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

102 Fairway DR. 

Enterprise, AL, 36330

(904) 607-1568

Nathanpool99@gmail.com

Summary:

The Petitioner is seeking exemption for the purpose of aerial videography/photography, data 

collection, and real estate use. 

Exemption:

An exemption from 91.7(a), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2) and 

91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) as was granted to Mr. Wade Bell in 

Exemption No. 11409.

The UAS

1. DJI PHANTOM 3

2. Using an advanced array of sensors drone will remain aloft and in a safe, stable position.

3. 1280 Grams

4. Controller utilizes 2.400 GHz-2.483 GHz ( Complies with FCC and CE standards) 

Flight limitations

1. Pre-Flight Check required for every flight. 

2. PIC will be responsible for ensuring any people nearby are aware of the UAS operation. 

3. Horizontal speed shall not exceed 16 M/s

4. Altitude shall not exceed 100 Meters (333 Feet)

5. Flight shall not take place over roadways, private property (without prior consent), or any other 

restricted areas or other areas where there significant potential danger to the operator, 

bystanders, or private property.

6. A spotter will be utilized at all times. 

7. UAS must be visible by unaided eye at all times, night flights will not be allowed. 

8. An Additional spotter will be used to identify any potentially dangerous situations (including but

not limited to: group of people converging underneath UAS or approaching aircraft.)

9. Operation will be at least 500 vertical feet from any clouds and 2000 horizontal feet. 

10. Operate at least 5 miles from any airport.
11. Comply with all additional mandates set by the FAA and limitations set by manufacturer.

12. Return and land with at least 25% of original battery remaining.

13. Have a contingency plan in the event of an engine failure. 

Pre-Flight Check to Include

1. Ensure UAS is in full operational condition (check all connections, ensure blades are secure)

2. Ensure battery is fully charged and secured. 

3. Ensure controller is in full operational order. 

4. Check area for any potential hazards. 

PIC Requirements

1. Must be at least 16, with an adult over 18 site at all times. 

2. Be able to maintain visual contact with UAS at all times. 

3. Must read all materials provided by DJI regarding safe use of drone prior to flight. 

4. Have an up to date medical physical. 

By granting this exemption I will be able to provide safe, low-cost aerial imaging services to local 

farmers, relators, or even photography studios. These images can help survey fields, identify potential 

dangers on property (ie: a roof that is too dangerous to walk on) or provide a unique perspective for 

weddings, family reunions, etc. I will ensure that my UAS is within safe operation guidelines at all times, 

and that I abide by all guidelines set by the FAA. 

Sincerely,

Nathan Pool
NISSAN
MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
   OFFICER'S
CERTIFICATE
   The
undersigned, Steven R. Lambert, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN
MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does
hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as
follows:
  (1)           The
undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its
capacity as Servicer, during the period February 27, 2009 through March 31, 2009
(the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to that certain Sale
and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 27, 2009 (the “Agreement”), by and
among the Company, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as Seller, and Nissan
Auto Receivables 2009-1 Owner Trust, as Issuer, to be conducted under his
supervision; and
  (2)           To
the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout the Reporting Period.
  This
Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities
and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed
securities.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have
the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.
  IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 29th day of
June, 2009.
  /s/ Steven R. Lambert
 Steven R.
Lambert
 President and Chief
Executive Officer
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 ANTIVIRAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Cheng Kin Chung, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.    By: /s/ Cheng Kin Chung, Chief Financial Officer  Date: March 31, 2010
TOWN OF GULF STREAM, Appellant, v. Martin E. O'BOYLE, Jonathan R. O'Boyle, William Ring, Ryan Witmer, Christopher O'Hare, Denise Demartini, Public Awareness Institute, Inc., Citizens Awareness Foundation, Inc., Our Public Records, LLC, StopDirty Government, LLC, Commerce Group, Inc., and The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., Appellees.

Nos. 4D16-3386 4D16-3634

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 2, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.18**

 

 

**CONSENT OF WAYNE W. VALLIANT**

 

In connection with the filing of the annual report on Form 40-F (the “Form 40-F”) of Franco-Nevada Corporation with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, I consent to the references to my name, including under the heading “Experts,” and to the use of the technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Goldstrike Mine, Eureka and Elko Counties, State of Nevada, USA,” dated March 16, 2012 (the “Report”), and the information derived from the Report, included in the 2012 Annual Information Form of Franco-Nevada Corporation dated March 19, 2013 (the “AIF”), which is filed as an exhibit to, and incorporated by reference in, the Form 40-F.

 

I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-176856) and on Form F-10 (No. 333-176722) of the references to my name in the AIF and the use of the Report and the information derived therefrom.

 

 
| DATED: March 19, 2013                          |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                           |   |
|                                           |   |
| **(Signed) *“Wayne   W. Valliant”*** |   |
| Name: Wayne W. Valliant, P.Geo.                |   |

 
| **RPA Inc.**55 University Ave. Suite 501 | Toronto, ON,   Canada M5J 2H7 | **T +**1****(416) 947 0907 | **www.rpacan.com** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|

 

----
Anthony KEMP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1298

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
NUMBER 13-20-00386-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ 

AND ALL OCCUPANTS Appellants,

v.

ANNA RODRIGUEZ, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellants filed a notice of appeal on September 4, 2020. On September 8, 2020, 

the Court notified appellants the notice of appeal was not in compliance with TEX. R. APP.

P. 9.1, 9.5, 25.1(d)(1), and 25.1(d)(4). To date, the appellants have neither responded 

nor cured the defects. On October 26, 2020 the court sent notice regarding the clerk’s 
2

record to appellants’ last known address; however, the notice was returned undeliverable.

The Court has sent other correspondence to appellants, which has also been returned as 

undeliverable and unable to forward.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign 

any document filed and "give the party's mailing address, telephone number, and fax 

number, if any." See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b). Appellants have neither provided this court 

with a forwarding address nor taken any other action to prosecute this appeal. 

Furthermore, Rule 42.3 permits an appellate court, on its own initiative after giving 

ten days' notice to all parties, to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or for failure 

to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules. See id. 42.3(b), (c). Accordingly, We 

DISMISS the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

NORA L. LONGORIA

 Justice

Delivered and filed this the 

10th day of December, 2020.
Viktor TITENKO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-0650

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          22,994
<SECURITIES>                                    23,725
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,285
<ALLOWANCES>                                        51
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,892
<PP&E>                                         154,874
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 259,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,429
<BONDS>                                         70,077
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        148
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   259,269
<SALES>                                         10,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,547
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,639
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    693
<INCOME-TAX>                                       322
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                271
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       371
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ No. 1D 18

- 2251

_____________________________ W ILLIAM H. B ELL , Petitioner ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal

— Origin al Jurisdiction

.

August 24, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. D ISMISSED

. W OLF , W INOKUR , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

________________________ _____

William H. Bell, pro se , Petitioner

.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent

.
June 4, 2015

XF Technologies ATTN: Mr. Kyle M. Ellis 524 McKnight Ave. NW Albuquerque, NM 87102

Dear Mr. Ellis: Thank you for your Inventory Expert Service (IES) order of June 03, 2015. The processing results are attached. To ensure efficient processing of your substance(s), it is important that these results are included with your PMN report for when reporting to the EPA. The cost of the technical processing for your order will be applied to your Visa. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this service. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, Jennifer Moore CAS Client Services Enclosure(s),(62UGHU1XPEHU

5HJLVWU\1XPEHU &$,QGH[1DPH )XUDQFDUER[DOGHK\GHFKORURPHWK\O
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129398 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, JENNIFER ANN HALLMAN and Justices 

MATTHEW ALLEN JOHNSTONE,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 129398 

 COA: 253363 

Oakland CC: 02-043568-NH 

FANNY A. DELA CRUZ, M.D. and 

WEST BLOOMFIELD PLASTIC 

SURGERY CENTER, P.C.,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

MICHIGAN LASERGRAFT CENTER, P.C., 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 11, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 129444 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129444 COA: 249573 Oakland CC: 2002-187114-FC MARIA DELCARMEN HUER MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ju ly 26, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This
certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.



Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) AND 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 Smithtown Bancorp (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 6, 2004, (the Report), I, Anita M. Florek, Executive Vice President and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 6, 2004



/s/ Anita M.FlorekAnita M. Florek, Executive Vice Presidentand Treasurer
Wynona JOHNSON v. Tyrone TUCKER, M.D., and Richland Parish Hospital District #1-A d/b/a Richland Parish Hospital

NO. 2017-C-2073

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 9, 2018

Denied.
Roberto KASINSKY, Appellant, v. Richard John DIAZ, and Richard J. Diaz, P.A., Appellees.

No. 3D16-2223

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
9/30/2008 Page 1 of 2

POSTFOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

This case revised based on 9/23/2008 Post-FOCUS Draft Revision l#2 of Initial Review Engineering Report.

Case Number: P080292 Assessor:

Flessner

Scenario#: Number of Release Sites:

Release Activity:

Jelease Description: . WATER LANDFILL INClINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE

Total Releases:

(kglyr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kglyr)

Release Days/yr:I III

Per Site Release:

(kg/day) (kg/yr) (kglyr) (kg/yr) (kg/day)

Remarks: EAB DROP: Release information for this compound does not meet criteria for preparation

of an exposure assessment in the Exposure Assessment Branch's (EAB) Initial Review

Exposure Report (this report).

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 2
9/30/2008 Page 2of 2

POSTFOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

P08-0292

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FERNANDO GALINDO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-11-00062-CR

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20080D02188)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by Appellant pursuant to Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). The motion was filed before our decision in the case and was signed

byAppellant and his attorney. Further, a duplicate copy of the motion has been forwarded to the trial

court clerk. Because the motion complies with the requirements of Rule 42.2(a), we grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

September 14, 2011

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Unknown Spouse of Roza MARTIN, a/k/a Rosa Martin, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee FOR ARGENT SECURITIES INC. ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-W1, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2665

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Enclosure IV 

ARB Resolution
Kahena Kristine GALLERANI, Appellant, v. Cristiano PIQUET, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2932

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 29, 2017 Rehearing Denied December 29, 2017

Jason B. Giller, P.A., and Tricia Neimand ; Keith D. Silverstein, for appellant.

Michael Lascelle, P.A., and Jeffrey Greenhaus, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS, and LOGUE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

"Valid prenuptial agreements regarding post-dissolution support are contracts." *Lashkajani v. Lashkajani*, 911 So.2d 1154, 1158 (Fla. 2005). Because courts have recently enforced similar provisions, *see**Weymouth v. Weymouth*, 87 So.3d 30, 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), we reverse the trial judge's determination that the provision of the prenuptial agreement at issue is void against Florida's public policy, hold that Ms. Gallerani has met the conditions of that provision, and remand for entry of a revised final judgment of dissolution of marriage ratifying, incorporating, and enforcing the prenuptial agreement including the provision at issue.

*1050Reversed and remanded with instructions.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 on Form 10-Q of
TreeCon Resources, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively,
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.



|                       |  |     |  |                                                                                      
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 13, 2004 |  | By: |  | /S/ Mike Boatman                                                                     
|                       |  |     |  | Mike Boatman                                                                         
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) and principal financial officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.