alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### 7 Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- 

### 2015-0165 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015-NE-02 -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include

access, testing,

and close-up) Labor

cost (@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Remove FADEC

S/W version B175

or earlier 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 

### 40 $3,400.00



### Remove FADEC

S/W version C065

or earlier 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 

### 40 $3,400.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $6,800



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work-hours

(include access,

testing, and closeup) Labor cost
(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

### 8 Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO

*Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES* NO

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a s ubstantial number of small entities? Explain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES 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* NO



### * Explanation 

### :
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Dennis Vadura, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of AccuPoll Holding Corp.;

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 officer(s) 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 annual 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; and

(c) 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; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 the 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; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


March 14, 2005                                       /s/ Dannis Vadura
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                         Dennis Vadura
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 Certification of the

Chief Financial Officer



I, Michael Smith, the chief financial officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the Form 10-Q)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.



/S/    MICHAEL SMITHMichael SmithMay 13, 2004
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50953 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN JOSÉ GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-96-CR-62-2

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1998 Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Juan José Garcia has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the brief, Garcia’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED.
§ 220.2 Statutory obligation of third party payer to pay. ( a ) *Basic rule.* Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1095(a)(1), a third party payer has an obligation to pay the United States the reasonable charges for healthcare services provided in or through any facility of the Uniformed Services to a covered beneficiary who is also a beneficiary under the third party payer's plan. The obligation to pay is to the extent that the beneficiary would be eligible to receive reimbursement or indemnification from the third party payer if the beneficiary were to incur the costs on the beneficiary's own behalf.
( b ) *Application of cost shares.* If the third party payer's plan includes a requirement for a deductible or copayment by the beneficiary of the plan, then the amount the United States may collect from the third party payer is the reasonable charge for the care provided less the appropriate deductible or copayment amount.
( c ) *Claim from United States exclusive.* The only way for a third party payer to satisfy its obligation under 10 U.S.C. 1095 is to pay the facility of the uniformed service or other authorized representative of the United States. Payment by a third party payer to the beneficiary does not satisfy 10 U.S.C. 1095.
( d ) *Assignment of benefits or other submission by beneficiary not necessary.* The obligation of the third party payer to pay is not dependent upon the beneficiary executing an assignment of benefits to the United States. Nor is the obligation to pay dependent upon any other submission by the beneficiary to the third party payer, including any claim or appeal. In any case in which a facility of the Uniformed Services makes a claim, appeal, representation, or other filing under the authority of this part, any procedural requirement in any third party payer plan for the beneficiary of such plan to make the claim, appeal, representation, or other filing must be deemed to be satisfied. A copy of the completed and signed DoD insurance declaration form will be provided to payers upon request, in lieu of a claimant's statement or coordination of benefits form.
( e ) *Preemption of conflicting State laws.* Any provision of a law or regulation of a State or political subdivision thereof that purports to establish any requirement on a third party payer that would have the effect of excluding from coverage or limiting payment, for any health care services for which payment by the third party payer under 10 U.S.C. 1095 or this part is required, is preempted by 10 U.S.C. 1095 and shall have no force or effect in connection with the third party payer's obligations under 10 U.S.C. 1095 or this part.
[55 FR 21748, May 29, 1990, as amended at 57 FR 41101, Sept. 9, 1992; 65 FR 7727, Feb. 16, 2000; 67 FR 57740, Sept. 12, 2002]
EXHIBIT 10.10


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT


 


THIS SECOND
AMENDMENT (THE “SECOND AMENDMENT”) TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT (“THE AGREEMENT”)
DATED MARCH 26, 2003 BETWEEN “COPROPIEDAD ARTE Y DISENO”
(THE “LESSOR”) REPREWENTED BY MR. FRANCISCO JAVIER
MORENO SANCHEZ AND “PAUL-SON MEXICANA, S.A. DE
C.V.” (THE
“LESSEE”) REPRESENTED BY MR. GERARD P. CHARLIER, IS NOW ENTERED BY
AND BETWEEN THE LESSOR AND LESSEE PURSUANT TO THE FOLOWING RECITALS AND
CLAUSES:


 


RECITALS


 


The LESSOR and LESSEE
represent:


 


(a)                    Effective January 22, 2005, the LESSEE changed
its name to GPI MEXICANA S.A. DE C.V.


 


(b)                   Effective March 1, 2006, LESSOR agrees to lease
to LESSEE, who agrees to lease from LESSOR, an addition 17,500 square feet in
the BUILDING as set forth in Paragraph 1.3 of the AGREEMENT pursuant to the
terms of Paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 thereof concerning RENT and TERM. Blueprints of
the current portions of the BUILDING leased by LESSOR to LESSEE pursuant to
this SECOND AMENDMENT are attached to this SECOND AMENDMENT as Exhibit “D”.


 


(c)                    All other terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHREOF,
Parties and witness execute this SECOND AMENDMENT in the city of Las Vegas as
of March 01, 2006.


 


	
  LESSOR

  	
   

  	
  LESSEE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   /s/ Francisco Javier Moreno Sanches

  	
   

  	
   /s/ Gerard P. Charlier

  
	
  Copropiedad Arte
  y Diseno

  	
   

  	
  GPI Mexicana S.A. de C.V., 

  formerly Paul-Son Mexicana S.A. de C.V.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Represented by:

  	
   

  	
  Represented by:

  
	
  Francisco Javier
  Moreno Sanches

  	
   

  	
  Gerard P.
  Charlier

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  WITNESS:

  	
   

  	
  WITNESS:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   /s/ C.P.A. Carlos
  Alfaro

  	
   

  	
   /s/ Gay A. Nordfelt

  
	
  C.P.A. Carlos Alfaro

  	
   

  	
  Gay A. Nordfelt
### §7501. Definitions

For the purpose of this subchapter—

(1) "employee" means an individual in the competitive service who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment or who has completed 1 year of current continuous employment in the same or similar positions under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less; and

(2) "suspension" means the placing of an employee, for disciplinary reasons, in a temporary status without duties and pay.

(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title II, §204(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1134; amended Pub. L. 114–92, div. A, title XI, §1105(c)(3), Nov. 25, 2015, 129 Stat. 1024; Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XI, §1106(b)(2)(C), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 1950.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7501, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 527, related to removal or suspension without pay of an individual in the competitive service and procedures applicable to such removal or suspension, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 95–454, §204(a).

#### Amendments

2021—Par. (1). Pub. L. 117–81 struck out ", except as provided in section 1599e of title 10," after "initial appointment or,".

2015—Par. (1). Pub. L. 114–92 substituted "or, except as provided in section 1599e of title 10, who" for "or who".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2021 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 117–81 applied as if effective Dec. 31, 2022, to correspond to the effective date of the repeal of section 1599e of Title 10, Armed Forces, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. See Effective Date of Repeal note under section 1599e of Title 10.

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 1101 of this title.

#### Short Title of 1990 Amendment

Pub. L. 101–376, §1, Aug. 17, 1990, 104 Stat. 461, provided that: "This Act [amending sections 4303, 7511, and 7701 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 4303 of this title] may be cited as the 'Civil Service Due Process Amendments'."
#### § 2003.15 Additional functions.

As directed by the President through the National Security Advisor, the ISCAP performs such additional advisory functions as are consistent with, and supportive of, the successful implementation of the Order.
### §8120. Report of injury

Immediately after an injury to an employee which results in his death or probable disability, his immediate superior shall report to the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary may—

(1) prescribe the information that the report shall contain;

(2) require the immediate superior to make supplemental reports; and

(3) obtain such additional reports and information from employees as are agreed on by the Secretary and the head of the employing agency.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 543.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 774(a). | Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 458, §24, 39 Stat. 747. |
| | 5 U.S.C. 779. | Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 458, §28a, 39 Stat. 748. |
| | | Oct. 14, 1949, ch. 691, §205(b), 63 Stat. 864. |

Statutes at Large

Administration of this subchapter was transferred to the Secretary of Labor by section 1 of 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 19, 64 Stat. 1271 (see section 8145).

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
#### § 1907.12 Requirements as to form.

The challenge shall include identification of the challenger by full name, Executive Branch agency, title of position, and information required for verification of access, security clearance, and status as an authorized holder of the CIA information in question. In addition, the challenger must clearly identify documents or portions of documents at issue and identify and describe the reasons why it is believed that the information is improperly classified. The challenge, itself, must be properly marked and classified and, in this regard, the authorized holder must assume the current classification status and marking of the information is correct until determined otherwise unless the challenger asserts that the information marked unclassified should be classified or that the information should be classified at a higher level, in which case the challenger should mark the challenge and related documents at the asserted classification level.

[76 FR 59031, Sept. 23, 2011]
RECEIVED IN RWRTOFAPPEALS. 5th DTST. 

### MAR Ql 1999 USA ROMBOK CLERK, 5th DISTRICT 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. 73,096
EX PARTE MARK ANTHONY LARMOND, Applicant ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FROM DALLAS COUNTY 

### The opinion was delivered per curiam. PRICE, HOLLAND, WOMACK, and JOHNSON, JJ., dissent.
OPINION 

### This is apostconviction application for writ of habeas corpus forwarded to this 

## Courtpursuantto Code ofCriminal Procedure article 11.07. Applicantwas convicted of murder and sentenced to 99 years in prison. This conviction was affirmed. Larmond v. 

## State, No. 05-91-00130-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas, December 30, 1991)(notdesignated for publication). 

## Applicant contends thathe received ineffective assistance ofcounsel on appealbecause his lawyer failed to inform him that the conviction had been affirmed until over two years after the mandate from the Court ofAppeals had issued. He claims that, as a result ofthis delay, he was deprived of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. Counsel filed an affidavit in which he swore that, thirty days after the court of 

### appeals affirmed theconviction, he sent applicant a copy ofthe court ofappeals' opinion. Counsel attached a copy of the letterto the affidavit. The district courtfound the statements in counsel's affidavit to be true and recommended that reliefbe denied. We find that the record supports the trial court's recommendation. Applicant has not established that he is entitled to relief. Relief is denied. PER CURIAM Habeas Corpus ReliefDenied. DATE DELIVERED: February 24, 1999 DO NOT PUBLISH 

### Price, Holland, Womack, andJohnson, JJ., dissent.

### Court ofCriminal &ppeal* |Box 12308 Capitol Station <auatm,{Eexa$( 78711 5fr' v)A7y>^^^v 

## IffiSJ IJJ 

### |; FEB25*99 || U SPOSTAGE

—•CO flCDC *'$ 5 0 E 6 1
'PB.Mt'f"
LISA ROMBOK CLERK 5TH COURT OF APPEALS COURTHOUSE 600 COMMERCE 2ND FLOOR DALLAS TX 75202 73,096 J*/"

l ».7 t 1 9 *) >• £ IJV-sJ & u Z- 'J H 

### %,',W.T.o;rW,v^
November 7, 2012

RE: Jatropha-based biodiesel and renewable diesel pathway petition

DRAFT Jatropha Lit Review

Distributed: October 16, 2012

To Whom It May Concern:

Global Clean Energy Holdings, Inc. (GCEH) would like to add its comments on the 

DRAFT Jatropha Lit Review of the Jatropha-based biodiesel and renewable diesel RFS2 

pathway petition. Generally, we agree with the technical findings of the report and do not have 

any additional sources of information to share with EPA or its affiliates. However, while the 

report is complete and exhaustive, we believe it is framed in the wrong context, albeit a context 

that is consistent with the articles reviewed. The reference material is focused entirely on 

evaluating different production and ecological scenarios but does do not adequately incorporate

economic considerations into the analysis. A common finding is that severely degraded and 

marginal land once speculated as a possible, even a likely growing location for Jatropha would 

not produce commercially viable yields and that production would inevitably shift to land 

suitable for food crops. While this is theoretically possible, we believe it is not likely given the 

relationship between the economics of food and energy crop productivity and yield.

Novel energy crops, including Jatropha, produce a relatively low-value crop per acre 

compared to traditional food crops. If land is suitable for both food and energy crop production, 

economics would dictate the higher-value crop is produced, absent subsidies or other public 

policy. Furthermore, the renewable biomass provision of RSF2 reduces any direct land use 

change (dLUC), like that from forest or rangeland to farming, that might otherwise occur. While 

concerns about crowding out food production may theoretically be valid, economic realities 

would reduce such displacement to a negligible level. 

Global Clean Energy Holdings, Inc.

100 W Broadway, Suite 650

Long Beach, CA 90802

Phone (310) 641-4234

Fax (310) 929-1065
* * *

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DRAFT Lit Review. We agree 

with many of the articles referenced in the review that Jatropha-based biodiesel and renewable 

diesel meets or exceeds the 50 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction threshold to qualify 

for the biomass-based diesel program. We urge EPA to expedite its modeling and approval of the 

Jatropha-based biodiesel and renewable diesel petition and move towards finalizing the Jatropha 

pathway.

Sincerely,

Richard Palmer

Chief Executive Officer

Global Clean Energy Holdings, Inc.
### §9206. Rules of construction

Nothing in this chapter may be construed to—

(1) authorize any officer or employee of an agency to request the disclosure of information described under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 9201(4); or

(2) create a private right of action for any person.

(Added Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title XI, §1122(a), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1607.)
1 The Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United Stat es Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-4189

___________ Coy Stephen Lyons, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Davison Transport, Inc., * * Appeal from the United States Intervenor-Plaintiff, * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] Potlatch Corporation, * * Defendant-Appellee. * *

___________ Submitted: October 14, 2005 Filed: March 6, 2006

___________ Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Coy Stephen Lyons, a tanker-truck driver for Davison Transport, Inc., appeals the district court's 1 grant of summary judgment to Potlatch Corporation (Potlatch) in-2- Lyons' diversity suit against Potlatch for ne gligence under Arkansas law. The district court held that Potlatch owedLyons, a business invitee, a duty to use ordinary care to maintain its Cypress Bend mill facilities ina reasonably safe condition while Lyons unloaded sodium hydrosulfide (NaHS) at th e mill in September of 1996. The court found that Potlatch did not violate that duty. The court also found that Potlatch did not exercise control over the NaHS unloadi ng process, rendering inapplicable a duty under Arkansas law to exercise reasonable care in exercising such control. See Elkins v. Arkla, Inc. , 849 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Ark. 1993). We agree with both conclusions. We have carefully considered Lyons' ar guments to the contrary. Upon de novo review, Liszewski v. Target Corp. , 374 F.3d 597, 599 (8th Cir. 2004), we find no error in the district court's grant of summary judgment and affirm on the basis of its wellreasoned memorandum order, see 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERNEST H. PRIOVOLOS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 620 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of March, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.