alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Example of a Preflight Checklist

STATUS CHECK

● Operations within 5 miles / 8 km of an airport CALL AIRPORT CONTROL TOWER FOR PERMISSION

● Area Population AVOID FLYING IF AREA IS POPULATED

● Illumination of Area IF THE SUN GOES DOWN, DO NOT FLY

● Ownership of Area Flown PERMISSION GRANTED TO FLY BY LAND OWNER

● Damage to UAV NONE

● Fasteners INSTALLED AND TORQUED

● Motor C­clips INSTALLED AND SECURE

● Camera SECURE, BATTERY CHARGED AND INSTALLED

● Memory device (SD card or flash drive) EMPTY, LOCKED (IF REQ’D) AND INSTALLED

● UAV battery INSTALL

● Telemetry connection CHECK

● R/C transmitter CHARGED (Ex. 10.4 MINIMUM)

● R/C control PAIRED

● Field Kit ENSURE COMPLETE (TOOLS, SD CARDS, ETC)

PREFLIGHT CHECKLIST

ENVIRONMENT:

● Takeoff zone** IDENTIFY

● Obstacles** ACKNOWLEDGE

● Ditch / alternate landing area IDENTIFY

● Wind NOTE DIRECTION AND SPEED (__ MPH/__ KPH MAX)

Note: T/O & land with wind to pilot’s back if possible

● Precipitation (UAV dependant)

UAV, TRANSMITTER, & DRU:

● UAV and Props NO DAMAGE // TORQUED

● Transmitter ON (Ex. 10.4 MIN VOLTS MIN)

● UAV Battery SECURE (CHECK MANUAL FOR MIN)

● Computer/Tablet Battery 25% MIN

● Telemetry CONNECTED, 95% MIN

● Mission LOADED

o Route & Waypoints VERIFIED (KM < max distance for batt volts)

o Altitude < (UAV specific) VERIFIED

● GPS & Mast Orientation NO ABNORMALITIES IN MAST AND COMPASS

● GPS satellites** MINIMUM OF 7

● GPS position** NO DRIFT

TAKEOFF:

● Area** CLEAR

● UAV “ARMED”

● Transmitter Switches VERIFIED IN STABILIZE

● Takeoff and climb “TAKING OFF”

● Select Loiter mode UAV STABILIZED (ALTITUDE AND LATERAL)

● Mission SELECT AUTO (UAV TRACKS TO WPT)

● Line of sight MAINTAIN

● Battery MONITOR (Ex. Failsafe set to land NLT 14.2)
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 5516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01978]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Mashni, 
et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02288-DCN, was lodged with the United States 
District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, 
on January 26, 2022.
    This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the 
United States against Paul Edward Mashni; PEM Residential, LLC; PEM 
Real Estate Group, LLC; Finish Line Foundation II, Inc.; Kiawah River 
Farms, LLC; Kiawah River Excavating & Earthworks, LLC; KRF XSL, LLC; SC 
Investment Holdings, LLC; and SC Investment Holdins, LLC (collectively 
``Defendants''), pursuant to Sections 301, 309, and 404 of the Clean 
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1319, and 1344, to obtain injunctive relief 
from and impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating 
the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a permit into 
waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these 
allegations by requiring the Defendants to pay a civil penalty, 
effectuate compensatory mitigation, and be subject to other injunctive 
relief.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Johanna 
Valenzuela, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's 
Office for the District of South Carolina, 1441 Main Street, Suite 500, 
Columbia, SC, 29201, or to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#03737661606c6e6e666d775c6667702d666d7167437670676c692d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9aeaeff8f9f5f7f7fff4eec5fffee9b4fff4e8fedaefe9fef5f0b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a> and refer to 
United States v. Mashni, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02288-DCN, DJ # 90-5-
1-4-21393.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. In addition, the proposed Consent 
Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District 
Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, 85 Broad 
Street, Charleston, SC 29401. However, the Clerk Office's may limit 
public access due to the ongoing Coronavirus/COVID-19 emergency.

Cherie L. Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-01978 Filed 1-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Randy L. ROUNDTREE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2572

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### W. T. Rawleigh Company *v.*Moore.

4-2753

Opinion delivered November 30, 1932.

*A. D. Whitehead,*for appellant.

*W. O. Dinning,*for appellee.

McHaNEY, J.

Appellant sued appellee on a bond executed by him and U. G-. Fletcher as sureties for one Grinn, which guaranteed the payment of any balance that might be due and owing to it by Grinn, for goods sold and delivered by it to the latter. The bond contained the following provision: “It is agreed that there are no conditions or limitations to this undertaking except those written or printed hereon at the date the same was signed by us, and that no alterations, changes or modifications *572hereto shall be binding or effective upon the W. T. Raw-leigh Company, unless executed in writing and signed by ourselves and the said the W. T. Rawleigh company, and the corporate seal of the said company thereto affixed. Provided, however, that the liability of the sureties shall not exceed one hundred dollars.” Liability was limited to $100 by typewritten addition to the bond. Appellee defended on the ground that, although he signed the bond at the solicitation of G-inn and one Jackson, agent of appellant, he did so on the express condition that one E. B. Fletcher would sign the bond with him and agree to share whatever liability there might be on said bond up to $100. Appellee was permitted to testify, over appellant’s objections, that Jackson solicited him to sign the bond, and that he told Jackson he would do so if he would get E. B. Fletcher to sign also, and that he would not agree to be bound unless this was done.

The trial court submitted the question to the jury on an instruction that told the jury to find for appellant unless they found that at the time appellee signed it he notified the agent of appellant that he would not be liable thereon until Mr. E. B. Fletcher signed it. And further: “If you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Moore told the agent of the company he wouldn’t be liable on the bond until Mr. E. B. Fletcher signed it, then the agent should not have sent the bond to the company without getting his signature on it, and, if he did, then the company would be bound by the acts of its agent, and it would not make Mr. Moore liable.” The jury returned a verdict for appellee, on which judgment was rendered, and this appeal followed.

The court correctly permitted the testimony, and instructed the jury, and this question is ruled by the following cases: *Halliburton*v. *Cannon,*160 Ark. 428, 254 S. W. 687; *Taylor*v. *Deese,*179 Ark. 39, 14 S. W. (2d) 255; *Taylor*v. *Viner,*185 Ark. 285, 47 S. W. (2d) 6. Many other cases might be cited. The undisputed testimony is that appellee told appellant’s agent that he would not be bound unless E. B. Fletcher also signed. Instead of ■ *573getting E. B. Fletcher to sign, U. G. Fletcher was induced to do so. Judgment was rendered against him and Ginn, as they did not defend or appeal. Notice was therefore given to appellant’s agent, and notice to the agent is notice to it.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18cv540(WOB) 

STEPHANIE LEIGH WHITAKER, ET AL PLAINTIFFS 

VS. JUDGMENT 

JOSEPH W. KIRBY DEFENDANT 

 Pursuant to the Opinion and Order entered concurrently 

herewith, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is hereby 

DISMISSED AND STRICKEN FROM THE DOCKET OF THIS COURT. 

 This 30th day of October, 2018. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00540-WOB Doc #: 44 Filed: 10/30/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 323
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

LSS/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL LEROY TURNER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BERNIE GIUSTO, Sheriff of Multnomah

County,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-35830

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00740-AC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Leroy Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging improper delay in his arraignment

FILED

DEC 14 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LSS/Research 2 08-35830

and a violation of his right to a speedy trial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194

(9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Because a judgment in Turner’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity

of his conviction, the district court properly dismissed the action. See Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). However, the dismissal under Heck

should have been without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d

583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of

entering dismissal without prejudice.

Turner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Turner shall bear his own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Metretek Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, A. Bradley Gabbard, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby 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, as amended; and

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

Date: May 17, 2004                               /s/ A. Bradley Gabbard
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 A. Bradley Gabbard
                                                 Executive Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

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.
* 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 March 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40459 Summary Calendar

KENNETH BARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION OF TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:04-CV-40

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This appeal is from a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer in a race discrimination case. Appellant contends that the district court incorrectly applied Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), and erred in finding no genuine issues of material fact with respect to his failure to promote claim. After consideration of the briefs and record on appeal, our de novo review leads us to the inescapable conclusion that theNo. 04-40191 -2- district court correctly granted summary judgment. We affirm essentially for the reasons set forth in the memorandum and order of the district court dated March 9, 2005.
AFFIRMED.
Daryl L. GERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-130

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Jadea J. Conte,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 2:18-cv-903

The United States of America, ef a/.. Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendants. Magistrate Judge Vascura

ORDER

On September 4, 2018, Magistrate Judge Vascura, to whom this case was

referred, issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), EOF No. 5,

recommending that the Court dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(B)(ii).

The R&R advised Jadea J. Conte ("Plaintiff") of her right to file objections to

the same and specifically advised that the failure to timely object would result In a

waiver of the right to de novo review by the Undersigned as well as a waiver of the

right to appeal the decision of the District Court. R&R 5-6, ECF No. 5. The time for

filing objections has passed, and none were filed.

Plaintiff did file two Amended Complaints, ECF Nos. 7, 9; however, a Plaintiff

cannot circumvent dismissal under § 1915 by filing an amended complaint. See

Moniz V. Mines, 92 F. App'x 208, 212 (6th Cir. 2004) ("[A] district court may not

permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint to defeat dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)." (citations omitted)).
Having received no objections, the CourtADOPTS the R&R, EOF No. 5, and

DISMISSES this case. The Clerk shall remove ECF No. 5 from the Court's pending

motions list.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case No. 2:18-cv-903

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Page 2 of 2
Alexander SESKO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4194

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<PAGE>




                                   Exhibit 23
                                   ----------

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Michael Anthony Jewelers, Inc.
Mount Vernon, New York


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of the previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 and Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-29029,
333-29037, 333-74629 and 333-83056) of Michael Anthony Jewelers, Inc. of our
report dated March 28, 2002, relating to the consolidated financial statements
of Michael Anthony Jewelers, Inc. appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended February 2, 2002.


/s/: BDO Seidman, LLP
BDO Seidman, LLP
New York, New York

April 22, 2002
First Amendment to Lease



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) is made effective as
of the 25th day of March, 2009, and is in addition to and supplements the Master Lease Agreement dated December 20, 2008 (the “Master Lease”) by and between FPA Governor Park Associates, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (“Landlord”) and Trinity Property Consultants, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Tenant”) for all vacant space located at 6310 Greenwich Drive and 5060 Shoreham Place, San Diego, California (the
“Premises”). 
 RECITALS: 
 A. Landlord and Tenant wish to amend the Master Lease in certain respects to allow for the payment of Base Rent from a specified reserve account for the first twelve (12) months of the Master Lease. 

NOW, for good and valuable consideration, and other mutual covenants, Tenant and Landlord hereby agree as follows: 
 AGREEMENT 
 1. Definitions. All
capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this First Amendment shall have the meanings given to them in the Master Lease. 
 2.
Amendment. The parties agree that the Master Lease shall be further amended in accordance with the following terms and conditions: 
  

	 	A.	Base Rent shall be paid from the Preferred Return Reserve Account, as that term is defined in Section 5.06 of the Limited Liability Company Agreement of Landlord’s sole
member, FPA/PRIP Governor Park, LLC dated December 19, 2008, until such time as the Preferred Return Reserve is exhausted. 

 3. Miscellaneous. The Master Lease, as amended by this First Amendment, shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
 4. Successors and Assigns. This Amendment shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 
 5. Telecopy Signatures. The parties hereby acknowledge and agree that the receipt of a telecopied or electronic signature on this Third Amendment
shall be deemed to be an original document and that such telecopy or electronic signature shall be deemed to be an original document and that this First Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original but all of which
shall constitute one and the same agreement. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment as of the date first above written.

  
 Landlord: 
 FPA Governor Park Associates, LLC 
 a Delaware limited liability company 
 By its Sole Member: 
 FPA/PRIP Governor Park, LLC 
 a Delaware limited liability company  

 By its Operating Member: 
 FPA Governor Park Investors, LLC

 a Delaware limited liability company 
 By its Manager:

 GF Governor Park, LLC 
 a Delaware limited liability company

  

			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Michael B. Earl

	 Name:
	 	 Michael B. Earl

	 Title:
	 	 Manager



 Tenant: 
 Trinity Property Consultants, LLC 
 a
California limited liability company 
  

			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Michael B. Earl

	 Name:
	 	 Michael B. Earl

	 Title:
	 	 Manager




  

 -2-
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER I, C. Christian Winkle, Chief Executive Officer of Mariner Health Care,
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended September 30, 2004 (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 Company. Date: November 5, 2004 /S/ C. Christian WinkleC. Christian WinkleChief Executive Officer
Maryanne KEENE, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0717

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
EERE Information Center Programs and Offices Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version 

## Commercial Clothes Washers Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Technical Support Document Here you will find the technical analysis and results in support of the information presented in the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking for commercial clothes washers.

The following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Adobe Reader

. Title Page ( PDF 36 KB ) Table of Contents ( PDF 36 KB )



### Chapters Chapter 1. Introduction ( PDF 112 KB ) Chapter 2. Analytical Framework ( PDF 504 KB ) Chapter 3. Market and Technology Assessment ( PDF 1.2 MB ) Chapter 4. Screening Analysis ( PDF 64 KB ) Chapter 5. Engineering Analysis ( PDF 272 KB ) Chapter 6. Energy and Water Use Determination ( PDF 116 KB ) Chapter 7. Markups for Equipment Price Determination ( PDF 204 KB) Chapter 8. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis ( PDF 824 KB ) Chapter 9. Trial Standard Levels ( PDF 64 KB ) Chapter 10. Shipments Analysis ( PDF 348 KB ) Chapter 11. National Impact Analysis ( PDF 488 KB) Chapter 12. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis ( PDF 304 KB ) Chapter 13. Manufacturer Impact Analysis ( PDF 924 KB ) Chapter 14. Utility Impact Analysis ( PDF 132 KB ) Chapter 15. Employment Impact Analysis ( PDF 96 KB ) Chapter 16. Environmental Impact Analysis ( PDF 400 KB ) Chapter 17. Regulatory Impact Analysis ( PDF 256 KB)



### Appendices Appendix 5A AHAM Data Submittal ( PDF 72 KB ) Appendix 8A User Instructions for LCC and PBP Spreadsheets ( PDF 52 KB ) Appendix 8B Uncertainty and Variability ( PDF 56 KB ) Appendix 8C Lifetime Distributions ( PDF 76 KB ) Appendix 10A Relative Price Elasticity of Demand for Appliances ( PDF 120 KB ) Appendix 11A User Instructions for Shipments and NIA Spreadsheets ( PDF 44 KB ) Appendix 11B National Equipment and Operating Costs ( PDF 116 KB ) Appendix 13A The Low-Volume Manufacturer ( PDF 132 KB ) Appendix 13B Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) ( PDF 116 KB ) Appendix 13C Federal Production Tax Credit ( PDF 192 KB ) Appendix 14A Interpolation of Utility and Environmental Results from NEMS-BT Output ( PDF 48 KB ) Appendix 17A Regulatory Impact Analysis Supporting Material ( PDF 284 KB)



### Contact Information Stephen Witkowski, P.E. Project Manager 202-586-7463

Printable Version

Building Technologies Program Home| EERE Home| U.S. Department of Energy Webmaster | Web Site Policies| Security & Privacy| USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 11/09/2009 

## Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Commercial Clothes ... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/...

1 of 1 11/10/2009 9:00 A M