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

Docket No. FAA-2016-3990 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-153-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

AFM Amendment 1.0 $ 85.00 0 $ 85.00 230 $19,550.00

$ 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

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $19,550

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

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 substantial 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:
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 994 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 994

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the protection of 
 community centers with religious affiliation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 1, 2017

  Mr. Hatch (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for the protection of 
 community centers with religious affiliation, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Religiously Affiliated 
Institutions Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF COMMUNITY CENTERS WITH RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION.

    Section 247 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting after ``or 
        attempts'' the following: ``or threatens'';
            (2) in subsection (c), by inserting after ``or attempts'' 
        the following: ``or threatens'';
            (3) in subsection (d)--
                    (A) in paragraph (3), by striking the ``and'' at 
                the end;
                    (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph 
                (5); and
                    (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) if damage to or destruction of religious real 
        property results from the acts committed in violation of this 
        section, a fine in accordance with this title or imprisonment 
        for not more than 5 years, or both; and''; and
            (4) in subsection (f), by inserting before the period at 
        the end the following: ``, or real property owned or leased by 
        a nonprofit, religiously affiliated organization''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7396

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AARON LEVON BURTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Walter D. Kelley, District

Judge. (4:04-cr-00087-WDK)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron Levon Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Rae McKeel, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Levon Burton appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for enlargement of time. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Burton,

No. 4:04-cr-00087 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2007). We also deny Burton’s

request for appointment of counsel and his motion for transcripts.

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.

AFFIRMED
#### Jacob J. Podell v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and for a stay denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Babin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1998 and the Consolidated Statement
of Income for the Year Ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,575,429
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    256,216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,053,342
<PP&E>                                       1,186,648
<DEPRECIATION>                                 612,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,071,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,991,063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 27,179,880
<COMMON>                                        29,919
<OTHER-SE>                                (25,134,719)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,071,348
<SALES>                                         43,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,146
<CGS>                                            4,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,738,140<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               570,936<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             532,798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,210,228)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,210,228)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (6,248,828)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (15,459,056)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.32)
<FN>
<F1>Net loss applicable to Common Stock (16,959,478)
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-36004) of Public Storage,  Inc.,  formerly Storage
Equities,  Inc.,  pertaining  to the 1990 Stock  Option Plan,  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No.  33-55541)  pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan,
the Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.  333-13463)  pertaining to the 1996
Stock Option and Incentive  Plan,  the  Registration  Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-41123) and in the related prospectus and Registration  Statement on Form S-4
(No.  33-64971) and in the related  prospectus of our report dated  February 10,
1999  (except for Note 10, as to which the report is dated March 10,  1999) with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Public Storage,
Inc.  included  in the  Annual  Report  (Form  10-K)  for  1998  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                                             ERNST & YOUNG L L P

March 30, 1999

Los Angeles, California

                                  Exhibit - 23
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000013777
<NAME> 1,000
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,283
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,486
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,614
<PP&E>                                         954,180
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 948,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,399
<BONDS>                                        450,567
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     86,882
<COMMON>                                       346,887
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   948,313
<SALES>                                         33,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,939
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,092
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,092
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,092
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.44
        

</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 931 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

4910 Brighton Boulevard in Denver, Colorado, as the ‘‘George Sakato 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2017 

Mr. GARDNER (for himself and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4910 Brighton Boulevard in Denver, Colorado, 

as the ‘‘George Sakato Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. GEORGE SAKATO POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 4910 Brighton Boulevard in 

6 Denver, Colorado, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘George Sakato Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 931 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘George Sakato Post 

3 Office’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
212.503 Applicability of certain laws to Executive agency contracts for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services. ( a ) The following laws are not applicable to contracts for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services: ( i ) 10 U.S.C. 3321(b), Prohibition on Contingent Fees.
( ii ) 10 U.S.C. 3741-3750, Allowable Costs Under Defense Contracts.
( iii ) 10 U.S.C. 3845, Contractor Inventory Accounting System Standards (see 252.242-7004).
( iv ) 10 U.S.C. 4651, note prec. (section 855, Pub. L. 117-81), Employment Transparency Regarding Individuals Who Perform Work in the People's Republic of China.
( v ) 10 U.S.C. 4656(a), Prohibition on Persons Convicted of Defense Related Felonies.
( vi ) 10 U.S.C. 4753(b), Requirement to Identify Suppliers.
( vii ) 10 U.S.C. 4864, Miscellaneous Limitations on the Procurement of Goods Other Than United States Goods. 10 U.S.C. 4864 is not applicable to contracts valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold.
( viii ) Section 8116 of the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111-118) (prohibits mandatory arbitration) and similar sections in subsequent DoD appropriations acts.
( ix ) Domestic Content Restrictions in the National Defense Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Years 1996 and Subsequent Years, unless the restriction specifically applies to commercial products or commercial services. For the restriction that specifically applies to commercial ball or roller bearings as end items, see 225.7009-3 (section 8065 of Pub. L. 107-117).
( c ) The applicability of the following laws has been modified in regard to contracts for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services: ( i ) 10 U.S.C. 3703, Truthful Cost or Pricing Data (see FAR 15.403-1(b)(3)).
( ii ) 10 U.S.C. 4655, Prohibition on Limiting Subcontractor Direct Sales to the United States (see FAR 3.503 and 52.203-6).
[60 FR 61595, Nov. 30, 1995, as amended at 63 FR 11851, Mar. 11, 1998; 63 FR 55040, Oct. 14, 1998; 65 FR 77828, Dec. 13, 2000; 67 FR 4208, Jan. 29, 2002; 69 FR 65089, Nov. 10, 2004; 73 FR 76970, Dec. 18, 2008; 75 FR 27947, May 19, 2010; 76 FR 38047, June 29, 2011; 76 FR 76319, Dec. 7, 2011; 79 FR 73489, Dec. 11, 2014; 87 FR 52341, Aug. 25, 2022; 87 FR 76991, Dec. 16, 2022; 88 FR 6582, Jan. 31, 2023; 88 FR 25512, Apr. 27, 2023; 88 FR 46902, July 20, 2023]
#### Carrie George, as Administratrix with Limited Letters of the Estate of John George, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*City of New York, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

First Department,

November 5, 1964.

*Joel L. Cohen*of counsel *(Seymour B. Quel*with him on the brief; *Leo A. Larkin, Corporation Counsel,*attorney), for appellant.

*Paul S. Gareen*of counsel *(Arthur Klein,*attorney), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiff is the administratrix of John George, deceased. On May 20, 1958, deceased was admitted to Francis Delafield Hospital. He was suffering from nausea, fits of vomiting and generalized weakness. In the course of a barium enema, *71observed by the attending physicians by means of fluoroscopy, the barium perforated the wall of the bowel, discharging a large quantity of barium and the bowel content into the peritoneal cavity. An operation to evacuate this matter from the cavity and repair the bowel wall was performed immediately but did not save the patient, who died the following day The foregoing summarizes all the significant evidence in the case.

Obviously there was no proof of negligence either in the administration of the enema or in the following operation. In fact, no liability is sought to be predicated on the latter. Nor is there any proof of malpractice in the sense that a barium enema was contraindicated by good medical practice. Plaintiff claims to have established a prima facie case by means of the rule of *res ipsa loquitur.*We do not believe that the rule has any application to these facts.

Ordinarily, the happening of an accident is no proof that it was caused by the defendant’s negligence *(Shkoditch*v. *150 William St. Corp.,*17 A D 2d 168; *Kaplan*v. *City of New York,*10 A D 2d 319). It is only where two elements combine that a contrary determination is permissible. Those elements are where the defendant has exclusive control of the agency which caused the accident and where common experience shows that an accident of the character in question would not have happened unless there was negligence in the operation or control of that agency *(Foltis, Inc.*v. *City of New York,*287 N. Y. 108, 117; *Neuhoff*v. *Retlaw Realty Corp.,*289 N. Y. 293). As regards the human body, its capacities and tolerances, it is a rare case where common knowledge is sufficient to show that an accident would not have happened without negligence. Clearly, this is not one of those rare cases.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, and complaint dismissed, with costs to appellant.

Botéis, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, with $50 costs to appellant, and the complaint dismissed.
Disclaimer

### Department of Education

FSM Department of EducationPO BOX PS87, PalikirPohnpei, FM 96341Phone: (691) 320-2609Fax: (691) 320-5500Website: http://national.doe.fm

### State Higher Education Agency

College of Micronesia-FSMP.O. Box 159Kolonia Pohnpei, FM 96941Phone: (691)320-2480Fax: (691)320-2479Website:: http://national.doe.fm/index.php/education-programs/basic-programs/post-secondary-and-scholarship

### Special Education Agency

FSM Department of EducationOffice of Special EducationAddress: P.O. Box PS 87, Palikir, Pohnpei, FM 96941Main number Tel: (691) 320 2609Phone : (691) 320-8982/1055Website: http://national.doe.fm/index.php/education-programs/special-programs/monitor-evaluator

### State Adult Education Agency

FSM Adult Education ProgramDepartment of EducationFSM National GovernmentPO Box PS 87Palikir, Pohnpei, FM 96941Phone: (691) 320-2609/2647/2302Fax: (691) 320-5500/5504

Back to state map
#### Thomas A. Harnett, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State *871of New York, and as Liquidator of Northeastern Life Insurance Company of New York, Respondent, v Louis Bleecker et al., Appellants.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 27, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Appeal from orders of said court entered on October 28, 1977, and on February 27, 1978, dismissed as subsumed in the judgment appealed from and reviewed on the appeal therefrom, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein, Lane and Sandler, JJ.
#### BIEHLER v. IRWIN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Conversion—Mortgaged Chattels.

One who sells mortgaged chattels on execution against the mortgagor after he is in default, so that the mortgagee’s right of possession is complete, is liable to the mortgagee for conversion.

2. Same—Measure of Damages,

The measure of damages for conversion by a third person of mortgaged chattels after the mortgagee’s right of possession is complete is the value of the chattels, the difference between it and the mortgage debt being the subject of accounting between the parties to the mortgage.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by Edward R. Biehler against John W. Irwin. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

*575Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Louis H. Reynolds, for appellant.

Louis S. Posner, for respondent.

BISCHOFF, J.

While it was indicated that the mortgagor’s time to make payments upon the chattel mortgage had been extended, the defendant did not suggest that the extension endured to the time of the levy, and from the plaintiff’s evidence in rebuttal it appeared that the mortgagor was at that time in default. The plaintiff’s right of possession was therefore complete at the date of the alleged wrongful taking by the defendant, and the authorities relied upon in support of this appeal have no application. After default the mortgagor had no interest in the chattels which could be sold on execution against him (Leadbetter v. Leadbetter, 125 N. Y. 290, 26 N. E. 265, 21 Am. St. Rep. 738), and the conversion was certainly established. In view of the defendant’s failure to produce the inventory of the property sold, the plaintiff’s evidence of value,-taken with proof of the defend^ ant’s admission that the goods covered by the mortgage were sold, suffices to support the finding of the amount of damages, and it would seem from the record that the plaintiff’s witnesses on the issue of the identity of the goods were the more credible. The measure of damage was the value of the property irrespective of the mortgage debt,' the difference being the subject of an accounting between the parties to the mortgage. Bigelow v. Goble, 9 App. Div. 391, 397, 41 N. Y. Supp. 299.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stanley Meadows, Appellant.

In *coram nobis*proceedings, defendant appeals from two orders of the County Court, Suffolk County, dated, respectively, November 30, 1961 and January 23, 1962, which denied, without a hearing, his applications to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered October 7, 1958 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), assault in the first degree and petit larceny, and imposing sentence. Orders affirmed. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.