alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
January	13,	2016

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation

Federal	Aviation	Administration

Document	Management	System

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue	SE

Washington,	D.C.	20590

Re:	 Crop	Insurance	of	America	LLC	petition	for	Exemption

FAA	Docket	Number: FAA-2016-0156-001

Supplement	to	Petition	for	Exemption

Dear	Administrator:

Petitioner	Crop	Insurance	of	America	LLC	submits	this	supplement	to	the	petition	

for	exemption	filed	on	November	2,	2015	and	posted	January	6,	2016	under	docket	

number	FAA-2016-0156-0001.

In	our	petition,	Crop	Insurance	of	America	LLC	sought	a	section	333	Exemption	for	

the	operation	of	a	DJI	Inspire1	quadcopter.		In	this	supplement,	Crop	Insurance	of	

America	LLC	seeks	to	add	the	same	exemption	for	two	fixed	wing	unmanned	

aircraft:

Precision	Hawk	Lancaster	Mk-III	Rev-IV

Ebee	Sensefly	for	Agriculture

The	FAA	is	familiar	with	and	has	already	determined	that	the	Precision Hawk	

Lancaster	Hawkeye	MK-III	and	the	Ebee	Sensefly	meet the	requirements	of	Section	

333	of	the	Reform	Act	in	the	light	of	its	weight,	speed	and	operational	capabilities	

See	e.g.:,

Exemption	No.	11273	to	AIG	PC	Global	Services,	Inc.;

Exemption	No.	11573	to	Ag	Tech	Enterprises,	Inc.;

Exemption	No.	11551	to	Ag	Worx	Inc.;

Exemption	No.	11345	to	Precision	Hawk,	Inc.;

Exemption	No.	11263		to	Sensefly

Because	it	does	not	carry	flammable	fuel	and	is	lightweight,	a	grant	of	exemption	to	

the	precision	Hawk	Lancaster	Mk-III	Rev-IV	and	Ebee Sensefly	would	reduce	the	

hazards	and	emission	of	heavier	manned	aircraft.		The	two	fixed	wing	are	being	

submitted	for	us	to	utilize	the	best	aircraft	based	on what	kind	of	data	and	size	of	

data and	or	damaged	crop	acres	need	to	be	collected.		These	added	aircraft	on	the	

larger	data	and	crop	acres	will	allow	us to	reduce	the	number	of	take	off	and	
landings	on	larger	data	sets	and	field	acres.			This	will	allow	us	to	be safer for	larger	

data	sets for	the	public	and	Pilot	in	Command.

A	copy	of	the	flight	operation	manuals	are	attached	for	both	the	Precision	Hawk	

Lancaster	Hawkeye	MK-III	Rev-IV	and	the	Ebee	sensefly	are	attached	setting	forth	

the	specifications	of	its	operation.

Please	grant	an	exemption	to	Crop	Insurance	of	America	LLC	for	the	Precision	Hawk	

Mk-III	Rev-IV,	Ebee	Sensefly,	and	the	original	DJI	Inspire1.

Sincerely,

Lynn	Button,	President

Crop	Insurance	of	America	LLC.
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0321(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32002D0321(01)

**Council Decision of 1 March 2002 appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture **

*
Official Journal C 072 , 21/03/2002 P. 0001 - 0002 *

Council Decision

of 1 March 2002

appointing members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture

(2002/C 72/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Decision 85/385/EEC of 10 June 1985 setting up an Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture(1), and in particular Articles 3 and 4 thereof,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of 1994, and in particular Article 165(1) thereof,

Whereas, according to Article 3 of the above Decision, the Committee consists of three experts from each Member State and on alternate for each of those experts; whereas, according to Article 4 of the same Decision, the term of office of these experts and alternates is three years;

Whereas by its Decision of 26 February 1996(2) the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Committee for the period 26 February 1996 to 25 February 1999;

Whereas the Governments of 13 Member States have each submitted a list of candidates with a view to the appointment, replacement or renewal of the term of office of members and alternate members,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Education and Training in the Field of Architecture for the period 1 March 2002 to 22 October 2004.

A. Experts from the practising profession

>TABLE>

B. Experts from universities or equivalent teaching institutions in the field of architecture

>TABLE>

C. Experts from the competent authorities of the Member States

>TABLE>

Done at Brussels on 1 March 2002.

For the Council

The President

R. de Miguel

(1) OJ L 233, 21.8.1985, p. 26.

(2) OJ C 74, 14.3.1996, p. 1.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6555

PHILLIP BYRD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(0:14-cv-04864-RBH)

Submitted: March 20, 2017 Decided: March 29, 2017

Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

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

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

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

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Byrd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Byrd’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
#### Victor CALLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6070

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Victor Calles, Appellant Pro Se. John Stuart Bruce, Acting United States Attorney, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Victor Calles appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action seeking relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. *Calles v. United States,*No. 5:15-ct-03338-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 2017); *see also Pornomo v. United States,*814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that issues raised for first time on appeal are waived). 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*
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

The undersigned, Evan Williams, Chief Executive Officer of Border Management,
Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Border Management, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2010 (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 Border
Management, Inc.

Dated: October 17, 2011

/s/ Evan Williams
------------------
Evan Williams
Chief Executive Officer,
Border Management, Inc.

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 Border Management,
Inc. and will be retained by Border Management, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 753

To allow the collection and payment of funds following the completion of

cooperative work involving the protection, management, and improvement

of the National Forest System, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 3 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. CRAIG,

Mr. BURNS, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Mr. HATFIELD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To allow the collection and payment of funds following the

completion of cooperative work involving the protection,

management, and improvement of the National Forest

System, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. COOPERATIVE WORK FOR PROTECTION, MAN4 AGEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT OF NATIONAL

5 FOREST SYSTEM.

6 The penultimate paragraph of the matter under the

7 heading ‘‘FOREST SERVICE.’’ of the first section of the
2

S 753 IS

1 Act of June 30, 1914 (38 Stat. 430, chapter 131; 16

2 U.S.C. 498), is amended—

3 (1) by inserting ‘‘, management,’’ after ‘‘the

4 protection’’;

5 (2) by striking ‘‘national forests,’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘National Forest System,’’;

7 (3) by inserting ‘‘management,’’ after ‘‘protec8 tion,’’ both places it appears; and

9 (4) by adding at the end the following new sen10 tences: ‘‘Payment for work undertaken pursuant to

11 this paragraph may be made from any appropriation

12 of the Forest Service that is available for similar

13 work if a written agreement so provides and reim14 bursement will be provided by a cooperator in the

15 same fiscal year as the expenditure by the Forest

16 Service. A reimbursement received from a cooperator

17 that covers the proportionate share of the cooperator

18 of the cost of the work shall be deposited to the

19 credit of the appropriation of the Forest Service

20 from which the payment was initially made or, if the

21 appropriation is no longer available to the credit of

22 an appropriation of the Forest Service that is avail23 able for similar work. The Secretary of Agriculture

24 shall establish written rules that establish criteria to

25 be used to determine whether the acceptance of con-
3

S 753 IS

1 tributions of money under this paragraph would ad2 versely affect the ability of an officer or employee of

3 the United States Department of Agriculture to

4 carry out a duty or program of the officer or em5 ployee in a fair and objective manner or would com6 promise, or appear to compromise, the integrity of

7 the program, officer, or employee. The Secretary of

8 Agriculture shall establish written rules that protect

9 the interests of the Forest Service in cooperative

10 work agreements.’’.

Æ
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50275

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK AMEZQUITA, also known as Fat Pat,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50277

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BERNARDO SALAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-99-CR-264-13-SS 

- - - - - - - - - -

June 28, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
No. 00-50275

 No. 00-50277 

-2-

Patrick Amezquita pleaded guilty to and was convicted of

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marihuana and

cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and being

a felon in possession of a firearm. Bernardo Salas pleaded

guilty to and was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and

possession with intent to distribute marihuana and cocaine and

telephone facilitation. They appeal their conspiracy convictions

for violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846. Appellants contend

that the indictment was deficient because it did not allege a

specific quantity of drugs. 

Appellants did not raise this issue before the district

court. Therefore, we read the indictment “with maximum

liberality and find it sufficient unless it is so defective that

by any reasonable construction, it fails to charge the offense

for which the defendant is convicted.” United States v.

Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 569 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal citation

and quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1119 (2000). 

No quantity of drugs is specified in 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) or

846. Therefore, it was not necessary to charge a quantity of

drugs in the indictment, and the appellants’ indictment was

sufficient. See United States v. Salazar-Flores, 238 F.3d 672,

673-74 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160,

165 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1152 (2001). 

AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1272 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1272

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1272/2002 of 12 July 2002 amending the codes and descriptions of certain products listed in the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 827/68 on the common organisation of the market in certain products listed in Annex II to the Treaty **

*
Official Journal L 184 , 13/07/2002 P. 0007 - 0013 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1272/2002

of 12 July 2002

amending the codes and descriptions of certain products listed in the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 827/68 on the common organisation of the market in certain products listed in Annex II to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 234/79 of 5 February 1979 on the procedure for adjusting the Common Customs Tariff nomenclature used for agricultural products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94(2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 969/2002(4), contains the Combined Nomenclature currently in force.

(2) Some of the codes and descriptions in the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 827/68(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 195/96(6), no longer correspond to those in the Combined Nomenclature. The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 827/68 should therefore be amended. For ease of readability, the Annex to that Regulation should be replaced by a new, updated Annex.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of all the Management Committees concerned,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 827/68 is replaced by the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 34, 9.2.1979, p. 2.

(2) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 105.

(3) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 149, 7.6.2002, p. 20.

(5) OJ L 151, 30.6.1968, p. 16.

(6) OJ L 26, 2.2.1996, p. 13.

ANNEX

"ANNEX

>TABLE>".
#### Reginald ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-2099

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 11, 2017

Filed: October 17, 2017

Reginald Robinson, Pro Se

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Robinson appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal, without prejudice, of his pro se complaint. He also moves to supplement the' record on appeal.

Upon de novo review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Robinson’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *See Laclede Gas Co. v. St Charles Cnty., Mo.,*713 F.3d 413, 417 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); *see also*Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Robinson did not assert a valid basis for federal question jurisdiction because he relied on federal criminal statutes only, and because the complaint revealed a lack of diversity. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1331 (requirements for federal question jurisdiction); *Linda R.S. v. Richard D.,*410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973) (private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest in prosecution of another); *see also*28 U.S.C. § 1332 (requirements for diversity jurisdiction); *Ryan v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc.,*263 F.3d 816, 819 (8th Cir. 2001) (discussing diversity of citizenship). We also conclude that the material proffered with Robinson’s motion to supplement the record would not have affected the oui> come.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, *see*8th Cir. R. 47B, and Robinson’s motion to supplement the record is denied as moot.

1

. The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Brian Cole, Chief Financial Officer of Play LA Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Play LA Inc. for the year ended  December  31, 2010 (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 Play LA Inc.



Dated:  July 14, 2011







/s/ Brian Cole

Brian Cole





Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)































---
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 13302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04942]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Promoting Bunyavirales Basic 
Science Research (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: April 5-6, 2022.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E72A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Frank S. De Silva, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E72A, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5023, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3d5d7d6c0dadfc5d2f3dddad2dad79ddddadb9dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88eeecedfbe1e4fee9c8e6e1e9e1eca6e6e1e0a6efe7fe">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 3, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-04942 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP Chartered Accountants A Partnership of Incorporated Professionals     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM   We consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form 20-F/A-7 of Horizon Industries Ltd. of our report dated May 30, 2007 appearing in the Prospectus, which is part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference of us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.   /s/ Davidson & Company LLP DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP    Vancouver, CanadaChartered AccountantsJune 2, 2008
       1200 - 609 Granville Street, P.O. Box 10372, Pacific Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V7Y 1G6 Telephone (604) 687-0947  Fax (604) 687-6172