alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Aircraft

Weight (Including Battery And Propellers) 1280 g Diagonal Size (Including Propellers) 590 mm Max Ascent Speed 5 m/s Max Descent Speed 3 m/s Hover Accuracy Vertical: +/

-0.1 m (when Vision Positioning is active) or +/

- 0.5 m Horizontal: +/

-1.5 m Max Speed 16 m/s (ATTI mode, no wind) Max Altitude Above Sea Level 6000 m Operating Temperature 0°C to 40°C GPS Mode GPS/GLONASS Camera Sensor Sony EXMOR 1/2.3” Effective pixels: 12.4 M (total pixels: 12.76 M) Lens FOV 94° 20 mm (35 mm format equivalent) f/2.8, focus at ∞ ISO Range 100
- 3200 (video) 100
- 1600 (photo) Shutter Speed 8s
- 1/8000s Image Max Size 4000 x 3000 Still Photography Modes Single Shot Burst Shooting: 3/5/7 shots Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB): 3/5 1Bracketed Frames at 0.7EV Bias

Time
- lapse Video Recording Modes Phantom 3 Professional UHD: 4096x2160p 24/25, 3840x2160p 24/25/30 FHD: 1920x1080p 24/25/30/48/50/60 HD: 1280x720p 24/25/30/48/50/60 Phantom 3 Advanced FHD: 1920x1080p 24/25/30/48/50/60 HD: 1280x720p 24/25/30/48/50/60 Supported SD Card Types Micro SD Max capacity: 64 GB. Class 10 or UHS
- 1 rating required Max Bitrate Of Video Storage Phantom 3 Professional 60 Mbps Phantom 3 Advanced 40 Mbps Supported File Formats FAT32/exFAT Photo: JPEG, DNG Video: MP4, MOV (MPEG
- 4 AVC/H.264) Operating Temperature 0°C to 40°C Gimbal Controllable Range Pitch
- 90° to +30° Stabilization 3
- axis (pitch, roll, yaw) Vision Positioning Max Velocity Less than 8 m/s (when 2 m above ground) Altitude Range 30 cm
- 300 cm Operating Range 30 cm
- 300 cm Operating Environment Surface with clear pattern and adequate lighting (Lux > 15) Remote Controller Operating Frequency
22.400 GHz
- 2.483 GHz

Max Distance 2000m (outdoors and unobstructed) Video Output Port USB Operating Temperature 0°C

-40°C Battery 6000 mAh LiPo 2S Mobile Device Holder For tablet or phone Receiver Sensitivity (1%PER)

- 101 dBm ±2 dBm Transmitter Power (EIRP) FCC: 20 dBm CE: 16 dBm Working Voltage 1.2 A @7.4 V Battery Charger Voltage 17.4 V Rated Power Phantom 3 Professional 100 W Phantom 3 Advanced 57 W Intelligent Flight Battery Capacity 4480 mAh Voltage 15.2 V Battery Type LiPo 4S Energy 68 Wh Net Weight 365 g 3Max Flight Time

Approximately 23 minutes Operating Temperature

- 10°C to 40°C Max Charging Power 100 W App / Live View Mobile App DJI Pilot EIRP 100mW Live View Working Frequency 2.4GHz ISM Live View Quality 720P @ 30fps (depending on conditions and mobile device) Latency 220ms (depending on conditions and mobile device) Required Operating Systems iOS 8.0 or later Android 4.1.2 or later Recommended Devices iOS: iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPad Air, iPad Air Wi
- Fi + Cellular, iPad mini 2, iPad mini 2 Wi
- Fi + Cellular, iPad Air 2, iPad Air 2 Wi
- Fi + Cellular, iPad mini 3, and iPad mini 3 Wi
Fi + Cellular. This app is optimized for iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, and iPhone 6 Plus Android: Samsung S5, Note 3, Sony Xperia Z3, Google Nexus 7 II, Google Nexus 9, Mi 3, Nubia Z7 mini *Support for additional Android devices available as testing and development continues

4
# C_2013252EN.01002101.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Openbaar Ministerie v Edgard Jan De Clercq and Others

(Case C-315/13)

2013/C 252/32

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Mechelen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Applicant:

Defendants: Edgard Jan De Clercq, Emiel Amede Rosa De Clercq, Nancy Genevieve Wilhelmina Rottiers, Ermelinda Jozef Martha Tampère, Thermotec NV

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the provisions of Articles 56 and 57 TFEU (previously Articles 49 and 50 EC Treaty) and Article 3(1) and 3(10) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1), whether or not read in conjunction with Article 19 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36), be interpreted as precluding Article 141 of the Programmawet (I) (Programme Law (I)) of 27 December 2006 under which a person for whom work is performed, either directly or through subcontracting, by posted employees or posted trainees, is placed under an obligation to make a declaration to the Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid (National Office for Social Security) by electronic means (or failing that, by fax or by letter), prior to the commencement of the employment of those persons, of the identification data of those persons who do not have the possibility of submitting the acknowledgement of receipt delivered to their employer of his prior declaration, in conjunction with Article 157 of the Programmawet (I) of 27 December 2006 and Article 183(1)(1) of the Sociaal Strafwetboek (Social Criminal Code), which penalises non-compliance with that obligation by criminal sanctions?

---
No. 10-5722.

#### Robert Lee Williams, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 935, 131 S. Ct. 338,

178 L. Ed. 2d 220,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7355.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1


         THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION IS PROVIDED BY THE UNDERSIGNED CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF CLARK, INC. ON THE BASIS OF
SUCH OFFICERS' KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002.

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Clark, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Tom Wamberg, Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and I, Jeffrey W. Lemajeur, Chief
Financial Officer, of the Company, hereby 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, as
                  amended; 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/ Tom Wamberg
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:  Tom Wamberg
                                              Title: Chairman of the Board
                                                     and Chief Executive Officer
                                              Date:  May 3, 2005



                                              /s/ Jeffrey W. Lemajeur
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:  Jeffrey W. Lemajeur
                                              Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                              Date:  May 3, 2005






         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.
Okinawa team helps restore joint range
 
  By Jake Joy
  The Defense Logistics Agency recently helped Indo-Pacific-based warfighters modernize a joint training area off the coast of Okinawa, Japan. Idesuna and Tori-shima Islands were part of a recent range improvement project conducted by the Air Force’s 18th Operations Support Squadron, based out of Okinawa’s Kadena Air Base. The squadron’s Airspace and Range Management team turned to DLA Disposition Services for disposal of an estimated 20,000 lbs. of debris to meet Air Force range compliance standards, update facility infrastructure and increase operational safety. An EFSAT is placed on remote Idesuna Island in June, after the removal of some 20,000 lbs. of bombing range scrap bound for DLA Disposition Services. DOD photo.




A helicopter drops a fake vehicle on the beach of a tiny island near Okinawa.
        210606-D-D0441-1235
            An EFSAT is placed on remote Idesuna Island in June, after the removal of some 20,000 lbs. of bombing range scrap bound for DLA Disposition Services. DOD photo.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: DOD photo
                    
                    VIRIN: 210606-D-D0441-1235 “This inert bombing range hasn’t been cleared in over 10 years,” said DLA Disposition Services Okinawa Operations Chief Russell Manuel, meaning a large turn-in quantity was expected from the start. An explosive ordnance disposal team had to first examine and prepare the munitions based on the inert materials instruction in the demilitarization guide. Idesuna measures about a half mile long by just over a third of a mile wide. The range residue removal allowed for improvements in vegetation and erosion control, bunker improvement, and the placement of Environmentally Friendly Stationary Aerial Targets, or EFSATs. Personnel, debris, construction materials and new targets were all transported by helicopter and Landing Craft Air Cushion to and from Okinawa. Japan has nearly 7,000 islands, but only about 440 are inhabited. Okinawa is the smallest and southernmost of the main islands, but hosts more than 30 named U.S. military areas, including Kadena Air Base, Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, and numerous training areas, ranges, ports, weapons depots, and logistics facilities.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15918]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. as 
amended. The grant applications and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group Subcommittee G--Education.
    Date: June 23-24, 1998.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Georgetown, 2101 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Washington, DC 20007.
    Contact Person: Dr. Harvey Stein, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6130 Executive 
Boulevard, North, Rockville, MD 20892-7403, Telephone: 301/496-7481.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers: 93.393, 
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 
Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, 
Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, 
Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control)

    Dated: June 9, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 98-15918 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Equipment pre-check lowers accident risk
 
  By Jeff Landenberger
  When Equipment Specialist Roy Mitchell recently inspected a Rough Terrain Container Handler prior to operation at his Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services site in Richmond, Virginia, he noticed something that raised a red flag to him. **The excessive wear on a sling attachment’s lifting eye that Equipment Specialist Roy Mitchell spotted while conducting an inspection on equipment prior to its operation.




A medal lifting eye showing an excessive wear mark from use.
        Damage part
            The excessive wear on a sling attachment’s lifting eye that Equipment Specialist Roy Mitchell spotted while conducting an inspection on equipment prior to its operation.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: DLA DS Richmond
                    
                    VIRIN: 221013-D-YU183-008**The lifting eyes on the machine’s sling attachment had deformed from excessive wear. “The sling attachment is configured like a 20-foot container – the RETC just locks right into it, and it allows for single- and dual-point sling capabilities,” Mitchell said. His discovery forced the sling attachment out of commission, but Mitchell said the office found a replacement through online marketplace FedMall. “Operation of material handling equipment is inherently dangerous to begin with,” Mitchell said. “Pre-inspection really reduces the risk of operating the equipment with some kind of mechanical problem or safety issue.” He added that there’s no way to know if his inspection directly stopped an incident from happening, but it reduced accident potential. Mitchell’s organizational position of equipment specialist was recently added to DLA Disposition Services. Jenny Norvey serves as chief of the sub-command’s Workforce Development branch, and it was her team that oversaw development of the new position. “The equipment specialist positions were developed to add consistency and standardization to several key aspects of processes involving equipment – first and foremost, safety,” Norvey said. “The uniformity of training heightens the focus on safe operations and the reduction of mishaps. Emphasis on consistency ensures all operators conduct these inspections before operating equipment. “As an equipment specialist, [Mitchell] clearly demonstrated how this position and the training contribute to safety of the workforce and in our operations,” she added.
#### People v Laventure

2d Dept: 138 AD3d 1023 (Kings)

denied 8/16/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antwane Hendrix, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[770 NYS2d 519]

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County (Buscaglia, J.), entered November 19, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from three judgments convicting him upon his pleas of guilty during a single plea proceeding of, respectively, attempted assault in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.10 [1]) (appeal No. 1), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (§ 165.45 [1]) (appeal No. 2), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [4]) (appeal No. 3). There is no merit to the contention of defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal entered as part of the plea agreement is invalid. Although it appears from the record that the waiver was not discussed with defendant prior to the plea proceeding, “[t]he facts and circumstances surrounding the waiver establish that it was voluntary, knowing and intelligent” *(People v Coleman*[appeal No. 1], 219 AD2d 827, 827 [1995]; *see People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]). In any event, contrary to defendant’s contention, the agreed-upon terms of incarceration imposed by Supreme Court are not unduly harsh or severe.

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in enhancing the sentence imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree by ordering defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $2,015 without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see *People v Austin,*275 AD2d 913 [2000]). Moreover, the court improperly determined the amount of restitution without conducting a hearing (see *id.).*Inasmuch as the judgments on appeal were entered following a single plea proceeding *(cf. People v Fuggazzatto,*62 NY2d 862, 863 [1984]), we modify the judgments by *1480vacating the sentences, and we remit the matters to Supreme Court, Erie County, to impose the sentences promised or afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his pleas of guilty. Present—Green, J.P., Wisner, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1

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 Advanstar, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Krakoff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,:

|By: |  | /s/ROBERT L. KRAKOFF                      |  |  |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|    |  | Robert L. Krakoff
Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | 
|    |  | Date: November 14, 2002                   |  |  |  | 

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Remeses Williams, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 859]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered February 23, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of three to six years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of two to four years, and otherwise affirmed.

*487We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Oing, JJ.
No. 10-5806.

#### Herbert Brown, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 938, 131 S. Ct. 348,

178 L. Ed. 2d 225,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7218.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 872.
#### In the Matter of Lisa B., Appellant, v Bruce C., Respondent.

[69 NYS3d 39]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo O. Fasanya, J.), entered on or about August 24, 2016, which denied petitioner mother’s objections to an order (same court, Cheryl Weir-Reeves, Support Magistrate), entered on or about June 17, 2016, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The mother shows no grounds to challenge Family Court’s denial of her objections to the order entered on or about June 17, 2016, which was supported by comprehensive findings of fact issued after a lengthy hearing. We cannot assess the merits of the mother’s argument that she did not waive a hearing on the issue of whether respondent father willfully violated a so-ordered stipulation regarding child support. The record contains no excerpts from the hearing transcript to rebut the clear finding of waiver. Moreover, as Family Court observed in its findings of fact, the mother was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings below.

The mother, moreover, does not show how any separate hearing would have changed the eventual outcome, given that her arguments concerning willfulness involved issues already addressed and rejected by Family Court.

The mother’s argument that the father’s refusal to pay child support add-on expenses, standing alone, establishes a willful violation of his support obligation is unavailing. Family Court properly determined that many of those add-on expenses were not covered by the parties’ stipulation, or that the mother had failed to consult with the father before incurring them, as required. Expenses beyond the scope of the parties’ so-ordered agreements cannot be said to have been “ordered” and therefore cannot support a finding of willfulness, regardless of the father’s ability to pay *(see Matter of Powers v Powers,*86 NY2d *54563, 69 [1995]). Moreover, the mother offers no reason to disturb the finding that she was not credible regarding notice to the father.

The mother’s remaining arguments concerning the father’s alleged willfulness were already raised in her counsel fee application, and rejected by Family Court, and the mother offers no facts to show the court’s denial of that motion was an improvident exercise of its discretion *(see*Family Ct Act § 438; *Matter of Westergaard v Westergaard,*106 AD3d 926 [2d Dept 2013]).

We have considered the mother’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Webber and Moulton, JJ.
#### People v Garcia

2d Dept: 144 AD3d 650

denied*
# C_2013352EN.01000801.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2013 — Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH v AOK Sachsen-Anhalt

(Case C-503/13)

2013/C 352/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent on a point of law: AOK Sachsen-Anhalt

Respondent on a point of law:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 6(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a product in the form of a medical device implanted in the human body (in this case, a pacemaker) is already defective if devices in the same product group have a significantly increased risk of failure, but a defect has not been detected in the device which has been implanted in the specific case in point? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 6(1) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a product in the form of a medical device implanted in the human body (in this case, a pacemaker) is already defective if devices in the same product group have a significantly increased risk of failure, but a defect has not been detected in the device which has been implanted in the specific case in point?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
  Do the costs of the operation to remove the product and implant another pacemaker constitute damage caused by personal injury for the purposes of Article 1 and point (a) of the first sentence of Article 9 of Directive 85/374/EEC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Do the costs of the operation to remove the product and implant another pacemaker constitute damage caused by personal injury for the purposes of Article 1 and point (a) of the first sentence of Article 9 of Directive 85/374/EEC?

---

(1)  OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29

1

---