alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2 min read

# NASA Offers Guidance for Drone Use Viewing Antares Launch

### Goddard Digital Team

Feb 05, 2021

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

Drone operators are being urged to exercise caution if using their aircraft to view the Antares rocket launch and avoid flying over the public and NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility property.

Drones, also called unmanned aerial systems (UAS), should not fly over NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility property, the marsh areas between Wallops Island and the mainland, or over the Atlantic Ocean east of Wallops Island. A Temporary Flight Restriction and other Special Use Airspace will be activated by the Federal Aviation Administration. Fines and penalties are applicable and will be enforced.  

There will be several thousand people in the area viewing the launch. Public safety is paramount and drones should not be flown over crowds.

The Wallops Range is committed to making sure that the viewing public is safe and that drones do not pose a threat to the success and safety of launch operations.

Links to FAA fact sheets for UAS pilots:

**Recreational UAS Pilot (Hobbyist)**

https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/

https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/where_can_i_fly/airspace_restrictions/flying_near_airports/

**Pilot Handbook (32MB just for chap 14)**https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/

Smart phone applications for UAS pilots can be found in the App Store:
            - B4UFLY
            - AIRMAP

These applications show Special Use Airspace and let the pilot know whether they can fly and what approvals they need at their location.

## Discover More Topics From NASA

Wallops Flight Facility

Wallops Range

Commercial Space

Wallops Flight Facility Visitor Center
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has det ermined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 98-20299 Summary Calendar

___________________________
NORTHFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS

RODNEY PININA; CRAIG KEHRER; GERALD T. CASHIOLA; ANDREW F.

CASHIOLA; SANDRA K. CASHIOLA, Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-97-2176)

___________________________________________________ Septmeber 17, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * We affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis of its comprehensive Memorandum and Order of March 16, 1998.
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David J. Mickelson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 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; and

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



                                    BY:   /s/  David J. Mickelson
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                           David J. Mickelson
                                           Executive Vice President,
                                           Chief Financial Officer and Chief
                                           Operating Officer
                                           August 14, 2002
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 25, 2011

y0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

142939 & (163)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142939 COA: 291554 Jackson CC: 08-004100-FH ANDREW LYNN BREEDING, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for peremptory relief is DENIED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00276-CR

Efren MORENO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR10602

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is permanently ABATED. 

SIGNED September 14, 2022.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
#### NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Thomas YOUNG; Director, office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 00-2452.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 10, 2001.

Decided Aug. 28, 2003.

Jonathan H. Walker, Christopher R. Hedrick, Mason, Cowardin & Mason, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Petitioner. Judith E. Kramer, Carol A. De Deo, Mark A. Reinhalter, Julia Mankata, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. for Respondents.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s order denying partial relief under § 8(f) of The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-950 (West 1986 & Supp.2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We deny as moot the Employer’s motion to hold the case in abeyance pending resolution of *Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Winn,*326 F.3d 427 (4th Cir.2003); *Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Ward,*326 F.3d 434 (4th Cir.2003); *Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Cherry,*326 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.2003); and *Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Pounders,*326 F.3d 455 (4th Cir.2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### FELLOWSHIP BANK v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO., ETC.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification denied. (See 158 *N. J. Super.*107)
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Laurel Capital Group, Inc. (the
Registrant);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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
report;4.
    
    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-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants
internal control over financial reporting;
 5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Registrants internal controls over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Edwin R. MausEdwin R. MausPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Darlene SPAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Oscar B. GOODMAN; et al., Defendant—Appellees.

No. 02-15512.

D.C. No. CV-00-00674-KJD.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2003.

Darlene Span, pro se, Phoenix, AZ, Michael C. Manning, Esq., Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*821Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Darlene Span appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice her action against her former attorney alleging malpractice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s dismissal for failure to serve a timely complaint and summons for an abuse of discretion, see *Walker v. Sumner,*14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Span’s complaint because Span failed to demonstrate service for over seventeen months after the complaint was filed, and after the district court warned her that failure to effect service would result in dismissal. *See*Fed. R.Civ.P. 4(m); *Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan),*253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001).

We construe Span’s objections to this Court’s order permitting the withdrawal of her counsel on appeal as a motion for reconsideration, and deny the motion.

Span’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Samuel Deleon Garza, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00092

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 196th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 29,016 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Samuel Deleon Garza, has adequately indicated his inability
to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 10, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OKLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2003 of Sport
Chalet, Inc. (the Company) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in such report.

| |  |                                                                                 
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Craig L. Levra

Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
and President
| |  |                                                                                 
| |  | /s/ Howard K. Kaminsky

Executive Vice President-Finance,                       
| |  | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary                                           

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Sport Chalet, Inc and will be furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC  California
Housing Tax Credit Fund IiI, L.P. (the  "Partnership") for the period ended June
30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I,  Thomas  J.  Riha,  Senior
Vice-President  and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates,  Inc.,  general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 result of operations of
          the Partnership.




/s/Melanie R. Wenk
------------------
Melanie R. Wenk
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
October 9, 2009
#### Doe, on the Demise of Shute, *v.*Grimes and Another.

*Tuesday, December*12.

The mortgagee of real estate has a right to the immediate possession of the mortgaged premises, unless there be an agreement to the contrary expressed in the mortgage or plainly inferible from it.

APPEAL from the *Wayne*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

— This was an action of ejectment brought by a mortgagee against a mortgagor. Plea, not guilty. The mortgage-deed was dated *August*the 21st, 1841, and was made to secure the payment of 4,100 dollars in three years from its date. The suit was commenced before default in the payment of the mortgage-money, and the only question in the case is, whether ejectment may be maintained by a mortgagee against a mortgagor before default, where the mortgage-deed is silent as to the possession. The Circuit Court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed to this Court.

The law, we think, is well settled that the mortgagee, by virtue of his mortgage, becomes the legal owner of the pre*2mises, and is consequently entitled at law to the immediate possession, unless there be an agreement between the parties, expressed in the contract, or plainly inferible from it, that the mortgagor shall remain in possession. Coote on Mort. 342, 351. — 1 Powell on Mort. 158, n. — 3 *id.*1152. — 4 Kent, 155. In *Birch*v. Wright, 1 T. R. 378, Buller, J., says, “The mortgagee has. a right to the actual possession whenever he pleases ; he may bring his ejectment at any moment that he will; and he is entitled to the estate as it is with all the crops growing on it.” And in *Colman*v. Packard, 16 Mass. 39, the Court said that it had long been settled and well known, that a mortgagee had a right to immediate possession of the mortgaged premises ; and yet, said the Court, “ parties still go on making mortgages without any covenant respecting the possession, although it is intended that the mortgagor shall remain in possession until the condition is broken.” Courts of equity also acknowledge the right of the mortgagee to the possession, and will not, it seems, interfere to prevent him from pursuing his legal remedy. *CholmondeLEy*v. Clinton, 2 Merivale, *359.*— Williams v. Medlicot, 6 Price, 495(1).

*J. 8. Newman*and *8. E.*Perkins, for the appellant.

*J.*Rariden, for the appellees.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1) “ No action shall hereafter be maintained, by which a mortgagee, or his assigns, or representatives, shall recover the mortgaged premises, or the possession thereof, unless there be, in addition to the usual covenants, a clause inserted in such mortgage, by which it is specially provided that the mortgagee shall be entitled to the possession of such premises.” R. S. 1843, p. 459.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATON OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

# Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics,
Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, the (Report), I,
Deborah F. Ricci, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 906 1350, 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/ Deborah F. Ricci

Deborah F. Ricci
Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial
Officer)
February 13, 2004

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and will
be retained by Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
32.2




Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to U.S.C. Section 1350


As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, John E. Yetter, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc., hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 of Derma
Sciences, Inc. (the “Form 10-Q”) upon my best knowledge and belief fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Derma Sciences, Inc.




Dated:  August
      12, 2010
            /s/ John E. YetterJohn
      E. Yetter, CPAVice
      President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2017 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2017

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse and post office building 
  located at 93 Atocha Street in Ponce, Puerto Rico, as the ``Luis A. 
       Ferre United States Courthouse and Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LUIS A. FERRE UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse and post office 
building located at 93 Atocha Street in Ponce, Puerto Rico, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Luis A. Ferre United States Courthouse 
and Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper or other record of the United States to the courthouse and post 
office building referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the Luis A. Ferre United States Courthouse and Post Office 
Building.

            Passed the Senate June 9, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2017

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States courthouse and post office building 
  located at 93 Atocha Street in Ponce, Puerto Rico, as the ``Luis A. 
       Ferre United States Courthouse and Post Office Building''.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13
February 26, 1999

Mr. Jack N. Hayden
2608 Ocean Boulevard
Corona Del Mar,
California 92625

Dear Jack:

We are pleased that you have decided not to terminate your employment with TSC
and to resume your full-time employment effective April 1, 1999, pursuant to the
terms set forth below.

Your employment with TSC will continue to be governed by the letter of
understanding of August 5, 1998, until April 1, 1999. On that date you will
resume full-time employment pursuant to the terms of your January 19, 1996
employment agreement, subject to the following amendments: (a) your new
position, which reports directly to me, shall be Group President; and, (b) your
new base salary shall be $480 thousand per annum.

In consideration for your agreement to resume full-time employment in your new
role, TSC agrees to pay you a bonus of $460 thousand which shall not be grossed
up for taxes. Additionally, TSC agrees to guarantee you a bonus for calendar
year 1999 of at least $200 thousand. While the options you were previously
granted shall remain in full force pursuant to the terms thereof, TSC agrees to
grant you 150 thousand new options, subject to the approval of the Compensation
Committee of the Board, pursuant to the company's current option agreement for
existing employees.

I am very enthused about your decision to resume full-time employment with the
company in your new role.

If you are in agreement with the terms of this letter and the accompanying
agreement please execute them both and fax them to me at 312 228-4556. Following
the execution of the faxes it is our intention to exchange hard copies for
signature.

Very truly yours,                                      Concurrence

/s/ JOHN T. KOHLER                                 /s/ JACK N. HAYDEN
    John T. Kohler                                     Jack N. Hayden
President and Chief Executive Officer