alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Specifications VikingUAS X6 Model 800 Hexacopter Multirotor Platforms

VikingUAS X6 Model 800 Multirotor Aircraft SpecificationsThe VikingUAS X6 Model 800 Hexacopter is the most versatile hexacopter heavy lif t

multicopter on the planet with fixed hinge mounted booms with threaded fasteners this

frame minimizes vibration by 60% even in temperatures below -10F and upwards of

120F. The ease of taking a large multicopter and transporting can not be any easi er for

such a large multirotor.X6 Model 800 Frame FoldedFrame Extended

This frame is designed to be used and configured with ALL flight controllers curr ently on

the market our primary flight controllers are the DJI A2 Professional, PiX Hawk, DJI

Naza V2, UTC Piccolo Multirotor. This airframe is also designed to carry a nd integrated

parachute deployment system incase of a failsafe condition. Designed in Ame rica this is

one of the premier multirotors of 2015.Radio Specifications

### Attaching the Mooring System

1. The VikingUAS Mooring tether line needs to be fastened as close to the center of

the aerial vehicles CG in order to keep the line from making contact with the

propellers of the multi-rotor if using a balloon place as close to the center at the

bottom of the balloon or blimp.

2. If you do not have pre-drilled 1/8” hole in your aircraft you will need to drill one

for the 4-40 screw attachment to anchor the aluminum stand-off.

3. Once tether is attached and line is spooled out we recommend you to practice at

low level to get a feel for the tether on your aircraft. Each platform reacts

differently with the line which can easily be dialed in through the gains in yo ur

flight control software you can do this manually through the Skylark Radio follow

the instructions on sub-trim adjustment. The key is that your’re comfortable with

the flight characteristics to safely operate the platform. If at any t ime you do not

feel comfortable disconnect tether and seize flight operations immediate ly.

4. Operation above 149 feet AGL must comply with CFR 14 Part 101.13 (a) (1) (3) (4) and

(b) Part 101

. 17 (a) & (b).

5. Operation will be conducted with a minimum 150 foot Safety Perimeter where

nonparticipating personnel and property will not be allowed in t o the operational area.
Exhibit No. 32.1
----------------
Form 10-KSB
Million Dollar Saloon, Inc.
File No. 33-25350-FW

                    Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                       as adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                       of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 -
               Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


In connection with the Annual Report of Million Dollar Saloon, Inc. (Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (Report),  I, Nick  Mehmeti,  Chief
Executive and Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,  adopted as 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.


Dated: August 18, 2008                          By:      /s/ Nick Mehmeti
       ---------------                             -----------------------------
                                                                    Nick Mehmeti
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer





A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Million Dollar  Saloon,  Inc. and will be retained by Million Dollar
Saloon,  Inc. and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Independent Asset management Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Debra K. Amigone, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

/s/Debra K. Amigone                       

DebraK. Amigone

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

May 13,2004
Argued and submitted October 15,

Grants Pass High School, Grants Pass, reversed December 8, 2004

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*KODY ROY-LYNN BOGGS, *Appellant.*

01010018; A121801

102 P3d 123

George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Neufeld, Judge pro tempore.

PER CURIAM

Neufeld, J. pro tempore, concurring.

*555PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, assigning error to the denial of his motion to dismiss on statutory speedy trial grounds. ORS 135.747. According to defendant, in light of our opinion in *State v. Adams,*193 Or App 469, 89 P3d 1283, *rev allowed,*337 Or 476 (2004), the delay in this case of two years and four months between citation and trial was unlawful. The state concedes that, under *Adams,*the trial court erred. The state, however, urges us to reconsider *Adams*and affirm. We decline the state’s invitation to reconsider *Adams*and accept the concession that it is otherwise controlling.

Reversed.

NEUFELD, J. pro tempore,

concurring.

As a trial judge, I would find it very helpful if the Oregon Supreme Court would clarify whether the standard of review to be used in cases involving the application of ORS 135.747 is to be error of law or abuse of discretion. Having witnessed the practical impact of the current approach, which appears to be primarily a mathematical calculation, I believe that using abuse of discretion as the standard of review would be preferable because of the myriad of factors and circumstances that can contribute to case delay at the trial court level. If the standard of review is to be abuse of discretion, it would also be helpful if the Oregon Supreme Court could indicate what factors the Oregon appellate courts would consider in determining whether or not there has been an abuse of discretion.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-0042

_____________________________

HAROLD LYNN STEPHENSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jan Shackelford, Judge.

May 11, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4467

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MATHEW ARCHIE, a/k/a Matthew Archie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-1184) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leesa Washington, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mathew Archie appeals his criminal conviction for possession of cocaine base with the intent to distribute in violation of 21U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We affirm. Archie’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two possible issues for appeal: (1) the validity of Archie’s guilty plea; and (2) the propriety of Archie’s sentence. Our review of the record reveals no reversible error as to either of these issues or the issues raised in Archie’s pro se supplemental brief. Pursuant to Anders , this court has reviewed the record for potential error and has found none. Therefore, we affirm Archie’s sentence and conviction. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Shant S. Hovnanian, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of
Speedus Corp.; 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 officer 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 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:
April 2, 2007By:
/s/ Shant S. HovnanianName:
Shant S. HovnanianTitle:
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
  Officer 3
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc. eta!., Complainants, V.

FAA Docket No. 16-15-02 Town of East Hampton, NY Respondent. RESPONDENT TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, NEW YORK'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REBUTTAL Designation
of persons to receive service for the Town of East Hampton, New York: Elizabeth Vail Town Attorney Town of East Hampton 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 1193 7 EV ail@EHamptonNY .Gov

W
. Eric Pilsk Peter J. Kirsch Catherine van Heuven Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 1001 Cmmecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 epilsk@kaplankirsch.com pkirsch@kaplankirsch.com cvanheuven@kaplankirsch.com Telephone: (202) 955-5600 Facsimile

: (202) 955-56161. Respondent Town of East Hampton, New York (the "Town") moves, pursuant
to 14 C.F .R. 

### § 16.11, for an extension of time to file its Rebuttal to the Complaint
in theabovecaptioned matter. Complainants filed their Reply papers electronically
on June 8, 2015 pursuant to the agreed-upon schedule. 2. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R.



### § 16.23(f), the Town's response

is due on June 18,2015. 3. The Reply raises

a number of factual issues that will require the Town to compile a detailed response. Accordingly, and to take into account previously scheduled vacations and deadlines
in other matters, the Town requests 30 days, until July 8, 2015, to file its Rebuttal. 4. Counsel for the Town has conferred with Counsel for Complainants and Complainants
do not oppose this Motion. 5. The extension of time will not prejudice the FAA's investigation
or its ability to afford appropriate relief in this case, and will not adversely affect the parties or undermine FAA's enforcement authority. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Town respectfully requests that FAA grant the Town an extension of time until July 8, 2015, to file its response
to the Complaint
in this matter. Respectfully submitted this 1Oth day of June, 2015. Elizabeth Vail Town Attorney Town of East Hampton 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 1193 7 EVail @ EHamptonNY. Gov

W. Eric Pilsk Peter J. Kirsch Catherine van Heuven Kaplan Kirsch 

### & Rockwell LLP 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 epilsk @ kaplankirsch.com pkirsch @ kaplankirsch.com cvanheuven@kaplankirsch.com Telephone: (202) 955-5600 Facsimile: (202) 955-5616 

### 2CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE I hereby certify that
I have this day served the foregoing Respondent Town of East Hampton, New York's Motion for Extension of Time to File Rebuttal on the following parties by email at the following addresses: Office of the Chief Counsel Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket

, AGC-61

0 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue

, SW Washington, DC 20591 1 copy via Email 9-AWA-AGC-Part-16

@ faa.gov Leonard D. Kirsch McBreen

& Kopko 500 North Broadway Jericho, NY 11753 Dated this lOth day of June, 2015

3
### Devany, Dennis (OST) From: Sent: To: Kathleen Bouchard [kbouchard@ogdensburg.org] Friday, August 20, 2010 8:59 AM Devany, Dennis (OST) 

# Do

# ,-os T- (977- Q 

## f'4:t

Subject: Ogdensburg Resident - Cape Air Service Endorsement email
From: asciorra@ogdensburg.org [mailto:asciorra@ogdensburg.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 7:11 AM To: Letty Hockler; City Manager Subject: Re: Cape Air 

# c." We unanimously share your opinion. We will let the DOT EAS know our choice and hopely they will award the contract to the people's choice. Thank you for your letter I will pass it along to the DOT. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
From: Letty Hockler <blhockler99@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:28:12 -0700 (PDT) To: <asciorra@ogdensburg.org> SUbject: Cape Air DearMr. Sciorra: Please do not let CapeAir's renewal get away from the CityofOgdensburg. This is the first airline that we have had that has provided good service, great airfare prices and convenience. I have had to travel to Pittsburgh and then changeplanes when my destination was Albany. It was faster to drive. CapeAir's employees are courteous, helpful and professional. Theirpilots are the same. Even Cape Air's employees in Albany arejustas nice as they are here in Ogdensburg. We don't needbiggerplanes, the schedules are good for mostpeople and I wouldbe very unhappy, as would otherpeople that have used Cape Airto see them go. IfWatertownneeds something else, then let them get some other airline, but most ofourcitizens are veryhappy with Cape Air. Thank you for anyhelp you can give to keep Cape Airhere. LettyA. Hockler 1002 Lafayettte Street Ogdensburg, NY

1
Amendment No. 1 to Mr. Godwin Employment Agreement


 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 

TO THE 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 (“Amendment”) is made and entered into this
26th day
 of May, 2010, between Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation, an Ohio corporation (the “Company”) and Glen Godwin (the “Executive”). 

WHEREAS, the parties have previously entered into an Employment Agreement, dated August 1, 2007 (the “Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend certain terms and conditions of the Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree as follows: 

 

	 	1.	Section 3.3(c) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 


lump-sum payment of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) pro-rated based on the actual number of days elapsed in the year in which the
Executive’s termination takes place, plus four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000), with such payment to be made subject to federal, state and applicable withholding taxes and payments; 

	 	2.	Section 3.3(j) is hereby deleted in its entirety. 


	 	3.	The parties agree that, except as amended hereby, all of the other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above. 

 

					
	Infinity Property And Casualty Corporation:	  	Executive:
			
	By:	 	/s/ James R. Gober 	  	By: /s/ Glen Godwin
			
	Name:	 	James R. Gober	  	Name: Glen Godwin
			
	Title:	 	Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 

### 07276 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### x 07276\07276_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 07276\07276_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 07276\07276_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 07276\07276_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07276\07276_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07276\07276_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07276\07276_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07276\07276_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07276\07276_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07276\07276_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07276\07276_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 07276\Certification Statement Plant ID 07276.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 07276\Supplemental Documents\07276_A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07276\Supplemental Documents\07276_A5-3 and D3-1.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 07276\Supplemental Documents\07276_A7-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 07276\Supplemental Documents\07276_F5-6.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1796

___________

Scottie L. Scott, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

State of Iowa; Aaron K. Hawbaker; *

Kathryn J. Mahoney; Cory Jon * [UNPUBLISHED]

Goldensoph; Black Hawk County, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 12, 2011

Filed: October 19, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Scottie Scott appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 1

U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Upon

de novo review, we conclude dismissal was proper for the reasons the district court

stated, although the dismissal should have been without prejudice, see Schafer v.

The Honorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for the 1

Northern District of Iowa.
Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Accordingly, we modify the

dismissal to be without prejudice, and we affirm the judgment as modified. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

-2-
Exhibit 32

                            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 The Children's Internet, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Sholeh Hamedani, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 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 and result of operations
            of the Company.


/S/ SHOLEH HAMEDANI
-----------------------------------
Sholeh Hamedani,
Chief Executive Officer, President,
and Chief Financial Officer
June 23, 2005


                                       19
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Stacey Lynn Noska v. The State of Texas

Appellate case numbers: 01-21-00314-CR, 01-21-00315-CR

Trial court case numbers: CR-19-047-C1, CR-19-047-C11

Trial court: 25th District Court of Colorado County

On January 18, 2022, Appellant Stacey Lynn Noska filed a motion for extension of time 

in which to file her appellate brief. This is Appellant’s fourth request for an extension. Her brief 

originally was due on October 18, 2021, and she now seeks until February 1, 2022 to file her 

brief.

Appellant’s motion is granted. Appellant’s brief is due February 1, 2022. No further 

extensions will be granted.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas Molloy

Acting individually 

Date: January 25, 2022