alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations from 14 

C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b) (2); 91.103 

(b); 91.109; 

119.121; 91.151 (a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1 ); 91.409(a) (2); 91.417(a)&(b 

Dear sir or Madam, 

We have established a Quad/ UAS club /school for the purpose of licensing, 

certifying and the education of correct flying techniques , and feel it necessary that 

the public understand and abide by the flight rules set by the FAA. 

We are committed to safety in this new industry from the hobbiest to the 

professional UAS Pilot. 

All our training is done indoors and designated RC areas. 

All our instructors have years of RC and or private and commercial Pilot licenses . 

This is to sure proper procedures and protocols are followed. 

Granting my request comports with the Secretary of 

Transportation's (FAA Administrator's) responsibilities and authority to not 

only integrate 

UAS's into the national airspace system, but to " ... establish requirements for 

the safe operation of such aircraft systems [UAS's] in the national airspace 

system" under 

Section 333(c) of the Reform Act specific to the use of UAS's for educational 

purposes. Further I will conduct my operations in compliance with 

the protocols described herein or as otherwise established by the FAA 

Thank you 

John Alonso 

groundcontroldrones.com 

Po Box 4851 

Seminole, Fl. 33775 

727-394-0232
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Steven HORN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6476

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Gregory Steven Horn, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Miller Yasser, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Steven Horn seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2263(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack*v. *McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*170We have' independently reviewed the record and conclude that Horn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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*
Hershel WALKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2127

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
454 A.2d 161

#### Commonwealth v. Clark, Appellant.

Submitted May 20, 1982.

David G. Metinko, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Robert L. Eber*607hardt, Deputy District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before ROWLEY, MONTEMURO and VAN der YOORT, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JOHN H. COHEN,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 206 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 28th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PERIODIC REPORT


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, the
undersigned, Patrick Goepel, Chief Executive Officer of Asure
Software, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





1.
            The
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
      December 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.





/s/
      PATRICK GOEPELPatrick
      GoepelChief
      Executive OfficerFebruary
      16, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Asure Software, Inc. and will be retained by Asure Software, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
William CHESBRO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2958

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Efrain LUCERO-ALVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41573 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 30, 2017

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

Efrain Lucero-Alvarez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Efrain Lucero-Alvarez 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). Luce-ro-Alvarez 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.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0099

_______________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RUSTY DEWAYNE WAGONER

Defendant and Appellant

_______________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_______________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause 

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that appellant is granted an extension of time to and 

include March 17, 2021, within which to prepare, file and serve, Appellant’s opening 

brief on appeal. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 9 2021

02/09/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0099
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

 

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

 

**ANDEXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofOption Care, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof(the “Report”), we, Rajat Rai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and PaulMastrapa, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adoped pursuant to Secion 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, andExchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) that:

 

(1)     ThisReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange act of 1934; and

 

(2)     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 9, 2005 | By:    | /s/ Rajat Rai                                      |   |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | Rajat Rai                                          |
|                      |   | Chief Executive Officer                            |
|                      |   |                                               |
|                      |   |                                               |
| Date: August 9, 2005 | By:    | /s/ Paul Mastrapa                                  |   |
|                      |   | Paul Mastrapa                                      |
|                      |   | Senior Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
#### Jo BENOIT, a/k/a Elissa Jo Benoit, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Barbara RICKARD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6487

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Jo Benoit, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

*260•Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit..

PER CURIAM:

Jo Benoit, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and denying her motion for reconsideration of the denial of her motions to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny her motion to compel in this court and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Benoit v. Rickard,*No. 1:16-cv-00073, 2017 WL 495612 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 7, 2017). 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*
#### Cocoa Trading Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Bayway Terminal Corporation et al., Respondents.

Argued February 24, 1943;

decided April 8, 1943.

*700
      *Benjamin Feldstein*for appellant.

*David A. Ticktin*and *Milton Adler*for A. Pines & Son, Inc., *amicus curiae,*in support of appellant.

*Henry Epstein, Ralph Wolf*and *Caspar B. Ughetta*for respondents.

*Ludwig Teller*and *Robert E. Tinsley*for 150 West 30th Street, Inc., *amicus curiae,*in support of respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative. No opinion. (See 290 N. Y. 865.)

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6197 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a program to provide 

grants to certain surviving spouses of veterans to pay for housing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Mr. NEGUSE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a 

program to provide grants to certain surviving spouses 

of veterans to pay for housing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PRO4 GRAM TO PROVIDE GRANTS TO CERTAIN 

5 SURVIVING SPOUSES OF VETERANS TO PAY 

6 FOR HOUSING. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Vet9 erans Affairs shall establish a program to provide grants 

10 to eligible surviving spouses to pay for housing. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6197 IH

1 (b) APPLICATIONS.—An eligible surviving spouse de2 siring a grant under this section shall submit to the Sec3 retary an application in such form and containing such 

4 information and assurances as the Secretary determines 

5 appropriate. 

6 (c) PRIORITY.—In making grants under this section, 

7 the Secretary shall give priority to eligible surviving 

8 spouses on the basis of need. 

9 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

10 are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 

11 $250,000,000 for fiscal years 2025 through 2029 to carry 

12 out this section. 

13 (e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

14 (1) The terms ‘‘dependency and indemnity com15 pensation’’ and ‘‘surviving spouse’’ have the mean16 ings given such terms in section 101 of title 38, 

17 United States Code. 

18 (2) The term ‘‘disabled veteran’’ has the mean19 ing given such term in section 3741 of such title. 

20 (3) The term ‘‘eligible surviving spouse’’ means 

21 a surviving spouse— 

22 (A) of a disabled veteran; and 

23 (B) who is in receipt of dependency and in24 demnity compensation. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THURMAN GAINES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

HOROWITZ, Doctor, MCSP, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-15713 

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00587-LJO-SAB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Thurman Gaines appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal as a sanction for failure 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15713 

to comply with discovery obligations. Malone v. USPS, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th 

Cir. 1987). We vacate and remand.

Gaines failed to comply with a court order compelling responses to 

interrogatories and requests for production on the issue of administrative 

exhaustion, and defendant twice moved for terminating sanctions. In opposition to 

defendant’s second motion for sanctions, Gaines provided further supplemental 

responses, which defendant stated were adequate. The magistrate judge 

recommended denying defendant’s second motion for terminating sanctions but 

imposing an evidentiary sanction “prohibit[ing] [Gaines] from supporting his case 

or opposing Defendant’s defenses with any evidence not disclosed in response to 

Defendant’s exhaustion interrogatories or requests for production of documents.” 

The district court instead granted terminating sanctions on the ground that “[i]t 

would not be possible at trial to exclude all of the issues not responded to in 

discovery, and for [Gaines] to still have a case to present.” 

It is unclear from the district court’s order what evidence the district court 

intended to exclude and how the exclusion would preclude Gaines from presenting 

the merits of his medical deliberate indifference claim. Moreover, it is not clear 

whether an evidentiary sanction is warranted given that Gaines eventually 

complied with his discovery obligations to defendant’s satisfaction. See 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal with 
3 18-15713 

prejudice is a harsh sanction that should be employed only in “extreme 

circumstances”). We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
#### IN RE: Steven C. CHUDIK, Appellant

2016-2171

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 20, 2017

Eric Ryan Waltmire, Erickson Law Group, PC, Wheaton, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by Gregory B. Beggs, Law Offices of Gregory B. Beggs, Downers Grove, IL.

Nathan K Kelley, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for Appel-lee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Coke Morgan Stewart, Meredith Hope ScHOENFELD, THOMAS W. KRAUSE.

(Newman, Taranto, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
n ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 23-0281 

SADDLEBROOK INVESTMENTS, LLC, 

as Assignee of STUART M. SIMONSEN, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

FILED 

JUL 2 7 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

v. ORDER 

KROHNE FUND. L.P., SEAN WRIGHT, 

and ANTHONY BIRBILIS, 

Defendants and Appellants. 

Appellant Anthony Birbilis has filed a motion for extension of time to file his 

opening brief. Good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until August 25, 2023, to file his 

opening brief. 

DATED this a ?day of July, 2023. 

For the Court, 

hief Justice 

07/27/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0281
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Angel GARCIA-SANCHEZ, also known as Miguel Arreola Sanchez, also known as Manuel Benites Arreola, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-40804 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/29/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Miguel Angel Garcia-Sanchez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Angel Garcia-Sanchez *885has 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). Garcia-Sanchez 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 *885published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00615

- CV
Sandeep Nanda v. Corey Huinker

On a ppeal from the 419th District Court of Travis County , Texas Trial Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 13

- 001387

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause o n appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. Sep tember 24, 2015.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6116 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6116

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 14280 South Military Trail in Delray Beach, Florida, as the ``Benjamin 
                 Berell Ferencz Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BENJAMIN BERELL FERENCZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14280 South Military Trail in Delray Beach, Florida, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Benjamin Berell Ferencz Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Benjamin 
Berell Ferencz Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6656

KEIARRE LAJOHN BAKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00653-MSD-DEM)

Submitted: October 31, 2018 Decided: November 9, 2018

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keiarre LaJohn Baker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keiarre LaJohn Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Baker has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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