alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Regulatory E valuation Docket No . FAA- 

# c:;...c I

# J./- (J



## ~ **~7** 

# ~ Cttrtto(,'"( 

# :2d\ 4. -c<= 

# -o :L 'I .. 

# 40 Directorate Identifier: -AD 

## If

you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update according(v. 

## If they do not, click (or 1ab) into and then out of the changed cell . Estimated Costs: Action Cos ts per Product (e .g. , aircraft, engine, (e.g . , Inspection, propeller, appli ance) Wor k-hours Labor P arts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replac ement) ( in clude cost (la bor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include on- condition costs her e access, testing , (@$85/h parts) Registered and c lose-up) our) Products 

### Air intake 

### 0.75 $2970 0 inspection

T he known number of produc ts in compliance: Total Costs o f compliance for U.S. fleet : $ 0 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if 

### known) $ On-Condition Costs: Action Work-hou rs Labor cost Parts Cost Cost p er Produc t (e.g., Inspect ion, (include access, (@$85/hour) testing, and close - replacement) up) 

### Special considerations for E conomic Analysis (Use this field to e xplain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This fie ld can also be us ed to explain warranty cos ts ) :

### Executive Order 12866: 

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

## G) YES*O

**NO~** 

### *Explanation: DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

### Is the AD significant? 

# G YES*O

**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: 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? 

# G YES*0

**NO~** 

### *Explanation:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herbert Andrews, Appellant.

Determination of the appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on July 29, 1977, unanimously held in abeyance and defendant is granted leave to file a supplemental brief as indicated in the order of this court. No opinion. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Silverman and Carro, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1

SHANGHAI CENTURY ACQUISITION CORPORATION

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Franklin D. Chu, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shanghai Century Acquisition
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

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



/s/ Franklin D. ChuFranklin D. ChuPrincipal executive officerNovember 13, 2006




20
5 / 1 2 /2 0 1 6 H a g e r s t o w n R e g i o n a l A i r p o r t t o H a g e r s t o w n C o m m u n i t

y C o l l e g e ­ G o o g l e M a p s

h t t p s : / / w w w

. g o o g l e

. c o m / m a p s /d i r / H AG E R S T O W N + a i r p o r t , + S h o w a l t e r + R o a d , + H a g e r s t o w n , + M D / H a g e r s t o

w n + C o m m u n i t

y + C o l l e g e , + 1 1 4 0 0 + R o b i n w o o d + D r , + H a g e r s t o w n , + M D + 2 1 74 2

/ @ 3 9

. 6 6 7 5 2 2 , ­ 7 7

. 7 2 5 0 5 1 3 , . . . 1 /2 I m a g e r y © 2 0 1 6 G o o g l e , M a p d a t a © 2 0 1 6 G o o g l e 1 m i


# 2 2 m i n 1 0

. 6 m i l e s 

# v i a U S

- 1 1 S / P e n n s y l v a n i a Av e 2 0 m i n w i t h o u t t r a f ἀ渄 c



# 2 5 m i n 1 4

. 0 m i l e s 

# v i a M D

- 6 2 S / L i t t l e A n t i e t a m R d 2 3 m i n w i t h o u t t r a f ἀ渄 c 

# D r i v e 1 0

. 6 m i l e s , 2 2 m i n

H a g e r s t o w n R e g i o n a l A i r p o r t t o H a g e r s t o w n C o m m u n i t y C o l l e g e
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

FAROUK MEHIO, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant, 

v. 

KEITH D. SONNTAG, D.D.S., M.S, 

Defendant–Appellee. 

No. 11-4209 

(D.C. No. 2:11-CV-00552-SA) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, O’BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Farouk Mehio filed a pro se complaint in federal district court alleging that his 

dentist, Keith Sonntag, improperly charged him for dental work. In screening the case 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court concluded it lacked subject 

matter jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed. Mehio now appeals. Exercising 

 

* The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to 

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not 

binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and 

collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; 

nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th 

Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 8, 2012

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
-2- 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. See Tsosie v. United States, 452 F.3d 1161, 1163 (10th Cir. 2006). 

Construed liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), Mehio’s complaint 

appears to assert a common law fraud claim. Such a claim does not establish federal 

question jurisdiction because it does not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties 

of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nor does the complaint satisfy the requirements 

of diversity jurisdiction. Mehio admits that all parties are domiciled in Utah and does not 

seek $75,000 in relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

 On appeal, Mehio argues that the district court prematurely dismissed his 

complaint. But 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) directs that a district court “shall dismiss 

the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted.” Given the clear jurisdictional defect, the district court 

correctly held that it could not grant relief. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. We 

DENY all pending motions as moot. 

 Entered for the Court 

 

 Carlos F. Lucero 

 Circuit Judge
#### OMAHA WATER CO. v. CITY OF OMAHA.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

July 8, 1912.)

No. 3,786.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.

See, also, 187 Fed. 1005; 192 Fed. 246, 112 C. C. A. 504.

Howard Mansfield, of New York City, JohnF. Stout, of Omaha, Neb., Halleck F. Bose, of Omaha, Neb., and Herbert *990O. Lakin, of New York City, for - appellant. John' L. Webster, of Omaha Neb., and W. D. McHugh, of O’Neill, Neb., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed, with costs, per stipulation of parties.
#### § 4279.16 Appeals.

Applicants, borrowers, lenders, and holders have appeal or review rights for Agency decisions made under this subpart, subpart B of this part, or subpart B of part 4287 of this chapter. Programmatic decisions based on clear and objective statutory or regulatory requirements are not appealable; however, such decisions are reviewable for appealability by the National Appeals Division (NAD). The borrower, lender, and holder can appeal any Agency decision that directly and adversely impacts them. For an adverse decision that impacts the borrower, the lender and borrower must jointly execute a written request for appeal for an alleged adverse decision made by the Agency. An adverse decision that only impacts the lender may be appealed by the lender only. An adverse decision that only impacts the holder may be appealed by the holder only. A decision by a lender adverse to the interest of the borrower is not a decision by the Agency, whether or not concurred in by the Agency. Appeals will be conducted by USDA NAD and will be handled in accordance with 7 CFR part 11.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000796502
<NAME> WESTERBEKE CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-25-1997
<CASH>                                         156,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,949,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    63,900
<INVENTORY>                                  6,254,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,406,000
<PP&E>                                       5,708,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,568,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,810,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,605,600
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,600
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,114,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,810,700
<SALES>                                     24,620,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,620,300
<CGS>                                       19,064,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,064,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,136,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,348,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                   550,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            798,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   798,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# L_2021147EN.01001901.xml

| 30.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 147/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 147/19

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2021/712

of 29 April 2021

implementing Decision 2013/798/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2013/798/CFSP of 23 December 2013 concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic (1), and in particular Article 2c thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 23 December 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/798/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 23 December 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/798/CFSP.

| (2) | On 5 April 2021, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 2127 (2013) approved the removal of one entity from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 5 April 2021, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 2127 (2013) approved the removal of one entity from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.

| (3) | The Annex to Decision 2013/798/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Annex to Decision 2013/798/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2013/798/CFSP is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 29 April 2021.

For the Council

The President

A. P. ZACARIAS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 352, 24.12.2013, p. 51.

1

---

ANNEX

In the list set out in Part B (Entities) of the Annex to Decision 2013/798/CFSP, the entry for the following entity is deleted:

| 1. | Bureau d’achat de diamant en Centrafrique/Kardiam (alias: a) Badica/Krdiam b) Kardiam). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Bureau d’achat de diamant en Centrafrique/Kardiam (alias: a) Badica/Krdiam b) Kardiam).

---
ORDER IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0444

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: A.N., J.G. and A.G., Youths in Need of Care. O R D E R

_________________ Upon consideration of Appellant Mother ’s motion to c onsolidate, and good cause appearing, Appellant’s motion is GRANTED and Cause Nos. DA 21 - 0444, DA 21 - 0445, and DA 21 - 0446 are hereby consolidated under Cause No. DA 21 - 0444 and captioned as above .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 18 2022

02/18/2022
# L_2022328DE.01017101.xml

| 22.12.2022 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 328/171 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2022

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 328/171

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2021/784 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 29. April 2021 zur Bekämpfung der Verbreitung terroristischer Online-Inhalte

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 172 vom 17. Mai 2021
  )

| 1. | Seite 81, Erwägungsgrund 12: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Seite 81, Erwägungsgrund 12:

Anstatt:

| „(12) | Materialien, die für Bildungs-, Presse- oder Forschungszwecke oder für künstlerische Zwecke oder zum Zweck der Sensibilisierung gegenüber terroristischen Aktivitäten verbreitet werden, sollten nicht als terroristische Inhalte gelten [...].“ |
| --- | --- |

„(12)

muss es heißen:

| „(12) | Materialien, die für Bildungs- oder Forschungszwecke oder für journalistische oder künstlerische Zwecke oder zum Zweck der Sensibilisierung gegenüber terroristischen Aktivitäten verbreitet werden, sollten nicht als terroristische Inhalte gelten [...].“ |
| --- | --- |

„(12)

| 2. | Seite 89, Artikel 1 Absatz 3: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Seite 89, Artikel 1 Absatz 3:

Anstatt:

„(3)   Materialien, die für Bildungs-, Presse-, Forschungszwecke oder künstlerische Zwecke oder für die Zwecke der Verhütung oder Bekämpfung des Terrorismus öffentlich verbreitet werden, einschließlich der Materialien, die eine Formulierung polemischer oder kontroverser Ansichten in der öffentlichen Debatte darstellen, gelten nicht als terroristische Inhalte. [...].“

muss es heißen:

„(3)   Materialien, die für Bildungs- oder Forschungszwecke oder für journalistische oder künstlerische Zwecke oder für die Zwecke der Verhütung oder Bekämpfung des Terrorismus öffentlich verbreitet werden, einschließlich der Materialien, die eine Formulierung polemischer oder kontroverser Ansichten in der öffentlichen Debatte darstellen, gelten nicht als terroristische Inhalte. [...].“

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PICTURETEL'S
BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 28, 1996 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q FILING
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          51,276
<SECURITIES>                                    17,144
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,150
<INVENTORY>                                     35,039
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               245,497
<PP&E>                                          95,367
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,659
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           281
<OTHER-SE>                                     237,497
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,778
<SALES>                                        351,530
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               351,530
<CGS>                                          178,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  178,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,063
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,492
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,492
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59
        

</TABLE>
#### Alfred Besunder, as Director of the Mental Health Information Service, Respondent, v Thomas Coughlin, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the transfer of two mentally retarded patients from the Nassau County Medical Center to the custody of the respondent Commissioner of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities for placement in an appropriate treatment facility, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 30, 1979, which granted the petition to the extent of directing that the petitioner’s patients be admitted forthwith to the Suffolk Developmental Center "upon presentation of the appropriate certification as set forth in Mental Hygiene Law Section 15.27”. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as to Michael Payne since it now appears that he is in a foster home, at least temporarily. Thus as to him the appeal is academic. As to Mary Jaghab the matter is remitted to Special Term to hear and report forthwith on the following: (1) whether she is presently suffering from a psychiatric condition which would render inappropriate her placement in a residential facility for the mentally retarded and (2) whether she is currently receiving care and treatment suited to her needs in the psychiatric ward of the Nassau County Medical Center. In the interim, the appeal as to her is held in abeyance. While we are inclined to agree with Special Term that the petition states a valid *660cause of action, a resolution at an evidentiary hearing of the above factual issues is necessary to a proper determination in this proceeding. Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2329 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2329

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain filament yarns.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 17, 2006

Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain filament yarns.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN FILAMENT YARNS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.91 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain filament yarns) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```