alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PHANTOM 3 ADVANCED Release Notes

© 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved.

2015.5.22 

Overview: 

1. All-in-One Firmware version updated to:v1.1.9

Major Updates: 

1. Fixed issue of some aircraft unable to determine their altitudes. 

2. Fixed issue of the DJI Pilot app unable to obtain and display battery error history. 

3. Fixed issue of the compass calibration progress not being displayed properly.

Notice: 

 Users are advised to update the firmware version to v1.1.9, otherwise future firmware will not be able 

to install. 

 Users may skip updating the remote controller if they have already updated the firmware to v1.1.8, as 

the latest firmware update does not affect the remote controller. 
PHANTOM 3 ADVANCED Release Notes

© 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved.

2015.5.8 

Overview: 

2. All-in-One Firmware version updated to:v1.1.8

Major Updates: 

4. Fixed the issue of failure to update the firmware if the remote controller is turned off.

Notice: 

 Users are advised to update the firmware version to v1.1.8, otherwise future firmware will not be able 

to install. 

 Re-link the remote controller to the aircraft if the connection is lost after the firmware update. 

2015.5.6 

Overview: 

1. All-in-One Firmware version updated to:v1.1.6

2. DJI Pilot app iOS version updated to: v1.1.1

3. DJI Pilot app Android version updated to: v1.1.0

Major Updates: 

1. Updated to be compatible with the iOS version of the DJI Pilot app.

Notice: 

Re-link the remote controller to the aircraft if the connection is lost after the firmware upgrade.
**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 this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Toga Limited (the “Company”) for the period ended July 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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; and                                                                   |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  |    |                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|  | 2. | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein. |

 

Date: June 12, 2020

 

| By:    | */s/ Toh Kok Soon*      |  |
|--------|-------------------------|--|
| Name:  | Toh Kok Soon            |  |
| Title: | Chief Executive Officer |  |
EX-35 (b)


(logo) AVELO
       MORTGAGE


Avelo Mortgage,

Annual Compliance Statement


Re: The Flow Servicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2006 (the "Agreement"),
among Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and Avelo Mortgage, LLC and GSAA Home
Equity Trust 2006-17


1. A review has been completed of Avelo Mortgage, LLC's ("Avelo") servicing
   activities and its performance under the servicing agreement during the
   period from February 24, 2006 through December 31, 2006. This review was
   completed under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Avelo has fulfilled all of
   its obligations under the agreement in all material respects, except as
   described in the item below:

For a period of time in 2006, bank accounts were not reconciled in strict
compliance with Section 1122(d)(2)(vii) of Reg AB which provides as follows:

*  Reconciliations are prepared on a monthly basis for all asset-backed
   securities, related bank accounts, including custodial accounts and related
   bank clearing accounts. These reconciliations are (A) mathematically
   accurate; (B) prepared within 30 calendar days after the bank statement
   cutoff date, or such other number of days specified in the transaction
   agreements; (C) reviewed and approved by someone other than the person who
   prepared the reconciliation; and (D) contain explanations for reconciling
   items. These reconciling items are resolved within 90 calendar days of their
   original identification, or such other number of days specified in the
   transaction agreements.


The bank account reconciliations were current as of December 31, 2006, and no
issues were found or arose from the delay in reconciling the bank accounts.

I certify this information to be true and correct to the best of my ability.


/s/ James Weston Moffett
Name:  James Weston Moffett
Title: President and CEO
Date:  February 28, 2007


600  E. Las Colinas Blvd.  Suite 620  Irving, TX 75039  972.910.7000
F. 972.910.7099
### Fw: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS Michael Stewart to: Crabtree.Tricia 04/30/2010 10:57 AM Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D. Environmental Protection Specialist Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-7524 stewart.michael@epa.gov ----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/30/2010 10:57 AM -----

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi

_ R.

_ King@omb.eop.gov> To: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, James Hemby/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 04/30/2010 10:39 AM Subject: RE: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

Chet, that sounds like a good idea. Thank you for suggesting it. Let me know if there is a time Thu 5/6 that works for your folks -- that looks like a good day on our calendars. Best regards, heidi -----Original Message----- From: Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:36 AM To: King, Heidi R. Cc: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov ; Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov; Hemby.James@epamail.epa.gov; Mathias.Scott@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS
Heidi, Thanks for the call today. With regards to next weeks follow-up call, it might be beneficial to have a first call on the science and standard aspects and then a second call on any monitoring/implementation questions. As you can imagine, the monitoring and implementation parts are complex. If that approach works for you, let me know and we can coordinate with you on the second call while Lydia's folks handle the first call. We'll obviously have everyone on both calls, but since my folks are more critical on the second call, we'd like to make sure we schedule around their schedules as much as we can. Let me know if you think this approach works for you. Thanks, Chet

________________________________________ Richard A. "Chet" Wayland Director, Air Quality Assessment Division U.S. EPA Office of Air QualityPlanning & Standards (919) 541-4603
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

We, John N. Hatsopoulos, ChiefExecutive Officer, and Anthony S. Loumidis, Chief Financial Officer, ofAmerican DG Energy Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Annual Report on Form 10-Kof the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o(d)); and

 

2. The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: March 20, 2009 |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                      |   |
| /s/ John  N. Hatsopoulos  |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer  |   |
|                      |   |
| /s/  Anthony S. Loumidis  |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer  |   |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of DirectorseCollege.com:

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the registration statements (No. 333-108501) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-34326)on Form S-8 of eCollege.com of our report dated March 31, 2005, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheet of eCollege.com as of December 31,2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’equity, and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003,which report appears in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-Kof eCollege.com.

 

 
| ** **          | **/s/ KPMG LLP** |   |
|---------------------|------------------|--------|
|                |             |
|                |             |
| Denver, Colorado    |             |
| March 16, 2006 |             |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6843 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6843

                     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 expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to 
                  include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA EXPANSION.
    Section 213 of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act (subtitle 
B of title II of Public Law 109-338) is amended--
        (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``and Ascension Parish'' and 
    inserting ``Ascension, and Lafourche Parish''; and
        (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``14'' and inserting 
    ``15''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Rodulio Adonay PADILLA-SARMIENTO, AKA Rodulio Padilla Adonay, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71305

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 26, 2017

Thomas Damien Pamilla, Attorney, Law Offices of Thomas D. Pamilla, APC, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner

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

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rodulio Adonay Padilla-Sarmiento, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and the motion to reconsider his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion for reconsideration, *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Padilla-Sarmiento’s motion to reconsider his asylum and withholding of removal claims because he failed to identify a legal, or factual error in the agency’s prior decision. *See Ma v. Ashcroft,*361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, we deny the petition as to Padilla-Sarmiento’s challenge to the agency’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Padilla-Sarmiento’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. *See Sinha v. Holder,*564 F.3d 1015, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2009) (denying CAT relief where the record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government). We reject Padilla-Sarmien-*713to’s contentions that the agency erred in its analysis. *See Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Padilla-Sarmiento’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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








|STOCK CERTIFICATE
CUSIP: 62458M 10 8
|------------------------------------



---



##### 



Move, Inc.
   TEN COM
    
    
    
    as tenants in commonTEN ENT
    
    
    
    as tenants by the entiretiesJT TEN
    
    
    
    as joint tenants with right ofsurvivorship and not as tenantsin common
 UNIF GIFT MIN ACT
    


    Custodian(Cust)
    
    (Minor)under Uniform Gifts to MinorsAct(State)UNIF TRF MIN ACT
    


    Custodian (until age

)(Cust)under Uniform Transfers(Minor)to Minors Act(State)
     
 
  (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)Sharesof the capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appointAttorneyto transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.
  XXNOTICE:
    
    THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT
MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
Emission Guarantees for Boiler U1B and U2B

SRP Coronado Generating Station Boiler ID Pollutant Guaranteed Value UIB SO 2Removal 97% or 0.04 lb/MMBtu, whichever occurs first

Hg capture 90% of Oxidized Mercury or 2 μg/Nm 3 CO a ≤ 265 ppm (4 hour average) SO 3 Removal 20% or 2 ppmvd whichever occurs first U2B SO 2Removal 97% or 0.04 lb/MMBtu, whichever occurs first

Hg capture 90% of Oxidized Mercury or 2 μg/Nm 3 CO a ≤ 265 ppmvd @ 3% O 2when firing 80% Jacobs Ranch and 20% Spring Creek Coal SO 3 Removal 20% or 2 ppmvd whichever occurs first

a CO emission guarantee based on steam flow of 2,747,000 lb/hr and firing of 80% Jacob's Ranch and 20% Spring Creek Coal
#### Titus B. Eldridge, Respondent, *v.*Samuel C. Reid et al., Appellants.

(Argued May 2, 1872;

decided December 10, 1872.)

*W. A. Beach*for the appellants.

*John H. Porter*for the respondent.

All concur for reversal, except Rapadlo, J., not voting. No opinion.

Judgment reversed.
#### Congregation Anshe Sefard of Keap Street, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Title Guarantee & Trust Company, Respondent.

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 291 N. Y. 35.)
Order entered June 3, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01121-CR

JOHN PAUL ROBINSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-64197-L

ORDER

In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The 

record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs 

assessed in this case.

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization 

of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court 

appointed attorney fees. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a 

document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
Mr. Ll oy d Swenson

P.O. Box 3537 5 Pine Cone L ane Sunriver, OR 97707 Dear Swenson : This letter is to inform y ou that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). I t explains why we can not process y our request and what y ou should do in the next 30 day s. **Why We Can No**  **t Process Your Request** We entered y our March 28 , 2013 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA - 20 01 - 10091 ), but we are unable to process your request an y further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, y ou must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relie f, the extent of the relief y ou seek, and the reason y ou seek relief.

 The reasons why

granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why

the exemption would no t adversely affect safe ty

or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which y ou seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. **What You Should Do** If y ou want us to process y our request any further, y ou must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 day s. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires y ou t o send yo ur petition for exemption at least 120 day s before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

**If We Do No**  **t Hear From You** If we do not hear from y ou within 30 day s, we will close the docket without notifying y ou further. If y ou have any

questi ons or require additional time, you may call (202) 267 - 9677. Sincerely , Id a M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division Enclosure3

Project No.: A FS - 13 - 306 - E Project Officer: _______________ ARM - 10 1 : KJone s: 4/ 3 /2013 :Doc# 35844 ARM - 1/10 0/101 :Program Offic e AFS - 800 **MR LLOYD**  **SWENSON P**  **O BOX**  **3537 5**  **PINE CONE**  **LANE SUNRIVER**  **OR 97707**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,314,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,542,251
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    586,526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      46,220,976
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,663,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,543,025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,663,792
<SALES>                                         76,118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,591,184
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,951,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               465,460
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               250,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             682,660
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,639,845
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,639,845
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,639,845
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.18


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jackar LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10295

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017*

Filed July 17, 2017

*693Merry Jean Chan, Esquire, J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joyce Leavitt, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Oakland), Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jackar Love appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under '28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Love contends that the district court improperly determined that his prior robbery conviction under California Penal Code § 211 was a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) (2015) and, therefore, improperly determined his base offense level. This claim fails. Love necessarily committed either generic robbery or generic extortion, *see United States v. Becerril-Lopez,*541 F.3d 881, 892 (9th Cir. 2008), both of which are enumerated crimes of violence. *See*U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 cmt. n.l (2015). Accordingly, his conviction is a categorical crime of violence. *See Becerril-Lopez,*541 F.3d at 893 & n.10; *see also*U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.l (2015) (defining “crime of violence” as having the meaning given that term in section 4B1.2 and its Application Note 1). Contrary to Love’s contention, the Supreme Court’s holding in *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), had no effect on the Guidelines. *See Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017).

AFFIRMED.

**

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