alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
7/26/2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Vision Pictures, LLC Exemption #11541 in Regulatory Docket No. FAA2015-0423

Dear Sir or Madam:

Vision Pictures LLC hereby requests an amendment to exemption #11541 to allow for one (1) 

additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the 

Petition for Exemption. 

Vision Pictures wishes to operate the Freefly Alta under the same terms and conditions 

contained in exemption #11541. Attached hereto, and submitted as highly proprietary and 

confidential documents, are the Flight Operations and Procedures Manuals (FOPM) for (1)

additional UAS. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of

exemption #11541. 

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of other types

of unmanned aerial vehicles, Vision Pictures respectfully submits that good cause exists so that 

notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested amendment. 

Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this request for an 

amendment to exemption #11541.

Sincerely yours,

Joel S Petersen

Vision Pictures LLC

2828 West Clark Ave, Burbank CA 91505

(323) 484-4022

cc:

Jonathan B. Rupprecht, Esq.
David Leo PERKINS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-1600

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 1, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, Daytona Beach, and Ryan M. Belanger, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Petitioner.

No Appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the January 5, 2018 violation of probation judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 2014-303367-CFDB, in the Circuit Court in and for *425Volusia County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

COHEN, C.J., and EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
|   | (a) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ Jacky K. Anderson   |   | Date:  | August 13, 2010 |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------|--------|
|   | Jacky K. Anderson       |   |   |            |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |   |            |   |
|   |                    |   |   |            |   |
|   |                    |   |   |            |   |
|   |                    |   |   |            |   |
| By:    | /s/ Blake M. Edwards    |   | Date:  | August 13, 2010 |   |
|   | Blake M. Edwards        |   |   |            |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |   |            |   |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Francis BOOK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30032

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

*232Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Anthony Francis Book, Pro Se

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony Francis Book appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Book contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The record makes clear that the disti'ict court imposed Book’s sentence for reasons unrelated to the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Because Book’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district court properly concluded that he was ineligible was a sentence reduction. *See United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano,*855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Moreover, contrary to Book’s contention, the district court had no cause to consider his arguments that a reduction was warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

Book’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Joseph A. IANNELLI and Regina W. Iannelli, Appellants, v. KIRKLAND FINANCIAL, LLC, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2014

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

J. Russell Collins, Vincent L. Sullivan, and Christine C. Leonard, of Rusty Law, LLC, St. Augustine, for Appellants.

Tim W. Sobczak and Leslie White, of Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A., Orlando, and Melisa Manganelli and Jennifer Chapkin, of Law Offices of Mandel, Manganelli & Leider, P.A., Boca Raton, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
#### Samuel Litvin MICHAELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-2242

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 21, 2017

Robert A. Whitlow, Christian R. Ayers, SELLERS, AYERS, DORTCH & LYONS, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Gill Beck, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, David Mervis, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are' not binding precedent in this circuit..

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Litvin Michaels appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, .the joint appendix, and the administrative record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Michaels v. Berryhill,*No. 3:15-cv-00388-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 26, 2016 and entered Sept. 27, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Eugene WALTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4236

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
James DAVIS v. STATE

CR-15-1080

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Trayon Omar WASHINGTON v. STATE

CR-16-0570

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017 Reh. denied June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 144 

To forestall the loss of research talent by establishing a temporary early 

career research fellowship program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Ms. JOHNSON of Texas (for herself and Mr. LUCAS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To forestall the loss of research talent by establishing a 

temporary early career research fellowship program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Early-Ca5 reer Researchers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The Nation’s universities and industrial re9 search labs are facing unprecedented budget pres10 sure as part of the COVID–19 health crisis, resultVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:20 Jan 28, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H144.IH H144

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 144 IH

1 ing in considerably fewer openings for research and 

2 teaching positions. 

3 (2) Emergency funding is needed to forestall 

4 the loss of research talent likely to occur if early-ca5 reer researchers are forced to seek employment out6 side of research due to the sharp economic decline 

7 caused by the COVID–19 health crisis. 

8 SEC. 3. EARLY-CAREER RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National 

10 Science Foundation may establish a 2-year pilot program 

11 to award grants to highly qualified early-career investiga12 tors to carry out an independent research program at the 

13 institution of higher education chosen by such investi14 gator, to last for a period not greater than 2 years. 

15 (b) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION DE16 FINED.—The term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has 

17 the meaning given the term in section 101 of the Higher 

18 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001). 

19 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

20 There is authorized to be appropriated to the Direc21 tor of the National Science Foundation $250,000,000 for 

22 each of fiscal years 2021 through 2022 to carry out the 

23 activities in this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6113

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Eric Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Christina Ann Hoffman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May 5, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on December 20, 2016.* Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal, or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court, Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**Horwath Orenstein LLP**

Member Horwath International 

 

**Horwath Orenstein LLP**

*Chartered Accountants*

 

595 Bay Street, Suite 300 

Toronto, Canada

M5G 2C2 

 

T 416.596.1711 

F 416.596.7894 

 

www.horwathorenstein.com 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We consent to the inclusion of our report dated August 20, 2004 with respect to our audits ofthe consolidated audited financial statements of Yak Communications Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2004 and 2003 included as part of this Form 10-K.
SHAMROCK-SHAMROCK, INC. f/k/a Florida Lifestyle Homes, Inc. f/k/a Florida Lifestyle Homes of Volusia, Inc. and Ekana Home, LLC, Appellants, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC., TRUST 2006-NC5, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-NC5, et al., Appellees.

Case No. 5D16-2357

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 2, 2018

Dorothy F. Easley, of Easley Appellate Practice, PLLC, Miami, Nicholas A. Shannin, of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, Sarah Metz and Frank S. Ganz, of Smith, Bigman, Brock, Daytona Beach, for Appellants.

Charles E. Stoecker, of McGlinchey Stafford, Fort Lauderdale, William L. Grimsley, Karin L. Posser, and N. Mark New II, of McGlinchey Stafford, Jacksonville, for Appellee, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

No Appearance for other Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary finacial information extracted from the June
28,1998 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                           1,419
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,375
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,310
<PP&E>                                          48,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,345
<BONDS>                                         25,320
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,984
<SALES>                                         93,315
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,315
<CGS>                                           31,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,269
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,441
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,610
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,831
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,831
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70
        

</TABLE>
Larry Bryant NETTLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1997

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 18, 2018

Larry Nettles, pro se, Appellant.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Jasmine Quintera Russell, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Wolf and Ray, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 5, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald M. DiNella, the Chief Financial Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mortons.

Date: August 7, 2009





|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ RONALD M. DINELLA  
|Ronald M. DiNella      
|Chief Financial Officer
|
GENERAL VOI R DI RE I SSUES

J URORS ERRONEOUSLY EXCUSED FOR CAUSE OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJ ECTI ON AND W I THOUT ALLOW I NG THE DEFENSE AN OPPORTUNI TY TO VOI R DI RE THE J URORS APPELLANT’S I SSUES NO. 8 THE TRI AL COURT ERRED I N GRANTI NG THE STATE’S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAI NST VENI REPERSON MARY BOULOS APPELLANT’S I SSUE NO. 9 THE TRI AL COURT’S GRANTI NG THE STATE’S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE ON J UROR MARY BOULOS DENI ED THE DEFENDANT HI S CONSTI TUTI ONAL RI GHT TO COUNSEL UNDER ART. 1 SEC. 1 0 TEXAS CONSTI TUTI ON APPELLANT’S I SSUE NO. 1 0 THE TRI AL COURT GRANTI N G THE STATE’S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE DENI ED APPELLANT’S RI GHT TO COUNSEL UNDER THE 5 T H , 6 T H AND 1 4 T HAMENDMENT TO THE UNI TED STATES CONSTI TUTI ON APPELLANT’S I SSUES NO. 1 1 THE TRI AL COURT ERRED I N GRANTI NG THE STATE’S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAI NST VENI REPERSON J UDI TH MCDANI EL APPELLANT’S I SSUE NO.1 2 THE TRI AL COURT’S GRANTI NG THE STATE’S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE ON J UROR J UDI TH McDANI EL DENI ED THE DEFENDANT HI S CONSTI TUTI ONAL RI GHT TO COUNSEL UNDER ART. 1 SEC. 1 0 TEXAS CONSTI TUTI ONAPPELLANT’S I SSUE NO. 1 3

THE TRI AL COURT GRANTI N G THE STATE’S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE DENI ED APPELLANT’S RI GHT TO COUNSEL UNDER THE 5 T H , 6 T H AND 1 4 T HAMENDMENT TO THE UNI TED STATES CONSTI TUTI ON APPELLANT’S I SSUE NO. 1 4 THE TRI AL COURT ERRED I N GRANTI NG THE STATE’S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AGAI NST VENI REPERSON J ERRY PLANK APPELLANT’S I SSUE NO.1 5 THE TRI AL COURT’S GRANTI NG THE STATE’S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE ON J UROR TERRY PLANK DENI ED THE DEFENDANT HI S CONSTI TUTI ONAL RI GHT TO COUNSEL UNDER ART. 1 SEC. 1 0 TEXAS CONSTI TUTI ON APPELLANT’S I SSUE NO. 1 6 THE TRI AL COURT GRANTI N G THE STATE’S CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE DENI ED APPELLANT’S RI GHT TO COUNSEL UNDER THE 5 T H , 6 T H AND 1 4 T HAMENDMENT TO THE UNI TED STATES CONSTI TUTI ON APPELLANT’S I SSUES NO. 1 7 THE TRI AL COURT ERRED I N GRANTI NG STATE’S CHALLENGE ON J UROR FLOYD STANMORE OVER THE OBJ ECTI ONS OF THE DEFENSE
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2010
-NM - 250
- AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 165 (Thursday, August 25, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 53119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21731]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

High Energy Physics Advisory Panel

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of renewal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and in accordance with Title 41 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102.3.65(a), and following 
consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General 
Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the High Energy 
Physics Advisory Panel will be renewed for a two-year period, beginning 
on August 12, 2011. The Panel will provide advice and recommendations 
to the Director, Office of Science (DOE), and the Assistant Director, 
Mathematical & Physical Sciences Directorate (NSF), on long-range 
planning and priorities in the national High Energy Physics program.
    Additionally, the renewal of the HEPAP has been determined to be 
essential to conduct the Department of Energy and the National Science 
Foundation business and to be in the public interest in connection with 
the performance of duties imposed upon the Department of Energy by law 
and agreement. The Panel will operate in accordance with the provisions 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and rules and regulations issued 
in implementation of those Acts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glen Crawford, Designated Federal 
Office, at (301) 903-9458.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on August 12, 2011.
Carol A. Matthews,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-21731 Filed 8-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```