alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Regulatory Eva luation

D ocket No. FAA- Directorate I dentifier: 

### -A D

ffy o umak e c hang es to the values in the table be low, y ou mus t ens ur e the to tal s updat e

**according~y.** 

### ff th ey do n o t , click (or Tab ) into and then out of the changed ce ll.
Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g

. , aircraft, engine, (e.g., In spection , propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Co st rep lacement) (include cost (labo r + 

## u.s. for U

. S. Fleet Do n ot in clude oncondition costs here access , testing , (@$85/h parts ) Registered and c lose-up) our) Products 

### In spec ti on 2,3 1 2.0 '-I 1 l .")( $0 )(, () 

### 142 - Qu.:: S<l•l ')U

**~** {).(If l} I){} O.•·J 

## s

**v.OJ~** () ()() (l 'l 0 (Ji (J( 'J.•') ' 0 0( ll () t1C t),l 'l

**,J~** lrl I

**~~** nr [)I l'

**I'~J** ..: (, ()( t" ,., fl (1\ l}, l) !J

r U llf (Ill n.u: 

## n r1c 1 

### ur; U. 1 J0 0 1 Jt (It) 

## ' (\ oo 11 

### r1c l_()(, .I Ill! 'J,O( (F il ,,, I ,ll Po,
1;1 I '

t It The known numb er of products in co mpliance: 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fle et: $27,905,840 Costs covere d under warran ty (if 

### known) $

On- Conditio n Cos ts: • Action Work-h ou rs Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g. , Inspection , (include access , (@$85/hour)

replacement) testi ng , and close

up) 

### * R e p air 18.3 ., 1 •')') ·l l $0 n liO I IJI\ '-. (·WI ) •lhi > ll l1 I '-. 1 I Hr 

### Sp ecia l considerations for Eco n omic Anal ysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assum ed or mi g ht not be obvious. Thisfield can also be used to exp la in warranty costs) : 

# * 18 .3 hours per

### window as needed. Access/closure not included. Parts are supplied by operator. Cost per product is varies, depending on the number of window repair. Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?

- ; YES*0**NO~** 

### *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant?

## ~ YES*0**NO~** 

### *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No

# answer.~**·** YESD**NO~** 

### Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

- YES*0**NO~** 

### *Explanation:
# C_2011038EN.01001602.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/16

---

Action brought on 7 December 2010 — Laboratoire Garnier v OHIM (natural beauty)

(Case T-559/10)

2011/C 38/30

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Dissmann and A. Steegmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in case R 971/2010-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in case R 971/2010-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘natural beauty’ for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8294233

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, according to article 65 (2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly came to the conclusion that these absolute grounds of refusal apply to the contested trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 32


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 SUNBURST ACQUISITIONS V, INC.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2007,
(the "Report"), I, Terence Ho, Director of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: December 18, 2007

	/s/ Terence Ho
	Director
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 11066 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DESTINY DAWN RAYNEA CHANDLER , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 263

- 1

Before DAVIS, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Destiny Dawn Raynea Chandler appeals the 12

- month sentence imposed following the revocation of her supervised release . Chandler argues that the district court committed procedural error by considering rehabilitation, an impermissible factor, in selecting her revocation sente nce. She also argues
that her 12

- month revocation sentence, which is above the range recommen ded by the Sentencing Guideline s ’ policy statements, is substantively

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined 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 Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 15, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-11066 Document: 00514514382 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2018No. 17

- 11066

2 unreasonable. This court reviews a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of a te rm of supervised release under the “plainly unreasonable”
standard. United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011)

. After announcing the revocation sentence, the district court stated that Chandler’s “refusal to appropriately address her subst ance abuse problem makes her a risk to the community.” The court went on to explain that “[a] sentence of 12 months will serve to address the violation conduct committed by her and as a deterrent from further criminal activity.” Defense counsel objected to the revocation sentence “to the extent the [c]ourt lengthened the sentence for the purposes of fostering defendant’s rehabilitation. ” Nothing in the district court’s explanation at the revocation hearing indicates that it increased Chandler’s revocation sentence for purposes of rehabilitation or that rehabilitation was a “dominant factor” in the court’s selection of a sentence. See United States v. Culbertson , 712 F.3d 235, 240 (5th Cir. 2013). It is clear from the court’s statements at the revocation hearing that a desire to protect the public and to deter further criminal activity were the dominant factors in the court’s 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis. Chandler’s claim of procedural error is without merit. Chandler claims that her sentence is substanti vely unreasonable because the district court gave significant weight to an improper factor

— the need for rehabilitation

— and made a clear error in judgment in balancing the § 3553(a) factors. See United Sta tes v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). As already discussed, the district court’s revocation sentence was not improperly informed by Chand ler’s need for rehabilitation and the court appropriately applied the relevant § 3553(a) factors to the facts of Chandler’s

case

. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-11066 Document: 00514514382 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas S. Williams, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 413]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), dated June 6, 2005, which, after a hearing pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The County Court’s determination to designate the defendant a level three sex offender is supported by clear and convincing *663evidence *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]). The County Court properly assessed 15 points for the defendant’s history of alcohol abuse in light of the defendant’s admissions, as reflected in the presentence report, that he consumed a six-pack of beer before the commission of one of the offenses, had been drinking alcohol since he was 17 years of age, and had been able to consume up to three six-packs at a time *(see People v Perser,*29 AD3d 767 [2006]). He also ignored the advice of his therapist to stop drinking *(see People v Masters,*19 AD3d 387 [2005]). The defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of the existence of special circumstances to warrant a downward departure from the presumptive risk level *(see People v Davis,*26 AD3d 364, 364-365 [2006]; *People v Vaughn,*26 AD3d 776, 776-777 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### Town of North East et al., Respondents, v Janet S. Bordages et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[822 NYS2d 708]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered November 16, 2005, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs set forth a cause of action for fraudulent conveyance pursuant to Debtor and Creditor Law § 273-a. The court-ordered consent decree in the federal cost recovery action, brought under the Superfund Act (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA] 42 USC § 9601*et*seq.) against Azon Corporation (of which defendants were directors and/or shareholders or relatives thereof), constituted a final judgment for purposes of the statute *(see Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources,*532 US 598, 604 [2001]; *Rufo v Inmates of Suffolk County Jail,*502 US 367, 378 [1992]).

Because the State of New York was always a party in interest pursuant to the state assistance contract *(see*ECL 27-1313 [5] [g]; 52-0303 [4]), the amended complaint specified the Town of North East’s legal obligation to recover state monies. When the State joined as a party plaintiff, nunc pro tunc (Fed Rules Civ Pro rule 17 [a]), the court properly held that the State was a party to this action as of the time those monies were transferred from the corporation to defendants.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
# C_2011211EN.01002403.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/24

---

Order of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-115/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision 2010/45/EU - List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region - Measure not open to challenge - Measure merely confirmatory - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 211/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, acting as Agent, and by D. Wyatt QC and M. Wood, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and D. Recchia, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/45/EU of 22 December 2009 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2010 L 30, p. 322) to the extent that it lists the site called ‘Estrecho oriental’ (under reference ES6120032) as a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall pay the costs.

| 3. | There is no need to rule on the Kingdom of Spain’s application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to rule on the Kingdom of Spain’s application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                          NATIONAL DENTEX CORPORATION
 
                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                         --------------------------------------
                                                            1995          1996          1997
                                                            ----          ----          ----
<S>                                                      <C>           <C>           <C>
Computation of Basic Net Income per Share:
Net Income applicable to common stock..................  $3,243,808    $3,704,926    $4,346,836

Shares:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding........   3,175,150     3,414,411     3,454,473
     Basic net income per share........................  $     1.02    $     1.09    $     1.26
                                                         ==========    ==========    ==========
Computation of Diluted Net Income per Share:
Net income per computation above.......................  $3,243,808    $3,704,926    $4,346,836
                                                         ----------    ----------    ----------
Shares:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding........   3,175,150     3,414,411     3,454,473
     Add: Shares issuable from assumed exercise of
       options and warrants (as determined by the
       application of the treasury stock method).......     252,059        94,820        62,297
                                                         ----------    ----------    ----------
     Weighted average common shares outstanding as
       adjusted........................................   3,427,209     3,509,231     3,516,770
                                                         ----------    ----------    ----------
     Fully diluted net income per share................  $     0.95    $     1.06    $     1.24
                                                         ==========    ==========    ==========
</TABLE>
#### § 4.1 Scope and applicability of rules of practice.

The Uniform Rules of Practice for the Department of Agriculture promulgated in subpart H of part 1, subtitle A, title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, are the Rules of Practice applicable to adjudicatory, administrative proceedings under section 19 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149). In addition, the Supplemental Rules of Practice set forth in subpart B of this part shall be applicable to such proceedings.
#### § 78.34 Other movements.

The Administrator may, upon request in specific cases, permit the movement in interstate commerce of swine not otherwise provided for in this subpart under such conditions as the Administrator may prescribe in each case to prevent the spread of brucellosis. The Administrator shall promptly notify the State animal health officials of the States involved of any such action.

[51 FR 32580, Sept. 12, 1986, as amended at 56 FR 54534, Oct. 22, 1991]
### §232. Barrels below standard; marking

All barrels packed with apples shall be deemed to be below standard if the barrel bears any statement, design, or device indicating that the barrel is a standard barrel of apples, as defined in section 231 of this title, and the capacity of the barrel is less than the capacity prescribed by said section, unless the barrel shall be plainly marked on end and side with words or figures showing the fractional relation which the actual capacity of the barrel bears to the capacity prescribed by said section. The marking required by this section shall be in block letters of size not less than seventy-two point (one-inch) gothic.

(Aug. 3, 1912, ch. 273, §4, 37 Stat. 251.)
Engine and Propeller Directorate 12 New England Executive Park

Burlington, MA 01803

(781) 238-7110, Fax: (781) 238-7199

July 22, 2013

Charles A. Barth, Director

Office of the Federal Register (NF)

National Archives and Records Administration

700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, D.C. 20408-0001

Dear Mr. Barth:

Under 1 CFR part 51, we request that you approve the incorporation by reference of the material 

listed below into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). An original copy of the material is 

enclosed. We will reference the following material in 14 CFR 39.13:

Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin No. PW4G-112-A72-330, Revision 2, dated July 11, 

2013.

We have also included a draft of the rule that incorporates the material into the CFR.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian Warner

Technical Writer-Editor

Engine & Propeller Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service

(781) 238-7169
exv10w3






EXHIBIT 10.3




ACCEPTANCE LETTER AND COMMENCEMENT DATE AGREEMENT




     THIS AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made this 24th day of March 2008, by and between Southwest
Valley Partners, LLC (“Landlord”) and Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (“Tenant”).



     WHEREAS effective as of June 21, 2007, Landlord and Tenant entered into a Lease, as amended
(the “Lease”) for the Premises consisting of approximately 328,995 sf located in the Riverside
Business Center, Phoenix, Arizona, and



     WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant now desire to set forth the Commencement Date of the Premises and
document other acknowledgements pursuant to the Lease.



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the rent reserved herein and their mutual undertakings,
Landlord and Tenant agree as follows:




	 	1.	 	Commencement Date; Term. The Commencement Date of the
Premises is [***], and the Expiration Date is [***].
	 
	 	2.	 	Additional Rent/Base Rent. Tenant shall commence paying (a)
Additional Rent (as defined in the Lease) as of [***] and (b) Base Bent (as
defined in the Lease) as of [***].
	 
	 	3.	 	Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which,
collectively, shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument.







 [Signatures to Follow.]






 




			
	[***]:	 	Certain information on this
page has been omitted and filed separately with the Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this Agreement on the day and year first
above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TENANT:	 	 	 	LANDLORD:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ULTA SALON, COSMETICS &	 	 	 	SOUTHWEST VALLEY PARTNERS, LLC	 	 
	FRAGRANCE, INC.	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Alex J. Lelli, Jr.
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Michael S. Curless	 	 
	 

	 	 

Alex J. Lelli, Jr.,
	 	 	 	 	 	 

Michael S. Curless,
	 	 
	 

	 	Senior Vice President,
	 	 	 	 	 	Executive Vice President	 	 
	 

	 	Growth and Development	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 







2
```

[113th Congress Public Law 205]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 2072]]

Public Law 113-205
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  4110 Almeda Road in Houston, Texas, as the ``George Thomas `Mickey' 
  Leland Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 16, 2014 -  [H.R. 78]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GEORGE THOMAS ``MICKEY'' LELAND POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4110 Almeda Road in Houston, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``George Thomas `Mickey' Leland Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``George 
Thomas `Mickey' Leland Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 16, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 78:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Sept. 8, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 8, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
### **CHAPTER 76—IMITATION FIREARMS**

Sec.
5001.
Penalties for entering into commerce of imitation firearms.
§ 95.22 Bones, horns, and hoofs for trophies or museums; disinfected hoofs. ( a ) Clean, dry bones, horns, and hoofs, that are free from undried pieces of hide, flesh, and sinew and are offered for entry as trophies or for consignment to museums may be imported without other restrictions.
( b ) Clean, dry hoofs disinfected in the region of origin may be imported without other restrictions if the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The hoofs have been disinfected using one of the following methods: ( i ) Dry heat at 180 °F (82.2 °C) for 30 minutes;
( ii ) Soaking in boiling water for 20 minutes;
( iii ) Soaking in a 0.1 percent chlorine bleach solution for 2 hours;
( iv ) Soaking in a 5 percent acetic acid solution for 2 hours; or
( v ) Soaking in a 5 percent hydrogen peroxide solution for 2 hours.
( 2 ) The hoofs are accompanied by a certificate issued by the national government of the region of origin and signed by an official veterinary inspector of that region stating that the hoofs have been disinfected and describing the manner in which the disinfection was accomplished.
[28 FR 5981, June 13, 1963, as amended at 59 FR 9400, Feb. 28, 1994; 62 FR 56024, Oct. 28, 1997. Redesignated at 78 FR 73003, Dec. 4, 2013]