a copy of the certification to this Court as soon as possible, but not 

later than three days after it is filed. See TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(e). 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7

th day of December, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
#### Trefz’s Estate.

*Practice, O. C.*— Petition *to dismiss appeal from Register*— Laches.

*A*petition to dismiss an appeal from the decree of the register of wills admitting a will to prohate on the ground of the appellant’s laches in prosecuting the appeal, must he filed before the case is at issue, or at least before the case has been placed on the audit list for trial.

Petition and answer. O. C. Phila. Co., Oct. T., 1917, No. 34.

On Nov. 30, 1917, a decree was entered granting a citation to show cause why the decree of the Register of Wills should not be set aside and an issue awarded. On March 5, 1918, an answer thereto was filed. On April 4, 1922, a replication was filed. On April 21, 1922, a decree was entered to show cause why the appeal from the Register of Wills should not be dismissed. On May 2, 1922, an answer thereto was filed.

*589The petition prayed that the appeal be dismissed on the ground of laches, but did not aver that the petitioner had been injured in any way. The answer averred that the respondent had taken the appeal in good faith, and not for delay, and averred that the petitioner had suffered no loss or injury, because the appeal had not been prosecuted more expeditiously, and that she had not been put to any disadvantage by reason of the delay. Respondent also denied that he had been guilty of laches, because he had repeatedly requested his attorney to have the case disposed of.

*William R. Nugent*and *Henry A. Craig,*for petitioner.

*Michael J. O’Callaghan,*for respondent.

May 18, 1922.

Per Curiam,

After the appeal from the Register was actually at issue, the respondent filed a petition for a citation, directed to the petitioner, to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on the ground of laches in failing to prosecute. In the meantime, the case being at issue was, in accordance with our practice, placed on an audit list for hearing the week beginning May 1st of this year.

In applications of this character we have ruled that the person apparently in default should proceed with due celerity and have entered a decree fixing a time limit. (See Hoopes’s Estate, 23 Dist. R. 249; Kris’s Estate, 29 Dist. R. 447.)

In the circumstances of the instant case, such decree is unnecessary.

The petition is dismissed.
Exhibit 99.1


                    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 Peoples First, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh J. Garchinsky, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all in material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Hugh J. Garchinsky
Hugh J. Garchinsky
Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2002
Agricultural Prices

All Months Total: 6

JSON Example

Item 1910-1914 2011

Price Received Index Agricultural Production X X

Prices paid by farmers for commodities, services, taxes, 

and wage rates (PPITW) X X

Price Index Ratio, Parity, Received to Paid (PPITW) X

Price Index Ratio, Received to Paid (PPITW) X

Index Series Base Year
From: James Brown <james.brown@novelis.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Chrissy Taft <Chrissy.Taft@novelis.com>

Date: 09/30/2010 03:10 PM

Subject: Requirement to provide information according to Title 42 of the US Code Chapter 85, Subchapter I, Part A, Section 7414.

Dear Rochelle Boyd (U.S. EPA),

Attached is the information requested by the U.S. EPA letter (dated May, 27, 2010) regarding Title 42 of the US 

Code Chapter 85, Subchapter I, Part A, Section 7414. According to the request, Novelis Corporation is submitting 

samples from the following sources:

 Controlled emissions of organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the Novelis delacquering/decoating kiln 

located in Berea, Kentucky. The delacquering/decoating kiln located in Berea, Kentucky emitted the highest level 

of THC during the most recent performance test of all Novelis subject facilities. The testing was performed at a 

location that included emissions from a group 1 holding furnace and an in-line fluxer. 

 Analysis of HAP metals, including hexavalent chromium, present in the particulate matter collected by the 

baghouses used to control emissions from one of each type of affected source (i.e. group 1 furnace, scrap 

shredder, delacquering/decoating kiln) subject to a particulate matter limit under the secondary aluminum 

NESHAP. Samples were collected from the Novelis facilities in Berea, Kentucky; Oswego, NY; and Greensboro, 

Georgia. Particulate samples were collected from 7 baghouses. Samples also included 2 lime samples, one 

sodium-bicarbonate sample, and a Neutralite (filter add) sample. 

Attachments to email include: 

 The EPA reporting spreadsheet,

 3 chemical analysis reports for the baghouse and lime particulate matter samples, and 

 The emission test report.

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the Novelis Corporation submittal. 

James Brown

James Brown, P.E.

Novelis EHS Manager

Office 315-349-0320

Cell 315-657-0586

Fax 315-341-3103
([l 

(") 

(l) 

fSJ 

fSJ 

::::!"! 

([l 

o_ 

(l) 

::J 

o_ 

(l) 

--, 

0 

< 

([l 

o_ -

0 

--, 

--, 

([l 

([l ,.. 

(l) ,, • t 

fSJ • 

(D k .. 1 

CT ,. I. • 

z ti~ 

(f) •- ,..I r • 

P I~ j. 0 l.:;f 1-

::J •, 

0 ' ·; 

0) 

I 

0 

-G. I I 

t'0 

0 

----'" 

-G. 

c 

--, 

fSJ 

c 

(l) 

::J 

.--..-

.--..-

0 

m 

0 

0 

n 

.. i ~i-~~~g - fi 

~; 

... ,_ 

Q!\ 
-:::;.- ..:;_:,..,.. ....... .. ~ --- ... 

REF ID:A57065 

DECRElJ11/R: Action UDClertaJam in Viev or Director• a cleai:re tbat tJ:Le matter 

be reviewed.. 'Dae cnW'-ott date o'f 22 Dec 50 vu selected. aa thia 

vu the date of ,pl'ClllDl.ptica of tbe Depa:r1imnt ot tbe Arlfq Manual en 

D1acloaure of Claaaifie4 IU.Utu7 Iatom&tim to Foreisi GowJ:manta 

(DA.-JJCJII) *1.cll ueill(beCl to G-2 tbe aole aut.laori t7 tor tJle rel •ae 

ot crnttogrspbic iDtomaU• to tonign ID"18'll mt.a (para Ta(;)). Amrove4 1D draft 'b7 '!Jl/S aD4 S/AJ/Jft (llE'. P.r1edman). Or1g1aJ1;y 

pNp&red on 2 Mari retume4 b1' c/sm ca 29 Mar vith suggestiau for 

nvrite. Coorcl1nated. witb C/SYS: (41 - Mr. Auat1D and .... Croallm7) 

au4 JIBOl> (o62 • Jlr. JW1bam). M/B prepared 31 Jfa1' ;Jt.. 

Mr. 'f .L. Buma, P /P 1 6o5J18/ban 

BECRElJ 

- .. .iii""'"' -

;;£"="" f L-. • .- ; ,.. r .. J -,. [.~ - - --=•~ I
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2998 

To prohibit the Commissioner of Social Security and any officer or employee 

of the Social Security Administration from requiring that any individual 

be vaccinated against COVID–19 as a condition of receiving benefits 

under titles II or XVI of the Social Security Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2021 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Commissioner of Social Security and any 

officer or employee of the Social Security Administration 

from requiring that any individual be vaccinated against 

COVID–19 as a condition of receiving benefits under 

titles II or XVI of the Social Security Act. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2998 IS

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING COVID–19 VAC2 CINATION AS A CONDITION OF RECEIVING 

3 SOCIAL SECURITY OR SUPPLEMENTAL SECU4 RITY INCOME BENEFITS. 

5 Neither the Commissioner of Social Security nor any 

6 officer or employee of the Social Security Administration 

7 shall establish or enforce any requirement that an indi8 vidual receive a COVID–19 vaccine as a condition of re9 ceiving a benefit under title II or XVI of the Social Secu10 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 1381 et seq.). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS