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

Shane Braegger 

544 North 300 E 

Brigham City, UT 84302 

435-730-7122 

sbraegger@gmail.com 

To: 

U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W 12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Subject: Request for 333 exemption on remote control aircraft 

----- - ---- - ·--

To whom it may concern. 

Date: 4114/15 

My name is Shane Braegger. I am requesting an exemption for the 333 rule regarding commercial 

remote control aircraft. I am a nature photographer who has recently purchase a remote aircraft. Most 

of my photography falls under a hobbyist category however I do try to sell my pictures. By definition 

found on the FAA regulations, selling pictures requires this exemption. 

The remote control aircraft that I have is the DJI phantom vision 2. This aircraft is a quad copter 

weighing under 55 pounds as required by the hobbyist regulations. The actual weight is 1160 grams, 

based on the manufacturer data. This aircraft has numerous safety features to ensure safe flying. 

These include but not limited to a screen display, showing distance from the controller, height and 

speed. Computer assist flying ensuring for a safe level flight. GPS, with a push of a button the copter 

will return to the take off point on its own. This also automatically enables if communication between 

the controller and copter is lost, landing the aircraft automatically. 

I have practiced with a smaller cheaper aircraft to learn how to fly remote control aircraft. Once I felt 

comfortable in the use I purchased this aircraft, being the DJI phantom vision 2. 

I am not seeking any special permissions outside of the hobbyist regulations other than legally being 

able to fly, take pictur~s, and ~~ll those pictures . 

.. ------- ~- , --· --~ 

I had a hard time trying to fmd an online form to fill out with my information and letter of intent. I 

found that I was to search for a regulation on regulation.gov, and leave a comment, or send in a letter. 

I found it odd that is how you are requiring this exemption. If there is more required to fulfill this 

exemption request please contact me either by email, mail, or phone. My information is listed above. 

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. 

sh.#~
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 68 (Friday, April 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 16433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8158]


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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11699 and <greek-i>11700]


Mississippi Disaster <greek-i>MS-00027

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Mississippi dated 04/01/2009.
    Incident: Severe storms and tornadoes.
    Incident Period: 03/25/2009 through 03/28/2009.
    Effective Date: 04/01/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/01/2009.
    Economic Injury (Eidl) Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/04/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Simpson.
Contiguous Counties:
    Mississippi: Copiah, Covington, Hinds, Jefferson Davis, Lawrence, 
Rankin, Smith.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere....................     4.375
Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere.................     2.187
Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere....................     6.000
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             4.500
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere..........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11699 C 
and for economic injury is 11700 0.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> is 
Mississippi.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: April 1, 2009.
Darryl K. Hairston,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-8158 Filed 4-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**CERTIFICATION      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

| 1. | I                have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of PokerTek,                Inc.; |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based                on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement                of a                material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make                the                statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements                were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this                report; |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                April 29, 2008 |                                                               |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | By:                 /s/ Christopher J.C. Halligan   |
|                                | Christopher                J.C. Halligan                           |
|                                | Chief                Executive Officer                             |

----
Johnathan Z. MYRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-512

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Vikas SOOD, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-73300.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 26, 2004.

Marshall G. Whitehead, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNALAIN, RYMER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Vikas Sood, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum. We have jurisdic*106tion pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, *see Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Sood contends that the IJ erred in finding him not credible. We disagree. The IJ found Sood’s testimony implausible and offered specific and cogent reasons for disbelieving him. *See id.*at 1043. Accordingly, Sood failed to establish eligibility for asylum.

Pursuant to *Desta v. Ashcroft,*No. 03-70477, petitioner’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was granted, or continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, to the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 99.5 – CERTIFICATION OF CEO

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Tom L Kirchner, certify that:- I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Electronic Systems Technology    Inc.;    
- Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a    material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in    light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with    respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;    
- Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information    included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial    condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the    periods presented in this quarterly report;    
- The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing    and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules    13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and have:  
- designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information    relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us    by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly    report is being prepared;    
- evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures    as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the    "Evaluation Date"); and    
- presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the    disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  
- The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most    recent evaluation, to the Registrant’s auditor’s and the audit committee of    Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  
- all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could    adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report    financial data and have identified for the Registrant’s auditors any material    weaknesses in internal controls; and    
- any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have    a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls; and  
- The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly    report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other    factors that could significantly affect internal control subsequent to the date of our    most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant    deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Date: November 12, 2003

/s/ TOM L KIRCHNERTom L. Kirchner President and Chief Executive Officer
Orthal James SIMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-1526

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Robert J. GARCIA, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-5180

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE EX REL. Donald BARNES v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0425

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentences, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See* *State v. Parker* , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated several applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
# Official Journal L 270/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 270 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6429 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 270

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6429 July 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1235 of 12 May 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council with rules concerning applications for registration of geographical indications of spirit drinks, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of the registration and the register | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1236 of 12 May 2021 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning applications for registration of geographical indications of spirit drinks, the opposition procedure, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of the registration, use of symbol and control | 10 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1237 of 23 July 2021 amending Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (
  1
  ) | 39 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1235 of 12 May 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council with rules concerning applications for registration of geographical indications of spirit drinks, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of the registration and the register

1

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1236 of 12 May 2021 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning applications for registration of geographical indications of spirit drinks, the opposition procedure, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of the registration, use of symbol and control

10

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1237 of 23 July 2021 amending Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (
  1
  )

1

39

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
1 The Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, Unit ed States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3979

___________ Timothy Carmine Muccilli, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Joel Bos; Norman J. Loren; Mark * Mansavage; John K. Carlson, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 31, 2006 Filed: November 2, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Timothy Muccilli appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Having conducted de novo review, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. See Lee v. Spellings , 447 F.3d 1087, 1088-89 (8th Cir. 2006) (grant of summary judgment may be affirmed on any basis-2- supported by record); Lommen v. City of East Grand Forks , 97 F.3d 272, 274 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Edward W. BRONNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 6, 2018.

Edward W. Bronner, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katie Lynn Salemi, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*271We affirm the order denying Edward Bronner's postconviction motion as it relates to lower court case number 2012-CF-003297. We reverse the order as it relates to lower court case numbers 2012-CF-005374 and 2012-CF-016391 and remand for consideration of Bronner's claims in light of *State v. Miller*, 227 So.3d 562, 564 (Fla. 2017).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
A.L. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2150808

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Harold CABRERA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2259

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm







The Board
of Directors


U.S. Bank
National Association





We have
examined management’sassertion,
included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the
Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust
Asset-Backed Securitiesplatform (the Platform)
as of March 31, 2009, and for the
period fromApril
1, 2008 through March 31, 2009, except forservicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)–(iv),
1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(v)–(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i), and
1122(d)(4)(i)–(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by
this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those
servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s
assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on
our examination.





Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that
comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether
errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.




In our
opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of March 31, 2009, and for the periodfrom
April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009, for the Corporate Trust Asset-Backed
Securities platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/ Ernst & Young LLP





Minneapolis,
Minnesota


May 27,
2009
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive 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 of NPC International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2011 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James K. Schwartz, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of NPC International, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
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: April 28, 2011



/s/  James K. SchwartzJames K. Schwartz
President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Operating Officer