alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Aviation Hall of Fame nominations accepted through September 30

/ Published July 30, 2021
RICHMOND, Va., 
Nominations for the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s annual Hall of Fame for 2021 are open through Aug. 31. The Aviation Hall of Fame honors former employees who have made significant and enduring contributions to DLA Aviation or Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia.

To be eligible, nominees must have been separated from DLA or the DLA Aviation community for at least one year from the date of their reassignment, retirement, discharge or death.

The DLA Aviation community is comprised of both military and civilian government employees from all DLA Aviation locations, or any DLA activity located on the Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia.

Former employees are defined as government civilians and military (active duty and reserve components). Nominees should not be in a position to return to employment with DLA.

Nominees must meet at least one of the following criteria:

Accomplished an enduring achievement that has life-long specific benefits to the center and Defense Logistics Agency.

Made a specific or continuous accomplishment positively affecting a large segment of DLA Aviation’s employees, customers and/or vendors.

Made a long-term contribution that has a lasting and positive impact on DLA Aviation’s mission and/or business practices.

More details on the nomination criteria can be found in the Aviation Hall of Fame guidelines.

Any current or former employee can complete their nomination online or email their completed nomination to the DLA Aviation Awards Coordinator Yolanda Adams-Hall at yolanda.adams-hall@dla.mil. For more information, call Adams-Hall at (804) 279-3664.
#### State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent, v Austin Diagnostic Medical, P.C., Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 98]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay certain no-fault insurance benefits, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.), entered February 29, 2016, which denied its motion to extend its time to answer, or in the alternative, to compel the plaintiff to accept the untimely answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff insurance company commenced this action against the defendant, seeking a judgment declaring that it was not obligated to pay certain no-fault insurance benefits because the defendant failed to appear for examinations under oath. The defendant filed an answer approximately 3V2 months after the statutory time to file an answer had expired. The plaintiff rejected the answer as untimely, and the defendant *577moved to extend its time to answer, or in the alternative, to compel the plaintiff to accept the untimely answer. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals.

To compel the plaintiff to accept an untimely answer as timely or to extend the time for a defendant to answer, a defendant must provide a reasonable excuse for the delay and demonstrate a potentially meritorious defense to the action *(see Ryan v Breezy Point Coop., Inc.,*76 AD3d 523, 524 [2010]; *Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*15 AD3d 353 [2005]). Here, the defendant submitted an answer which was verified only by its attorney and an affirmation from its attorney who did not have personal knowledge of the facts. These documents were insufficient to demonstrate that the defendant had a potentially meritorious defense to the action *(see Salch v Paratore,*60 NY2d 851 [1983]; *Ryan v Breezy Point Coop., Inc.,*76 AD3d at 524; *Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*15 AD3d 353 [2005]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion.

Dillon, J.P., Austin, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**
I, Gregory W. Scott, certify that:
1.     I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of PacifiCare HealthSystems, Inc.;
2.     Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;
3.     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;
4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
          a)     designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;
          b)     evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based on such evaluation; and
          c)     disclosed in thisannual report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal year that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
          a)     all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial datainformation; and
          b)     any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 4, 2004
 By: /s/ GREGORY W. SCOTT      Gregory W. Scott     *Executive Vice President and* *Chief Financial Officer* (Principal Financial Officer)
Certificate of Trust of BNY Capital X



 Exhibit 4.17 
 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 BNY CAPITAL X 
 This Certificate of Trust of BNY Capital X (the
“Trust”), is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, 12 Del. C. §§ 3801 et seq. (the “Act”). 
 1. Name. The name of the statutory trust formed hereby is BNY Capital X. 
 2. Delaware Trustee. The name and the business address of the trustee of the Trust having its principal place of business in the State of
Delaware is Chase Bank USA, National Association, 500 Stanton Christiana Rd, 3/OPS 4, Newark, Delaware 19713, Attention: Worldwide Securities Services. 
 3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon its filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned being the trustees of the Trust, have duly executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act. 
 CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL 
 ASSOCIATION, not in its individual capacity, but 
 solely as Delaware Trustee 
  

					
	 By:
	  	/s/ Diane P. Ledger        	  	
	 Name:
	  	 Diane P. Ledger
	  	
	 Title:
	  	 Assistant Vice President
	  	
	
	/s/ Thomas J. Mastro
	Thomas J. Mastro, as Regular Trustee
	
	/s/ John A. Park
	John A. Park, III, as Regular Trustee
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15103]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-227-000]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Cost Recovery Filing

June 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 29, 1998, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets with the proposed 
effective date of July 1, 1998.

Tariff Sheets

Thirty-Ninth Revised Sheet No. 14
Twenty-Fourth Revised Sheet No. 14a
Sixtieth Revised Sheet No. 15
Thirtieth Revised Sheet No. 15a
Thirty-Ninth Revised Sheet No. 16
Twenty-Fourth Revised Sheet No. 16a
Sixtieth Revised Sheet No. 17
Thirtieth Revised Sheet No. 17a

    Southern sets forth in the filing its revised demand surcharges for 
the recovery of Order No. 636 transition costs associated with Southern 
LNG Inc. from the period February 1, 1998 through April 30, 1998. These 
costs have arisen as a direct result of restructuring under Order No. 
636. Copies of the filing were served upon Southern's customers and 
interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15103 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
INSPIRE 1

V1.2

2015.3

User Manual

Link:

http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.4_en.pdf

© 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved.

Using this manual

Legends

Warning Important Hints and Tips Reference

Before Flight

The following tutorials and manuals have been produced to ensure you to make full use of your Inspire 1.

1.Disclaimer

2.In the Box

3.Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide

4.Safety Guidelines

5.Inspire 1 User Manual

6.Intelligent Flight Battery Safety Guidelines
Watching all the tutorial videos and reading the Disclaimer before flight is recommended. Afterwards,

prepare for your first flight by using the Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide. Refer to this manual for more

comprehensive information.

Watch the video tutorials

Please watch the tutorial video below to learn how to use Inspire 1 correctly and safely:

www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/video

Download the DJI Pilot app

Download and install the DJI Pilot app before use. Scan the QR code or visit

“http://m.dji.net/djipilot” to download the app.

For the best experience, use mobile device with Andriod V 4.1.2 or above. Requires iOS 8.0 or later.

© 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved.

Contents

Using this manual

Legends 2

Before Flight 2

Watch the video tutorials 2

Download the DJI Pilot app 2

Product Profile

Introduction 6

Feature Highlights 6

Assemble the Aircraft 7

Aircraft Diagram 9

Remote Controller Diagram 9

Aircraft

Flight Controller 12

Flight Mode 12

Flight Status Indicator 12

Return to Home (RTH) 13

Dynamic Home Point 15

Vision Positioning System 16

Flight Recorder 17

Attaching and Detaching the Propellers 17

DJI Intelligent Flight Battery 18

Remote Controllers

Remote Controller Profile 24

Remote Controller Operations 24

Dual Remote Controllers Mode 29

Remote Controller Status LED 31

Linking the Remote Controller 32

Remote Controller Compliance Version 33

Gimbal and Camera

Camera Profile 35

Gimbal 36

© 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved.

DJI Pilot App

Camera 40

Map 43

Academy 43

User Center 43

Flight

Flight Environment Requirements 45

Flight Limits and Flight Restriction Area 45

Preflight Checklist 49

Calibrating the Compass 49

Auto Take-off and Auto Landing 50

Starting/Stopping the Motors 51

Flight Test 51

FAQ

Appendix

Specifications 57

Intelligent Orientation Control (IOC) 60

How to Update Firmware 61

FCC Compliance 62
No. 10-165.

#### Brian Scott Culver, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 896, 131 S. Ct. 336,

178 L. Ed. 2d 147,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6273.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 598 F.3d 740.
No. 10-69.

#### Selrahc Limited Partnership, et al., Petitioners v. Seeco, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 892, 131 S. Ct. 280,

178 L. Ed. 2d 140,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6297.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arkansas denied.

Same case below, 2009 Ark. App. 865, 374 S.W.3d 33.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/19

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|Price of Noonan-Estevan, ND Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Price of Noonan-Estevan, ND Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | 6.84  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Colette Rhymer, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Defendants, and Kaplan, Breslaw & Ash, Inc., Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 814]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about October 25, 2002, which granted the motion of the corporate defendant and the cross motion of the Transit Authority defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After several adjournments at plaintiff’s behest, plaintiff missed the motion court’s final deadline of September 13, 2002 for submitting opposition papers. Those papers were ultimately submitted 31⁄2 weeks later, on October 7. At the hearing on return of the motions, on October 10, counsel advised the court, for the first time, that the delay had been due to his client undergoing eye surgery. At that point, the excuse was untimely.

What counsel failed to apprise the court was that on September 13, the deadline for submission of opposition papers, plaintiff had obtained from another justice an additional three weeks to file these papers. Plaintiff now argues that the adjournment granted by that other order became law of the case. But *351that order is of no moment for several reasons. First, it was obtained ex parte, without any notice to the moving defendants. Second, it appears to have granted the adjournment only with respect to the corporate defendant’s summary judgment motion, without any mention of the Transit Authority defendants’ cross motion for similar relief. Third, it granted adjournment for the filing of opposition papers only until October 4, and those papers were concededly filed on October 7. Finally, the entertaining of plaintiffs request for additional time, outside Justice Lippmann’s courtroom, violated the spirit of the Individual Assignment System *(Barksdale v New York City Tr. Auth.,*273 AD2d 43, 45 [2000]), which calls for “continuous supervision of each action and proceeding by a single judge” (Uniform Civ Rules for Sup Ct and County Ct [22 NYCRR] § 202.3 [a]). As this Court has noted, “adoption of the Individual Assignment System has greatly attenuated reliance upon the doctrine [of law of the case]” *(Gee Tai Chong Realty Corp. v GA Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*283 AD2d 295, 296 [2001]).

As to the alternative basis for dismissal, medical reports submitted by the corporate defendant obliged plaintiff to come forward with evidence that she had sustained a “serious injury” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956 [1992]). The report she proffered, which was prepared by a doctor who did not begin treating her until nine months after the accident and five months after her return to work, was insufficient to establish the necessity for her alleged confinement at home, and does not even indicate what tests were utilized to measure her range of motion *(Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 357-358 [2002]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.