alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### 62355 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 202 / Friday, October 18, 2013 / Notices

additional objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the additional exhibit objects at the Leonardo Museum, Salt Lake City, UT, from on or about November 23, 2013, until on or about April 27, 2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For further information, including a list of the additional exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505.

Dated: October 11, 2013. Evan M. Ryan, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013–24510 Filed 10–17–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4710–05–P DEPARTMENT OF STATE** 

**[Public Notice 8502]**
**Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Ileana**  **Sonnabend: Ambassador for the New’’**

**SUMMARY :**  Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq. ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition ‘‘Ileana Sonnabend: Ambassador for the New,’’ imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about December 21, 2013, until on or about April 21, 2014, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register

.
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202–632–6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522–0505.

Dated: October 11, 2013. Evan M. Ryan, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013–24509 Filed 10–17–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4710–05–P**
### Amendment for Docket# FAA
**- 2015** 
**- 1226** 

Advanced Aviation Solutions (ADAVSO) requests an amendment to our Section 333 Exemption FAA

- 2015

- 1226. In order to maintain the highest level of operational safety w e would like to add the following models to our exemption: DJIPhantom 3, Matrice, 3DR Solo, and the SteadiDrone Flare and Mavrik. These all incorporate state of the art flight directors; Pixhawk, Naza

- M, and 3DR , greatly improving safety

and ensuring eff

ective operations

. T he rapidl y changing capabilities of the UAS increases the importance of updating sy stems and use the most capable and increasingl y more efficient and safest models available. The additions of these models to the existing exemption wil l increase the overall safety and efficiency of all of our operations. All of these models run similar flight controls and have very similar safet y features to include return to home point. It is in the public’s best interest to allow us to utilize these cutting edge UAS. These new UAS will increase overall operational capabilities and decrease any chance for a maintenance related safet y issue. UAS operations in aerial surveying, aerial photography , agriculture operations, wildlife and forestry manag ement, wild land firefighting support, aerial inspection and mapping operations with little to no negative impact on our fragile environment. UAS’s will reduce noise, fuel vapor, fuel burn, fuel spills and many of the other dangerous side effects of the l arger manned aircraft. Please take the time to review our request and approve this amendment.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Thomas E. Mara, as ChiefExecutive Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Qreport for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  August 11, 2003 |                             |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                         |    /s/  Thomas E. Mara |   |
|                         | Thomas E.  Mara,                 |
|                         | Chief  Executive Officer         |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial
information extracted from unaudited financial
statements for the six month period ending
June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY>   U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                1
<CASH>                                                 7,104,000
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          4,705,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                             (20,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               0
<PP&E>                                                60,528,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (12,843,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        61,089,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          0
<BONDS>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                             7,198,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          61,089,000
<SALES>                                                6,328,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       6,328,000
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       4,967,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     2,430,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (1,063,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (1,063,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (1,063,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (3,544.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (3,544.44)
        
 

</TABLE>
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 202 202 - 1 March 17, 2011[ date of amended rule adoption ] RULE 321. SOLVENT CLEANING MACHINES AND SOLVEN T CLEANING. (Adopted 2/24/1975, readopted 10/23/1978, revised 6/11/1979, 7/10/1990, 4/17/1997, 7/17/1997, 9/18/1997, and

9/20/2010 , and [ date of amended rule adoption ] )

A. Applicability

This rule shall apply to any person who owns, oper ates, or uses any solvent cleaning machine or performs any solvent cleaning operation outside of a solven t cleaning machine during the production, repair, maintenance, or servicing of parts, pro ducts, tools, machinery, equipment, or in general work areas at any stationary source.

B. Exemptions

Except as otherwise specifically provi ded herein, the provisions of this ru le shall not apply to the following:
[. . .]

6. Any equipment or operation that is subject to or specifically exempted by any of the following

District rules.

a. Rule 325, Crude Oil Production and Separation.

b. Rule 326, Storage of Reac tive Organic Compound Liquids.

c. Rule 330, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products.

d. Rule 337, Surface Coating of Aircraft or Aerospace Vehicle s Parts and Products Components

.

e. Rule 339, Motor Vehicle and Mobi le Equipment Coating Operations.

f. Rule 343, Petroleum Storage Tank Degassing.

g. Rule 344, Petroleum Sumps, Pits and Well Cellars.

h. Rule 349, Polyester Resin Operations.

i. Rule 351, Surface Coa ting of Wood Products.

j. Rule 353, Adhesives and Sealants.

k. Rule 354, Graphic Arts.

Notwithstanding this exemption, the applicable Rule 321 requirements apply if a rule for any above process specifies a solvent cleaning machine shall comply with the applicable provisions of

Rule 321. [. . .]



### APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DENNIS A. MARSHALL

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL

By____________________________ Deputy Attorneys for the Santa Barbara County

Air Pollution Control District
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (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.



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 8, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert L. Recchia  
|                   |  |  |  | Robert L. Recchia      
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
Larry C. GOODMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 1D16-5248 1D16-5249

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 25, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Justin F. Karpf, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, Assistant Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*531AFFIRMED . *See**Sheppard v. State* , 17 So.3d 275, 286-87 (Fla. 2009) (agreeing that a trial court may strike pro se rule 3.170(*l* ) motion as a nullity unless the motion "contains specific allegations that give rise to an adversarial relationship, such as misadvice, affirmative misrepresentations, or coercion that led to the entry of the plea"); *Echeverria v. State* , 33 So.3d 802, 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding that a defendant's "broad, general allegations of ineffectiveness of his counsel do not indicate misadvice, coercion, or misrepresentation that would require a hearing under *Sheppard* .").

Wolf, Winokur, and Jay, JJ., concur.
Addendum to Management Agreement effective January 1, 2009



 Exhibit 10.21 
  
 ADDENDUM TO THE 
 CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 BETWEEN 
 CEDAR MANAGEMENT LIMITED (“CEDAR”) 
 USA RISK GROUP (BERMUDA), LTD. (“USABDA”) 
 (and their affiliated companies) (hereafter collectively
“MANAGER”) 
 AND 
 AMERINST INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. (“COMPANY”) 
 EFFECTIVE: January 1, 2009 
  
 The original agreement between COMPANY and MANAGER is hereby renewed for one year beginning
January 1, 2009 and ending December, 31, 2009. 
  
 The Management Agreement
Addendum is amended to read as follows: 
  
 Management Agreement Addendum 

  

	1)	It is hereby agreed that, the Company will compensate MANAGER at a rate of $335,000 per annum beginning 1/1/09 and ending 12/31/09, which shall be inclusive of all work by MANAGER
on CAMICO, PDIC and the CNA audits. 


	2)	Cause the above fee to be paid in quarterly installments in advance at the beginning of each calendar quarter. 


	3)	Reimburse MANAGER for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the management of the COMPANY including; courier and express mail service; long distance telephone calls;
travel and meeting expenses incurred at the request of the COMPANY; costs of COMPANY stationery; filing fees; and similar expenses. 

  
 COMPANY agrees that special projects will be invoiced separately at agreed upon fees or rates. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Addendum this 11th day of December, 2008. 
  

			
		
	By:	 	/S/    THOMAS
MCMAHON        
		 	 Cedar Management Limited
 (itself and on behalf of its affiliated companies)

		
	By:	 	/S/    STUART H. GRAYSTON        

		 	 USA Risk Group (Bermuda), Ltd.
 (itself and on behalf of its affiliated companies)

		
	By:	 	/S/    RONALD S. KATCH        

		 	AmerInst Insurance Company, Ltd.
Exhibit 4.5








Exhibit 4.5








	IMMEDIATEK, INC.
This Certifies that
transferable
IN WITNESS WHEREOF




 


 









 











	CERTIFICATE FOR SHARES OF THE CAPITAL STOCK
ISSUED TO DATED
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Renay Polite NEILLY as Attorney in Fact FOR Marian POLITE, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-2707

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, E. Thomas Hart, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 28, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations ofQuickLogic Corporation.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ E. Thomas Hart         |
|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Date:  | November 6, 2008      |
|   | Name:  | E. Thomas Hart             |
|   | Title: | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

I, Carl M. Mills, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 28, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations ofQuickLogic Corporation.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Carl M. Mills          |
|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Date:  | November 6, 2008      |
|   | Name:  | Carl M. Mills              |
|   | Title: | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### Brown *v.*Bradberry, County Judge.

4-8895

218 S. W. 2d 733

Opinion delivered March 28, 1949.

*Gordon Armitage,*for appellant.

*J. G. Moody,*for appellee.

Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.

November 2, 1948, the electors of White County approved plans to construct a new jail and to extend and repair the court house. At the same time they gave assent to a building tax for the two purposes, under authority of Amendment No. 17 to the Constitution.1 The work would be done with funds from a bond issue of $125,000.

J. J. Brown, a taxpaying citizen, sought to enjoin, contending that failure of the Sheriff to particularize the proposals in the election proclamation and notices was fatal. No other issue is before the Court, and this opinion is confined-solely to that question.

Brown’s demurrer to the answer of the County Judge was overruled and the taxpayer has appealed.

The Chancellor was right. Amendment 17 vests the electors with power to authorize construction, reconstruction, or extension of court houses and jails when plans, specifications, etc., have been approved by the County Court. Submission of the proposal is (a) at the next general election, unless (b) such an election is not to be held within a year from the Court’s order. If the general election is a year or more away, a special elec*938tion may be held after proclamation, by the Sheriff, and publication.

Appellant thinks that a general election, under accepted definitions,' is one that recurs at designated intervals by operation of law, at which known matters are to he dealt with; hence, he reasons, if an unusual issue be presented — one alien to that class biennially determinable at the polls, — then as to *that*issue the election is special, and the Amendment procedure for special elections must be followed.

One answer is that Amendment 17 puts the public on notice that a court house or jail building program may appear upon the ballot. The fact that such an issue does appear on the ballot at a particular general election, but not at all such elections, does not alter the character of the election and convert it into a special transaction.

A second answer is that procedural directions when viewed retrospectively are not mandatory unless of the essence of what is to be accomplished. Though enforcible by appropriate action taken before the voters have-spoken, the participating majority will not (in the absence of fraud) be deprived of the fruits of its victory upon a showing that a ministerial act was overlooked.

One of the frequently-quoted cases in which after-election complaints are discussed is *Wheat*v. Smith, 50 Ark. 266, 7 S. W. 161. See, also, *Henderson*v. *Gladish,*198 Ark. 217, 128 S. W. 2d 257. Many other decisions hold that the will of a majority cannot be defeated because of procedural omissions that did not prevent a fair expression.

Affirmed.

1

 Amendment No. 25 to Amendment 17 is not involved.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Complainant, DocketNo. FAA-2012-0781 vs. Case No. 2011 SO 700298 BRAILLE BATTERY, INC., Judge J. E. Sullivan Respondent. NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

### 10 

## 2: i 

## 3

The lawfirm ofGrayRobinson, P.A., hereby notifies the Court and counsel ofrecord ofa change ofaddress effective October 1, 2012. Please direct all correspondence, pleadings, notices, orders, etc. in the above-styled action to the following address: GrayRobinson, P.A. 401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2700 Tampa, FL 33602



# RECEIVED _DEC- 32012 

# HEARING DOCKET./il r',
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing has been furnished

### ~ via facsimile transmission and U.S. Mail to the following this on this 

# 2£ day of November, 2012: Gerald A. Ellis, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 Fax: (404) 305-5223 Hon. J. E. Sullivan, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E-11-310) Washington, DC 20590 Fax: (202) 366-7536

\372607\20- # 3563149 vi

2
August 8, 2016

Mr. David Fields

Accurate Aerial Applications
4111 W. 122nd Street
Perkins

, OK 74059

Re: FAA

– 2016

– 1024

Dear Mr. Fields :

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and have determined that we will continue to process your petition.

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov

, we are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently

- issued regulation, Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 ( www.faa.gov/uas ) will satisfy your request

. We have determined that

y our request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your petition for exemption

.

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments , if we have not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov

.

Sincerely,

/s/
Brenda Robeson Program A nalyst
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TONI MARIE LUCCA, n/k/a TONI MARIE FIORITO

, Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY LUCCA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3110

[ January 25, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Jessica Ticktin , Judge; L.T. Case No.

2014DR004088XXXXSB

.

Toni Marie Fiorito, Delray Beach, pro se, for appellant.

Ralph T. White of Schutz & White, LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER

, M AY and D AMOORGI AN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Andrew PANZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3406

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.