alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment for Persistence Mining Inc. UAS FAR 333 Exemption Package

Ad dendum for Requirement 14 CFR 1 .1

Public Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0566

ARMDS Rotor Small Unmanned Air Vehicle Geological Mapping

Aircraft Registration #N5414P

Prepared by: Brian Zamudio

President , Persistence Mining Inc.

5666 La Jolla Blvd #315 La Jolla, CA 92037
Zamudio@Icloud .com Public Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0566

Date: February 20

, 2016

Persistence Mining Inc. (PMI) was granted a FAR 333 Exemption on July 20 th , 2015.

PMI seeks additional regulatory relief to allow commercial operation for agriculture surveys and hydrology studies during non

- daylight hours to enhance the quality of data though the use of alternative light sources to excite the hyper spectral range of the

sensors being used onboard our small unmanned aerial system, ARMDS

.

Our safety protocols include the addition of navigation lights in accordance with FAA

aviation standards

, including the port and starboard sides of the cr aft ( port will have a red light and starboard will have a green light)

. I n addition

, anti

- collision lights for purposes of safety will be added to the top and bottom

. For purposes of the sensor, a radiating light beam from the s UAS to the ground will have a minimum swath of 20 degrees allowing for easy line of sight visibility by the PIC and spotter.

Operations for the purpose of surveying are permitted under the current Exemption. In summary, PMI request that the F AA permit PMI to conduct geological surveys, agriculture surveys and hydrology studies at night in strictly rural areas in an effort to enhance our surveying technology which will reduce negative inputs into the environment via our spectral analysis of soil and water utilizing a sUAS as the vehicle for sensor deployment of our environmental application

.

If you have a ny questions regarding this addendum , or require any additional information to process PMI’s Petition, please do not hesitate to contact us.Sincerely,

Brian Zamudio

President , Persistence Mining Inc.

5666 La Jolla Blvd #315 La Jolla, CA 92037
Zamudio@Icloud .com
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgardo BARRON-ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6359

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

*157Edgardo Barron-Espinosa, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Brian Scott Meyers, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raléigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edgardo Barron-Espinosa seeks to appeal from the district court orders directing him to raise his postconviction sentencing challenge in the form of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The orders Barron-Espinosa seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
J.J.C. v. J.B.D.

2160129

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct. for trial de de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala.R.Juv.P.
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03411]

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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Part 511

[GSAR Case 2016-G511; Docket No. 2021-0018; Sequence No. 1]
RIN 3090-AJ84

General Services Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Contract 
Requirements for GSA Information Systems

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration 
(GSA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On February 9, 2022, GSA published a final rule to amend the 
General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to 
streamline and update requirements for contracts that involve GSA 
information systems and replace outdated text with existing policies of 
the GSA Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and provide 
centralized guidance to ensure consistent application across the 
organization. GSA is making editorial changes to an amendatory 
instruction under Part 511.

DATES: Effective March 11, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Johnnie McDowell, Procurement 
Analyst, at 202-718-6112 or [email protected], for clarification of 
content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, 
contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755 or 
[email protected]. Please cite GSAR Case 2016-G511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2022-02662 appearing on pages 
7393-7395 in the issue of February 9, 2022, make the following 
correction:

511.171 [Corrected]

    On page 7395, in the second column, Instruction 4 is corrected to 
read:
    4. Amend part 511 by adding Subpart 511.1--Selecting and Developing 
Requirements Documents, consisting of section 511.171 to read as 
follows:

Jeffrey A. Koses,
Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of 
Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-03411 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-61-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4503

JOHN THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.

(CR-94-6)

Submitted: January 27, 1998

Decided: February 12, 1998

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, Gordon Widenhouse,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Warren Thomas appeals the district court's order sentencing

him to twenty-four months' imprisonment for violations of supervised

release. In February 1994, Thomas pled guilty to conspiracy to pass

counterfeit United States currency and use of an unauthorized access

device. He was sentenced to fourteen months' incarceration on each

count and thirty-six months of supervised release. In August 1995,

Thomas's probation officer filed a motion to revoke his supervised

release, citing Thomas's subsequent guilty plea to attempted robbery

and his marijuana use.

At the revocation hearing, Thomas admitted violating the terms and

conditions of his supervised release and requested that he be granted

credit for time served for the supervised release violations because he

had already served a two-year sentence for the attempted robbery.

The district court rejected this request and sentenced Thomas to the

statutory maximum of twenty-four months in prison.

Thomas now contends that the court declined to grant his request

because it erroneously believed it did not have discretion to do so. See

USSG § 7B1.3(f).* After a careful review of the record, we find nothing to suggest the court misapprehended its authority with respect to

the provision at issue. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640

(4th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm Thomas's sentence for the violations of

supervised release. 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

_________________________________________________________________

*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f) (1995).

 2
Lige TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3660

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
HZ CONSTRUCTION, INC. and Anderson C. Hill, II, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., successor by merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A., Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-855

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6155 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report 

to Congress on case management personnel turnover of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. LALOTA (for himself and Ms. WILSON of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to 

submit a report to Congress on case management personnel turnover of the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘FEMA Caseworker 

5 Accountability Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6155 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON STAFF TURNOVER. 

2 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

4 shall submit to Congress a report containing— 

5 (1) the turnover rate for case management per6 sonnel of the Federal Emergency Management 

7 Agency; 

8 (2) the average and median length of employ9 ment for the personnel described in paragraph (1); 

10 (3) the steps that the Agency is taking, or 

11 plans to take, to lower the rate of turnover for the 

12 personnel described in paragraph (1); 

13 (4) the number of personnel of the Agency that 

14 is detailed to work disaster recovery and then return 

15 to such personnel’s full-time assignment after a dis16 aster, disaggregated by full-time, part-time, tem17 porary, and contract personnel; and 

18 (5) the average time and median length of the 

19 rotations of personnel described in paragraph (4) 

20 and how often rotations and reassignment of per21 sonnel occur for each disaster recovery position and 

22 function, disaggregated by full-time, part-time, tem23 porary, and contract personnel. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
STATE of Louisiana v. Bennie TEMPLE

No. 2018-KK-626

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRIT TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

Writ denied.

GENOVESE, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

GENOVESE, J., additionally concurs in the denial of the writ.

Defendant has an adequate remedy via motion for preliminary examination or motion to quash.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 23-0005 

### MAY 16 2023

IN RE PETITION OF LEIGH FRATTOLILLIO FOR TEMPORARY ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF MONTANA. Bowen Gr ,- ,enwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Leigh Frattolillio has petitioned for temporary admission to the practice of law in Montana pending admission upon examination. Frattolillio passed the Montana Bar Examination in February 2023, and is scheduled to take the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) in August 2023. Frattolillio has undertaken employmentwith the Gallatin County Attorney's Office but is not yet acting as counsel of record. The Gallatin County Attorney has filed a letter in support ofthe petition, citing a backlogofcases andthe critical assistance Frattolillio can provide to thatoffice as counsel. While we routinely deny petitions for temporary admission for applicants seeking admission by motion or upon transfer of Uniform Bar Examination (UBE) score, see Petition ofGosch, 07-0303,March 7, 2016,we haveexplainedthat "[t]emporary admission until sitting for the bar exam may be appropriate in circumstances where a candidate does not qualify for admission on motion or for transfer of a UBE score." Petition ofGosch, 07-0303. Here, Frattolillio is waiting to complete the* examination process, and thus qualifies for temporary admission.' Good cause appearing, IT ISHEREBYORDERED that thepetition fortemporary admission tothepractice of law is GRANTED. This period of temporary admission shall be effective until Frattolillio is permanently admitted to the practice of law, or until October 1, 2023,

I We would also note that the Court routinely grants a waiver ofthe requirement to take and pass the MPRE within three years of admission for applicants who have previously taken the examination and have a good ethical history. Rule VII(A), Rulesfor Admission to the Bar of Montana. Frattolillio tookthe MPRE in 1998. 05/17/2023

Case Number: PR 07-0303

### whichever is sooner, atwhich timethetemporary admission will expire. Duringtheperiod

oftemporary admission,Frattolillio must be employedwith theGallatinCounty Attorney's Office, Bozeman, Montana, and termination of that employment will terminate Frattolillio's temporary admission. The Gallatin County Attorney's Office will notify the Court ifFrattolillio ceases to be employed by that office. The Clerk of this Court will administer the usual oath and issue a temporary certificate granting Leigh Frattolillio permission to practice law until permanently admitted, or until October 1, 2023, whichever is sooner. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana. DATED this 11) day ofMay, 2023.

ChiefJustice



## c

# ecli AI Zit,

Justices
#### Enkelejda POCI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73661

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 14, 2017

Enkelejda Poci, Pro Se

OIL, Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, 'Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Enkelejda Poci, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision to summarily dismiss an appeal. *Singh v. Gonzales,*416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Poci’s appeal where she indicated on her notice of appeal that a separate written brief would be filed but failed to file a brief, and her notice of appeal lacked sufficient specificity regarding the grounds for appeal. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A); *cf. Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft,*366 F.3d 749, 752 (9th Cir. 2004) (the BIA may summarily dismiss an alien’s appeal if an alien submits no separate written brief or statement to the BIA and inadequately informs the BIA of what aspects of the decision were allegedly incorrect and why).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Poci’s contentions regarding the merits of her case, her ex-husband’s testimony, and the alleged ineffective ' assistance of counsel, because she failed to raise these contentions before the BIA and theTeby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency); *Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (new evidence may be added to the record through a motion to reopen with the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1


                                   Exhibit 15





Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20549


Dear Sirs:


We are aware that Acme Metals Incorporated has included our report dated
October 21, 1997 (issued pursuant to the provisions of Statement on Auditing
Standards No. 71) in the Prospectuses constituting part of its Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-17235, 33-19437 and 33-30841) and in its
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-38747 and 33-59627).  We are also
aware of our responsibilities under the Securities Act of 1933.


Very truly yours,



/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
------------------------
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Chicago, Illinois
November 10, 1997

                                       22
#### Rudy Aroldo MONTERROSO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-74053

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

Rosana Cheung, Attorney, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

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 **

Rudy Aroldo Monterroso, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his motion for a continuance and denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, and review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for substantial evidence'the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Monterroso’s request for a further continuance to present testimony from an expert witness where it was made on the day the witness was scheduled to testify, Monterroso had previously been granted a nine-month continuance to *227present the witness, and he did not present any evidence of the witness’s qualifications. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; *Ahmed v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (listing factors to consider in reviewing the denial of a continuance). We reject Mon-terroso’s contention that the IJ exhibited bias. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Monter-roso failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if returned. *See Silaya,*524 F.3d at 1073. Wé reject Monterroso’s contention that the agency erred in its analysis.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis LEAL-VILLEGAS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41395 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Luis Leal-Villegas, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Leal-Villegas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Leal-Villegas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Jessica Christine RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2941

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 22, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm. However, we note that while the trial court announced a sentence on Count V, it failed to enter the corresponding sentencing documents for that count. We therefore remand for entry of sentencing documents on Count V in accordance with the oral pronouncement.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.

EVANDER, BERGER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Annette CANTALUPO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. LEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and the Island Water Association, Inc., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-3627

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

06/22

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 22 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL