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

DocketNo. FAA- ')OIY - 0$'11 Directorate Identifier: 

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 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 oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection 2 .5 45 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $9,563 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action 

Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

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

testing, and close- replacement) up) 

Replacement of all 

2.0 $150 4 barrel nuts 

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 parts cost 

includes the cost for 4 new barrel nuts plus alodine, sealant and CIC. Embraer will compensate 2.5 

hours for performing the inspection plus an additional 0.5 hours per nut for replacement if the 
work is performed in an Embraer-authorized service center. In addition, they will cover all parts 

costs. The warranty expires within the next 30 days from July 24, 2014. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? G 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? G 

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. G 

YESD NO~ 

Explanation: lbis AD only affects 45 US registered gliders. 

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? e 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation:
#### In the Matter of Maria del Carmen, Respondent, v Brentwood Union Free School District, Appellant.

[777 NYS2d 152]

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the Brentwood Union Free School District appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated November 5, 2003, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the application is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner leave to serve a late notice of claim approximately five months after the expiration of the 90-day statutory period *(see*General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). There is no evidence that the Brentwood Union Free School District (hereinafter the School District), acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim of negligent hiring and negligent *621supervision within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter. The report sent to the petitioner’s parents by the school nurse after the subject accident indicated that the petitioner was injured when she fell off a table in the technology room. This cannot fairly be said to have apprised the School District of the claim that it was negligent in hiring and training its employees and that it failed to properly supervise the petitioner (see *Corrales v Middle Country Cent. School Dist.,*307 AD2d 907, 908 [2003]; *Matter of Price v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers,*300 AD2d 310, 311 [2002]; *Matter of Brown v County of Westchester,*293 AD2d 748, 749 [2002]; *Matter of Ryder v Garden City School Dist.,*277 AD2d 388, 389 [2000]).

Furthermore, the petitioner’s excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, that she did not realize the serious nature of her injuries until after the expiration of the statutory period, did not explain the approximately five-month delay between the time that the claimed injuries were diagnosed and the making of the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim *(see Matter of Bordan v Mamaroneck School Dist.,*230 AD2d 792, 793 [1996]; *Matter of Shea v City of New York Bd. of Educ.,*222 AD2d 510, 511 [1995]). In addition, the petitioner did not establish that the approximately five-month delay after the expiration of the 90-day period would not substantially prejudice the School District in maintaining a defense on the merits *(see Igneri v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*303 AD2d 635 [2003]; *Matter of Lorseille v New York City Hous. Auth.,*295 AD2d 612 [2002]; *Matter of Castlegrande v Mahopac Cent. School Dist.,*292 AD2d 604, 605 [2002]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Townes, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### WORDEN, Respondent, v. BENTLEY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 17, 1906.)

Action by Arthur Worden against Clarence D. Bentley.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless appellant within 20 days files and serves printed papers on appeal, as provided by rule 41, and pays respondent’s attorney $10 costs of this motion, in which event the motion is denied.
Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0416
#### 9904.417-63 Effective date.

This Standard is effective as of April 17, 1992. Contractors with prior CAS-covered contracts with full coverage shall continue this Standard's applicability upon receipt of a contract to which this Standard is applicable. For contractors with no previous contracts subject to this Standard, this Standard shall be applied beginning with the contractor's next full fiscal year beginning after the receipt of a contract to which this Standard is applicable.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Wildfires      

# Resource: Wildfires

This webpage describes wildfires and provides guidance about what families should do before, during, and after a wildfire. The webpage also shares resources to support children, families, and communities to recover after wildfires. **Learn more.**
#### A. G. Warren, appellee, v. Rienzi Garage, appellant.

Gen. No. 30,522.

Assumpsit for breach of contract of bailment. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Hugo Pam, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed June 14, 1926.

John A. Bloomingston, for appellant.

Kremer, Branand & Hamer, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6041
VERNON WELLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Indian Creek Correctional Center; KITCHEN SUPERVISORS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-96-862) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: May 2, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vernon Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. The district court ordered Appellant to pay the full $120.00 filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis application in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (1994) as amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996, and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court's order. 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
#### § 1000.17 [Reserved]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         February 25, 2021.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 16, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Parcel Select and Parcel Return Service Contract 13 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-69, CP2021-72.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2021-03845 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
9.407-4 Period of suspension. ( a ) Suspension shall be for a temporary period pending the completion of investigation and any ensuing legal proceedings, unless sooner terminated by the suspending official or as provided in this subsection.
( b ) If legal proceedings are not initiated within 12 months after the date of the suspension notice, the suspension shall be terminated unless an Assistant Attorney General requests its extension, in which case it may be extended for an additional 6 months. In no event may a suspension extend beyond 18 months, unless legal proceedings have been initiated within that period.
( c ) The suspending official shall notify the Department of Justice of the proposed termination of the suspension, at least 30 days before the 12-month period expires, to give that Department an opportunity to request an extension.
[48 FR 42142, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 2649, Jan. 17, 1986]
#### 927.304 Procedures.

Where the contract contains the clause at 952.227-11 and the contractor does not elect to retain title to a subject invention, DOE may consider and, after consultation with the contractor, grant requests for retention of rights by the inventor subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 200 *et seq.* This statement is in lieu of (FAR) 48 CFR 27.304-1(c).

[60 FR 11816, Mar. 2, 1995]
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1910

_____________________________

LAWRENCE GEORGE ROBINSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

July 29, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence George Robinson raises two issues on appeal: 

(a) whether the trial court’s determination that he violated 

probation was based solely on hearsay, and (b) whether his 

sentence should be corrected to reflect an award of 104 days jail 

credit. We affirm as to the first issue, but reverse and remand as 

to the second. As the State concedes, the amended judgment and 

sentence did not reflect the corrected jail credit of 104 days’ time 

served and should be corrected on remand. See McCool v. State, 

211 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (explaining that a “defendant 

is entitled to an award of credit for all time spent in jail prior to 

sentencing in a violation of probation case, which includes all time 

spent in jail prior to original sentencing plus all time spent in jail 
2

prior to any subsequent violation sentencings.”) (quoting Jenkins 

v. State, 749 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)).

REVERSED and REMANDED for resentencing. 

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Barbara Debelius, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
970.1706-1 Award, renewal, and extension. ( a ) *Contract term.* Effective work performance under a management and operating contract is facilitated by the use of a relatively long contract term of up to ten (10) years. Accordingly, management and operating contracts shall provide for a basic contract term not to exceed five (5) years and may include an option(s) to extend the term for additional periods; provided, that no one option period exceeds five (5) years in duration and the total term of the contract, including any options exercised, does not exceed ten (10) years. The specific term of the base period and of any options periods shall be determined at the time of the authorization to compete or extend the contract. The term “option” as used in this subpart means a unilateral right in the contract by which the Government can extend the term of the contract. Accordingly, except as may be provided for through the inclusion of an option(s) in the contract to extend the term, any extension to continue the contract with the incumbent contractor beyond its term shall only occur when such extension can be justified under one of the statutory authorities identified in 48 CFR 6.302 and when authorized by the Head of the Agency.
( b ) *Exercise of option.* As part of the review required by 48 CFR 17.605(b), the contracting officer shall assess whether competing the contract will produce a more advantageous offer than exercising the option. The incumbent contractor's past performance under the contract, the extent to which performance-based management contract provisions are present, or can be negotiated into, the contract, and the impact of a change in a contractor on the Department's discharge of its programs are considerations that shall be addressed in the contracting officer's decision that the exercise of the option is in the Government's best interest. The contracting officer's decision shall be approved by the Senior Procurement Executive and the cognizant Assistant Secretary(s).
( c ) *Conditional Authorization of Non-competitive Extension Made Pursuant to Authority Under CICA.* Authorization to extend a management and operating contract by the Head of the Agency shall be considered conditional upon the successful negotiation of the contract to be extended in accordance with the Department's negotiation objectives. The Head of the Contracting Activity shall advise the Senior Procurement Executive no later than 6 months after receipt of the conditional authorization as to whether the Department's objectives will be met and, if not, the contracting activity's plans for competing the requirement.
[65 FR 81009, Dec. 22, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 36378, July 22, 2009]
#### 952.223 Clauses related to environment, energy and water efficiency, renewable energy technologies, occupational safety, and drug-free workplace.
Second Department,

January, 1979

(January 8, 1979)

#### Helen Armiento, Appellant-Respondent, v Bernard Armiento, Respondent-Appellant.

— In an action for a divorce, (1) the plaintiff wife appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 26, 1978, as awarded her alimony of $50 per week and a counsel fee of $2,000 and (2) the defendant husband cross-appeals from so much of the same judgment as (a) awarded the counsel fee and (b) failed to provide a date by which plaintiff must remove herself from the dwelling she now occupies, which is owned by defendant and his brother. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) increasing the alimony award to $75 per week and the counsel fee to $3,000 and (2) adding thereto a provision that should defendant evict plaintiff from the premises she now occupies at 38 Grove Avenue, New Rochelle, New York, or should plaintiff voluntarily elect to take up residence elsewhere, upon plaintiffs removal from the premises, defendant is to pay her an additional sum of $50 per week as alimony. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. On the facts of this case, the awards of alimony and counsel fees were inadequate to the extent indicated herein. Defendant correctly asserts that he is entitled to possession of the marital home, of which he and his brother are co-owners. The judgment of divorce does not contain any provision allowing the plaintiff to remain in the premises. However, once plaintiff leaves the residence, she will not have sufficient means to obtain housing consonant with the parties’ previous standard of living. For that reason, the award of alimony should be further increased if and when plaintiff vacates the premises (see *Dubno v Dubno,*51 AD2d 693). O’Connor, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
* 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. 98-20241 Summary Calendar

JULES J. WALTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus PARSONS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC; CNA INSURANCE COMPANY; MA ILAHI, MD; TONY SAPPINGTON, D.C.; TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY, also known as CNA Insurance Company; CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, also known as CNA Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. H-97-CV-120

- - - - - - - - - - November 23, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jules J. Walter has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the dismissal of his employment discrimination suit. His motion is construed as a challenge to the district court’s certification pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) that Walter’s appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 201-02 (5th Cir. 1997). BecauseNo. 98-20241 -2- Walter does not raise any nonfrivolous appellate issue, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Walter’s motions for the appointment of counsel and for the “docket removal” of the attorney of record for CNA are DENIED as moot. Appellee Ilahi’s motion to dismiss and for damages pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38 is GRANTED. Walter is ORDERED to pay double costs of the appeal to Appellee Ilahi. Further it is ORDERED that Walter’s handwritten pleadings, which are not allowed under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, be
STRICKEN.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of CABG Medical, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, John L. Babitt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: March 25, 2005 /s/ John L. BabittJohn L. BabittChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                          5,591
<SECURITIES>                   47,259
<RECEIVABLES>                  13,186
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    0
<PP&E>                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 66,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               0
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                          447
<OTHER-SE>                    (24,544)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   66,229
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    0
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                3,853
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 6,636<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                   (7,189)<F2>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            13,825
<DISCONTINUED>                    207
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                   14,032
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                    0.30
<FN>
<F1> Income-pretax includes other income of $8,000 resulting from a reduction in
the litigation & contingency  reserves.  <F2> Income-tax  includes a 1977 income
tax refund of $7,613,  which has been recognized as an income tax benefit in the
Statement of Operations.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>