alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal Register,

should it be determined that publication is needed:
Applicant Jeff Pennell. seeks an exemption from the following rules:

14 C.F.R. §21, subpart H; 14 C.F.R 45.23(b);14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113( a) & (b);91.7 (a); 91.9(b) (2);91.103(b);91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a);91.203(a) and (b); 91.405 (a); 91.407 (a) (1); 91.409 (a) (2); 91.409 (a) (2) and 91.417 (a) & (b) to operate commercially a small unmanned vehicle (55lbs or less). Approval ofexemptions allowing commercial operations ofsUASs, will enhance safety by reducing risk. Conventional operations, using jet or piston power aircraft, operate at extremely low altitudesjust feet from the subjects being filmed and in extreme proximity to people and structures and present the risks associated with vehicles that weigh in the neighborhood of4,000lbs, carrying large amounts ofjetA or otherfuel. Such aircraft must flyto and from the operational location. In contrast, a sUAS weighing fewer than 55 lbs. and powered by batteries eliminates virtually all ofthat risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel carried on board. The sUAS is carried to the operation site and not flown. The sUAS will carry no passengers or crew and, therefore, will not expose them to the risks associated with manned aircraft flights. The operation ofsmall UASs, weighting less than 55 lbs., conducted in the strict conditions outlined above, will provide an equivalent level ofsafety supporting the grant ofthe exemptions requested herein, including exempting the applicant from the requirements of Part 21 and allowing commercial operations. These lightweight aircraft operate at slow speeds, close to the ground, and in a sterile environment and, as a result, are far saferthan conventional operations conducted with turbine helicopters operating in close proximityto the ground and people.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case Number: 20 -/qfl18'<b ·£/ttf 

Chapter 13 

TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO EXEMPTIONS 

AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING 

Nancy K. Neidich, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, files this Objection to Exemptions as 

the Trustee objects to the exemption of property as stated in the debtor(s)' Schedules as being 

over the legal limit and/or raising a question as to the amount of the claimed exemption and 

therefore it does not appear that the debtors are entitled to same and therefore excessive or 

inapp_!YPriate exemptions should be stricken and disallowed. Objecting specifically as checked: 

1 ?Y/a) Homestead property which is multi-family (duplex) or not actually used as homestead. 

__ b) Personal property exempted over $1000 with or $5000 without Homestead exemption. 

__ c) Tenants By the Entireties, evidence ofjoint title and motion served on all creditors 

with a statement of which property is jointly held and requiring objection from any joint 

creditor 

d) Bare Legal Title, evidence that the debtor has never contributed to the payment, 

maintenance, or use. (or that there is no equity in the property for the estate) 

_e) Vague exemption in the amount stated, description of asset, or citation of exemption. 

_f) Wages, evidence of head of family (if joint case need specific debtor claiming 

exemption) and 6 months bank statements with deposits traced. 

_g) Automobile exemption of $1000.00 is split between more than one automobile. 

_x_h) Valuation Issues: the debtor did not timely provide the Trustee with requested 

valuation, including but not limited to bank statements, real prope1ty or vehicles. 

__ i) Proof of pension or 401K statement or annuity 

-~D Use of improper application of exemption: residency 522(b)(3), not eligible 

for exemption 

__ k)Other 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing and the Notice of 

Hearing generated by the Clerk of the Court was served through ECF on debtor's attorney on 

the same day as the objection is filed with the Clerk of the Court. 

Submitted by 

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQUIRE 

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 

FLORIDA BAR NO.: 441856 

P.O. BOX 279806 

MIRAMAR, FL 33027 

(954) 4 4 3 -4402 

Case 20-19686-LMI Doc 20 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5037 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5037

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 26, 2016

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize the establishment of a program of voluntary separation 
    incentive payments for nonjudicial employees of the District of 
   Columbia courts and employees of the District of Columbia Public 
                           Defender Service.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Courts and 
Public Defender Service Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR PROGRAM OF VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE 
              PAYMENTS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 17 of title 11, District of Columbia 
Official Code, is amended by inserting after section 11-1726 the 
following new section:
``Sec. 11-1726A. Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments
    ``The Joint Committee on Judicial Administration may, by 
regulation, establish a program substantially similar to the program 
established under subchapter II of chapter 35 of title 5, United States 
Code, for nonjudicial employees of the District of Columbia courts, 
except that the maximum amount of the payment made under the program to 
any individual may not exceed the amount referred to in section 
3523(b)(3)(B) of title 5, United States Code.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of chapter 17 of 
title 11, District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 11-1726 the following new item:

``11-1726A. Voluntary separation incentive payments.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR PROGRAM OF VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE 
              PAYMENTS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC DEFENDER 
              SERVICE.

    Section 305 of the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal 
Procedure Act of 1970 (sec. 2-1605, D.C. Official Code) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) The Director may establish a program substantially similar to 
the program established under subchapter II of chapter 35 of title 5, 
United States Code, for employees of the Service, except that the 
maximum amount of the payment made under the program to any individual 
may not exceed the amount referred to in section 3523(b)(3)(B) of title 
5, United States Code.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Water resources data Iowa, water year 1981      

      January 1, 1982    

View Document

This report was prepared by personnel of the Iowa district of the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey under the supervision of 0. G. Lara, Acting District Chief, and Alfred Clebsch, Jr., Regional Hydrologist, Central Region. It was done in cooperation with the State of Iowa and with other agencies.

This report is one of a series issued by Iowa. General direction for the series is by Philip Cohen, Jr., Chief Hydrologist, U. S. Geological Survey, and R. J. Dingman, Assistant Chief Hydrologist for Scientific Publications and Data Management.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

####             Water Resources Mission Area - Headquarters        

USGS Headquarters12201 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA20192United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - iowa

View All **
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served through ECF on the debtor’s attorney or by U.S. First Class 

pre-paid Mail on the pro se debtor on the same day filed with the Court.

Submitted by:

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQ, STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806, MIRAMAR, FL 33027, (954) 443-4402

RE: RICARDO HERNANDEZ CASE NUMBER: 20-14645-AJC

TRUSTEE'S NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY FOR CONFIRMATION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Trustee reviewed this case and found the following deficiencies remain unresolved from the Trustee’s letter 

requesting documents and prior deficiencies and thus objects as follows (If this case is dismissed, this 

deficiency is an objection to reinstatement until all documents are received or all issues are addressed): 

WRITTEN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AND/OR DOCUMENTS REQUESTED MUST BE 

RECEIVED BY 5PM AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS (NOT INCLUDING HOLIDAYS) PRIOR TO THE 

CONFIRMATION HEARING TO AVOID DISMISSAL. Please note: documents that were not timely 

filed/received by the trustee may not be considered as there is not sufficient time for an additional review of this 

case. Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to “re-sending” documents. The Trustee 

reserves the right to raise additional objections UNTIL all documents are timely provided to the Trustee and 

reviewed for possible issues raised and additional documents needed. 

The debtor or debtor’s attorney must appear at the confirmation hearing even if they pre-hear with the 

Trustee. The debtor may be dismissed for failure to fund the plan if they are delinquent in payments. 

The Court may dismiss this case if no one appears to represent the debtor at the confirmation hearing.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: IF THE DEBTOR(S) OBJECTS TO THE TRUSTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, THE 

DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY MUST CONTACT THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE AND SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY 

BEFORE 2PM THE LAST BUSINESS DAY PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION HEARING TO SEEK A 

RESOLUTION OR THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE DEEMED UNCONTESTED BY THE DEBTOR. 

===============================================================================

Recommendation for September 15, 2020 hearing. All amendments and documents for the September 15, 

2020 hearing were due as of August 31, 2020. (Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to 

"re-sending" documents)

1AP served 6/9

If Counsel for the Debtor(s) appears at confirmation, confirms service, and agrees on the record:

Continue to 10/27:

Due on or before 5pm on 10/8: Provide affidavit from debtor as the tools “were either lost or taken from 

where he used to work as a mechanic.”

Remains unresolved from prior deficiency

Due by 5 pm on 9/17 or DISMISS, if received Cont. to 10/27: Information on sale listed on SOFA 18.

Case 20-14645-AJC Doc 44 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 1
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Quantifying 10 years of improved earthquake-monitoring performance in the Caribbean region      

      December 16, 2015    

Over 75 tsunamis have been documented in the Caribbean and adjacent regions during the past 500 years. Since 1500, at least 4484 people are reported to have perished in these killer waves. Hundreds of thousands are currently threatened along the Caribbean coastlines. Were a great tsunamigenic earthquake to occur in the Caribbean region today, the effects would potentially be catastrophic due to an increasingly vulnerable region that has seen significant population increases in the past 40–50 years and currently hosts an estimated 500,000 daily beach visitors from North America and Europe, a majority of whom are not likely aware of tsunami and earthquake hazards. Following the magnitude 9.1 Sumatra–Andaman Islands earthquake of 26 December 2004, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Intergovernmental Coordination Group (ICG) for the Tsunami and other Coastal Hazards Early Warning System for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions (CARIBE‐EWS) was established and developed minimum performance standards for the detection and analysis of earthquakes. In this study, we model earthquake‐magnitude detection threshold and P‐wave detection time and demonstrate that the requirements established by the UNESCO ICG CARIBE‐EWS are met with 100% of the network operating. We demonstrate that earthquake‐monitoring performance in the Caribbean Sea region has improved significantly in the past decade as the number of real‐time seismic stations available to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tsunami warning centers have increased. We also identify weaknesses in the current international network and provide guidance for selecting the optimal distribution of seismic stations contributed from existing real‐time broadband national networks in the region.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Study Area

### Contact

#### Geologic Hazards Science Center

1711 Illinois St.Golden, CO80401United States

303-273-8500

### Explore Search

                  - Earthquakes | Los terremotos
                  - Natural Hazards
                  - Caribbean region

View All **
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                          <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,570                       4
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           682                     682
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,252)                   (686)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      477                     462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (477)                   (462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (477)                   (462)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (477)                   (462)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.001)                  (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.001)                  (.001)



</TABLE>
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Movement and spawning of American shad transported above dams on the Roanoke River, North Carolina and Virginia      

      April 21, 2011    

American shad Alosa sapidissima are in decline throughout much of their native range as a result of overfishing, pollution, and habitat alteration in coastal rivers where they spawn. One approach to restoration in regulated rivers is to provide access to historical spawning habitat above dams through a trap-and-transport program. We examined the initial survival, movement patterns, spawning, and downstream passage of sonic-tagged adult American shad transported to reservoir and riverine habitats upstream of hydroelectric dams on the Roanoke River, North Carolina and Virginia, during 2007–2009. Average survival to release in 2007–2008 was 85%, but survival decreased with increasing water temperature. Some tagged fish released in reservoirs migrated upstream to rivers; however, most meandered back and forth within the reservoir. A higher percentage of fish migrated through a smaller (8,215-ha) than a larger (20,234-ha) reservoir, suggesting that the population-level effects of transport may depend on upper basin characteristics. Transported American shad spent little time in upper basin rivers but were there when temperatures were appropriate for spawning. No American shad eggs were collected during weekly plankton sampling in upper basin rivers. The estimated initial survival of sonic-tagged American shad after downstream passage through each dam was 71–100%; however, only 1% of the detected fish migrated downstream through all three dams and many were relocated just upstream of a dam late in the season. Although adult American shad were successfully transported to upstream habitats in the Roanoke River basin, under present conditions transported individuals may have reduced effective fecundity and postspawning survival compared with nontransported fish that spawn in the lower Roanoke River.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Cooperative Research Units Program          

12201 Sunrise Valley DrReston, VA20192United States

(703) 648 - 4260

(703) 648 - 4269

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - roanoke river basin
                  - North Carolina
                  -  Virginia

View All **
STATE of Louisiana v. Chester BARBER

NO. 2018-KH-0526

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 3, 2018

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 175 (Monday, September 9, 1996)]
[Corrections]
[Page 47550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X96-30909]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 801, 803, 804, 807, 820, and 897

[Docket No. 95N-0253]

RIN 0910-AA48


Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes 
and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents

Correction

    In rule document 96-21900 beginning on page 44396 in the issue of 
Wednesday, August 28, 1996, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 44396, in the second column, under ``DATES: Effective 
date.'', in the last line ``February 28, 1998'' should read ``August 
28, 1998''.
    2. On the same page, in the same column, under ``DATES: Compliance 
dates., in the last line ``February 28, 1998'' should read ``August 28, 
1998''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4985 

AN ACT 

To amend the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act 

to protect classified information in Federal court challenges. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4985 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Kingpin Designation 

3 Improvement Act of 2016’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IN 

5 FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGES RELATING TO 

6 DESIGNATIONS UNDER THE NARCOTICS 

7 KINGPIN DESIGNATION ACT. 

8 Section 804 of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Des9 ignation Act (21 U.S.C. 1903) is amended by adding at 

10 the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(i) PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IN

12 FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGES RELATING TO DESIGNA13 TIONS.—In any judicial review of a determination made 

14 under this section, if the determination was based on clas15 sified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classi16 fied Information Procedures Act) such information may 

17 be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in cam18 era. This subsection does not confer or imply any right 

19 to judicial review.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 10, 2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4985 

AN ACT 

To amend the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designaeral court challenges. tion Act to protect classified information in Fed-
February 2 5 , 2015

Mr. Paul Gretch

Director

, Office of International Aviation

United States Department of Transportation

12 00 New Jersey Ave. , S. E

. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: American Airlines’ Application for an Exemption

( Dallas/Fort Worth

, Texas

– San Luis Potosi , Mexico)

(Docket DOT

- OST

- 201 5

- 0040 )

Dear Mr. Gretch:

We have polled the air carriers on the attached service list regarding

American Airlines’ Applicatio n for an Exemption ( DFW

- S L P ) . We received no

objections.

Accordingly, we respectfully request expedited allocation of the Exemption

requested in the Application.

Sincerely,

Howard Kass

Vice President

– Regulatory Affairs

Robert A. Wirick,

Managin g Director, Regulatory and

International Affairs

Abigail Donovan

Director, Congressional and Federal Affairs

11 01 17 th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 ( 202 ) 326

- 5 15 3 Fax: ( 202 ) 898

- 4810CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on February 2 5 , 2015 , I caused to be served a copy of the

foregoing Letter by email upon those ad dressees listed below:

englets@state.gov (Department of State)

cristinasa@state.gov (Department of State)

brian.hedberg@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

todd.homan@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

peter.irvine@dot.gov (Department of Transpo rtation)

laura.remo@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

brett.kruger@dot.gov (Department of Transportation)

john.s.duncan@faa.gov (Federal Aviation Administration)

dan.weiss@united.com (United)

steve.morrissey@united.com (United)

gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United)

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com (Delta)

chris.walker@delta.com (Delta)

jhill@cooley.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian)

perkmann@cooley.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian)

robert.land@jetblue.com (JetBlue)

jeremy.ross@alaskaair.com (Alaska)

dheffernan@cozen.com (Counsel for Alaska)

jyoung@y klaw.com (Counsel for Spirit)

dkirstein@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit)

bob.kneisley@wnco.com (Southwest)

leslie.abbott@wnco.com (Southwest)

john.fredericksen@suncountry.com (Sun Country)

thomas.ting@suncountry.com (Sun Country)

matwood@cozen.com (Co unsel for Frontier)

slachter@cozen.com (Counsel for Frontier)

ethan.blank@rjet.com (Republic)

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com (Counsel for Republic)

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com (Counsel for Republic)

rpommer@atlasair.com (Atlas)

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for UPS)

jennifer.nowak@ hklaw.com (Counsel for UPS)

barbara.russell@virginamerica.com (Virgin America)

john.varley@v irginamerica.com (Virgin America)

______________ ________

Abigail Donovan