alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## S a f e t yN ot i c eS N -3 4

I s s u e d : M a r 9 9 Re v : A p r 2 0 0 9 A E RI A L SU R V EY A N D P H OT O F L I G H T S -V E R Y H I G H RI SK T he re i sa m i s c onc e pt i on t ha t a e ri a ls ur v e y a nd phot o f l i ght sc a n be f l ow n s af el y b y l ow t i m e p i l o t s . N o t t ru e. T h ere h av e b een n u m ero u sf at al a c c i de nt sd uri ng a e ri a ls ur v e y a nd phot o f l i ght s , i nc l udi ng s e v e ra li nv ol v i ng Ro b in so n h e lic o p t e rs. O f t e n , t op le a se t h e o b se rv e r o r p h o t o g ra p h e r, a n i n e x p e rie n c e d p ilo t w ill s l ow t he he l i c opt e r

t o l e s st ha n 3 0 K I A S a nd t he n a t t e m pt t o m a ne uv e r f or t he be st v i e w i ng a ngl e . W hi l e m a ne uv e ri ng, t he pi l ot m a y l os e t ra c kof ai rs p eed an d w i n d co n d i t i o n s . T h e h el i co p t er can rap i d l y l o s e t ran s l at i o n al l i f t an d b eg i n t os et t l e. A n i n ex p eri en ced p i l o t m ay rai s e t h e co l l ect i v e t o st o pt h e d e sc e n t
. T h is c a n re d u c e R P M t h e re b y re d u c in g p ow e r a v a ila b le a nd c a us i ng a n e v e n gre a t e r d e s c e nt ra t e a nd f ur t he r l os sofR P M
. Rol l i ng on t hrot t l e w i l li nc re a s e rot or t orque but not pow e r a v a i l a bl e due t o t he l ow R P M
. Be c a us e t a i lrot or t hrust i spropor

t i ona lt o t he s qua re ofR P M , i ft he R P M dropsbe l ow 8 0 % ne a rl y one - ha l foft he t a i lrot or t hrust i sl ost a nd t h e h e li c o p t e r w il l ro t a t e n o se ri g h t
. S u d d e n lyt h e d e c re a si n g R P M a lso c a u se s t h e m a in ro t o r t ost a ll a n d t h e h e lic o p t e r f a lls ra p id ly w h ile c o n t in u in g t oro t a t e . T h e re su lt in g im p a c t is u su a lly f a t a l. A e ri a ls ur

v e y a nd phot o f l i ght ss houl d only be c onduc t e d by w e l lt ra i ne d, e x pe ri e nc e d pi l ot sw ho: 1 ) H av e at l east 5 0 0 h o u rsp i l o t -i n -co m m an d i n h el i co p t ersan d ov er 1 0 0 hour

si n t he m ode lf l ow n; 2 ) H a v e e x t e ns i v e t ra i ni ng i n bot h l ow R P M a nd s e t t l i ng-w i t h- pow e r re c ov e ry t e c h n iq u e s; 3 ) A re w ill in g t osa y n ot ot h e o b se rv e r o r p h o t o g ra p h e r a n d o n ly f ly t he a i rc ra f t a t s pe e ds , al t i t ude s , a nd w i nd a ngl e st ha t a re s a f e a nd a llow g o o d e sc a p e ro u t e s.

A l s os ee Saf et y N o t i ce SN -2 4
.
#### John C. STIEGLER; Dwight A. Holmes, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Johnny SALDAT, individually; Marilyn Cartwright, individually; Payman Mehrani, individually; Gordon Yam, individually; Karen Klein, individually; Patty Klascius, individually; Marlene Scott, individually; Mike Creighton, individually; Bill Graf, individually, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35911

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted December 6, 2017 Seattle, Washington

Filed December 15, 2017

Blythe H. Chandler, Toby J. Marshall, Erika L. Nusser, Attorneys, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Matthew William Daley, Timothy Michael Lawlor, Esquire, Attorney, Melanie Marie Weigand, Attorney, Witherspoon Kelley, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee' Johnny Saldat.

Matthew William Daley, Timothy Michael Lawlor, Esquire, Attorney, Melanie Marie Weigand, Attorney, Witherspoon Kelley, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees Marilyn Cartwright, Payman Meh-rani

Vasudev N. Addanki, David Ross Green-berg, Esquire, Attorney, Joseph D. Hampton, Esquire, Betts, Patterson *&*Mines, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees *479Gordon Yam, Karen Klein, Patty Klascius, Marlene Scott, Mike Creighton, Bill Graf

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

John C. Stiegler and Dwight A. Holmes (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of their Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) claims. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86,020 *et seq.*We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, *Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell,*845 F.3d 984, 988 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing *Ariz. Students’ Ass’n v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents,*824 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2016)), we affirm.1

The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ CPA claims. Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts plausibly establishing “that the public has an interest” in this private dispute regarding internal corporate decision making. *Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.,*105 Wash.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531, 538 (1986). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims, which are “directed at the competence of and strategies employed by” Defendants, are beyond the CPA’s scope. *Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy,*165 Wash.2d 595, 200 P.3d 695, 699 (2009) (quoting *Ramos v. Arnold,*141 Wash.App. 11, 169 P.3d 482, 486 (2007)). Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to state a CPA claim.

AFFIRMED.

*

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

1

. Because our decision does not. rely on Wash. Rev. Code § 24.06.035, the Motion to Strike, Dkt. No. 39, is denied as moot.
Spectra Flying Wing and Variants 

Optimum Configuration - 48" Wingspan 

Payload optional based upon mission criterion 

Copyright RPFiightSystems, Inc. © 2008 

Dimensions -- Scalability 

A- Depth: 16" to 32" 

C- Height: 7" to 10" 

B- Wingspan: 24" to 80" 

A 

B 

I I 

1 

c 

v 

Hand La

S

48" T

• Construction: Com

Fiberglass 

• Propulsion: Electri

efficiency, lithium po

· Empty Weight: 1.9

• Payload: 2- 4 lbs 

· All Up Weight: 4 lb

• Launch Type: Han

• Retrieval/Landing: 

• Climb Rate: 7 40 fp

• Cruise: 34 mph 

· Max: 55 mph 

• Stall: 14 mph ( 4 lb 

· Dwell Time: 45 mi

· Turnaround time: 3 

· Typical Payload: S

high resolution digita
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brent F. WILLIAMS; Guy Andrew Williams, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 16-10375, 16-10423

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Dominic Lanza, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin Michael Rapp, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Peter Scott Sexton, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brent F. Williams, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

In these consolidated appeals, Brent F. Williams and Guy Andrew Williams appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motions under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1) seeking new trials on their criminal charges for conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, and transactional money laundering.

Appellants raise several claims premised on the assumption that the Department of Justice lacked authority to bring charges against them absent a pre-indictment enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Contrary to appellants’ contentions, neither the SEC “nor its staff has the authority or responsibility for instituting, conducting, settling, or otherwise disposing of criminal proceedings. That authority and responsibility are vested in the Attorney General and representatives of the Department of Justice.” 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(f). Therefore, the dis-, trict court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting appellants’ subject matter jurisdiction, *Brady,*and prosecutorial authority claims. *See United States v. Hinkson,*585 F.3d 1247, 1259 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Nor did the district court err by rejecting appellant’s remaining contentions that the prosecutors lacked authority. The United States Attorneys’ Manual, on which appellants rely, “is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal.” *United States v. Lorenzo,*995 F.2d 1448, 1453 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations omitted). And, in any event, appellants have not shown that the prosecution of their criminal charges was contrary to any protocols.

We do not consider appellants’ remaining arguments, which they failed to raise in their direct appeals and were not a basis for their motions for new trials. *See United States v. Antonakeas,*255 F.3d 714, 721 (9th Cir. 2001) (declining to consider issue raised for the first time on appeal); *United*
      *291
      *States v. Nagra,*147 F.3d 875, 882 (9th Cir. 1998) (declining to consider claims that have could.have been raised in an earlier appeal but were not).

The motion for immediate release pending appeal is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Antonio MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40326 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District *of*Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Juan Antonio Martinez-Hernandez, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Antonio Martinez-Hernandez 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). Martinez-Hernandez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 142

Authorizing the use of the Capitol rotunda for the Senate Thanksgiving

Celebration.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 3, 1997

Mr. CHRISTENSEN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on House Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol rotunda for the Senate

Thanksgiving Celebration.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the rotunda of the Capitol is authorized

3 to be used from 11 a.m. until noon on November 13, 1997,

4 for the Senate Thanksgiving Celebration. Physical prep5 arations for the ceremony shall be carried out in accord6 ance with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol

7 may prescribe.

Æ
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00003-CV

Kit Fankhauser, Appellant

v.

Gateway McKenzie, LLC d/b/a The Kenzie at The Domain, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-15-009345, HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on March 4, 2016.

On March 28, we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been filed due to his failure to pay or

make arrangements to pay the district clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice

requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report

regarding this appeal by April 7. Further, the notice advised appellant that his failure to comply with

this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant

has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to this Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record

has not been filed.

If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to

pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court

may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without
payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established that he is

entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (providing procedure for

establishing indigence on appeal). Because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to

pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: May 13, 2016

2
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August      19, 2009 |   | By:  /s/ David Bruce      Hong |
|---------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   | David      Bruce Hong                    |
|                                  |   | Chief      Financial Officer             |

----
EXHIBIT 32  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Biofield Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Antonoplos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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.   Date:  May 15, 2008 By: /s/ Michael J. Antonoplos Michael J. Antonoplos Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

July 12, 2024

SC-2024-0267

Ex parte M.D.J. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: M.D.J. v. State of Alabama) 

(Jefferson Circuit Court: CC-20-2129; Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-0375).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on July 12, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Parker, C.J. -- Wise, Sellers, Stewart, 

and Cook, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
[No. H016362.

Sixth Dist.

Feb. 3, 1998.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN GAYLORD STUBBS, Defendant and Appellant.

*244Counsel

Robert W. Lyons for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Joan Killeen and Ann K. Jensen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion

WUNDERLICH. J.—

*Statement of the Case*

Defendant appeals from a judgment after he pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale, receiving stolen property, and tampering with a vehicle identification number and admitted various firearm enhancement allegations and a prior-prison-term enhancement allegation. He contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that *prior*to the plea, defense counsel failed to advise him that he could challenge a search by police and seek the disclosure of a confidential informant. He also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the plea based on counsel’s ineffective assistance.1

*Discussion*

We do not reach these claims. In effect, they challenge the propriety of defendant’s guilty plea. As such, defendant was required to obtain a *245certificate of probable cause from the trial court in order to raise the issue on appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 31(d); see *People*v. *Panizzon*(1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 75 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 851, 913 P.2d 1061]; cf. *People*v. *Ribero*(1971) 4 Cal.3d 55, 63 [92 Cal.Rptr. 692, 480 P.2d 308]; *People*v. *Manriquez*(1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1170 [22 Cal.Rptr.2d 779]; *People*v. *Cotton*(1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1079 [284 Cal.Rptr. 757]; *People*v. *Osorio*(1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 183, 187 [239 Cal.Rptr. 333].) This he failed to do.

In the absence of a certificate, defendant’s appeal is inoperative. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 31(d).) Although some courts have maneuvered around a defendant’s failure to obtain a certificate and reached the merits by treating the appeal as a writ for habeas corpus (see, e.g., *People*v. *Ellis*(1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 334 [240 Cal.Rptr. 708]), our Supreme Court frowns on this practice because it frustrates the purpose of Penal Code section 1237.5, which is to weed out frivolous appeals by subjecting issues to screening at the superior court level. *(People*v. *Panizzon, supra,*13 Cal.4th at p. 89, fn. 15.) The better procedural response to noncompliance with the certificate requirement is to dismiss the appeal. (See *People*v. *Castelan*(1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1187 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 574].)

*Disposition*

The appeal is dismissed.

Premo, Acting P. J., and Elia, J., concurred.

1

In his opening brief, defendant notes that the court denied a motion to continue sentencing so that he could obtain new counsel. However, defendant does not claim on appeal that the court erred in denying the continuance.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 17380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06474]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 11692 ]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``C[eacute]zanne'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``C[eacute]zanne'' at the Art 
Institute of Chicago, in Chicago, Illinois, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural 
significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display 
within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. 
I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published 
in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#46352325322f29287472737f06353227322368212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bac9dfd9ced3d5d4888e8f83fac9cedbcedf94ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.

Stacy E. White,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-06474 Filed 3-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### Request for Information Ja mes Welsh (FAA-2015-1663) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Welsh:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is miss ing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 1663). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your p etition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed

- wing, rotorcraft, lighter

- than

- air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should incl ude the maximum weight (i ncluding payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional informat ion (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, pl ease also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations .gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information de scribed above by November 30, 2015. If we do not receive the in formation, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999 .

FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 10:38 AM To: JAMES.WELSH@CBMOVES.COM