alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Date August 17, 2015

Petitioner

Name Joel Williams

Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The petitioner plans to operate a UAS, including a Tarot FY650, DJI Phantom, DJI Inspire 1, TBS 

Discovery Pro or similar, which is comprised of an unmanned aircraft (UA) and a transportable

ground station. These UAs, also referred to as quad-copters have a maximum gross weight of 5 

pounds, and are equipped with four rotors that are driven by electric motors powered by batteries. 

They will be outfitted with small cameras (GoPro or similar). They will have a maximum airspeed of 

30 knots and will be operated over various areas around San Francisco Bay to enhance academic 

community awareness; create 3-dimensional scans of architectural project sites; and capture video 

footage of projects in construction and after completion.

Petitioner will only operate in reasonably safe environments that are strictly controlled, are away 

from power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas; and only after conducting

preflight inspections and protocols, during which safety carries primary importance.

The petitioner states that given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with

the aircraft to be utilized by him, an exemption from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H (Airworthiness 

Certificates) and § 91.203 (a) and (b) (Certifications required), subject to certain conditions and 

limitations, is warranted and meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 CFR 

part 11 and Section 333 of P.L. 112-95 (Section 333).

Petitioner requests an exemption from § 45.23 Marking of the aircraft because his UA will not have a 

cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. Further, he states that twoinch lettering is difficult to place on such a small aircraft with dimensions smaller than the minimal 

lettering requirement. 

The petitioner states that an exemption from §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2) and 91.417(a) 

and (b) Maintenance inspections may be required and should be granted since they only apply to 

aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. However, the petitioner states as a safety precaution he will 

perform a preflight inspection of his UAS before each flight as outlined in his operating documents.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-k of Natrol, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on March 30, 2006 (the “Report”), the undersigned, inthe capacity and on the date listed below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

ThisCertification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, andItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933,as amended, and shall not be deemed part of the Report or “filed” for anypurpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Date: March 30, 2006

|        | /s/ DENNIS R. JOLICOEUR                         |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   | Dennis R.  Jolicoeur                            |
|   | *Chief  Financial Officer and Executive*        |
|   | *Vice  President (Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

71

----
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 NovaStar Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rodney E.
Schwatken, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
      May 29, 2009
            
            /s/
      Rodney E. SchwatkenRodney
      E. SchwatkenChief
      Financial Officer





This
certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to
the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
Aviation AMCOM 101 focuses on warfighter support efforts
 
  By Natalie Skelton, DLA Aviation Public Affairs
  Redstone Arsenal’s Sparkman Center in Huntsville, Alabama, was the site of this year’s semi-annual U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command’s 101 conference, an event illustrating how AMCOM supports Army leadership spanning the aviation enterprise from around the globe. Army Col. Buddy Hopkins, chief, Army Customer Facing Division, Customer Operations Directorate, Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, participated in a panel discussion on day one of the event, focusing on material readiness with an overarching theme “DLA Aviation and AMCOM: A winning partnership that only gets better with time.”
“We [DLA] are doing everything we can to make sure this organization and all of you [Army Aviation] are successful,” said Hopkins. DLA Aviation military members also participated in a round-robin discussion on day two, providing a DLA unit observations brief. Participants included 12 personnel from DLA Aviation’s Army Customer Facing Division in Richmond, Virginia, and Army Customer Facing Division forward presence on Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama. By understanding the logistics requirements and procedures, DLA Aviation leadership encourages combat aviation brigades to review requisition validations and funding de-obligations. These actions will help to re-establish priority requirements by upgrading existing document numbers rather than placing new orders.
#### In the Matter of A.H., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 272]

*574Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Gayle P. Roberts, J.), entered on or about January 14, 2016, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon her admission that she committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of resisting arrest, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent, rather than a person in need of supervision, and placing her on probation for 12 months with the requirement that she participate in services. This was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection (see *Matter of Katherine*W., 62 NY2d 947 [1984]). An adjudication as a juvenile delinquent requires two findings. First, based on appellant’s plea, the court found that she had committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would be a crime (Family Ct Act § 342.2). Second, based on appellant’s reported history of attacks on her mother and others, violation of curfew, running away from home, truancy, gang involvement, and drug use, among other things, the court found that appellant was in need of a treatment program (Family Ct Act § 352.1). The court also noted that the statutory enforcement mechanisms available under a PINS adjudication are inadequate to ensure compliance with such a program *(Matter of Edwin*G., 296 AD2d 7, 11 [1st Dept 2002]). Accordingly, the court’s determination was a proper exercise of its discretion.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30511-30512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14800]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation


CALFED Bay-Delta Program, California

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time for review of draft programmatic 
environmental impact statement/environmental impact report (EIS/EIR) 
and intent to prepare a revised draft programmatic EIS/EIR.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is extending the 
public review period for the Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR for the CALFED 
Bay-Delta Program to July 1, 1998. The notice of availability for the 
Draft

[[Page 30512]]

Programmatic EIS/EIR was published in the Federal Register on March 16, 
1998 (63 FR 12823). The public review period was originally to end on 
June 1, 1998.
    In addition, CALFED will be preparing a Revised Draft Programmatic 
EIS/EIR. The Revised Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR will identify a draft 
preferred alternative and will have revised appendices. It will be 
available for public review and comment before preparation of a Final 
Programmatic EIS/EIR.

DATES: Public comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR should be 
submitted on or before July 1, 1998. The Revised Draft Programmatic 
EIS/EIR is expected to be available for public review by the end of 
1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR should be 
addressed to Mr. Rick Breitenbach, CALFED Bay-Delta Program, 1416 Ninth 
Street, Suite 1155, Sacramento, California 95814. Requests for a 
printed copy of the Draft Programmatic EIS/EIR should also be addressed 
to Mr. Rick Breitenbach. When requesting a copy, please specify whether 
you would like the Executive Summary or a complete set of the Draft 
EIS/EIR with 12 Appendices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact 
Mr. Rick Breitenbach, telephone: (800) 900-3587.

    Dated: May 28, 1998.
Kirk C. Rodgers,
Deputy Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 98-14800 Filed 6-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-P
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2025 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2025

  To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel INTREPID.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 19 (legislative day, April 11), 1994

  Mr. Chafee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel INTREPID.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel 
INTREPID, United States official number 508185.

                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Little, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 140]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Miriam R. Best, J. at initial requests for self-representation; Denis J. Boyle, J. at subsequent requests, jury trial and sentencing), rendered January 17, 2014, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

There was no violation of defendant’s right to represent himself. Rather than being unequivocal, each of defendant’s requests for self-representation “was made in the context of a claim of dissatisfaction with counsel” *(People v Scivolette,*40 AD3d 887, 887 [2d Dept 2007]). In any event, defendant *532abandoned his request to appear pro se *(see People v Gillian,*8 NY3d 85, 88 [2006]; *People v Graves,*85 NY2d 1024, 1027 [1995]; *People v Hirschfeld,*282 AD2d 337, 339 [1st Dept 2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 919 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 1082 [2002]). There was no stage of the proceedings at which a court actually denied, rather than temporarily deferred, a request by defendant for self-representation. Furthermore, after assigning the last in a long series of attorneys, the trial court advised defendant that although he had the right to represent himself, a lengthy colloquy with the court would be required, which the court would conduct at the next adjourned date two weeks later, but that in the meantime defendant should confer with the new attorney to see if defendant might accept her services. The minutes of the ensuing court appearance, as well as the next appearance, clearly establish that defendant was satisfied with the new attorney and no longer wished to represent himself. The record fails to support defendant’s present contention that, given the fact that two prior requests for self-representation had been deferred by the court, it would have been futile for defendant to renew his ultimate request on the date on which the court had promised to entertain it.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made after the prosecutor’s summation. Any improprieties in the summation were sufficiently addressed by a curative instruction, which met with defendant’s satisfaction, or were trivial and harmless *(see People v D*Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. During the robbery, two benefit cards belonging to defendant were left in the victim’s car, and defendant’s explanation for the presence of his cards was highly implausible.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**LORI GRAY, DERIVATIVELY ON**

**BEHALF OF FIRST NATIONAL COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.** 

**v.**

**LOUIS A. DENAPLES, MICHAEL J. CESTONE, JR., JOSEPH COCCIA,**  **DOMINICK L. DENAPLES, JOSEPH J. GINTILE, JOHN P. MOSES, WILLIAM P.**  **CONABOY, MICHAEL CONAHAN, J. DAVID LOMBARDI, DEMETRIOUS &**  **COMPANY, LLC., AND FIRST NATIONAL COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC., A** 

**PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION**

**-------------------------------------------**

**FARUQI AND FARUQI**

**v.**

**JOSEPH R. SOLFANELLI**

**PETITION OF: JOSEPH R. SOLFANELLI :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 91 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 22nd day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
#### S.O., In re Adoption of; E.C.B., In re; T.A., In re

11/13/2015

740 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 107
#### Com. v. Dunbar

03/16/2016

767 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 64
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.3

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 APT Satellite Holdings Limited
      (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2003 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, Chen Zhaobin, Executive Director and President 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
      Section 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: June 28, 2004

/s/ Chen Zhaobin
___________________________________

Chen Zhaobin
Executive Director and President
APT Satellite Holdings Limited

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to APT Satellite Holdings Limited (the "Company") and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         152,213
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  473,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (20,985)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,164,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          74,032
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,829)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,424,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        719,438
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,933,018
<OTHER-SE>                                   (816,194)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,424,361
<SALES>                                      1,142,433
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,142,433
<CGS>                                        1,169,315
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,169,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               408,127
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,425
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              82,675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (521,109)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,801
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (530,910)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (530,910)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.36)


</TABLE>
No. 12-5491.

#### Martinez-Porta *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order entered October 28, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00699-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.B. AND V.H., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-18-00992-X

ORDER

Appellant’s brief in this termination of parental rights case is overdue. 

Because these types of cases must be handled expeditiously, appellant is 

ORDERED to file appellant’s brief within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this 

order. Failure to file the brief by the time specified may result in an order for the 

trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been 

filed and to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, including appointment of new counsel.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
2017-1708.

#### State v. Smith.

Lawrence App. No. 16CA10, 2017-Ohio-7864. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Kennedy and Fischer, JJ., dissent.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevyn Michael Krembel, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 790]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joanne M. Winslow, J.), entered February 4, 2015. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*Defendant was presumptively a level two risk based on the risk assessment instrument, but Supreme Court determined that defendant is a level three risk based on the presumptive override for a prior felony sex crime conviction. We reject defendant’s contention *1703that the court erred in failing to grant a downward departure to a level one risk inasmuch as defendant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of mitigating factors not adequately taken into account by the guidelines *(see People v Reber,*145 AD3d 1627, 1627-1628 [2016]). “In determining whether to depart from a presumptive risk level, the hearing court weighs the aggravating or mitigating factors alleged by the departure-requesting party to assess whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a departure is warranted” *(People v Howard,*27 NY3d 337, 341 [2016]). Such departures “are ‘the exception, not the rule’ ” *(id.).*We conclude that defendant’s mental or physical impairments, and the absence of past sexual contact with children, do not warrant a downward departure. Indeed, these factors were present before defendant committed the crimes underlying this proceeding, but they did not prevent him from committing those offenses.

Inasmuch as defendant does not dispute that he was previously convicted of a felony sex crime, and thus is presumptively a level three risk *(see People v Edmonds,*133 AD3d 1332, 1332 [2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 918 [2016]), we do not address defendant’s further contention that the court erred in its initial assessment of points before the application of the presumptive override.

Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> To: Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 12/07/2011 09:27 AM Subject: FW: E.O. 12866 Meeting on NESHAPS from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; and Greenhouse Gas NSPS for Electric Generating Units Rules

Hi, Attached are the handouts from yesterday’s meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Cortney

-----Original Appointment----- From: Echols, Mabel E. Subject: E.O. 12866 Meeting on NESHAPS from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; and Greenhouse Gas NSPS for Electric Generating Units Rules When: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 11:00 AM-11:30 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Room 10103 NEOB

This meeting was requested by Rae Cronmiller, NRECA.