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

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:12 AM

To: 'dronefilmworx@gmail.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Schandler, Andrea (FAA); Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha 

(FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information

February 11, 2015 

Mr. Anthony Cullen 

CEO 

Drone Filmworx Company 

3401 Grande Vista Drive, Suite 56 

Newbury Park, CA 91319 

Dear Mr. Cullen: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0931). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make and model for the proposed UAS operation. The description should include 

the following: size and aircraft type (i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air). Please submit the 

aircraft manual. 

 Provide information regarding the radio frequency spectrum. This information can be located in the 

aircraft manual. 

 Your petition references a pre-flight inspection and/or checklist. Describe the process used to determine 

if the UAS is airworthy and in safe condition for operation in the NAS. 

 Describe the process used to document UAS discrepancies and the corrective action taken in the aircraft 

record. Examples of processes include (1) the petitioner has elected to use its own process to maintain 

its UAS and ensure that only airworthy and safe UAS will be allowed to operate in the NAS and (2) the 

petitioner has elected to maintain its UAS in accordance with the manufacturer maintenance and 

inspection recommendations. 

 Your petition references the materials listed below, however the materials were not submitted for the 

record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials: 

o Flight Operations Manual 

o Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 
2

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by February 26, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
#### Thompson *v.*Mutual Investment Corporation *et al.*

No. 13215.

April 11, 1940.

Rehearing denied May 20, 1940.

Jenkins, Justice.

1. Where a general demurrer to a petition was sustained and the suit dismissed unless amended to meet the grounds of demurrer, and the plaintiff, instead of suing out a direct bill of exceptions, submitted to the adverse ruling by filing an amendment seeking to conform to the judgment, such procedure by the plaintiff constituted an acquiescence by him in the correctness of the original judgment, so as to adjudicate that the petition as it then stood was defective for the reasons stated in the demurrer. *Rivers*v. *Key,*189 *Ga.*832 (7 S. E. 2d, 732), and cit.; *Lavenden*v. *Haseman,*157 *Ga.*275, 278, 280 (121 S. E. 646).

2. Since the effect of the amendment in this case amounted to only an elaboration of the details of the previous averments, without adding materially to their substance, and since the amendment failed to meet the defects pointed out with reference to the insolvency allegations, the court did not err in sustaining the renewed demurrer and in entering a final order of dismissal.

3. Under the foregoing rulings, this court will not consider the merits of the original grounds of demurrer; nor is it necessary to consider any additional grounds of the demurrer to the amendment that do not relate to the question whether the amendment complied with the terms of the original ruling. *Judgment, affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*311
      *C. G. Battle,*for plaintiff.

*Roy S. Brennan, Augustine Sams, Roland Neeson,*and *Clarke & Clarke,*for defendants.
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection  with the Annual  Report of Pipeline Data Inc., a Delaware corporation  (the  “Company”),  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the  “Report”), MacAllister  Smith,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the  Company  and  ,  Donald Gruneisen Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  respectively, do each hereby certify,  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to their knowledge:

 

 (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/ MacAllister Smith                  

 

MacAllister Smith

 

Chief Executive Officer

 

April 3, 2006

 

/s/ Donald Gruneisen                  

 

Donald Gruneisen

 

Chief Financial Officer

 

April 3, 2006

 

 [A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has been  provided to Pipeline  Data Inc. and will be retained by Pipeline Data Inc. and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon request.]

 

 

 

73

 

 

 

----
**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 MDU Communications International, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2006 (the “Report”),
      I, Sheldon Nelson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
      (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/  SHELDON
                NELSONSheldon
                Nelson*Chief
                Executive Officer and*
              *Chief
                Financial Officer*MDU
                Communications International, Inc.December
                29, 2006Totowa,
                New Jersey








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      and will be retained by MDU Communications International, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.4


 


May 22, 2012


 


Cloud Star Corporation


Formerly Accend Media


P.O. Box 4906


Mission Viejo, CA 92690


 


RE: LOCK-UP AGREEMENT


 


Gentlemen:


 


The undersigned, a director and security holder of Cloud Star Corporation,
formerly known as Accend Media) a Nevada corporation ((the "Company"), understands that the Company is the process of
building its business and infrastructure. This lock up agreement adds a level of protection to new investors, to prevent the undersigned
from liquidating his stock holdings and adversely affecting the market of the stock.


 


The undersigned is the record owner of 200,000 shares of the common
stock of Cloud Star, par value $0.001 per share (the "Shares), and understands that some of their Shares may be eligible for
sale under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, subject to certain limitations included in said Rule.


 


It is further agreed that:


 


1.The undersigned will not sell
any of their shares of the common stock owned by the undersigned, directly or indirectly, until May 23, 2013.


 


2.The undersigned acknowledges
that Globex Transfer, LLC, 780 Deltona Blvd., Suite 202, Deltona, FL 32725, the authorized transfer agent for the Company, has
been advised of the restrictions described herein and that any attempts by the undersigned to violate said restriction may result
in legal action(s) by the Company. The undersigned further agrees, upon the request of the Company, that in addition to any other
restrictions reflecting that the Shares have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, may be placed on
individual certificates issued.


 


THIS LOCK-UP AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES THEREOF.


 


Sincerely,


 


/s/ Ira D. Lobovic 


Ira D. Lebovic


 


cc: Globex Transfer, LLC
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Misty Dawn KELLEY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10607 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 14, 2017

*384James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Misty Dawn Kelley, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Misty Dawn Kelley 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). Kelley has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Kelley’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Kelley’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6725 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to establish additional factors that 

determine pathways in the Transition Assistance Program of the Department of Defense. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2023 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. ARRINGTON, and Ms. HOULAHAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to establish additional factors that determine pathways in the Transition 

Assistance Program of the Department of Defense. 

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 ‘‘Transition Improve5 ment by Estimating Risk Act’’ or the ‘‘TIER Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO PATHWAYS FOR COUNSELING IN 

7 THE TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 

8 Section 1142(c)(1) of title 10, United States Code, 

9 is amended— 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6725 IH

1 (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘Dis2 ability’’ and inserting ‘‘Potential or confirmed dis3 ability’’; 

4 (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking ‘‘Char5 acter’’ and inserting ‘‘Potential or confirmed char6 acter’’; 

7 (3) by redesignating subparagraph (M) as sub8 paragraph (R); and 

9 (4) by inserting after subparagraph (L) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(M) Child care requirements of the member 

12 (including whether a dependent of the member is en13 rolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program). 

14 ‘‘(N) The employment status of other adults in 

15 the household of the member. 

16 ‘‘(O) The location of the duty station of the 

17 member (including whether the member was sepa18 rated from family while on duty). 

19 ‘‘(P) The effects of operating tempo and per20 sonnel tempo on the member and the household of 

21 the member. 

22 ‘‘(Q) Whether the member is an Indian or 

23 urban Indian, as those terms are defined in section 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6725 IH

1 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Pub2 lic Law 94–437; 25 U.S.C. 1603).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### IN RE: Jaron BRICE, Petitioner.

No. 17-1708

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Jaron Brice, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*649PER CURIAM:

Jaron Brice has filed a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus challenging his convictions. This court ordinarily declines to entertain original habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), and this case provides no reason to depart from the general rule. Moreover, we find that the interests of justice would not be served by transferring the case to the district court. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2012). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the petition. 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.

*PETITION DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

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

I, Gregory C. Talbott the Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Operating
Officer/Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o (d)) and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                                             
|---------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                 |  |  |  | 
|                 |  |  | 
|February 8, 2008 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Gregory C. Talbott                                                                                                      
|Dated            |  |  |  |  |  | Gregory C. Talbott                                                                                                          
|                 |  |  |  |  |  | Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Operating
Officer/Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10931 Conference Calendar

PETER MARTIN BERNARD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BRANNIGAN, Correctional Officer; JOHN AND OR JANE DOE, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CV-14

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Peter Martin Bernard, Texas prisoner # 581959, appeals the dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In his complaint, he alleged that in July 2000, the defendants planted a shank in his cell in retaliation for his filing a grievance against Brannigan regarding Brannigan’s noncompliance with the prison guard dress code. Federal courts apply state personal-injury limitations periods to actions brought under § 1983

. Burrell v. Newsome ,No. 05-10931 -2- 883 F.2d 416, 418 (5th Cir. 1989). The applicable Texas limitations period is two years. Ali v. Higgs , 892 F.2d 438, 439 (5th Cir. 1990). There is no dispute that Bernard’s claim accrued, at the latest, on July 11, 2000, when he was released from solitary confinement. Thus, his complaint should have been filed on or before July 11, 2002. Although Bernard’s first § 1983 complaint alleging the same claim was filed before the expiration of the limitations period, because the complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, it had no tolling effect. See Lambert v. United States , 44 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1995). Thus, Bernard’s current § 1983 complaint filed in 2005 is untimely. We affirm the judgment of the district court on this basis. Sojourner T v. Edwards , 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court’s dismissal of Bernard’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Bernard accumulated one previous strike in Bernard v. Tong , No. 2:97-CV-0368 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 1998). Bernard is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### Kiney Joseph DAVIS, Appellant, v. Dr. George J. BETO, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 23825.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1966.

Lonny F. Zwiener, Asst. Atty. Gen., Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Asst. Atty. Gen., T. B. Wright, Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard M. Fender, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before JONES, WISDOM and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks relief by application for habeas corpus from a state court conviction for the possession of heroin. A search was made disclosing the heroin under a warrant procured upon the affidavit of a police officer based upon “reliable information from a credible person.” The sole issue presented by the appeal is whether Aguilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, is to be given retrospective application. We think it follows from what is said in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601, denying retroactive effect to the rule of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 84 A.L.R.2d 933, that the Aguilar rule should not be applied in any case where the challenged search was made prior to the *Mapp*decision and perhaps prior to the *Aguilar*decision. The appellant contends here that the trial judge did not properly determine the admissibility of incriminatory statements orally made by him and in support of this contention, refers us to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, 1 A.L.R.3rd 1205. Since this contention was not made before the district court, it is not before us for review. The order of the district court is

Affirmed.
# Journal officiel C 11A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0936
  doi:10.3000/19770936.CA2014.011.fre |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 11A |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 57e année15 janvier 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0936

doi:10.3000/19770936.CA2014.011.fre

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 11A

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

57e année15 janvier 2014

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rectificatifs |
| 2014/C 011A/01 | Rectificatif à l'avis de vacance pour le poste de directeur exécutif de l'Agence ferroviaire européenne (AFE), en France (Agent temporaire — grade AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (JO C 6 A du 10.1.2014) | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

Rectificatifs

2014/C 011A/01

Rectificatif à l'avis de vacance pour le poste de directeur exécutif de l'Agence ferroviaire européenne (AFE), en France (Agent temporaire — grade AD 14) — COM/2014/10345 (JO C 6 A du 10.1.2014)

(JO C 6 A du 10.1.2014)

1

HISTORIQUE DES JOURNAUX OFFICIELS, SÉRIE A CONCOURS

Vous trouverez ci-dessous la liste des JO C A publiés dans l'année en cours.

Sauf indication contraire, les Journaux officiels sont publiés dans toutes les versions linguistiques.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |

5

6

11

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

Rectificatifs

| 15.1.2014 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | CA 11/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2014

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

CA 11/1

---

Rectificatif à l'avis de vacance pour le poste de directeur exécutif de l'Agence ferroviaire européenne (AFE), en France

(Agent temporaire — grade AD 14)

COM/2014/10345

(
  «Journal officiel de l'Union européenne» C 6 A du 10 janvier 2014
  )

(2014/C 11 A/01)

Page 4, «Procédure de dépôt des candidatures», au troisième paragraphe, le lien doit se lire comme suit:

«https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/».

---