alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee

Peter Sachs, AUS-440

UTM Roadmap and Deep Dive

March 16, 2021
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 2

Today’s Briefing

• BVLOS ARC and Rulemaking Update

• UTM Projects Underway 

• Recent Research
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 3

BVLOS ARC and Rulemaking

BVLOS ARC

Rulemaking

2021 2022 2023
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 4

UTM Projects 

• UPP2 Progress Report and Final Report

• UTM Implementation Plan

• UTM Conops v3.0

• Technical Assists for UTM Services
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 5

UPP2 Final Report

• Density limits given altitude buffers

• Volumes didn’t conform to ASTM 

95% containment error bounds

• Lack of common altitude reference

• Limited ability of operators to 

respond to conflicts

• Human interface issues

• HITL response time issues
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 6

Recent Research
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 7

Strategic Deconfliction

What is the safety benefit

of using strategic 

deconfliction?
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 8

Safety Benefits of SD

• How good is strategic deconfliction at reducing UAS-UAS 

collisions?

• What happens when fewer operators participate?

• Are there densities at which strategic deconfliction isn’t needed?

• At what densities does it become essential?
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 9

Iterative Research Approach

• Using existing funding at JHUAPL

• Robust simulator (multiple USSs, any airspace region, explicit 

bounded assumptions)

• Determined need for baseline understanding – justify need (if any) 

for use of strategic deconfliction
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 10

Preliminary Baseline Results

• No strategic deconfliction

• Varying operational densities 

• (flights per day, 10 hours per day of ops)

• Synthetic 25km x 25km region – no 

airspace restrictions

• Random vehicle routes

• Average flight 10 minutes

• Thousands of Monte Carlo simulated 

flight hours
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 11

Preliminary Baseline Results

• If we do nothing, expect 10 

MACs per year over a given city 

at just 52 total operations per 

day!

• How many resulting lethalities?

• What about public perception?
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 12

Next Simulation Scenarios

• Varying UAS participation in 

strategic deconfliction

• Incorporate operational intents

• More realistic airspace

• Add underlying population
Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee 13

Questions?
Jamol EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1721

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 28, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Dennis NELSON v. TANGIPAHOA PARISH JAIL

NO. 2019-CI-0183

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

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).
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 7059

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
LANTIS JETON YOUNG , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. ( 3:00

- cr - 00131

- GCM

- 1 )

Submitted : March 2 8 , 2024 Decided: April 2, 2024

Before KING and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Lantis Jeton Young , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7059 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Lantis Jeton Young appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
reduction of sentence under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Young , No. 3:00

- cr - 00131

- GCM

- 1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 2023).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-7059 Doc: 20 Filed: 04/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. P-2299-082]

      ( print page 638)    
                    On December 13, 2024, the Turlock & Modesto Irrigation District submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the California State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board), in conjunction with the above captioned project. The submittal also included a response from the Water Board stating that it received the application on the same day. Pursuant to section 5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,[1]                                          we hereby notify the Water Board of the following:                

*Date of Receipt of the Certification Request:*                     December 13, 2024.                

*Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request:*                     December 13, 2025.                

If the Water Board fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

Dated: December 30, 2024.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             18 CFR 5.23(b).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2024-31651 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
# C_2016222EN.01003101.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/31

---

Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Klassisk investment v EUIPO (CLASSIC FINE FOODS)

(Case T-194/16)

(2016/C 222/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Klassisk investment Ltd (Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: International registration of the figurative mark with the word components ‘CLASSIC FINE FOODS’ designating the European Union — International registration No 1 222 164

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 1970/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Phillip CASCIOLA, Appellant, v. Bernard DALEY and Stephen Tourtelot, Appellees.

No. 1D17-4067

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Jason Dewane GREEN v. STATE

CR-15-1247

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6144

WILLIAM DOUGLAS HAMPTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX PETERSBURG; ERIC WILSON, 

Warden; MAURICE DANZEY, Associate Warden; L. HUMPHREY, Recreation 

Supervisor; R. SPEARS, Education Supervisor; R. HUTCHINGS, Associate 

Warden; D. DICOCCO, Health Services Administrator; M. REYNOLDS, Director 

of Psychology; P. HILLETEWORK, Mid-Level Practitioner; S. HARRIS, Legal 

Administrator; A. LEWIS, Associate Warden; K. KIDDY, Unit A/B Manager,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00318-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Douglas Hampton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Douglas Hampton, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his declaratory judgment action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2012) for failure to 

state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hampton’s informal brief does not challenge the 

basis for the district court’s disposition, Hampton has forfeited appellate review of the 

court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, we deny Hampton’s motion for declaratory judgment and affirm the 

judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2016251EN.01004502.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/45

---

Action brought on 30 May 2016 – Pempe v EUIPO – Marshall Amplification (THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS)

(Case T-271/16)

(2016/C 251/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Yusuf Pempe (Créteil, France) (represented by: A. Vivès-Albertini, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marshall Amplification plc (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘THOMAS MARSHALL GARMENTS OF LEGENDS’ – Application for registration No 11 570 264

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2016 in Case R 376/2015-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the oppostion in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the oppostion in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of the provisions of Regulation No 207/2009 concerning the proof of use and the likelihood of confusion between signs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the provisions of Regulation No 207/2009 concerning the proof of use and the likelihood of confusion between signs.

---
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 Quarterly Report of Horizon Lines Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 26, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, M. Mark Urbania, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ M. MARK URBANIA                              
|M. Mark Urbania                                  
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)                    
|                                                 
|April 28, 2006                                   



-35-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

VS. § NO. 3-03-CR-0078-N(14) 

§ NO. 3-06-CV-2063-N 

JOSEPH H. FIELDS §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct, and they are hereby accepted as the Findings of the Court. 

SIGNED February 28, 2007.

 

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:03-cr-00078-N Document 620 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 3723
# C_2019065EN.01000702.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht — Germany) — S v EA, EB, EC

(Case C-367/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Article 4(2)(e) - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 7(1)(e) - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin - Application to amend the product specification - Ham originating from the Black Forest, Germany (‘Schwarzwälder Schinken’) - Requirements to package in the area of production - Applicability of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 or of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012))

(2019/C 65/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundespatentgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S

Defendants: EA, EB, EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1898/2006 of 14 December 2006 laying down detailed rules of implementation of Regulation No 510/2006, and Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement to package a product covered by a protected geographical indication in its geographical area of production is justified, under Article 4(2)(e), if it constitutes a necessary and proportionate means to safeguard the quality of the product, to guarantee its origin or to ensure the verification of the specification of the protected geographical indication. It is for the national court to assess whether that requirement is duly justified by one of the objectives mentioned above, regarding the protected geographical indication ‘Schwarzwälder Schinken’.

---

(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.

---
Alejandro PUYALENA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-754

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31446]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public 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 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel; Advancing Technologies to Improve Delivery of 
Pharmacological, Gene Editing, and other Cargoes for HIV and SUD 
Mechanistic or Therapeutic Research.
    Date: February 20, 2025.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institute of Health, National Institute on 
Drug Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Sindhu Kizhakke Madathil, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Division of Extramural Research, Scientific Review 
Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, 301 North Stonestreet 
Avenue, MSC 6021, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-5702, 
[email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Initial 
Review Group; Career Development Education and Training Study 
Section.
    Date: February 28, 2025.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Address: National Institute of Health, National Institute on 
Drug Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Sindhu Kizhakke Madathil, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Division of Extramural Research, Scientific Review 
Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, 301 North Stonestreet 
Avenue, MSC 6021, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-5702, 
[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug 
Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist 
Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug 
Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 
93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 26, 2024.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-31446 Filed 12-31-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 13.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. §1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the annual report of MAX Resource Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher Cherry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Christopher Cherry
 __________________________________
 Christopher Cherry
 Chief Financial Officer
 Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
 June 18, 2013
 
 
 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.