alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November 12th 2015

US DRONE AVIATION LLC 

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Docket Management System,

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Petition to Amend Exemption 11855; Docket No. FAA-2015-1163

Dear Sir or Madam: 

US Drone Aviation LLC hereby petitions for an amendment to Exemption No. 11855 issued to

US Drone Aviation LLC on June 18, 2015 to permit unmanned aircraft system ("UAS") 

operations for a variety of services. US Drone Aviation respectfully requests that the FAA amend 

Exemption No. 11855 to include an additional airframe for operations pertaining to oil and gas 

emission monitoring with the use of a proprietary sensor. This request is solely to add an 

additional airframe, all existing conditions of the Exemption 11855 will be adhered to by US 

Drone Aviation LLC in all operations of sUAS’s.

The requested amendment to Exemption No. 11855 would add the “Yuneec Tornado H920”

airframe from Yuneec Electric Aviation a major manufacturer of sUAS. The Tornado H920 

airframe is a hexacopter with a total weight of under 13lbs, and payload of approximately 5lbs. 

The Tornado H920 has an exemplary safety record of operations and is within the parameters of 

the sUAS operations as currently approved by the FAA for Section 333 exemptions. The Tornado

H920 airframe will be integrated into US Drone Aviation’s flightline, providing services to the oil 

and gas industry for Greenhouse Gas emissions monitoring and other operations as permitted 

under our existing Section 333 exemption.

Attached by separate document are specifications and background information on the Yuneec 

Tornado H920 airframe which we respectfully request be retained as private and confidential 

proprietary information not for the public docket. 

We respectively request an amendment to exemption No 11855 to enable US Drone Aviation to 

operate efficient, limited, low-risk commercial sUAS operations for the activities stated,

respecting at all times the space and privacy of citizens and property while keeping airspace safe. 

Sincerely

Stephen Elms 

US Drone Aviation LLC

P.O. Box 7998,

Jackson, WY 83002

(307) 264-2959

steve@USDroneAviation.com
To : Cc: Bcc: Subject:

From: "Thompson, John E (OES)" <ThompsonJE2@state.gov> To: Cindy Newberg/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Ross Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 04/08/2010 12:57 PM Subject: FW: For EO 12866 Review: EPA's Final 2010 Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide Phaseout 

### I’m assuming one or both of you can tell me if there is anything I care about in this. Any deviations from past practice or pretty much same old stuff. I’m planning to clear with no comment (unless Jeff K spots something) but let me know if there are particular policy issues to address. From: King, Heidi R. [mailto:Heidi

_ R.

_ King@omb.eop.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:45 AM To: Thompson , John E (OES); Dhol.Herzi@ARS.USDA.GOV; Smith, Russell; Poster, Dianne L. Cc: Lee, Amanda I.; Mancini, Dominic J. Subject: For EO 12866 Review: EPA's Final 2010 Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide Phaseout 

### Good morning, Attached for your review under EO 12866 is EPA’s draft final Critical Use Exemption from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide. Please provide comments one week from today: COB Friday, 4/15. Thanks very much, Heidi
X 54551
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 843 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify when the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority 

to prohibit the specification of a defined area, or deny or restrict the 

use of a defined area for specification, as a disposal site under section 

404 of such Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2019 

Mr. GIBBS (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, and Mr. ROUZER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify 

when the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency has the authority to prohibit the specification 

of a defined area, or deny or restrict the use of a 

defined area for specification, as a disposal site under 

section 404 of such Act, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reforming EPA Per5 mitting Authority Act’’ or the ‘‘Reform EPA Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 843 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 404(c) of the Federal 

3 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)) is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘(c)’’ and inserting ‘‘(c)(1)’’; 

6 (2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by in7 serting ‘‘during the period described in paragraph 

8 (2) and’’ before ‘‘after notice and opportunity for 

9 public hearings’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(2)(A) The period during which the Adminis12 trator may prohibit the specification (including the 

13 withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as 

14 a disposal site, or deny or restrict the use of any de15 fined area for specification (including the withdrawal 

16 of specification) as a disposal site, under paragraph 

17 (1) shall— 

18 ‘‘(i) begin on the date that the Secretary 

19 provides notice to the Administrator that the 

20 Secretary has completed all procedures for 

21 processing an application for a permit under 

22 this section relating to the specification and is 

23 ready to determine, in accordance with the 

24 record and applicable regulations, whether the 

25 permit should be issued; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 843 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) end on the date that the Secretary 

2 issues the permit. 

3 ‘‘(B) The Secretary shall ensure that the period 

4 described in subparagraph (A) consists of not fewer 

5 than 30 consecutive days. 

6 ‘‘(C) The Secretary may issue a permit under 

7 this section only after the Secretary provides notice 

8 to the Administrator in accordance with this para9 graph.’’. 

10 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub11 section (a) shall apply to a permit application submitted 

12 under section 404(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Con13 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(a)) after the date of enactment 

14 of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
##### 



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 the Quarterly Report of UST Liquidating Corporation. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Barry S. Rosenstein, Co-Chairman of Board of Directors of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
the Company. /s/ Barry S. Rosenstein  Barry S. Rosenstein
Co-Chairman of Board of Directors
November 15, 2004
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 Quarterly Report of Mayors Jewelers, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended June 25, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas A. Andruskevich, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 9, 2005



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas A. Andruskevich                                  
|Thomas A. Andruskevich                                      
|Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 8, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50770 Summary Calendar

JOHN T. JOSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; JIMMY R. MORGAN; NIX, Trooper; KELLI WILLIAMS, Deputy; MILAM COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-03-CV-39

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pretrial detainee John T. Josey appeals the dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The district court determined that Josey’s allegations were barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Josey argues that no probable cause existed for his arrest for driving while intoxicated and that the exclusionary rule wasNo. 03-50770 -2- violated when he was not read his rights under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Josey does not argue that the Heck bar does not apply. Consequently, Josey has waived that argument. See Cinel v. Connick , 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994). Josey asserts that he was only required to give fair notice of his claims in his complaint, but he also concedes that the district court was required to screen his suit. To the extent that Josey argues that he was entitled to notice before the dismissal of his claims, his argument fails. See Graves v. Hampton , 1 F.3d 315, 318 n.12 (5th Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds , Arvie v. Broussard , 42 F.3d 249, 250 (5th Cir. 1994). Josey also argues that he was denied his right to a speedy trial. The district court implicitly denied Josey the opportunity to amend his action by not expressly addressing and resolving this issue that Josey raised for the first time in his objections. However, by raising his speedy-trial argument, Josey is contesting his continued confinement. Because Josey’s continued confinement has not been remedied by any of the procedures listed in Heck , his speedy-trial claim also is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Heck , 512 U.S. at 486-87. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow such an amendment. See United States v. Riascos , 76 F.3d 93, 94 (5th Cir. 1996)

.No. 03-50770 -3- The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Josey’s motion to strike from the record any “rulings, judgments, and[/]or orders” entered by the district court after his notice of appeal was filed and motion entitled “Violation of 5th Cir. R. 46.3 by attorney Carlos D. Lopez” are DENIED.
**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 Quarterly Report of Telestone Technologies Corporation
        (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
        Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Liu Dongping,
        Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 result of operations of the Company.
  Dated:  May
        15,
        2008
  By:
              /s/
                  Liu DongpingName:
              Liu
                  DongpingTitle:
              Chief
                  Financial Officer (Principal Financial
                  Officer)
No. 11-10348.

#### Schmotzer *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 10th Dist. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Cabinet Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify to my
knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2009 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ Glenn Geller
                                 President and Director
Date: November 13, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua Reed LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30225

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

*897Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE — Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula), Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Joshua Reed Lewis appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), *see United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

Lewis contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court correctly concluded that Lewis is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence is already below the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. *See*U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”). Contrary to Lewis’s contention, the application of section lB1.10(b)(2)(A) to his case does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. *See United States v. Waters,*771 F.3d 679, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2014); *see also United States v. Ornelas,*825 F.3d 548, 555 n.9 (9th Cir. 2016) (relying on *Waters*to reject Ex Post Facto claim). Lewis’s remaining constitutional and statutory challenges to section lB1.10(b)(2) are foreclosed. *See United States v. Padilla-Diaz,*862 F.3d 856, 860-63 (9th Cir. 2017) (section lB1.10(b)(2) does not violate a defendant’s right to equal protection or due process, or imper-missibly conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 991(b)); *United States v. Davis,*739 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 2014) (section lB1.10(b)(2) does not violate separation of powers).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5624]

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

BLACKSTONE RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR COMMISSION

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor; Notice of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 552b of Title 5, 
United States Code, that a meeting of the Blackstone River Valley 
National Heritage Corridor Commission will be held on Thursday, March 
27, 1997.
    The Commission was established pursuant to Public Law 99-647. The 
purpose of the Commission is to assist federal, state and local 
authorities in the development and implementation of an integrated 
resource management plan for those lands and waters within the 
Corridor.
    The meeting will convene at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of Valley 
Resource, Inc., 1595 Mendon Road, Cumberland, RI for the following 
reasons:

1. Update on Cumberland Projects
2. Welcome Workshops; The Plan
3. Commission Business

    It is anticipated that about twenty people will be able to attend 
the session in addition to the Commission members.
    Interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the 
Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made 
prior to the meeting to: Susan K. Moore, Executive Director, Blackstone 
River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, One Depot Square, 
Woonsocket, RI 02895, Tel.: (401) 762-0250.
    Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from 
Susan K. Moore, Executive Director of the Commission at the 
aforementioned address.
Susan K. Moore,
Executive Director, BRVNHCC.
[FR Doc. 97-5624 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
```
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00064-CV

JUSTIN STUFFELBEAM AND BRYANNE STUFFELBEAM,

Appellants

v.

H. BOND CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Appellee

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 07-00546-CV-361-A

ORDER

This appeal was referred to mediation on April 4, 2013. Because the parties 

could not agree upon a mediator, we assigned the Honorable Wanda Fowler as the 

mediator for this proceeding. The Order referring the appeal to mediation, dated April 

4, 2013, required mediation to occur within 30 days from our assignment of a mediator. 

The mediator has requested an extension of time to August 15, 2013 to complete the 

mediation citing several extenuating circumstances.
Stuffelbeam v. H. Bond Construction, Inc. Page 2

The mediator’s request is granted. The Order referring the appeal to mediation, 

dated April 4, 2013, is amended to require mediation by August 21, 2013. All other 

provisions of the Order referring the appeal to mediation, dated April 4, 2013, remain in 

effect.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Time to mediate extended

Order issued and filed June 27, 2013
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Primary Servicing Agreement dated as of October  1, 2013, by and among  Wells Fargo Bank, NA as Master Servicer, and Berkeley Point Capital LLC, as Primary Servicer, with respect to COMM 2014-CCRE20 Mortgage Trust Commercial  Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (the "Agreement").  Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

 

Pursuant to Section 3.01 of this Agreement, I, hereby certify that: 

 

1.        A review of the activities and performance of the Primary Servicer under the Agreement  from October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”)  has been made under my supervision; and

 

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based upon such review, the Primary Servicer has fulfilled all of  its material obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 9th day of March 2015.

 

 

 

/s/ Ellen D. Miller 

Ellen D. Miller

Managing Director

Head of Servicing

Berkeley Point Capital LLC
#### COM. v. JONES, O.

558 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/27/2017

CP-51-CR-0009935-2008 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
No. 11-9879.

#### Brooks *v.*Whirlpool Corp. et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2021412EN.01002101.xml

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/21

---

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Foz v Council

(Case T-481/21)

(2021/C 412/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samer Foz (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision 2021/855 (CFSP) of the Council of the EU of 27 May 2021 amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision 2021/855 (CFSP) of the Council of the EU of 27 May 2021 amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

| — | annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of the Council of the EU of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of the Council of the EU of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and

| — | order the Council to pay full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay full costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law. The applicant alleges that the Council made a manifest error in assessing the facts by considering that the applicant is supporting the Syrian regime and benefiting from it and by considering that the applicant is a leading businessperson operating in Syria.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 of 27 May 2021 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 90).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 of 27 May 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2021 L 188, p. 18).

---