alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Pre- Flight Checklist 3DR Solo with HD Camera

Aircraft: 1. Inspectfuselage for damage, lose screws orconnections, camera mounts/mounts, and broken or missing pieces. 2. Inspect blades for condition (no nicks, cracks ordamage) 3. Inspect battery- (fully charged and/or sufficient charge forthe mission) 4. Lights -Illuminated as required. Controller:

Site: 1. Inspectfor condition 2. Inspect battery charge- (fully charged orsufficientforthe mission) 3. Connection to Drone- Confirm wireless connection complete and GPS telemetry received and calibrations complete. 4. Confirm connectivitytoAndroid Interface 5. Apps- Confirm apps to be used are loaded and active.

1. Inspect site for condition. 

### 2. Ensure Takeoff and Landing sites remain clear. 3. Inspect area for conflicts with overhead wires, buildings, trees orterrain. 4. Confirm all areas to be flown are safe with respect to persons and/or property. 5. Confirm any authorizations required for compliance with operations in U.S. National Airspace system obtained priortoflight. a. For operations in the vicinity ofairports orcontrolled airspace where radio communications are required provide adequate handheld comm and immediately cease operations ifcomm is lost. 6. Weather- VFR conditions orceilings high enough to remain clear of clouds, winds within aircraft capabilities and no precipitation.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 15, 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00686

- CV

MARGNUS IBE , Appellant

V.

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVIC ES, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 1 Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15

- CCV

- 055220

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 24 , 2015. The notice of appeal was filed July 24, 2015 . To date, our records show that appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless party is excused by statute or by appellate rules from paying costs) ; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207.

On August 26 , 2015, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing2 fee on or before September 7 , 2015, or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
See Tex. R. A pp. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Donovan

.
Trilliant Exploration Corporation
10-K






Exhibit
32.2







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 Trilliant Exploration Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, William
Lieberman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:






(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.






Dated
this 13th day of
April, 2009.




/s/ William Lieberman
/s/


William
Lieberman, Director, Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

RITA M. RICHARDS AND CAROLINE J. 

RICHARDS, CO-EXECUTRICES OF THE 

ESTATE OF JAMES G. RICHARDS AND 

THE ESTATE OF HELEN RICHARDS,

Petitioners

v.

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC., 

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 

RIVERSOURCE LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, AND THOMAS A. BOUCHARD,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 259 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14911-14912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05513]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

[Docket No.: NTSB-2021-0009]


Office of the Managing Director: Strategic Management Program 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

AGENCY: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

ACTION: Notice; issuance of final publication.

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

SUMMARY: The NTSB announces the availability of the following 
publication: ``NTSB FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan''.

DATES: The plan was published on February 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: This document may be obtained at the following link: https://www.ntsb.gov/about/reports/Documents/FY-22-26-Strategic-Plansig.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John DeLisi, Senior Advisor for Policy 
and Strategic Initiatives, (202) 314-6000, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cab9beb8abbeafada3a9baa6aba48aa4beb9a8e4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="186b6c6a796c7d7f717b6874797658766c6b7a367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 24, 2021, the NTSB published a 
notice request for comments in the Federal Register [86 FR 67092]. The 
purpose of this review was to seek external input via public comments 
and invited stakeholder reviews to shape priorities toward developing a 
new 5-year strategic plan. All comments received were reviewed and 
considered in finalizing the current document. Comments for Docket No. 
NTSB-2021-0009 can be found at: https://

[[Page 14912]]

www.regulations.gov/docket/NTSB-2021-0009.

Jennifer Homendy,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2022-05513 Filed 3-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 21

Proposing a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. BOND, Mr.

BROWN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr.

FRIST, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MACK, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr.

SMITH, and Mr. THOMAS) introduced the following joint resolution; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing a constitutional amendment to limit congressional

terms.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States:

6 ‘‘ARTICLE—

7 ‘‘SECTION 1. After this article becomes operative, no

8 person shall be elected to a full term as a Senator more

9 than twice, or to a full term as a Representative more than
2

•SJ 21 IS

1 thrice; no person who has been a Senator for more than

2 three years of a term to which some other person was

3 elected shall subsequently be elected as a Senator more

4 than once; and no person who has been a Representative

5 for more than a year of a term to which some other person

6 was elected shall subsequently be elected as a Representa7 tive more than twice.

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. This article shall be inoperative unless

9 it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Con10 stitution by conventions in the several States, as provided

11 by the Constitution, within seven years from the date of

12 its submission to the States by the Congress.’’.

Æ
#### Frederick BANKS, next friend: 300 Dogs including 6-month old Beagle puppies, held in Virginia for research and experiments, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David SHULKIN, VA Secretary; Michael Fallon, VA Chief; Veterinary Medical Officer; Department of Veterans Affairs; Cindy Buckmaster, Chair American for Medical Progress; Commonwealth of Virginia; Governor of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-7414

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 28, 2017

Frederick Hamilton Banks, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*199Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Banks appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, in which Banks sought to transfer his constitutional rights to 300 dogs that are currently in the custody of the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Banks v. Shulkin,*No. 1:17-cv-01121-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 11, 2017 & entered Oct. 12, 2017). We grant Banks’ application to proceed in forma pauperis and deny as moot his motion to stay research and experiments pending appeal. 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*
#### Sharon BOLTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HATTIESBURG, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-60474 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 10, 2017

Robert Nicholas Norris, Louis Hanner Watson, Jr., Esq., Watson *&*Norris, P.L.L.C., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Clark Hicks, Hicks Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Hattiesburg, MS, for Defendant-Appellee

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sharon Bolton sued her employer, the City of Hattiesburg, for sex, race, and age discrimination because of a promotion that was not offered to her. As explained in a succinct but comprehensive Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district court granted summary judgment for the city and dismissed.

We agree with the district court’s analysis. It recognized that although a plaintiff may be relieved of the requirement that she formally applied for a position, she still *371must show that she expressed interest in it. As the district court explained, “Because Plaintiff never applied to nor communicated any interest in the Crew Supervisor position to any of her superiors, she cannot show that she was qualified for the position she sought because she *never sought*the position” (citing cases). The court further reasoned that even if, *ar-guendo,*Bolton had established a *prima facie*case, the city offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision not to promote Bolton: the disciplinary actions that had been taken against her. And finally, as the court observed, any claim of race discrimination fails because the person who was promoted was of her race.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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,
Order filed January 27, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00928

- CV

____________ ALICE M. JONES , Appellant

V.
ANTONIO MURILLO INDI VIDUALLY AND D/B/A T IGER CONSTRUCTION AND TH E NATIONAL ASSOCIATI ON OF MINORITY CONTRACTO RS OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2006

- 76136



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed February 07, 2014 . Our review has determined
that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record

. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain Order Granting Bill of Review and Vacating Underlying Judgment , filed January 24, 2012 (signed January 30, 2012)

.The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s

record on or before Tuesday, February 06, 2015, contain ing Order Granting Bill of Review and Vacating Underlying Judgment , filed January 24, 2012 (signed January 30, 2012)

. If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
#### Ayodele AKINOLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David SEVERNS; Mike Premo, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16066

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 23, 2017

Brian Morris, Brian Morris, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant

David Robert Keene, II, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, Dominika J. Batten, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Reno), Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ayodele Akinola appeals from the district court’s March 26, 2015 order dismissing his First Amendment retaliation claim in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging race discrimination in his employment with the State of Nevada’s Department of Transportation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). *Lacey v. Maricopa County,*693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Akinola’s retaliation claim because it did not involve a matter of public concern. However, taking the factual allegations as true, Akinola alleged facts sufficient to show that his complaints about race discrimination, which were directed to a personnel manager and set forth in his earlier lawsuit, involved a matter of public concern. *See Turner v. City & County of San Francisco,*788 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2015) (stating the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim); *Alpha Energy Savers, Inc. v. Hansen,*381 F.3d 917, 926 (9th Cir. 2004) (declining to adopt view that a “run of the mine single-plaintiff discrimination case” does not meet the public concern test). We reverse and remand for further proceedings on the retaliation claim only.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We deny Defendants-Appellees’ motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 24) as unnecessary.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is nqt appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 10.c


Independent Auditors' Consent


We consent to the use, in this Annual Report of Total Fleet S.A. on Form 20-F
filed on June 28, 2002 (File No. 333-8128-02), which is incorporated by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 filed on August 24, 2001
(Registration No. 333-13852-03), of our report dated June 3, 2002.


/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Belo Horizonte, Brazil, June 28, 2002
Exhibit 32.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Certification of Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pure Bioscience (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary Brownell, Chief Financial Officer certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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.

December 15, 2004                /s/ Gary Brownell
-------------------              -----------------------------------
                                 Gary Brownell
                                 Chief Executive Officer
#### Edward F. QUIRKE and Sylvia Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees, v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee-Appellant.

No. 68, Docket 30496.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 7, 1966.

Decided Oct. 25, 1966.

Laurence W. Levine, New York City (Walsh & Levine, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants-appellees.

Francis S. Bensel, New York City (Kelley, Drye, Newhall, Maginnes & Warren, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee-appellant.

Before SMITH, HAYS and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by common shareholders of defendant Norfolk and Western Railway Company for relief under Sections 14 and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C. §§ 78n and 78aa, based on an alleged misleading proxy statement issued in connection with a meeting of defendant’s stockholders, plaintiffs and defendant moved for summary judgment. The court, Charles M. Metzner, Judge, denied both motions, holding that a material issue of fact existed and that the case was not ripe for summary judgment in favor of either party.

On argument, the court raised the question of appellate jurisdiction, since no final judgment has yet entered, and it questioned the soundness of decisions upholding jurisdiction in similar cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as appeals from denial of interlocutory injunctions. The question has now been resolved by the court *en banc*in Chappell & Co., Inc. et al. v. Frankel, 367 F.2d 197 (2d Cir., Oct. 13, 1966) unanimously holding that appellate jurisdiction is lacking.

The appeals are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2010 - 1095 SNPRM **Directorate ID:** 

### 2009 - NE - 40 - AD Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### SP2967EN - E (1/5//11) N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comment s relating to the sam**  **e issue should be discussed together.** Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Refe rence FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because

### Page 2 of 3

**For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casey D. EDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-3304

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed April 14, 2017

(D.C. No. 6:12-CR-10221-EFM-1) (District of Kansas)

David M. Lind, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Melody Brannon, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Tope*674ka, KS, Daniel T. Hansmeier, Kansas City, KS, Chrystal L. Krier, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas, Wichita, KS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

This appeal was abated pending a decision by this court in *United States v. Collins,*No. 15-3084.CoZ£ms was decided on February 14, 2017, and a petition for panel rehearing was granted on April 7, 2017 on a limited basis to issue a revised opinion. This matter is before us on Appellant Casey Eden’s *Status Report*wherein he states that the one issue' he intended to raise on appeal—whether the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for a subsequent revocation is measured by the penalties applicable to the first revocation instead of the penalties applicable to the initial conviction—was rejected by *Collins,*and he is, therefore, constrained to admit that this court should summarily affirm the district court. Upon consideration of Appellant’s status report and in light of this court’s decision in *Collins,*the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.