alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
My name is: Fernando and Tracy Sustaita

School: Petal School District in Petal, Mississippi

Address: 106 Northvillage Lane, Petal, MS 39465 (home)

1145 Highway 42 East, Petal, MS 39465 (school)

We are looking to secure FAA approval for the drone to be flown over activities and events 

within the petal school district without requiring an FAA license.

I, Tracy Sustaita, teach Digital Media Technology (DMT) at Petal High School in Petal, MS. My 

DMT 2 students (usually one each year) are trained on how to fly a drone and given several 

hours of flight time before they fly it around people. We have a policies and procedures 

document in place for flying.

We use the drone only for taking pictures and video of our school’s activities. Our drone is set 

at a 150 foot height, so that it cannot go above that height. We also will not fly the drone 

during bad weather, windy conditions, cloudy conditions, or any other condition that would put 

the drone, its operators, or spectators in any danger. 

The drone has “home” parameter on it, so that if it loses signal or something happens to it, it 

will come back to a calibrated location (which we set before we fly it each time).

The drone was bought with a donation from local business because they see that it is an up and 

coming area that digital media is going to. We have flown it for a year and a half without 

incident and our insurance company recently said that it wasn’t specifically covered in case of 

accident, so without the FAA 333 approval, the company will not grant us insurance to cover 

the drone. Therefore, we cannot fly it without this approval...the public service we provide is 

allowing our students to learn the latest digital media and our community to see really cool 

shots of our school and students in activities.

The drone will be used for events and activities involving the Petal School District. So far, we 

have been in operation at football games and other outdoor athletic events. The battery only 

lasts in the drone for 25 minutes and we usually only fly for 15 minutes at a time for that 

reason.

The drone is a DJI Phantom Professional, Serial number P76DC106010779, 

FCC ID SS3-WM3231503

You can contact me at:

Tracy Sustaita, Petal High School, 601-584-4708 or 601-325-8824

Email: tracy.sustaita@petalschools.com or tmrogers0531@yahoo.com
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 51 (Monday, March 17, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6644]



[[Page 12544]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 296


National Reconnaissance Office Freedom of Information Act Program 
Regulation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule administratively amends 32 CFR part 296 
concerning National Reconnaissance Office Freedom of Information Act 
Program Regulation to reflect organizational changes made within the 
National Reconnaissance Office.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara E. Freiman, 703-808-5029.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 296

    Freedom of information.

    Accordingly, 32 CFR part 296 is amended as follows:

PART 296--NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 
PROGRAM REGULATION

    1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 296 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552.

    2. Section 296.2 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 296.2  Definitions.

    (a) Freedom of Information Act Appellate Authority. The Chief of 
Staff, NRO.
    (b) Initial Denial Authority. The Chief, Information Access and 
Release Center, NRO.


Sec. 296.4  [Amended]

    3. Section 296.4(a), first sentence, is amended by revising 
``Director, External Relations, National Reconnaissance Office, 1040 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1040'' to read ``Chief, 
Information Access and Release Center, National Reconnaissance Office, 
14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715''.


Sec. 296.5  [Amended]

    4. Section 296.5 is amended by revising ``Freedom of Information 
Act Appellate Authority, National Reconnaissance Office, 1040 Defense 
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1040'' to red Chief, Information Access 
and Release Center, National Reconnaissance Office, 14675 Lee Road, 
Chantilly, VA 20151-1715''.

    Dated: March 12, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-6644 Filed 3-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
H. Res. 1164 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 1, 2020. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1153) condemning 

unwanted, unnecessary medical procedures on individuals 

without their full, informed consent. The amendment to the 

resolution printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 

accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 

The resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except 

one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order without intervention of any point of order to consider 

in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1154) condemning 

QAnon and rejecting the conspiracy theories it promotes. The 
2 

•HRES 1164 EH 

resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question 

shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble 

to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided 

and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 

the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Richard K. Simon, Esq. 1700 Decker School Lane Malibu, CA 90265 (310) 503-7286 rsimon3@verizon.net By HandDelivery Office ofthe ChiefCounsel 

## RECEIVED JAN 6 2016

PART 16 DOCKETS

Attention: FAA Part 16Airport Proceedings Docket AGC-610 FederalAviation Administration 800 IndependenceAve. S.W. Washington, DC 20591
Re: DocketNos. 16-14-04/FAA-2014-0592 january6, 2016



### National Business Aviation Association, KruegerAviation, Inc. Harrison Ford,justiceAviation, Kim DavidsonAviation,Inc.,AeroFilm, YouriBujko, james Ross, Wonderful Citrus, LLC and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Associationv. City of SantaMonica, California Replyto CityofSantaMonica's Requestfor Hearing Complainants have received the City of Santa Monica's ("City") Request for Hearing dated December 23, 2015

- which asks for a discretionary hearing to review the Director's Determination in the above-captioned proceeding. To the extentnecessary, Complainants seekleaveto file this briefreplyto thatrequest. Complainants do not believe the City has presented grounds for the exercise of the Federal Aviation Administration's ("FAA") discretion in this matter. The Director's Determination dated December 4, 2015 is thorough, logical in its analysis, and based on materials which were known (or which should have been known) to the City. Likewise, the purported legal and factual issues which are cited in the City's request all were (or could have been) raised in the City's previous pleadings, and nonetheless already have been substantially considered, and do not now provide a justification for a hearing. Nor was the Director's Determination in any way exceptional or atypical, as the City suggests; e.g., as the FAA is well aware, the agency has the power to conduct its own investigation of a complaint and to supplementthe record as necessary, as the FAA did in this case. In sum, a hearing underthese circumstances would serve no purposes other than to create delay, and to impose additional expenses and substantial and unnecessary burdens on Complainants. Accordingly, the City's request should be denied.Richard K. Simon, Esq., 1700 Decker School Lane Malibu, CA 90265 310-503-7286

CC (by electronic mail andfirst class mail):
Rick Cole, City Manager, City of Santa Monica, 1685 Main Street, Room 209, Santa Monica, CA 90401, manager(msmgov.net
Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney, joseph Lawrence, Lance Gams, and Ivan Campbell, City of Santa Monica, 1685 Main Street, Room 310, Santa Monica, CA 90401, marsha.moutrie@smgov.net, joseph.lawrence@smgov.net, Jance.gams@smgov.net, ivan.campbell@smgov.net
Stelios Makrides, Airport Manager, City of Santa Monica, Airport Administration Building, 3223 Donald Douglas Loop South, Santa Monica, CA 90405, stelios.makrides@smgov.net Martin Pastucha, Director ofPublic Works, City of Santa Monica, 1685 Main Street, Room 116, Santa Monica, CA 90401, martin.pastucha@smgov.net
G. Brian Busey and Zane Gresham, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, gbusey@mofo.com, zgresham@mofo.com
No. 11-10895.

#### Newton *v.*Oklahoma.

Ct. Crim. App. Okla. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Provident Bankshares Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Dennis A. Starliper, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by
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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Dennis A. StarliperDennis A. Starliper Chief Financial
Officer


August 9, 2006
# C_2023112EN.01002601.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/26

---

Appeal brought on 27 December 2022 by Eulex Kosovo against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 October 2022 in Case T-242/17 RENV, SC v Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-785/22 P)

(2023/C 112/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Eulex Kosovo (represented by: L.-G. Wigemark, Agent, and E. Raoult, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: SC

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;

| — | dismiss the claim in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the claim in its entirety;

| — | order SC to pay the costs of the proceedings in cases T-242/17, C-730/18, T-242/17 RENV and those related to the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order SC to pay the costs of the proceedings in cases T-242/17, C-730/18, T-242/17 RENV and those related to the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on several sets of observations on the judgment under appeal:

| — | observations on the General Court's submissions on the admissibility of SC’s claim; |
| --- | --- |

—

observations on the General Court's submissions on the admissibility of SC’s claim;

| — | observations on the General Court's findings in the judgment by default concerning the jurisdiction of the General Court and on the admissibility of SC’s application; |
| --- | --- |

—

observations on the General Court's findings in the judgment by default concerning the jurisdiction of the General Court and on the admissibility of SC’s application;

| — | objections to the General Court's assessment of the merits of the claim; and |
| --- | --- |

—

objections to the General Court's assessment of the merits of the claim; and

| — | observations on the General Court’s findings regarding SC’s claims for compensation. |
| --- | --- |

—

observations on the General Court’s findings regarding SC’s claims for compensation.

---
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XVII  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof  (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XVII, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XVII,  Inc., each 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 results of operations of the Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XVII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 8, 2007



                          /s/ Patrick W Keen
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XVII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 8, 2007
No. 11-11041.

#### Valencia *v.*Hedgpeth, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### NICKETA WRIGHT *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 34251)

Lavine, Robinson and Schaller, Js.

Argued September 19

officially released October 8, 2013

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1998
<CASH>                                           1,452
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,343
<PP&E>                                          94,748
<DEPRECIATION>                                  59,523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 117,628
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,839
<BONDS>                                         23,765
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,328
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,289
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   117,628
<SALES>                                        172,360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,360
<CGS>                                          135,342
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  160,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   705
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,890
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,493
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,397
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,397
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.25
        



</TABLE>
EAVS Jurisdictions: 2022 EAVS Data Brief: Alaska 1 

 Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

601,795 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

1,028,887 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

78,183 

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

46,703 

Source of Registration Applications5 



Other 74.4% 

Online 7.9% 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 7.8% 

In Person 6.9% 

Mail, Email, Fax 3.0% 

Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

50.0% In-Person 

Election Day 

167,829 

62.8% 

Mail 

38,889 

14.6% 

In-Person 

Early 

47,298 

17.7% 

Other 

13,031 

4.9% 

Total Voting Locations8: 555 

Total Poll Workers9: 2,447 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

100.0% 

Ballot 

Marking 

Devices 

100.0% 

DREs with 

VVPAT 

100.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

100.0% 

Scanners 

0.0% 

DREs w/o

VVPAT 

0.0% 

 Electronic 

Poll 

Books 

 Mail Ballots 

• 50,824 mail ballots transmitted11 

• 81.6% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters12 

• 98.6% of returned mail ballots counted13 

• 1.4% of returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Did not conduct all-mail election15 

• Allowed drop boxes16 

• Did not allow ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit -- Legal audit 

Logic and accuracy 

testing -- Ballot design audit ✔

Ballot reconciliation 

audit 

Post-election 

tabulation audit ✔ ✔

Compliance/ 

procedural audit -- -- Other 

-- Eligibility audit 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov 

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available,” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a of EAVS divided by citizen 

voting age population (CVAP). 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
Submitted March 3,

reversed and remanded July 26, 2017

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANN*MARIE HOWARD, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Wasco County Circuit Court

1400261CR; A160420

399 P3d 483

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sarah De La Cruz, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Duncan, Judge pro tempore.

*119PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting her of unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence that an officer obtained after stopping defendant for a traffic violation. Defendant contends that the officer unlawfully extended the traffic stop by asking her to step out of her car and then questioning her about drugs without reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was committing a drug crime. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the officer testified that, after he stopped defendant for the traffic violation, he observed defendant “talking nonstop” and “shaking really bad[,]” which is “very common in people that are under the influence of methamphetamine—or a stimulant!.]” The officer also recognized defendant’s passenger as a known drug user. The officer did not testify that he had reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants, but he did testify that he had reasonable suspicion to believe “that there were drugs in the car[.]”

The state concedes that the officer’s testimony “was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion that defendant possessed controlled substances at the time of the stop.” We agree with defendant’s argument and accept the state’s concession. *See State v. Miller,*267 Or App 382, 398, 340 P3d 740 (2014) (holding that evidence that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance and accompanied by a person who an officer knew from a prior drug investigation and who had been recently arrested on a drug charge was insufficient to support reasonable suspicion that the defendant was in possession of controlled substances).

Reversed and remanded.
# C_2022340EN.01002101.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 June 2022 — Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance v Bricolage Investissement France SA

(Case C-408/22)

(2022/C 340/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de la Relance

Respondent: Bricolage Investissement France SA

Question referred

Does Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude legislation of a Member State relating to a tax integration scheme under which a tax-integrated parent company benefits from the neutralisation of the proportion of costs and expenses added back in respect of dividends received by it from resident companies which are parties to the integration and, for the purpose of taking account of the judgment of 2 September 2015, Groupe Steria SCA (C-386/14), in respect of dividends received from subsidiaries established in another Member State which, had they been resident, would objectively have been eligible, if they so elected, for the tax integration scheme but which refuses the benefit of that neutralisation to a resident parent company which, despite the existence of capital links with other resident entities allowing for the constitution of a tax-integrated group, has not opted to belong to such a group, both in respect of the dividends distributed to it by its resident subsidiaries and in respect of those from subsidiaries established in other Member States which meet the eligibility criteria other than residence?

---