alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
07/15/2015

Daedalus	Aerial	Imaging

Attn:	Alan	Holland

1095	Rose	Meadow	Court

Santa	Rosa	CA		95407

707.573.1973

daedalusaerialimaging@yahoo.com

TO: Federal	Aviation	Administration	

US	Department	of	Transportation	

Docket	Management	System

1200 New	Jersey Ave. S.E	

Washington,	DC	.	20590

Re:

Exemption	Request	Section	333	of	the	FAA	Reform	Act	Pursuant	to	section	333	of	the	FAA

Modernization	and	Reform	act	of	2012	(The	Reform Act),	and	14	C.F.R.	Part	11,	Daedalus	Aerial	Imaging,	

herby seeks	and	applies	for	an exemption	to	the	Federal	Aviation	Regulations	(FARs)	to	allow	Daedalus

Aerial Imaging to	operate	Small	Unmanned	Aircraft	Systems	(UAS)	commercially	in	airspace	regulated	by	

the	Federal	Aviation	Administration	(FAA)	under	the	conditions	and limitations set	forth	in	this petition.	

The	requested	exemption	would	permit	Daedalus Aerial Imaging to	operate	small,	unmanned	aircraft	

system	(UAS)	for	the	purpose	of	providing	an aerial	photography	and	survey	service	to	Municipalities,	

Utilities	&	Private	consumers.	The areas	of	use will	include	both	photo and	video	in	the	Utilities,	

Communications	industry,	real	estate	industry, surveying	industry,	construction	industry and	agricultural	

industry.	The UAS will	be operated	in	airspace	that	is	1)	limited	2)	predetermined 3)	would	provide	

added	safety	enhancements	to	the	already	safe	operations	in	the	industry	presently	using	conventional	

aircraft system”

Exemption	request	to	section	333	of	the	FAA	Reform Act	Plan	11	Specific	to	UAS	operations.

14	CFR	21	subpart	H;	14 CFR	45.23(b); 14	CFR	61.113(a) &	(b); 14	CFR	91.103;14	CFR	91.105;	14	CFR	

91.109:	14	CFR 91.119(c);14	CFR	91.121;	14 CFR	91.151(a); 14 CFR 91.405(a);	14	CFR	91.407(a)(1);	14	

CFR	91.401(a)(1)	&	(2);	14	CFR	91.417(a)	7	(b).
#### IN RE: AMERICAN APPAREL, INC., 2014 DERIVATIVE SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION, *849Peter Kravitz, as Trustee for and on behalf of AAI Litigation Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dov Charney, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56258

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 29, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed August 31, 2017

Todd M. Brooks,' Attorney, Kevin Hrob-lak, Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP, Baltimore, MD, Scott Gautier, Dávid She-mano, Robins Kaplan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for In re: American Apparel, Inc.

Todd M. Brooks, Attorney, Kevin Hrob-lak, Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP, Baltimore, MD, Scott Gautier, Robins Kaplan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Seth Alben Aronson, Attorney, Courtney L. Gould, William Ka Hing Pao, Attorney, O’Melveny *&*Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Todd M. Brooks, Attorney, Kevin Hrob-lak, Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant-Appellee American Apparel, Inc.

• Travis Biffar, Jones Day, Irvine, CA, John P. Stigi, III, Attorney, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los An-geles, CA, Defendants-Appellees David Danziger, Robert Greene, Marvin Igelman, William Mauer, Allan Mayer

Before: WARDLAW and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and ILLSTON,** District Judge. 7⁄8

*

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

**

 The Honorable Susan Illston, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Litigation Trustee Peter Kravitz appeals the district court’s order of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case under Rule 41(b). *See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,*191 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1999); *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992). On this record, the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal and the district court was not required to issue a clear warning or attempt less drastic alternatives before dismissing the action without prejudice.

AFFIRMED.

***

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

- S26022

- 19

_____________

_______________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JERMAINE HENDERSON

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1794 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 18, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at

No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0012686

- 2011, CP

- 51

- CR

- 0012688

- 2011

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., GANTMAN, P.J.E., and PELLEGRINI*, J.
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED JUNE 03, 2019
I would not quash the appeal for reasons set forth in my dissenting
opinion in Matter of M.P. , 204 A.3d 976 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). For those

reasons , I would hol d that the requirement in Commonwealth v. Walker , 185 A.3d 969, 971 (Pa. 2018) , that holds that separate notices of appeal be
filed for each case sought to be appeal ed , only becomes effective when the
Appellate Procedural Rules Committee complies the direction given to it by our
Supreme Court to either amend Pa.R.A

. P. 341(a) or its Official Note to
explicitly require separate notices of appeal. Accordingly, I respectfully

dissent.
07/ 15 / 2 015

Daedalus	Aerial	Imaging

Attn: Alan	Holland

1095	Rose	Meadow	Court

Santa	Rosa	CA		95407

707.573.1973

daedalusaerialimaging@yahoo.com

T O : F e deral A viation	Ad m inistration

US	D e part m ent	of	Tran s portation

Docket	M a nagement	Syste m

1 20 0 N ew	Jersey Ave. S.E

Was h ington,	DC	.	2059 0

R e :

Exemption	Request	Section	333	of	the	FAA	Reform	Act	Pursuant	to	section	333	of t he	FAA

Mod e rnization	and	Reform	act	of	20 1 2	(The	Refor m Act),	and	14	C.F.R.	Part	11, Daedalus	Aerial	Imaging

,

h erby see k s	and	a p plies	fo r a n exemption	to	the	Fed e ral	Aviation	Regulations	(F A Rs)	to	allow D aedalus

A erial I maging to	operate	Small	Unm a nned	Aircraft	Systems	(U A S)	commercially	in	airspace	regulated	by

the	Federal	Aviation	Administration	(FAA)	under	the	conditions	and limitations set f orth	in	thi s pe t ition.

T he	requested	ex e mption	would	permit D aedalus A erial I maging t o	operate	small,	unmanned	aircraft

system ( UAS)	for	the	purpose	of	providing	an aerial	photography	and	survey	service	to	Municip a lities,

Utilities	& P riva t e	consu m er s.	Th e areas	of	us e will	include	both	photo and	video i n	the U tilities,

Com m unications i ndustry,	real	estate	industry

, surveying	industry,	constru c tion	industry and	agricultural

industry.	The U AS will	b e operat e d	in	airspace	that	is	1)	limited	2)	predeterm ine d 3)	would	provide

added	sa f ety	enh a ncements	to	the	already	safe	oper a tions	in	the i ndustry	presently	using	conve n tional

aircraft system”

Exemption	requ e st	to	section	333	of	the	FAA	Refor m Act	Plan	11	Specific	to	UAS	operations.

14	CFR	21	subpart	H; 1 4 CFR	45.23(b); 14	CFR	61.113(a) &	(b); 1 4	CFR	9 1 .103 ; 14	CFR	91.105;	14	CFR

91. 1 09: 1 4	CFR 91.119(c);14	CFR	91.1 2 1;	14 C FR	9 1 .151(a); 1 4 CFR 9 1 .405(a);	14	CFR	91.4 0 7(a)(1);	14

CFR	91.40 1 (a)(1)	&	(2);	14	CFR	91.417(a)	7	(b).
#### Joseph Hall, Judge, &c. *versus*Thomas K. Jones.

Upon a plea in abatement to an original writ made returnable to this Court, that it was not under the seal of this Court, the Court refused to allow the writ to be amended by affixing the seal.

Debt upon a probate bond. The original writ, which was made returnable to this Court, was under the seal of the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff having made use of a blank writ of the Common Pleas. The defendant pleaded in abatement, that the writ was not under the seal of this Court; and thereupon the plaintiff moved that the writ should be amended by affixing to it the seal of this Court; but the Court said the amendment could not be made.1

*Leland,*for the plaintiff.

Aylwin, for the defendant.

1

 See *Bailey*v. Smith, 3 Fairfield, 196. But where the seal attached to a *certiorari*is not the seal of the court out of which the writ issues, an amendment by affixing the right seal may be allowed. *People*v. *Steuben C. P.*5 Wendell, 103. So if the clerk omit to affix the seal of the court to an execution, it may be amended, even after the execution has been extended on lands, and the extent recorded. *Sawyer*v. *Baker,*3 Greenleaf, 29. An omission of the clerk’s name to a writ may be amended on payment of costa. *Jenkens*v. *Pepoon,*Colman, 55. See Revised Stat. c. 100, § 21, 22.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alexander KOSTYUKOV, AKA Klbs, AKA Temp, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10597

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 15, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed September 25, 2017

*567Nancy M. Olson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the- U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE— Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mario D. Valencia, Esquire, Attorney, Mario D. Valencia, Attorney At Law, Henderson, NV, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: SOHROEDER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,* District Judge.

*

The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation,

MEMORANDUM **

Kostyukov challenges four enhancements applied at his sentencing hearing for the first time on appeal. When a party fails to raise an objection at trial “yet asserts error on appeal,” we review for plain error. *United States v. Santiago,*466 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir. 2006). Plain error is “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” *United States v. Cotton,*535 U.S. 625, 631, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) (quoting *Johnson v. United States,*520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)). That standard is not met here.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Alfred D. Bump, Resp’t, v. Wm. Gilchrist *et al.,*App’lts.

*S. W. Russell,*for resp’t; *R. Armstrong, Jr.,*for app’lts.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute rendered against appellants, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 22 N. Y. State Rep., 197.
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0732 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0732

**2001/732/EC: Commission Decision of 10 October 2001 amending Decision 95/233/EC to authorise imports of live poultry and hatching eggs from Latvia (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 3016) **

*
Official Journal L 275 , 18/10/2001 P. 0014 - 0016 *

Commission Decision

of 10 October 2001

amending Decision 95/233/EC to authorise imports of live poultry and hatching eggs from Latvia

(notified under document number C(2001) 3016)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2001/732/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from, third countries, of poultry and hatching eggs(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 2000/505/EC(2), and in particular Article 21(1) and Article 26 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 95/233/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 96/619/EC(4), lists third countries, from which Member States are in principle authorised to import live poultry and hatching eggs including ratites and eggs thereof.

(2) Latvia has requested authorisation to export live poultry and hatching eggs to the Community and has submitted the necessary guarantees.

(3) An inspection carried out by the Commission's services in Latvia in March 2001 has shown that Latvia is covered by sufficiently well structured and organised veterinary services regarding the animal health status concerning poultry.

(4) Latvia should therefore be added to the list of third countries laid down by Decision 95/233/EC.

(5) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex I and Annex II to Decision 95/233/EC are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 October 2001.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 303, 31.10.1990, p. 6.

(2) OJ L 201, 9.8.2000, p. 8.

(3) OJ L 156, 7.7.1995, p. 76.

(4) OJ L 276, 29.10.1996, p. 18.

ANNEX

Annex I and Annex II are replaced by the following:

"ANNEX I

List of third countries from which Member States authorise imports of live poultry and hatching eggs, ratites and eggs thereof excluded

Imports from countries on this list must fulfil the relevant animal and public health requirements.

>TABLE>

ANNEX II

List of third countries from which Member States authorise imports of live ratites and eggs thereof

Imports from countries on this list must fulfil the relevant animal and public health requirements.

>TABLE>"
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7395

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DERRICK LAMONT EVANS, a/k/a Shank, a/k/a Dechee Dan, a/k/a 

Big Head, a/k/a Debo,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-RSB-1)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Lamont Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, 

Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorneys, Mary Kathleen 

Carnell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Lamont Evans appeals the district court’s order 

denying Evans’ 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a 

sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Evans, No. 

1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-RSB-1 (W.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2015). 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
#### R. Adele Schaffner, Appellant, *v.*New York Trust Company, As Trustee under the Will of Cortlandt F. Bishop, Respondent.

Argued January 7, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*591
      *Everett M. Seixas, Jr.,*and *Marvin W. Levy*for appellant.

*Marie F. Hughes*and *Pierce J. Gerety*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Pinch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
1

From:

Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 5:48 PM

To: RedHill

Subject: Protect our Water from Jet Fuel

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Aloha, 

My name is and I am a resident of I am writing to express my extreme concern for the 

quality of our drinking water threatened by the jet fuel leaking from Navy storage tanks in Red Hill. Please ensure this jet 

fuel is completely cleaned up immediately. Twenty-five years is too long to wait before acting to save our most precious 

resource. If the leaks cannot be immediately fixed, then the tanks must be emptied. I also ask that the public comment 

period on the negotiated agreement between the U.S. Navy, Environmental Protection Agency, and Hawaii Department of 

Health be extended to allow the public meaningful opportunity to understand and weigh-in on this important issue. Please 

continue to keep me informed in this decision-making process. 

Thank you,
#### Tammy CALLAHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16755

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed June 30, 2017

Tammy Callahan, Pro Se

Sara K. Almo, Attorney, Christopher Brian Reich, Esquire, General Counsel, Neil Anthony Rombardo, Esquire, Chief General Counsel, Washoe County School District, Reno, NY, for Defendants-Appel-lees

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Tammy Callahan appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her employment action alleging discrimination in violation of federal and state law, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 'dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

*886The district court properly dismissed Callahan’s ADEA claim as time-barred. *See Laquaglia v. Rio Hotel & Casino, Inc.,*186 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 1999) (Nevada is a “deferral state” in which claimants have 300 days to institute proceedings with them state anti-discrimination agency); *see also*29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(B) (charges under the ADEA “shall be filed ... within 300 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred, or within 30 days after receipt by the individual of notice of termination of proceedings under State law, whichever is earlier”).

We reject as without merit Callahan’s contentions regarding judicial estoppel, laches, the continuing violation doctrine, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AGENCY.COM LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           85035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    28932
<ALLOWANCES>                                      5164
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                119980
<PP&E>                                           27879
<DEPRECIATION>                                    9325
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  226891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            32334
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                      190658
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    226891
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 87786
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    45458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 52150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1244
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12633)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       246
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (12879)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12879)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6919 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Tomah, 

Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Jason Simcakoski Department of Veterans Affairs 

Medical Center’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2024 

Mr. VAN ORDEN (for himself, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. STEIL, Mr. FITZGERALD, 

Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. GALLAGHER, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, and Mr. 

POCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center 

in Tomah, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Jason Simcakoski Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

4 MEDICAL CENTER, TOMAH, WISCONSIN. 

5 The Department of Veterans Affairs medical center 

6 located at 500 East Veterans Street, Tomah, Wisconsin, 

7 shall after the date of the enactment of this Act, be known 

8 and designated as the ‘‘Jason Simcakoski Department of 

2 

•HR 6919 IH

1 Veterans Affairs Medical Center’’. Any reference to such 

2 medical center in any law, regulation, map, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States shall be consid4 ered to be a reference to the Jason Simcakoski Depart5 ment of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. 

Æ
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the   accompanying   Quarterly  Report  of  Concierge
Technologies,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
31,  2005 (the  "Report"),  I, Allen E.  Kahn,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  May 18, 2005
                                                          /s/ Allen E. Kahn
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Allen E. Kahn
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.











                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page