alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
New Mexico State University 

Physical Science Laboratory, Unmanned Aircraft Flight Test Center

1050 Stewart St. Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003-8002

Request for amendments to FAA 333 UAS exemption

Exemption No. 13425

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–3533-0001

Contact: 

Dennis Zaklan

Deputy Director, UAS FTC

NMSU, Physical Science Laboratory

575-646-9417

https://uasftc.psl.nmsu.edu/public/

1050 Stewart St. Las Cruces, New 

Mexico 88003-8002
December 2, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption No. 13425

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–3533-0001

Dear Sir or Madam:

The New Mexico State University Physical Science Laboratory (NMSU PSL) is 

requesting an amendment to our existing 333 exemption as listed and described below. 

The purpose for the amendment is to be able to offer the services as listed in the existing 

333 exemption. Each amendment will serve to increase the functionality and usefulness 

of sUAS and the increased functionality will serve to create safer working environments 

in the industries in which they are deployed.

1. Additional Aircraft

NMSU PSL would like to add additional sUAS to the existing exemption to include:

 3D Robotics X4 

 3D Robotics Solo

 3D Robotics Iris and Iris Plus

 Leptron Avenger 

 SenseFly eBee

 Aeronautic Ltd. Orbiter

 Sophisticated Unmanned Solutions Vortex 700

 Aeryon Scout 

 Aeryon SkyRanger

 AirRobot AR100B

2. In addition to the listed sUAS above, NMSU PSL would like to add any sUAS that 

fit the criteria as a sUAS that has completed the NMSU UAS Flight Test Center 

airworthiness process. All sUAS that will operate under this 333 Exemption will 

meet all weight, speed and other criteria spelled out in the 333 exemption.

Dennis Zaklan

Deputy Director, UAS FTC

New Mexico State University, PSL
Swanson, Brian (OST) fior-OSTT- jOj^'V -iJpOB 

From: Curtis Hershberger [curther@ttc-cmc.net] 

Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:44 PM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Cc: Jerry Moline; Bob Simpson; Dale Chamberlain; Darryl McKenzie; Carl SeBStad 

Subject: Mt. EAS Contract " " •:.'> 

zz 

Department of Transportation ' ^ ^O ^ 

Essential Air Service Cg^ g 

Dennis DeVany X) ''^^~^ 

Brain Swanson :^<^ ^ 

— C-O 

Dear Sirs: xr 

The Lewistown Airport Board would like to make a comment regarding the decision of the Montana EAS Committee to 

recommend Gulfsteam as LWT's new air carrier. The LWT Airport Board did not make a recommendation to our EAS task 

force member to vote to remove Great Lakes as LWT's air carrier. Great Lakes has been a move forward in air service for 

central Montana with direct flights to DEN from LWT. This truly is a good use of taxpayer funds to connect rural 

communities to commercial air service. Great Lakes has laid the ground work for a service system that can move into a 

more sustainable system of air travel in the Big Sky State of Montana. Lewistown has experienced what a LWT to BIL 

route will draw for passengers and knows that it will not be successful to return to that type of service. In light of current 

Federal budget concerns, with Great Lakes being the low bidder, with far greater service for Montana passengers we can 

not support a switch to Gulfstream at this time. In addition to the loss of service to DEN, Lewistown will stand to lose an 

estimated $250,000 to the local economy. 

Sincerely, 

Curtis Hershberger 

Lewistown Airport Board Chiarman 

Lewistown Airport 

309 A Street 

Lewistown Mt. 59457
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS (RESPONDENT) Docket No. 16-15-10

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced Notice of Investigation initiated in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, § 16.ll(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on or before January 10, 20 17.

Kevin Direct r, Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 14, 2016, I placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid), a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime addressed to: Respondent


### W. Eric Pilsk Kaplan Kirsch & 

### Rockwell LLP Counsel to the Respondent 100I Connecticut Avenue Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Mark Duebner Director of Aviation City ofDallas 8008 Herb Kelleher Way, LB 16 Dallas , TX 75235
Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100



# ~~ Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
#### BEAR CREEK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee

2016-1805

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 15, 2017

Anthony L. Miele, Miele Law Group, Medway, MA, argued for appellant.

David L. McCombs, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by Debra Janece McComas, Thomas W. Kelton; Gregory P. Huh, Richardson, TX.

(Moore, SCHALL, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
01 , C " 1 II =I Ni; riJ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN,

Petitioner,

v. JIM SALMONSEN, Warden, Montana State Prison, Deer Lodge,

Respondent. OP 21-0415 

# FILED AUG 3 12021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprema Court State of Montana
ORDER

Ryan Patrick Sullivan represents himselfandhas filed a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus, alleging that he due credit for time served. Citing to Killam v. Salmonsen, 2021 MT 196, he states that he "is entitledto all the credit for incarceration asthe dates set forth on page 1." Sullivan currently has four appeals pendingbefore this Court. Sullivan represents himselfin an appeal ofthe Yellowstone County District Court's denial ofhis petition for postconviction relief that has been classified for a decision. Sullivan v. State, No. DA 20-0558. Sullivan has counsel representing him in his other appeals. In this Petition, Sullivan references Yellowstone County Cause No. DC 18-0321, which is the basis for two appeals: State v. Sullivan, No. DA 20-0588, for the original conviction and sentence, and State v. Sullivan, No. DA 21-0282, for the sentence upon revocation. Sullivan's petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus is not a separate proceeding during the pendency of his appeal. An appeal is the proper forum in which to litigate issues arising from his conviction and sentences. State v. Wright, 2001 MT 282, 1 36-37, 307 Mont.349,42 P.3d 753. Habeascorpusdoesnot offer an alternativeremedytoa direct appeal, nor doesit supplernent the appellate process. Without consideringthe merits ofhis Petition, it must be dismissed. 08/31/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0415Therefore,

ITIS ORDERED that Sullivan'sPetition for WritofHabeasCorpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to Austin Knudsen, Attorney General;to Scott D. Twito, Yellowstone County Attorney; to Sarah Hyde, Deputy County Attorney; to Tammy Plubell, Assistant Attorney General; to Katie F. Shulz, Assistant Attorney General;to Chad M. Wright, Appellate Defender Division; to Deborah S. Smith, Assistant Appellate Defender; to Colleen Ambrose, Department of Corrections; and to Ryan Patrick Sullivan pers9nally.

s...". DATED this 

### 3 i day ofAugust, 2021.

ChiefJustice

i_____44/10wie

7
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6651 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

603 West 3rd Street in Necedah, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth 

E. Murphy Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2023 

Mr. TIFFANY (for himself, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. 

STEIL, Mr. POCAN, Mr. VAN ORDEN, Mr. FITZGERALD, and Mr. 

GROTHMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 603 West 3rd Street in Necedah, Wisconsin, 

as the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth E. Murphy Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT KENNETH E. MURPHY POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 603 West 3rd Street in Necedah, 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6651 IH

1 Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ser2 geant Kenneth E. Murphy Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Kenneth 

7 E. Murphy Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
`EXHIBIT 32.2

                                   IDNA, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of iDNA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), do hereby
represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

        (1) 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
Registrant.


/s/ Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
--------------------------------------------
Name: Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
Title: Chief Financial Officer
(principal accounting and financial officer)
Date:  June 16, 2006


















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 iDNA, Inc. and will be retained by
iDNA, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.`
**SPAR Group, Inc.**

                           

EXHIBIT 32.1

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the        ninemonth period ended September 30, 2007(this "report"), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the "registrant"), the        undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.     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 registrant.

| /s/ Gary S. Raymond                   |
|---------------------------------------|
| Gary S. Raymond                       |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                  |
| November 19, 2007                     |

**A signed original of this written statement required by        Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be retained by SPAR Group, Inc.,        and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon        request.**

 

 

Ex-3
#### Michelle L. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-35607

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 29, 2017*

Filed September 01, 2017

Christopher Dellert, Attorney, Dellert Baird Law Office, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kerry Keefe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Thomas M. Elsberry, Esquire, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, SSA—Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michelle L. Davis appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We have jurisdiction under *49728 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Molina v. Astrue,*674 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012), and we vacate and remand.

At step three of the sequential evaluation process, the administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Davis did not meet or medically equal any of the per se disabling impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 (the “Listings”) for the period between March 31, 2009, and July 24, 2013. The ALJ erred in concluding that Davis did not meet or medically equal any of the per se disabling impairments as a result of her pulmonary conditions. The ALJ failed to sufficiently explain her evaluation of the combined effects of Davis’s impairments, which medical expert (“ME”) Daniel Wiseman opined would have very likely met or medically equaled Listing 3.02(A) as early as 2007. *See Marcia v. Sullivan,*900 F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that where a claimant provides evidence that the combination of her impairments established medical equivalence, “the ALJ must explain adequately [her] evaluation of alternative tests and the combined effects of the impairments”). Further, the ALJ’s proffered reason for rejecting the ME’s testimony regarding Davis’s problems with obstruction and diffusing capacity was not supported by the record.

Although the ALJ’s reasoning lacks the requisite specificity and clarity, it is not clear from the administrative record that the ALJ would be required to award benefits if the evidence regarding the combined effects of Davis’s impairments were properly considered and evaluated. *See Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,*775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Where there is conflicting evidence, and not all essential factual issues have been resolved, a remand for an award of benefits is inappropriate.”). Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Henry A. HARMON Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jonathan J. WHITE, Corporal, Cummins Unit; Keith Day, Captain, Cummins Unit (originally named as K. Day) Defendants-Appellees William Byers, Assistant Warden, Cummins Unit Defendant Jared Byers, Assistant Warden, Cummins Unit Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-1566

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 5, 2017

Filed: October 25, 2017

Henry A. Harmon, Pro Se

Michael Cantrell, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Civil Litigation, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas inmate Henry Harmon appeals after the district court1 dismissed his lawsuit without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that dismissal was appropriate. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (under Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), prisoner must exháust available administrative'remedies before bringing federal prison-conditions claim); King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (2010) (reviewing de novo dismissal for failure to exhaust ad*584ministrative remedies); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that PLRA requires dismissal for failure to fully exhaust administrative process). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., .United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Patricia S; Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
#### Elmer Steve Fuentes HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-71200

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 ****

OCTOBER 2, 2017

Scott Daniel McVarish, Immigation Law Office of Los Angeles, Culver City, CA, for Petitioner.

Kathryn McKinney, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. 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 *

Elmer Steve Fuentes Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“U”) order affirming the decision of an asylum officer during expedited removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s order because it was issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and none of the exceptions to the restriction on judicial review of expedited removal orders apply. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii) (“no court shall have jurisdiction to review” determinations made under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)); *Pena v. Lynch,*815 F.3d 452, 455-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding this court generally lacks jurisdiction to review removal orders issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and describing the limited exceptions).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Eric Merchant Air Quality Policy and Planning Supervisor**  **Air Resources Management Bureau Montana DEQ** 

###  

## Western mountain valleys are often subject to elevated concentrations of PM2.5.

 

## Elevated PM2.5 concentrations often exceed and/or violate the primary health

- based NAAQS for PM2.5.

 

## State/Local programs and various regulatory strategies have been employed to address these issues.

 

## This case study will evaluate four local program strategies to demonstrate the need for clean residential wood heating devices.

###  

## E ducation/outreach

 

### Cutting deadwood

 

### Stacking/drying

 

### Burning techniques

 

## E nforcement

- Episodic Control/Regulation

 

### Local episodic control programs

– Restrictions

 

### State

 

## E ngineering/Technical Devices

 

### Clean wood burning devices Larger Mountain Valley

 Wintertime Inversions

 Forest industry community

 Culture of wood burning

 Abundant fuel source

 More complex airshed

 Environmentally progressive

 Regulatory Framework

 Only Pellet Stoves with less than 1.0 g/hr emissions can be installed (no wood stoves)

 Home ownership changes requires removal of older stoves

 No Funded change out program

 **Cleaner or fewer wood stoves and an episodic control plan worked!** 

 Compliance with the annual and 24

- hr PM2.5 NAAQS

###  

### Mountain Valley

 Wintertime inversions

 Culture of wood burning

 Abundant fuel source

 Complex airshed

 Regulatory Framework

 Local control program in process (early 2013).

 Episodic control

 Only EPA certified stoves may be installed in new or remodeled homes

 No funded change out program

 Monitor indicating violation of the 24
- hr PM2.5 NAAQS

###  

### Large Mountain Valley

 Wintertime inversions

 Culture of wood burning

 Abundant fuel source

 Complex airshed

 

### Regulatory Framework

 New local control program

 Episodic control

 No funded change out program

 

### Monitor indicating violation of the 24

- hr PM2.5 NAAQS

###  

## Demonstrated that cleaner wood stoves are part of the solution.

 

### Education, Enforcement, Engineering

 

## Clean Air Act (section 111) provides the mechanism needed to lessen impacts from this type of behavior.

 

## Strong Residential Wood Burning Device NSPS

 

### Drive manufacturers’ to create cleaner burning **devices.** **M. Eric Merchant** Air Quality Policy and Planning Supervisor Air Resources Management Bureau Montana Department of Environmental Quality Phone: (406) 444

- 1457 Email: emerchant@mt.gov  **Stephen Coe P.E.** Senior Planning Engineer Air Resources Management Bureau Montana Department of Environmental Quality Phone: (406) 782

- 2689 ext. 209 Email: scoe@mt.gov
**EXHIBIT - 32.3**

 

MOSSIMO,INC.

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter period ended March 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the Report), I Vicken Festekjian, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, That to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)              The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit -32.1, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)              The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| /s/    | Vicken Festekjian       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Vicken Festekjian       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | March 19, 2006          |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTENSTATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEENPROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TOTHE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION STAFF UPON REQUEST.

 

THIS CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THE FORM10-Q TO WHICH IT RELATES, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO A FILING OF THECOMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934 (WHETHERMADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE FORM 10-Q), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERALINCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING.

 

----