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

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

!(vou make cluti!Kes to the va/11es ill tlu! /aiJ/u he/ow. you 111/tst unswe the totals U[)(late o~.:curdin ly. (I 

they do not, click (or li.thJ into wid !hun out ult/1(! dwnged cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

replacement) (include cost 

"''~ (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

Do not include on- access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered condition costs here and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection 8.0 $01:>00 ~-1lt~ 12 <t ~.J· ~ 

~ JLL <~:n 1") "'![<~ ....... _ 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $8,262 

Costs covered under wan·anty Ulknown) $0 

On-Condition Costs: ·• 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replaceme~ J,J,.~.~ 

testing, and closeup) ~/~0 ll ... a.llc.ftM. "t_ ...I. .b. .... .::; ~-· z,., m>() 'U>.LI~!> 

8.~1:f\N. ;E,r(L ~r,.,p. ~ ~ v~t> C\. ,BO ~ 1uo 

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): **The doubler 

installation labor and part costs have been requested from Boeing and will be provided when they 

are available 

-
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action''? -

YES* 0 NO 1:8] 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? -

YES* 0 NO 1:8] 

*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 . . , 

YES 0 NO [8J 

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 [8J 

*Explanation:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHigh capacity heat pipe performance demonstrationA high capacity heat pipe which will operate in one-g and in zero-g is investigated. An artery configuration which is self-priming in one-g was emphasized. Two artery modifications were evolved as candidates to achieve one-g priming and will provide the very high performance: the four artery and the eight artery configurations. These were each evaluated analytically for performance and priming capability. The eight artery configuration was found to be inadequate from a performance standpoint. The four artery showed promise of working. A five-inch long priming element test article was fabricated using the four artery design. Plexiglas viewing windows were made on each end of the heat pipe to permit viewing of the priming activity. The five-inch primary element would not successfully prime in one-g. Difficulties on priming in one-g raised questions about zero-g priming. Therefore a small test element heat pipe for verifying that the proposed configuration will self-prime in zero-g was fabricated and delivered.Document ID19840009463Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 19, 1983Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:171733NASA-CR-171733Accession Number84N17531Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-16582Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840009463.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10079

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDIBERTO AYALA-FERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CR-210)

 

October 24, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ediberto Ayala-Fernandez appeals from his guilty plea

conviction for illegally reentering the United States after

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b). We affirm.

Ayala-Fernandez’s first argument on appeal is that the

district court failed to inquire into the relinquishment of his

right of counsel at sentencing or to warn him of the disadvantages

of self-representation. Accordingly, he contends his waiver was
2

not knowingly and intelligently made. In this circuit, we do not

require a formal colloquy between defendant and trial judge when

the defendant waives counsel; rather, district courts must look to

the circumstances of the case and the background of the defendant

to determine whether the right to counsel was knowingly and

voluntarily waived. See Wiggins v. Procunier, 753 F.2d 1318, 1320

(5th Cir. 1985). We have reviewed the record and the parties’

briefs, and we are convinced that his decision to waive his right

to counsel was knowingly and voluntarily made. See Neal v. Texas,

870 F.2d 312, 314-15 (5th Cir. 1989). Ayala-Fernandez was thirtyfour years old, he had twelve years of education, he had the

assistance of an interpreter at sentencing, and he was represented

by counsel up through the sentencing. His decision to waive

counsel was a tactical move to enable him to make certain arguments

to the trial court that his counsel found meritless. We find that

he knew what he was doing.

Ayala-Fernandez also argues that the district court erred in

sentencing him above the two-year statutory term of imprisonment

for “simple” illegal reentry as provided for in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a),

because § 1326(b) is a separate offense and, thus, his prior felony

conviction is an element which must be alleged in the indictment.

We have previously held, however, that a prior felony conviction is

not an element of the offense which had to be alleged in the

indictment. See United States v. Vasquez-Olvera, 999 F.2d 943,

944-47 (5th Cir. 1993).
3

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 137 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 137

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
                in the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 2023

 Mr. McCaul submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
                in the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (hereafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $21,653,516 for the One Hundred 
Eighteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $10,826,758 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2023, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2024; and
            (2) not more than $10,826,758 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2024, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2025.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Stephan W. Zumsteg, certify that:

  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Energy Conversion
  Devices, Inc.;

  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 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; 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 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; 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.


                                               /S/ Stephan W. Zumsteg
  Date: May 10, 2005                           ---------------------------------
                                               Stephan W. Zumsteg
                                               Chief Financial Officer
### **CHAPTER 85—ADMINISTRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS**

Sec.
5401.
Establishment of Agricultural Council on Environmental Quality.
5402.
Office of Agricultural Environmental Quality.
5403.
Environmental Quality Policy Statement.
5404.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board.
5405.
Agricultural air quality research oversight.
# C_2023095EN.01000801.xml

| 14.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/8

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(2023/C 95/04)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 (2) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 (4) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web sites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address before 1 June 2023:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 78, 17.03.2014, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 75 I, 14.3.2023 p. 134.

(3)  OJ L 78, 17.03.2014, p. 6.

(4)  OJ L 75 I, 14.3.2023 p. 1.

---
### SUBCHAPTER II—EXPERIMENT STATIONS FOR PROPAGATION OF TREES, SHRUBS, VINES, AND VEGETABLES
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Board of Directors
Cyanotech Corporation:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos. 33-63789, 33-55310, and 333-42484 on Form S-8 and
333-42486 and 333-101401 on Form S-3 of Cyanotech Corporation of our reports dated June 6, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
Cyanotech Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appears in the March 31, 2005 annual report
on Form 10-K of Cyanotech Corporation.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Honolulu,
Hawaii
July 7, 2005

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6686

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARJIL LEE BERGARA, a/k/a Michael Bergara, a/k/a Michael 

Begera,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (1:05-cr-00053-JPJ-1; 1:12-cv-80429-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marjil Lee Bergara, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Marjil Lee Bergara seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order treating his self-styled motions for judicial 

notice and a writ of error coram nobis together as a successive 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion, and dismissing it 

on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Bergara has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
3

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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2








The following certification accompanies Dynamics Research Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 and is not filed as provided in Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K of the Securities and Exchange Commission.





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 Dynamics Research Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his knowledge:





(1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and





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





Date:  August 4, 2010
/s/ David KeleherSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### LASSITER v. ENGLISH

No. 301P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 489

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-3Í denied 4 September 1997.
#### J. S. Bishop *vs.*D. C. Corbitt.

March 5, 1889.

Usury — Payment.—Evidence considered, and *held*sufficient to support the findings of fact of the trial court.

Action in the district court for Mower county to enjoin the foreclosure of a mortgage and compel a- satisfaction of record, because of usury and also full payment of the actual debt. Plaintiff appeals from an order of *Farmer,*J., refusing a new trial after a decision for defendant.

*Joseph McKnight*and *N. Kingsley,*for appellant.

*French d Wright,*for respondent.

*201Vanderburgh, J.

It is sought by this appeal to revérse the decision of the trial court upon questions of fact. Two questions only are presented by the assignments of error. The first is whether the mortgage which the plaintiff seeks to have cancelled is void for usury, and the second, whether it had not been fully paid. There is a direct conflict in the evidence upon these questions, which appears to have been fully and carefully considered by the trial court. It is not the province of this court to retry the issues of fact. The plaintiff held the affirmative, and the burden rested on him to make out his case by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the issue of payment the evidence cannot be said to preponderate in plaintiff’s favor.And upon that of usury there is clearly sufficient evidence to support the finding of the court, and the evidence certainly does not so strongly (if at all) preponderate against it as to enable this court to say that there was any legal error or abuse of discretion in the decision of that court in denying a new trial. The mortgage was executed nearly 10 years ago, and the parties had previously had numerous business transactions. In his testimony the plaintiff gives a statement of the items which went to make up the amount secured by the mortgage, which includes $ 100 bonus charged by the defendant in addition to 12 per cent, interest on the sum named. On the other hand,,, the defendant’s statement includes no such item, the allowance of which he denies, but contains an account of several other distinct sums advanced to plaintiff, or due from him to defendant, showing a full and valid consideration for the note secured by the mortgage. There is no ground for disturbing the finding of the court upon the evidence. The point has been so often ruled in this court in following the decision in *Egan*v. *Faendel,*19 Minn. 191, (231,) and *Ohlson*v. *Manderfeld,*28 Minn. 390, (10 N. W. Rep. 418,) as to need no further discussion here.

Order affirmed.