alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

April 7, 2015

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Rulemaking and Flight Standards Office

SUBJ: EXEMPTION REQUESTED FOR TITLE 14 C.F.R PART 91.119, 91.121, and 

91.151 FOR INSTANTEYE MK-2 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

San Diego Gas & Electric is requesting an exemption from section 91.119, 91.121, and 

91.151 for the InstantEye MK-2 unmanned aircraft for FAA Order 8130.34. San Diego 

Gas & Electric has already received an exemption from these C.F.Rs via Section 333 

exemption number 11238 but was informed we must also apply again for FAA Order 

8130.34. 

a. § 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes, no person may operate an aircraft below the 

following altitudes: Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet 

above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. Due to 

the height of SDG&E assets, powerlines, poles, towers, equipment, the sUAS will fly 

in restricted airspace designated by 14 CFR 91.119, which is not normal operating 

airspace for civilian and commercial aircraft. 

This will pose no risk to the public because aircraft are not operating in these 

restricted areas.

b. § 91.121 Altimeter settings: Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the 

cruising altitude or fight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference 

to an altimeter that is set to the appropriate station. The InstantEye sUAS uses 

baraalt pressure but does not program in an altimeter setting. The altitude is 

monitored by the Pilot In Command and constantly watched by the visual observer. 

This exemption will benefit the public because the visual observer and operator are 

visual line of sight at all times, and will not pose any risk to the public. 

c. § 91.151 (b) Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions: No person may 

begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless there is enough fuel to 

fly to the first point on intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, 

to fly that for at least 20 minutes. The sUAS is battery operated with a maximum 

flying time of 20 to 30 minutes. However, this poses no safety risk because the takeoff point is also located at the landing point and will cause no safety hazard to the 

public.

SDG&&E flights will be limited to inspecting our assets. In general, SDG&E will 

be operating over our Right of Ways and not over the public or 

commercial/industrial buildings and residential housing.
2

As you can see in Figure (1), (2) and (3), this Unmanned Aerial Vehicle is micro size and 

weighs less than one pound. 

• Wingspan. 22.5 cm (8.9 inches) (frame); 37.5 cm (14.8 inches) (frame + props)

• Length. 22.5 cm (8.9 inches) (frame); 37.5 cm (14.8 inches) (frame + props)

 Figure 1 - InstantEye Mk-2 Components

 

 Figure 2 – top of UAV
3

 

Figure 3 - InstantEye Bottom view 

Sincerely, 

DALLAS CORMIER 

Dallas Cormier, SD1173

San Diego Gas & Electric 

8316 Century Park Court, CP52E

San Diego, CA 92123
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM XIRCOM,
INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          69,418
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,816
<INVENTORY>                                     27,538
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,695
<PP&E>                                          42,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,970
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,938
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,964
<SALES>                                         52,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,545
<CGS>                                           34,417
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,887
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,465
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,035
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,430
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,430
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
#### Donovan Edward RUBY, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF the UNITED STATES NAVY, Appellee.

No. 20473.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 19, 1966.

See also 9 Cir., 365 F.2d 385.

Donovan Edward Ruby, in pro. per.

Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., Jerry K. Cimmet, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

*405Before JERTBERG and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and CROCKER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The motion of the United States to affirm is granted, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
James MCKINNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3318

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Francisca Morales MACIAS, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60137 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 2, 2017

Matthew Paul Nickson, Houston, TX, for Petitioner

Laura M. L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner Francisca Morales Macias seeks our review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her application for withholding of removal. She claims a reasonable fear of persecution because of her political opinions and her membership in two particular social groups if she is returned to Mexico. *See*8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A) & 1231(b)(3); *Zhang v. Gonzales,*432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Contrary to Morales Macias’s assertions, the BIA did consider and reject her contentions with respect to her fear of persecution on account of her political opinions in opposition to domestic violence.

The BIA ruled that Morales Macias had not shown that she was unable to leave her domestic relationship and therefore had not shown a reasonable fear of persecution based on membership in a social group of Mexican women defined by that characteristic. The BIA based its decision on evidence presented and was substantially reasonable. *See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,*78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). Morales Macias has not shown that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion. *See Chen v. Gonzales,*470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Neither has Morales Macias shown that the BIA erred in concluding that her second claimed social group — Mexican women viewed as property by virtue of a domestic relationship — lacked sufficient particularity. *See Matter of W-G-R-,*26 I. *&*N. Dec. 208, 214, 217, 224 (BIA 2014), *rev. granted in part, vacated in part, on other grounds,*842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016); *see also Orellana-Monson v. Holder,*685 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2012).

*315Morales Macias raises no issue with respect to the denial of her request for relief under the Convention Against Torture, so she has abandoned that claim. *See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

As the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we deny her petition for review. *See Zhang,*432 F.3d at 344; *Carbajal-Gonzalez,*78 F.3d at 197.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32.1Certification 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 Annual Report of eCollege.com (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Oakleigh Thorne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Douglas H. Kelsall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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; and(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company./s/ Oakleigh ThorneOakleigh Thorne
Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2004/s/ Douglas H. KelsallDouglas H. Kelsall
Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2004In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K, the above certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or other wise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that the Company explicitly incorporates it by reference.
#### John Paul GALBRAITH, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee

No. 15-40596

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 30, 2017

John Paul Galbraith, Pro Se

Jon Rodney Meador, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Court *sua sponte*vacates the November 22, 2016 order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of his motion for certificate of appealability (COA), styled as “Petition for Rehearing En Banc With Suggestions in Support,” and hereby GRANTS reconsideration. The Court further directs that petitioner’s unfiled second “Request to File a Petition for Rehearing En Banc Out of Time” be treated as a supplemental brief in support of a COA. Accordingly, we DENY “Petitioner’s Letter Request to File Rehearing En Banc Out of Time” as moot. We GRANT a COA for issue (1) that a juror was biased and trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to raise the issue. We affirm .the DENIAL of a COA as to all remaining issues. The clerk is directed to issue a briefing notice.

*

 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.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

KEITH FRANCIS LAMB,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50082

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01255-JAH-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2012

Pasadena, California

Before: SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,

District Judge.** 

Following his arrest for bringing in an illegal alien, appellant Keith Lamb

(Lamb) signed a stipulation that allowed for the release of the alien material

FILED

MAY 02 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Page 2 of 3

witness, but allowed the government to introduce hearsay statements of the witness

should Lamb decide to go to trial, which Lamb subsequently did. The district court

rejected Lamb’s argument that he was permitted to introduce hearsay statements of

the material witness. The district court also limited Lamb’s questioning of a

government witness regarding the nature of the witness’s drug conviction. Lamb

appeals these two rulings. 

1. Because the stipulation unambiguously allowed only the government to

introduce the material witness’s statements, the district court did not err in

rejecting Lamb’s argument to the contrary. See United States v. Molina, 596 F.3d

1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Stipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in

criminal trials are as binding and enforceable as those entered into in civil actions. .

. .”) (citation and alteration omitted).

2. The district court committed no plain error pursuant to Federal Rule of

Evidence 804(b)(3). See United States v. Jenkins, 633 F.3d 788, 803 (9th Cir.

2011) (explaining that an argument that was not raised in the district court is

reviewed for plain error). 
Page 3 of 3

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding further

questioning regarding the government witness’s drug conviction. See United

States v. Waters, 627 F.3d 345, 353 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended (explaining that it

is entirely within the district court’s discretion whether to exclude evidence).

AFFIRMED.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00272

- CV

Novus Prime Properties, LLC v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

On Appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021

- DCL

- 03184

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against the party incurring same.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 8, 2024
EPA Meeting with Hess Oil

April 12, 2012

EPA OUST staff met with representative of Hess Oil to discuss the proposed changes to the UST 

regulations. Discussion included interstitial integrity testing of older systems, walkthroughs and 

field constructed tanks.

Attendees:

EPA – Liz McDermott, Cho Yi Kwan, Tim Smith, Paul Miller, Linda Gerber, Tim Roberts, 

Mark Barolo, Erin Knighton, Carolyn Hoskinson

Hess Corporation – Dawn Coughlin, Jim Howard, Peter Haid

K & L Gates – Cliff Rothenstein
!lll!il!ll!lllllillllllilillllllillllllllllilllilllllllilllllllilllil!illlllllllllllilllii!llllliililli111!1111!ilillllllilllli!!ll111!11lllllllllllil!lllll!lll!illllllllllllllllllillllJOHNSON&LINDBERG,P.A.September1,2015Bye-mailonlyU.S.DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATIONFEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATIONDocumentManagementSystem1200NewJerseyAvenueSEWashington,D.C.20590Re:Mosher-ThomasLLCPetitionforExemptionFAADocketNumber:FAA-2015-2666OurFileNo.:412.15212SUPPLEMENTTOPETITIONFOREXEMPTIONDearAdministrator:PetitionerMosher-ThomasIndustriesLLC(MTI)submitsthissupplementtothepetitionforexemptionfiledonJune5,2015,pendingunderdocketnumberFAA2015-2666.Initspetition,MTIsoughtaSection333exemptionfortheoperationoftworotorcraftunmannedaircraftsystems,theBlade350QXandtheTaliH500.Inthissupplement,MTIseekstoadd asimilarexemptionforafixed-wingunmannedaircraftsystem,thePrecisionHawkLancasterMk-111Rev-1V.TheFAAisfamiliarwithandhasalreadydeterminedthatthePrecisionHawkLancasterHawkeyeMk-IIImeetstherequirementsofSection333oftheReformActinlightofitsweight,speed,andoperationalcapabilities.Seee.g:,•ExemptionNo.11273toAIGPCGlobalServices,Inc.;•ExemptionNo.11573toAgTechEnterprises,Inc.;•ExemptionNo.11551toAgWorxInc;•ExemptionNo.11345toPrecisionHawk,Inc.ATTOIU'iEYSATLAw780NorthlandPlaza3800AmericanBoulevardWestMinneapolis,MN55431-4459Telephone:(952)851-0700Facsimile:(952)851-0900www.johnsonlindberg.comMICHAELC.LINDBERGmlindberg@johnsonlindbcrg.comDirect(952)956-6200MSBACertifiedCivilTrialSpecialistSeptember

1, 20

15 Page2 Because

it does

not carry flammable

fuel

and

is lightweight,

a grant

of exemption

to the PrecisionHawk

Lancaster

Mk-III

Rev-IV

would

serve

the public

interest

by reducing

the hazards

and emissions

of heavier

manned

aircraft. A copy

of the Precision

Hawk Lancaster

Mk-III

Rev-IV

Flight Operations

Manual

is attached,

setting

forth

the technical specifications

of

its operation. Please

grant

an exemption

to MTI

for

the Precision

Hawk Lancaster

Mk-III

Rev-IV as well

as the Blade

350

QX

and

the Tali H500. Sincerely, **~~.~** Michael

C. Lindberg JOHNSON

& LINDBE MCL/pjd Enclosures
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of Nettel Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Nguyen, President and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (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/ Michael Nguyen
Michael Nguyen,President and Chief Financial Officer 
October 1, 2008



1

---
#### Ronnie Lee HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RED LOBSTER OPERATED BY DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1570

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 14, 2017

Decided: July 27, 2017

Ronnie Lee Howard, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*271Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Lee Howard seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012) for failing to exhaust his administrative claims. Howard timely filed a notice of appeal, to which he attached a Notice of Right to Sue letter indicating he had administratively exhausted several of his claims. The district court construed the notice of appeal to include a motion to reconsider its dismissal order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and entered an order, transmitted to this court, stating that it was inclined to grant reconsideration. Although the district court advised Howard to request a limited remand from this court to permit reconsideration, Howard has not done so. In the interest of judicial efficiency, however, we remand for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to rule on the pending motion to reconsider. *See Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp.,*164 F.3d 887 (4th Cir. 1999). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court -for further consideration. If dissatisfied with the district court’s Rule 60(b) ruling, Howard can also appeal that order to this court. 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.

*REMANDED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Scott TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-1350

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed March 13, 2017

(D.C. Nos. 1:16-CV-01210-JLK and 1:13-CR-00400-JLK-1), (D. Colorado)

Robert Mark Russel, Edwin Garreth Winstead, III, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Josh Lee, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HARTZ, MURPHY, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge

Defendant Jeffrey Taylor filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 collaterally attacking his sentence. He argued that the calculation of his sentencing guideline range *786had relied on the residual clause of USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2) and that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague because it uses essentially the same language as the language in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(b), which was held to be unconstitutionally vague in *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). The district court denied the motion but granted a certificate of appealability. We AFFIRM the decision below. In *Beckles v. United States,*No. 15-8544, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145, 2017 WL 855781 (S.Ct. Mar. 6, 2017), the Supreme Court held that the unconstitutional-vagueness holding in *Johnson*does not apply to the residual clause in the sentencing guidelines. The other issues raised by the parties are moot.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously *786that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
##### 



Exhibit 32.02 STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF HOMESTORE, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual. Report of Homestore, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned Lewis R. Belote, III, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ LEWIS R. BELOTE, IIILewis R. Belote, IIIChief Financial Officer
Homestore, Inc.
Date: March 11, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Homestore, Inc. and will be retained by Homestore, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 12