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

Docket No. FAA-2011-1096 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-185-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

Eddy Current 

Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 6 $ 510.00

Fluorescent 

Penetrant 

Inspection

15.0 $1,275.0

0

$1,275.00 6 $7,650.00

$ 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: $8,160

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

Replacement (per 

lug) 1.0 $ 85.00 $2,880 $2,965.00

$ 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:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I, Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer ofAffinity Group Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify as follows:

 

1.               This statement is providedpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,2010 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.               The Periodic Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.               The information contained inthe Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of dates and for theperiods indicated therein.

 

 

Date:  May 13,2010

 

 
|   | /s/ Michael A. Schneider              |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Michael A. Schneider                  |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or such other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity GroupHolding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

1

----
98-405.

#### Hamilton Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Nationwide Ins. Cos.

Richland App. Nos. 97CA27 and 97CA42. On September 24, 1998, appellant filed a document titled “List of Additional Authorities Pursuant to Sup.Ct.R. IX(7).” Appellant’s document contains more than the list of citations to additional authorities permitted by S.Ct.Prac.R. IX(7). Furthermore, the document is, in substance, an untimely correction or addition to appellant’s supplement. S.Ct.Prac.R. VII(7) prohibits the filing of corrections or additions to a previously filed document after the deadline for filing the document has passed. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that appellant’s list of additional authorities be, and hereby is, stricken.
#### Phenie Search Vogel, appellee, v. Peoria Cartage Company and Peoria Creamery Company, defendants. Peoria Creamery Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 8,712.

Opinion filed December 22, 1934.

Eagleton & Eagleton, for appellant; George W. Hunt, of counsel. Jesse Black, Jr., and Clarence W. Heyl, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Dove

delivered the opinion of the court.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

In The Matter Of:

JOSEPH MARIDON, SR.

Respondent OFFICE OF HEARINGS

### [~ WASHINGTON, DC i 

### li

) ) ) ) ) ) 

## 0 2 2015

H r:llcOINr;; 

## DOCKET**c.:~** H d**~** "-"

Docket No. FAA-2014-0116

Case No. 2012WP190142

Jndge J. E Sullivan



### NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF RESPONDENT'S CO-COUNSEL

Please take notice that Respondent's Co-Counsel's address and contact information has changed.

From:

Walter L. Ayers 13435 N. Whitehouse Court Spokane, W A 99208



### To:

Walter L. Ayers 

### Attorney at Law Ayers Law Firm, P.L.L.C. 1312 N. Monroe St., Snite 133 Spokane, W A 99201

TEL: 509-252-6005/509-863-1432 E-MAIL: 't:!J:I,LU:JSli(kU'_t!i!:d_,t'L'rLJ:Ll{i\fLJ'iUi

ALL NOTICES AND DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE SENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS

Walter L. Ayer Attorney at Law 

### Co-Counsel for Respondent Ayers Law Firm, P.L.L.C. 1312 N. Monroe St., Suite 133 Spokane, W A 9920 1

### DATED~M/LDocket No. F AA-2014-0116 (Civil Penalty Action)



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE- BY U.S. MAIL

I hereby certify that the foregoing NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF RESPONDENT'S CO-COUNSEL has been served by placing the same in the U. S. Mail postage pre-paid to the following:

ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence A v e n u e , S. W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk. AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2W1 000

Mr. David F. Shayne Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Regional Counsel 1601 Lind Ave. SW Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-2165 FAX: 425-227-1007

Mr. Joseph R. Maridon, Jr. 

### Respondent's Co- Counsel Attorney at Law 6130 Elton Ave Las Vegas, NV 89107

Dated: July 28,2016 ONE COPY

Joseph Maridon, Sr Respondent 9212 E. Frederick Ave Spokane, WA 99206-4303

Judge J.E. Sullivan US. Administrative Law Judge Office of Hearings, M-20 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536Walterl.Ayers..··<'"'·AttorneyAtLaw'.·..')tjtersLawFirm,P.L.L.C.1312N.MonroeSt,Suite133Spol<ane,WA99201...,.,.____·..-,.,_._,.J,·..-:,--<:r<"•"'""''=•.,'tlill:df-'/.-.:to:.'!:M•·"JJUL·:P,{t,;Jr:3_LFederalAviationAdministration800IndependenceAvenue,S.W.Washington,DC20591Attention:HearingDocketClerk,AGC·430WilburWrightBuilding..Suite2W1DDO/>'c•..-":/'jj'1'1'''II.Ij•i+jljl'.l'''I'JliIJ•jljij'jl';lujl;I•,i]iiI•IJ•
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 1 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 2 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 3 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 4 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 5 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 6 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 7 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 8 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 9 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 10 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 11 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 12 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 13 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 14 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 15 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 16 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 17 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 18 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 19 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 20 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 21 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 22 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 23 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 24 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 25 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 26 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 27 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 28 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 29 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 30 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 31 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 32 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-EMT Document 1 Filed 02/26/20 Page 33 of 33
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos. 3:96cr5/LC/CJK

3:14cv286/LC/CJK

WILLIE BRAZILE

_____________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 24, 2014 (doc. 70). Defendant has been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objectionsthereto timely

filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 69) is

SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

Case 3:96-cr-00005-LC-CJK Document 72 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. A certificate of appealability be DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10 day of July, 2014.

th

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case Nos: 3:96cr5/LAC/CJK; 3:14cv286/LAC/CJK

Case 3:96-cr-00005-LC-CJK Document 72 Filed 07/10/14 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ruths Chris Steak House, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 25, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig S. Miller, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



November 14, 2005



/s/ Craig S. MillerCraig S. MillerPresident and Chief Executive Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
been provided to Ruths Chris Steak House, Inc. and will be retained by Ruths Chris Steak House, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1956

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1956.140-1956.141 [Reserved]
Appeal No. 78-149.

#### Francis J. Conlon *v.*Lebanon Knitting Mills.

This case comes before us on a show cause order directing the employer to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed in view of the fact that through the inadvertence of the employer the Workers’ Compensation Commission was unable to make findings which we can review.

Plaintiff filed an original petition seeking benefits for an employment-related disability. The trial court found that the petitioner was partially incapacitated and that 25 percent of his disability was within the scope of his employment.

The employer appealed from the decree of the Trial Commissioner to the full Commission. Upon appeal, the respondent furnished them with a partial transcript.

The Commissioner entered a final decree denying the re*891spondent’s appeal and affirming the decision of the Trial Commissioner. In its decision, the Commission stated that, without a full transcript, they were at a loss to determine whether the Trial Commissioner was in error. They further stated that:

*John F. McBurney,*for petitioner. *Robert C. Hogan, Inc., Robert C. Hogan,*for respondent.

> “We do not see how we can consider that the decree is against the evidence and the law since we do not have a transcript setting forth the evidence.”

The respondent appealed from the decree of the full Commission and has provided this court with an ample transcript.

Although the respondent has filed a more complete transcript for this appeal, it is impossible for this court to review the findings of the Commission, since it made no findings or conclusions of law. The scope of review of this court is limited to searching the record to determine if there is any legal evidence to support the Commission’s findings. Absent fraud, the findings will not be disturbed. *Beauchesne*v. *London & Co.,*118 R.I. 651, 375 A.2d 920 (1977). We are bound by the Commission’s findings.

Limited as we are as to our own role in reviewing the Commission’s findings, we are constrained to support its decision. In any event, the defendant has failed to show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed.

For the reasons stated we deny the defendant’s appeal. The decree appealed from is affirmed and the case is remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Commission for entry of a decree consistent with this opinion.
EXHIBIT 32.1

            CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               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 Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report
of Research Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company")  on Form 10-
K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report") , I, Robert L. Saxe, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

(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 issuer.


/s/  Robert L. Saxe
     Robert L. Saxe
     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
     October 28, 2004
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KRISTEN ELIZABETH WAGNER,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5219-MCR-MJF

MARK S. INCH,

Respondent.

/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated June 18, 2020. ECF No. 9. The parties were provided 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and were afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made 

a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection was made.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and all objections thereto 

timely filed, I conclude that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Case 3:20-cv-05219-MCR-MJF Document 10 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 9, is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Wagner’s mixed petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is 

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

4. The clerk is directed to close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of July 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05219-MCR-MJF Document 10 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 1709.17 Environmental review. ( a ) Grants made under this subpart must comply with the environmental review requirements in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970.
( b ) Applicants must address environmental aspects of their projects in the grant application in sufficient detail to allow the Agency to categorize the project for purposes of compliance with environmental review requirements. The grant announcement will establish the form and content of the environmental information required for the application.
( c ) Projects that are selected for grant awards by the Administrator will be reviewed by the Agency in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970 prior to final award approval. The Agency may require the selected applicant to submit additional information, as may be required, concerning the proposed project in order to complete the required reviews and to develop any project-specific conditions for the final grant agreement.
[70 FR 5351, Feb. 2, 2005, as amended at 81 FR 11025, Mar. 2, 2016]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward F. Steckowski, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence and an amended sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County, both imposed June 18, 1979, which prescribed consecutive prison terms, upon (1) the revocation of a sentence of probation previously imposed and (2) his conviction of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, on his plea of guilty. Sentences modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing them to the extent that they shall be served concurrently. As so modified sentences affirmed. The sentences were excessive to the extent indicated herein. Gibbons, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### § 29.3107 Rule 4.

The grade assigned to any lot of tobacco shall be a true representation of the tobacco at the time of inspection and certification. If, at any time, it is found that a lot of tobacco does not comply with the specifications of the grade previously assigned, it shall not thereafter be represented as such grade.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of American Tire Distributors Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his best knowledge:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 29, 2007 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                         |  |        |  |                                                     
|------------------------ |  | ------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 13, 2007 |  | By:    |  | /s/    RICHARD P.
JOHNSON                           
|                         |  | Name:  |  | Richard P. Johnson                                  
|                         |  | Title: |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                
|                         |  |       
|                         |  | By:    |  | /s/    DAVID L.
DYCKMAN                             
|                         |  | Name:  |  | David L. Dyckman                                    
|                         |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23


         Bedinger & Company                   1850 Mount Diablo Blvd., Suite 610
         ------------------                   Walnut Creek, California 94596
         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS         (925) 932-7808





Bedinger & Company
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 610
Walnut Creek, California



April 11, 2002



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to use in this Form 10-KSB of our report dated February 22,
2002, relating to the financial statements of Sepragen Corporation for the year
ended December 31, 2001.

                                       /s/ BEDINGER & COMPANY
                                       ----------------------------
                                       Certified Public Accountants