alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Kelly J. Neubecker, CEO

UASolutions Group, Inc. 

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa FL 32926

Dear Ms. Neubecker:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition for 

amendment dated March 11, 2016 on behalf of Homeland Surveillance and Electronics (Docket 

No. FAA–2015–1533). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition.

 A detailed description of the aircraft design and configuration for the HSE-UAV AGV6A+V2 UAS focusing on the UAS features and flight characteristics to include, but not 

limited to: 

o Detailed 3 view drawings with scale of the aircraft and any launch and recovery 

equipment if applicable 

o Operational history with supporting statistics; particularly where Homeland 

Surveillance and Electronics was the principal operator

o Results of analysis and flight testing of UAS

o Lessons learned from repairs and alterations performed during operations to 

include design changes and fixes due to operational failure(s)

o Details of any injuries or property damage resulting from flight/ground operations

o Safety analysis of any failure modes such as lost link, fly-away, loss of control, 

etc.

 Copies of manuals, photographs, videos/telemetry may be provided as support

 Any other information to support an analysis of operational safety with unmanned aircraft 

in excess of 55 pounds.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at

www.regulations.gov. Once your information is submitted, please save your tracking number 

and submit your tracking number along with the information submitted to the docket, and any 

proprietary information electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to 

process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 08/9/16. 

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

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

Sincerely,

/s/

Program Analyst
No. 09-1484.

#### Earl Jordan, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 836, 131 S. Ct. 155,

178 L. Ed. 2d 38,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6048.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 359 Fed. Appx. 881.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13489]



[[Page 27943]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-159-001]


Williams Gas Pipelines Central; Notice of Refund Report

May 15, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 13, 1998, Williams Gas Pipelines Central, 
Inc. (Williams), filed a report of refunds made to Shippers pursuant to 
a Commission order issued April 13, 1998 (April 13 order), in Docket 
No. RP98-159-000.
    Williams states that on March 11, 1998, it filed its annual report 
of net revenues received from cash-out activity for the twelve-month 
period ending September 30, 1997. The report proposed to make such 
refunds to Shippers listed on the refund report, including interest 
from April 1, 1998 through the date of the refund, upon Commission 
approval of the report of refunds. The April 13 order required Williams 
to make refunds to its customers as proposed in the March 11 filing 
within 30 days of the order. The interest calculation has been updated 
from the original report to include interest from April 1, 1998 through 
May 12, 1998.
    Williams states that a copy of its filing was served on all 
Shippers receiving a refund, all participants listed on the service 
lists maintained by the Commission in the docket referenced above and 
interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before May 22, 1998. 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. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-13489 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Veda McRae, Respondent, v Sears, Roebuck & Co., Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 799]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated October 24, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she fell from a defective ladder provided to her by the defendant in order for the plaintiff to do an inventory of certain merchandise at the defendant’s store. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

In support of its motion, the defendant presented competent evidence in admissible form that collateral estoppel effect should be given to a determination of the Workers’ Compensation Board, made after proceedings to which the plaintiff was a party, finding that she had failed to demonstrate that the injuries at issue herein arose from the fall from the ladder *(see Ryan v New York Tel. Co.,*62 NY2d 494, 499 [1984]; *Werner v State of New*
      *420
      *York,*53 NY2d 346 [1981]; *O’Connor v Midiria,*55 NY2d 538 [1982]; *Rigopolous v American Museum of Natural History,*297 AD2d 728, 729 [2002]; *cf. Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co.,*257 AD2d 586, 587 [1999]; *Langdon v WEN Mgt. Co.,*147 AD2d 450, 452 [1989]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see e.g. Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co., supra*at 587). Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]; *Dorkin v American Express Co.,*43 AD2d 877 [1974]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 24.5

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

        The undersigned hereby appoints Robert T. Slezak as his agent and
attorney-in-fact for the purpose of executing and filing all reports on Form
10-K relating to the year ending September 26, 1997, and any amendments
thereto, required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
AmeriTrade Holding Corporation.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney
as of the 17th day of December, 1997.


                                       /s/  John W. Ward
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       John W. Ward, Director
#### Mogul Media, LLC, Respondent, v James Ramsburgh, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 887]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered November 27, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from, in this action for damages arising from the collapse of a billboard, denied the motion of defendant James Ramsburgh for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims as against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

“In cases against architects or contractors, the accrual date for Statute of Limitations purposes is completion of performance . . . [N]o matter how a claim is characterized in the complaint—negligence, malpractice, breach of contract—an owner’s claim arising out of defective construction accrues on date of completion, since all liability has its genesis in the contractual relationship of the parties” *(City School Dist. of City of Newburgh v Stubbins & Assoc.,*85 NY2d 535, 538 [1995] [citations omitted]; *Amedeo Hotels Ltd. Partnership v Zwicker Elec. Co.,*291 AD2d 322 [1st Dept 2002]).

Here, plaintiffs’ claim against Ramsburgh is for negligent erection of a billboard that was completed by June 14, 2000. Since plaintiffs’ claim accrued as of that date, it expired long before the billboard collapsed and the claim was filed in 2012.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Rule 116

116-1

RULE 116 EMISSIONS STATEMENT AND CERTIFICATION

(Adopted 02/23/2010)

A. Upon the request of the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) and as directed by 

the APCO, the owner or operator of any source operation which emits or may 

emit oxides of nitrogen or reactive organic gas shall provide the APCO with a 

written statement, in such form as the APCO prescribes, showing actual 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gas from that source. At a 

minimum the emission statement shall contain as described in the ARB's 

Emission Inventory Guidelines http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/drei/create/guidance.htm. 

The statement shall contain emissions for the time period specified by the APCO. 

The statement shall also contain a certification by a responsible official of the 

company that the information contained in the statement is accurate to the best 

knowledge of the individual certifying the statement. The first statement will cover 

2009 emissions and shall be submitted to the district by December 2010. 

Statements shall be submitted annually thereafter.

B. The APCO may waive this requirement to any class or category of stationary 

sources which emit less than 25 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen or reactive 

organic gas if the district provides the Air Resources Board with an emission 

inventory of sources emitting greater than 10 tons per year of nitrogen oxides or 

reactive organic gas based on the use of emission factors acceptable to the Air 

Resources Board.

C. All official documents submitted to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) shall 

contain a certification signed and dated by a responsible official of the company. 

This certification must attest that the information contained in the submitted 

documents is accurate to the best knowledge of the individual certifying the 

submission. The requirements of this Section apply to, but are not limited to, the 

emissions statements required in Section A of this rule.
#### Gordon, Matter of, v Morris

3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1338

denied
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 217

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to make crop quality reduction disaster payments to producers of the 1992 crop of corn, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 26 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. RIEGLE (for himself and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,

and Forestry

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to make crop quality

reduction disaster payments to producers of the 1992

crop of corn, 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. CROP QUALITY REDUCTION DISASTER PAY4 MENTS FOR 1992 CROP OF CORN.

5 The matter under the heading ‘‘COMMODITY CREDIT

6 CORPORATION’’ under the heading ‘‘DEPARTMENT OF

7 AGRICULTURE’’ of chapter III of title I of Public Law

8 102–229 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note) is amended by inserting

9 before the period at the end the following: ‘‘: Provided fur-
2

•S 217 IS

1 ther, That the Secretary of Agriculture shall make crop

2 quality reduction disaster payments to producers of the

3 1992 crop of corn under the same terms and conditions

4 as are specified in section 2245 of the Food, Agriculture,

5 Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1421

6 note)’’.

Æ
Exhibit
      32.02





Certification





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350,


Chapter
      63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officer of Interactive Systems Worldwide Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
      “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that the Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2006 (the “Form 10-KSB”)
      of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form
      10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      January 16, 2007


By:
            /s/
                James McDadeJames
                McDade
              Vice
                  President - Chief Financial
                  Officer




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
      63
      of Title 18, United States Code).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julian Caggiano, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 435]

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered September 22, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of a nine-count indictment and waived his right to appeal. County Court denied defendant’s request to be adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced defendant, in accordance with the plea agreement, to five years in prison to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

Defendant does not challenge the validity of his appeal waiver, and the plea colloquy and the written waiver demonstrate that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and-sentence *(see*
      *1336
      *People v White,*145 AD3d 1324, 1324-1325 [2016]; *People v Taylor,*144 AD3d 1317, 1318 [2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1151 [2017]). As such, defendant’s valid waiver of appeal precludes his contentions that County Court abused its discretion in denying him youthful offender status and that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive *(see People v Pacherille, 25*NY3d 1021, 1024 [2015]; *People v Simon,*140 AD3d 1533, 1534 [2016]; *People v Hernandez,*140 AD3d 1521, 1523 [2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 971 [2016]; *People v Wright,*123 AD3d 1241, 1241 [2014]).

McCarthy, Egan Jr., Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5134

STEPHEN N. VALLARI

and BARBARA D. VALLARI,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 06-CV-761, Judge Lawrence

J. Block.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The appellants move without opposition for a 6-day extension of time, until April

21, 2009, to file their response to the court's November 7, 2008 order.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk	FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

APR 2 3 2009

Jeth

CLERK

APR 2 3 2009

Date

cc:	Sallie W. Gladney, Esq.

Deborah K. Snyder, Esq.

s20
EXHIBIT 32.1

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF AMERIPATH, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of AmeriPath, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Donald E. Steen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Donald E. SteenDonald E. SteenChief Executive OfficerAmeriPath, Inc.March 29, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15489]


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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 16, 1998.

PLACE: NTSB Board Room, 5th Floor, 490 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20594.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    6927A  Aviation Accident Report--Uncontrolled Impact with Terrain, 
Fine Air, Miami, Florida, August 7, 1997.

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 314-6100.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda Underwood, (202) 314-6065.

    Dated: June 5, 1998.
Rhonda Underwood,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-15489 Filed 6-5-98; 2:51 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
# Commander strengthens partnerships in the Middle East

/ Published Nov. 25, 2019

Defense Logistics Agency Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Albert Miller commended regional employees and conducted outreach during a visit to the Middle East, Oct. 20-25.

Miller met with U.S. leaders and ally partners in Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Kuwait to continue to strengthen partnerships and strategic relationships in the region.

“Brig. Gen. Miller conducted a battlefield circulation to learn more about the current DLA Energy missions in the region, attend Key Leader Engagements, host a town hall with DLA employees, and thank the personnel throughout the region who help support DLA Energy and the Warfighter,” said DLA Energy Middle East Commander Air Force Lt. Col Amanda Shumaker.

In the UAE, Miller held meetings at the U.S. Embassy and with UAE leadership and visited Defense Fuel Support Points Jebel Ali and Al Dhafra. In Bahrain, Miller met with U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and, in Jordan, he met with Brig. Gen. Walid Barakat, the new Director of Supply for the Royal Jordanian Air Force. In Kuwait, he had multiple engagements with 1st Theater Sustainment Command, Task Force Spartan, Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve, U.S. Central Command Deployment and Distribution Operations Center, and DLA Support Team-Kuwait.

“Having Brig. Gen. Miller here to meet with our partners face-to-face shows how important these relationships are,” Shumaker said. “Our meeting with His Excellency Salem al-Zaabi, the UAE Director of International Security Cooperation, and Maj. Gen. Falah al-Qahtani, the Assistant Undersecretary for Policy and Strategic Affairs in the Ministry of Defense, was a vital step in the right direction to establish relationships and ensure continued fuel support to U.S. forces.”

Miller made a special effort to meet with DLA Energy employees sharing important command updates, presenting awards, and thanking them for their Warfighter support.

“The visits with a few of our key partners in the region was important to emphasize the strength in our continued relationships and to verbalize our appreciation for their continued support,” Shumaker said.
Exhibit
23.1





[Letterhead
of Turlington and Company, L.L.P.]





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the
Board of Directors


First
South Bancorp, Inc.


Washington,
North Carolina





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No.333-49759 and No. 333-104144) on Form S-8 of First South Bancorp, Inc. and
Subsidiary of our report dated March 5, 2009 with respect to the consolidated
statements of financial condition of First South Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary as
of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the years ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006, which report appears in the annual report on
Form 10-K of First South Bancorp, Inc..





/s/  Turlington
and Company, L.L.P.





Lexington,
North Carolina


March 5,
2009
EXHIBIT 10.31


                         REINSURANCE AGREEMENT GUARANTEE

                                                         Dated as of May 1, 2004

      XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd. ("XL"), for consideration received, hereby
unconditionally and irrevocably guarantees to XL Capital Assurance Inc. (the
"Reinsured") under the Second Amended and Restated Facultative Quota Share
Reinsurance Treaty dated as of May 1, 2004, between XL Financial Assurance Ltd.
("XLFA") and the Reinsured to which this is attached (the "Agreement") the full
and complete performance of all obligations, including, without limitation,
payment of all amounts when due by XLFA under the Agreement.

      For the further protection of the Reinsured, XL irrevocably and
unconditionally guarantees payment of any amount paid by XLFA under the
Agreement that is subsequently avoided or returned in whole or in part as a
preference payment or under other similar provisions under applicable law.

      This Guarantee, and any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or
relating to this Guarantee, shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the internal laws of the State of New York, except insofar as such laws:

      (1)   pertain to regulation under the New York Insurance Law or
            regulations issued by the Insurance Department of the State of New
            York pursuant thereto, applying to insurers doing insurance
            business, or issuance, delivery or procurement of policies of
            insurance, within the State of New York or as respects risks of
            insureds situated in the State of New York; or

      (2)   are inconsistent with any provision of this Guarantee.

      This Guarantee sets forth in full the undertaking of XL and shall not be
modified, altered or affected by any other agreement or instrument, including
any modification or amendment thereto or by the merger. consolidation or
dissolution of XLFA. This Guarantee may not be cancelled or revoked. THIS
GUARANTEE IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROPERTY/CASUALTY INSURANCE SECURITY FUND
SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 76 OF THE NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW.

      Any disputes arising under or relating to this Guarantee shall be resolved
in the same manner and forum as shall be prescribed in or otherwise available
with respect to disputes under or relating to the Agreement.



<PAGE>


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, XL has caused this Guarantee to be executed and
delivered on its behalf in Hamilton, Bermuda this 1st day of May, 2004.


                                    XL INSURANCE (BERMUDA) LTD



                                    By: /s/ Christopher Coelho
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Christopher Coelho
                                        Title: Senior Vice President &
                                               Chief Financial Officer