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

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 8467 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 107

- 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 ou t of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Modification 20 $ 1,700.0

0 $140 $ 1,840.00 

### 5 $ 9,200.00

$ 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 complia nce:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 9,200



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition C osts:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) 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 ex plain 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? E xplain 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 requi rements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8 v. No. 30,261 9 OSCAR H., 10 Child-Appellee. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY 12 Robert S. Orlik, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 M. Victoria Wilson 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellant 18 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 19 Oscar Hernandez, Assistant Appellate Defender 20 Santa Fe, NM 21 for Appellee 22 MEMORANDUM OPINION 23 SUTIN, Judge. 242 The State appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice a 1 delinquency petition alleging that Childcommitted assault on a peace officer and 2 aggravated battery on a peace officer. We issued a notice of proposed summary 3 disposition, proposing to affirm. According to the response filed by the State, the 4 State does not oppose the proposed summary disposition. Based on the State’s 5 response, and for the reasons in the notice of proposed summary disposition, we 6 affirm the order of dismissal. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

__________________________________ 9 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 10 WE CONCUR: 11

___________________________________ 12 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 13

___________________________________ 14 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 15
HomeBlue Dot Network...Vision Statement

# Vision Statement

Blue Dot Network participants – from the public, private and civil society sectors – believe in supporting, building, and financing quality infrastructure projects. Certified Blue Dot Network projects exemplify quality infrastructure principles.[1]The Blue Dot Network aims to promote quality infrastructure investment that is open and inclusive, transparent, economically viable, Paris Agreement aligned, financially, environmentally and socially sustainable, and compliant with international standards, and laws and regulations. To accomplish this, the Blue Dot Network will certify infrastructure projects against robust criteria and standards. The Blue Dot Network governing body will regularly review developments in standards to ensure inclusion of the foremost, robust, international standards.

Blue Dot Network certified infrastructure should:
        - Promote sustainable and inclusive economic growth and development.
        - Promote market-driven and private sector led investment, supported by judicious use of public funds.
        - Support sound public financial management, debt transparency, and project-level and country-level debt sustainability.
        - Build projects that are resilient to climate change, disasters, and other risks, and aligned with the pathways towards 2050 net-zero emissions needed to keep global temperature change of 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach.
        - Ensure value-for-money over an asset’s full life-cycle cost.
        - Build local capacity, with a focus on local skills transfer and local capital markets.
        - Promote protections against corruption, while encouraging transparent procurement and consultation processes.
        - Uphold international best practices of environmental and social safeguards, including respect for labour and human rights.
        - Promote the non-discriminatory use of infrastructure services.
        - Advance inclusion for women, people with disabilities, and underrepresented and marginalised groups.

***This vision will be notional and periodically updated by the Blue Dot Network Steering Committee in consultation with the private sector, civil society, governments, and others. Blue Dot Network acknowledges the differing challenges for infrastructure development across countries and regions, and will explore ways to address these challenges in order to help projects to meet these quality standards.*

----

**[1]** These principles include but are not limited to the G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment, the G7 Charlevoix Commitment on Innovative Financing for Development, the IFC Performance Standards, and the Equator Principles.

Back to Top
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

PATRICK JOSEPH BRADLEY, 

 Respondent 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 2189 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 

No. 107 DB 2015 

Attorney Registration No. 202416 

(Montgomery County) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM: 

AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2015, upon consideration of the 

Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board dated July 2, 2015, it is hereby 

 ORDERED that Patrick Joseph Bradley is placed on temporary suspension 

pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(f)(5), until further definitive action by this Court. It is further 

ORDERED that Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. 

 This Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline within the meaning of 

Pa.R.D.E. 402, pertaining to confidentiality.
§ 562.403 Termination and acquisition of an interest in blocked property. ( a ) Whenever a transaction licensed or authorized by or pursuant to this part results in the transfer of property (including any property interest) away from a person, such property shall no longer be deemed to be property blocked pursuant to § 562.201, unless there exists in the property another interest that is blocked pursuant to § 562.201 or any other part of this chapter, the transfer of which has not been effected pursuant to license or other authorization.
( b ) Unless otherwise specifically provided in a license or authorization issued pursuant to this part, if property (including any property interest) is transferred or attempted to be transferred to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 562.201, such property shall be deemed to be property in which that person has an interest and therefore blocked.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 43157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20413]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Ice Crystal Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 28, 2009, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Ice Crystal Consortium 
(``ICC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and 
objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: National Institute for Aerospace Studies and 
Services, Inc., Arlington, VA; The Boeing Company, Seattle, WA; Cessna 
Aircraft Company, Wichita, KS; General Electric Company, Cincinnati, 
OH; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, Wichita, KS; Honeywell International 
Inc., Tucson, AZ; Rolls Royce plc, Derby, UNITED KINGDOM; Snecma, 
Moissy Cramayel, FRANCE; and United Technologies Corporation, Pratt & 
Whitney Group, East Hartford, CT. The general area of ICC's planned 
activity is to conduct research arid testing on the physical 
characteristics and behavior of high altitude ice crystals.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-20413 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Hector Grisi Checa, certify that:

 

1.      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Banco Santander (México), S.A., Institución de BancaMúltiple, Grupo Financiero Santander México; and

 

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

 

Date: May 14, 2018
§ 560.301 Effective date. The term *effective date* refers to the effective date of the applicable prohibitions and directives contained in this part as follows: ( a ) With respect to the prohibitions and directives in § 560.201 and §§ 560.204 through 560.209 is 12:01 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, August 20, 1997. For the effective date of pre-existing regulations and directives, see the Executive orders in the Authority citation for this part and implementing regulations.
( b ) With respect to prohibited transfers or other dealings in blocked property and interests in property of the Government of Iran, as defined in § 560.304, and Iranian financial institutions, as defined in § 560.324, 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time, February 6, 2012; and
( c ) With respect to a person whose property and interests in property are otherwise blocked pursuant to paragraph (c) of § 560.211, the earlier of the date of actual or constructive notice that such person's property and interests in property are blocked.
- Office Home
- About Us

HomeBureaus & Offices > Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation...Office of Policy Coordination

# Office of Policy Coordination

## 				Our Mission			

					The Office of Policy Coordination (PC), in coordination with other Department offices, develops and implements U.S. policies and diplomatic responses to bilateral and regional international security and WMD proliferation challenges, including the proliferation threats posed by Iran, North Korea, and Syria.				

Back to Top
HomeOffice of Global Food Security...Office of Global Food Security  Releases

# Office of Global Food Security Releases

98 items

        -    White House Release  		G7 Leaders’ Statement	  March 24, 2022 
        -    White House Release  		Fact Sheet: The Biden Administration’s Commitment to Global Health	  February 2, 2022 
        -    Other Release  		Global Food Security Strategy 2022-2026, Next Steps – FAQs	  January 18, 2022 
        -    USAID Release  		Administrator Samantha Power’s Meeting With Suzuki Takako, Japanese State Minister of Foreign Affairs	  December 21, 2021 
        -    		Office of Global Food Security	  December 7, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		2021 Nutrition for Growth Summit	  Antony J. BlinkenDecember 7, 2021 
        -    USAID Release  		U.S. Government Global Nutrition Coordination Plan 2021-2026	  December 1, 2021 
        -    		Our Priorities	  November 1, 2021 

previous page1…8910

Back to Top
#### Dennis WILEY v. G. B. KEEN.

No. 53044.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 30, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 4, 1981.

Leon Mangum, Decatur, for appellant.

Laurel G. Weir, Thomas L. Booker, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and BROOM and HAWKINS, JJ.

HAWKINS, Justice, for the Court:

Dennis Wiley appeals from a judgment of $500.00 against him in the Circuit Court of *1026Newton County in favor of G. B. Keen for killing Keen’s dog.

The only issue we need address on this appeal is whether or not the circuit judge erred in granting a peremptory instruction on liability in favor of the plaintiff. We believe this issue should have been submitted to the jury, and therefore, reverse and remand.

Mr. Wiley operated a dairy farm and had some calves sick with pneumonia in a pen near his house. According to Wiley, some dogs, which he thought were wild, were in the pen disturbing the calves. He began shooting at them from a distance of about 75 yards, and continued shooting as the dogs were running away. He testified that he shot to scare the dogs and could not tell when Mr. Keen’s dog was hit, or if the dog was hit at all. Within twenty-four hours thereafter some of his calves had died and Mr. Wiley could not say with certainty that the dogs’ disturbance had caused the loss.

As we have stated on numerous occasions in considering the request for a peremptory instruction, “all evidence with reasonable inferences flowing therefrom must be accepted as true in favor of the party against whom the peremptory instruction is requested, all evidence in conflict therewith is disregarded, and, if such evidence is sufficient to support a verdict for the party against whom the peremptory instruction is requested, then it should be denied.” *Pollan v. Ill. Central Gulf R. R. Co.,*378 So.2d 659, 660 (Miss.1980); *Paymaster Oil Co. v. Mitchell,*319 So.2d 652 (Miss.1975). Consequently, we have only detailed Mr. Wiley’s testimony herein, and do not deem it necessary to further detail the evidence. A jury issue was made as to whether Mr. Wiley intentionally or recklessly killed the dog without just cause.

Dogs are a special breed, capable of arousing the strongest of emotions in mankind. It is also a matter of common knowledge among cattlemen and dairymen that “wild dogs” harass and kill cattle.

The propriety of Mr. Wiley’s conduct under the circumstances is a matter which should have been passed upon by the fellow citizens of the plaintiff and defendant in Newton County. We have said a circumstantial evidence case should rarely be taken from the jury. The same observation, albeit for a different reason, can be made in a case of shooting a dog.

Times change, but we believe that on retrial the cases of *Hull v. Scruggs,*191 Miss. 66, 2 So.2d 543 (1941), and *Hodges v. Causey,*77 Miss. 353, 26 So. 945 (1899), will be of some benefit to the court and counsel in properly instructing the jury.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
#### § 550.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice.

For approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) of information collections relating to recordkeeping and reporting requirements, licensing procedures, and other procedures, see § 501.901 of this chapter. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
**EXHIBIT      32**

**Certification      of CEO and CFO Pursuant to**

**18      U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As      Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|                                                                             |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Donald              R.              Uzzi                                |   |   |   |
| Donald R. Uzzi                                                                   |   |   |        |
| Title:              Chairman,              Chief Executive Officer and President |   |   |   |
|                                                |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Jon              H.              Peterson       |   |   |   |
| Jon H. Peterson                                          |   |   |        |
| Title:              Chief              Financial Officer |   |   |   |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41200

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDGAR HUGO MUNOZ-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-72-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edgar Hugo MunozRamirez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Munoz-Ramirez has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 12, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41200 Document: 00513950347 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2017
No. 16-41200

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41200 Document: 00513950347 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2017
# Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Releases

2276 items

        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Haiti	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Honduras	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Cuba	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Colombia	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Chile	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ecuador	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Saint Lucia	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Trinidad and Tobago	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Uruguay	  April 22, 2024 
        -    Report  		2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Peru	  April 22, 2024 

previous page1…56789…228next page

Back to Top
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24 - 0141

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: G.F.S., I.L.S - B., and T.R. S.,

Youths in Need of Care. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five- justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable David J. Grubich, District Judge . For the Court,

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

September 18 2024

09/18/2024
40666.

#### WALTHER v. WALTHER.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The Supreme Court in transferring this case to the Court of Appeals held that the questions raised iii the bill of exceptions were not properly raised in the lower court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court must be

*Affirmed.*

*Hall and Russell, JJ., concur.*

*683Decided May 6, 1964.

*John J. Sullivan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor General, Sylvan A. Garfunkel, Assistant Solicitor General,*contra.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Commemorating LGBTQI+ Pride Month 

# 									Commemorating LGBTQI+ Pride Month 							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

June 1, 2023

Every June, the United States celebrates Pride Month, marking the anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising, when police raided a gay bar in New York City and its patrons stood up against discrimination, abuse, and mistreatment.  Pride reminds us of the spirit of democratic protest and the principle that all persons are created equal and every individual’s full humanity should be equally respected.

Five decades after Stonewall, we know that inclusion of and respect for LGBTQI+ persons make our nation stronger. We also recognize the impact LGBTQI+ persons and organizations have had on some of the cornerstones of our democracy, including in pursuing truth through a free media and exercising the right to peacefully assemble.

The Department of State proudly works to promote and protect the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons around the world. We strongly oppose the “otherization” of LGBTQI+ persons to justify authoritarian power grabs and attacks on institutions of democracy globally.  Democracies are stronger when they celebrate the full rights and value of all persons, without discrimination.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborDemocracyHuman RightsLGBT RightsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top