alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Regu l atory Eva l uation 

# 2015"" -Alf\/\
- ((1 / AD Docket No. FAA- Directorat e Id e ntifi er: -AD

:ld d 1 he II'O r k hour .\. porfs**~.·osl,** ond 1111111ber t?l 

### U.5i. regislered pruduc ls luIh e Iable! h e/o\1'
. When FO il are finis hed. click 0 11 the
.. {,. {,dale**Fieltl.~** 

### ·· h u/1 011 10 ollfOIIIa!iml/y.f/11 i11tlie /oJals. 

### Update Fiel ds 

# I

Estimated Costs: Act ion Costs per Product (e.g. , aircraft , en gine, (e.g., I nspcction , propeller, nppl iance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cos t Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S
. Fleet Do no/ include oncond ilion costs h e re access, testin g, (@$85 /h parts) Registered and clos e-up) our) Product s 

### I 

### n.... p.. : ( l 

### ion. n.:p a 

### ir. 8 0**~: I**  c. 

# v, t / 

# -"**IV\..j~** 

## /)



# r**~** 

## /. \ 'Y'f' 

## tl-'1(/ v 

# ,.**~** ) 

# . / ' I I •

•
:

I The known number of products in compl i ance: "" li Ill b l. 'l' Total Costs of comp lian ce tor 

### U.S. fleet: 

## s 0 Costs covered under warranty (if known) Sun known
On-Co ndition Costs: 

# 0 Ac tion Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost pe r Product (e.g., Inspection , (inc lud e access, (@$85/hour) testing
. and close

- replacement) up) In specti on 

### 8 

### '**~** 

# " tiS'nQ Installation 8**1~8** 

## ( '· va rJ w 

# '

### Spec ial considerations for Eco nomic 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 cos ts): 

### Exec utive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory act i on " ?- YES* 

### 0 NO 

### 181 *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is t h e AD significant?

# ~ YES* 

### D NO 181 *Ex planation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD ha ve a significant economic impact on a s ub stan tial number of sma ll ent i ties? Explain for e ither a Yes or No answer. 

# Q , YES 

### 0 NO 

### 181 Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: Th i s AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircra ft operated in Alaska where aviation might be t h e only mode oftranspo1tation? 

# G YES* 

### D NO 

### 181 *Explanation:
#### DELTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. v. James PHILLIPS.

No. 51329.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 1, 1979.

McCoy & Wilkins, Joseph T. Wilkins, III, Jackson, for appellants.

Ellis, Braddock & Bost, Gerald E. Braddock, Vicksburg, for appellee.

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

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallahatchie County; Andrew C. Baker, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
# Equatorial Guinea

51 items

        -    Report  		Equatorial Guinea	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Equatorial Guinea	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Equatorial Guinea	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Equatorial Guinea	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Equatorial Guinea	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Equatorial Guinea	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Equatorial Guinea	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Equatorial Guinea (17-126) – Agreement on Employment of Dependents of Official Employees	  January 26, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Equatorial Guinea (14-807) – Air Transport Agreement	  August 7, 2014 
        -    TIAS  		Equatorial Guinea (04-0506) – Agreement Regarding the Surrender of Persons to the International Criminal Court	  May 6, 2004 

previous page1…3456next page

Back to Top
#### § 136.304 Publication of a list of allied health professions.

The Secretary, acting through the Service, shall publish from time to time in the Federal Register a list of the allied health professions for consideration for the award of preparatory and Indian Health scholarships under subdivisions J-3 and J-4 of this Subpart, based upon his determination of the relative needs of Indians for additional service in specific allied health professions. In making that determination, the needs of the Service will be given priority consideration.
#### SOUTHERN AMERICAN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Harold KRASNER and Pearl Krasner, his wife, and International Funding Corporation, Appellees. Harold KRASNER and Pearl Krasner, his wife, Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL FUNDING CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Appellee. INTERNATIONAL FUNDING CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Harold and Pearl KRASNER and Southern American Fire Insurance Company, Appellees.

Nos. 78-1214, 78-1215 and 78-1217.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 24, 1979.

Herbert B. Lebovitz, Hollywood, for Krasner, Norman L. Miley, Jr., Tallahassee, for Southern American Fire Ins. Co.

Ritter & Ritter and John A. Ritter, Coral Gables, for International Funding Corp.

Before PEARSON and KEHOE, JJ., and EZELL, BOYCE F., Jr., (Ret.) Associate Judge.

KEHOE, Judge.

Harold and Pearl Krasner, and Southern American Fire Insurance Company, as first and second mortgagees, filed separate appeals from an order entered by the trial *813court denying- their motions for a deficiency judgment on certain foreclosed property. International Funding Corporation, the mortgagor, filed another appeal from the trial court’s order directing the disbursement of rental payments paid into the registry of the trial court by the tenants of the foreclosed property- These three appeals were consolidated for appellate purposes.

The primary point raised by the Krasners and Southern American relates to whether the trial court properly determined as a matter of law, without taking any testimony, that they were not entitled to a deficiency judgment. In our opinion, the trial court abused its discretion in ruling as it did because the record discloses no proven facts establishing any equitable considerations sufficient to warrant such a denial. See, e. g., *Scheneman v. Barnett,*53 So.2d 641 (Fla.1951); *Carlson v. Becker,*45 So.2d 116 (Fla.1950); *Larsen v. Allocca,*187 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); and *Nathanson v. Weston,*163 So.2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). Accordingly, the order appealed by the Krasners and Southern American denying a deficiency judgment is reversed. We do not pass upon the question of their entitlement to such a judgment, but remand the cause for further proceedings so that the trial court may properly make such a determination.

International Funding Corporation contends that the trial court erred in disbursing the rent monies paid into the court’s registry. In our opinion, the trial court committed no reversible error in receiving and disbursing the rent monies as it did. See, e. g., *Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner,*99 Fla. 987, 128 So. 241 (1930); and *Cone-Otwell-Wilson Corp. v. Commodore’s Point Terminal Co.,*94 Fla. 448, 114 So. 232 (1927). Accordingly, the trial court’s order directing the disbursement of the rental monies paid into the court’s registry is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10577

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO JAVIER GARCIA-DAVILA,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:00-CR-27-1-C

 

October 8, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Javier Garcia-Davila, federal prisoner # 34312-077,

appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

motion for reduction of his sentence for illegal reentry into the

United States after deportation. He argues that Amendment 632 to

the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines should be applied retroactively to

reduce his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.
1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1 (2001)

(“Eligibility for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is

triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection (c) that lowers

the applicable guideline range.”); United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d

216, 218 (5th Cir. 1996).

2

For an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines to be

retroactive pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), it must be listed in U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10(c).1 Assuming arguendo that Amendment 632 subsequently

lowered Appellant’s sentencing range, it is not listed in U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10(c) and therefore is nonretroactive. 

AFFIRMED.
§ 403.239 Submittal of material to retain certification. ( a ) CMS certification of a policy that continues to meet the standards will remain in effect, if the insuring organization files the following material with CMS no later than the date specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section— ( 1 ) Any changes in the material, specified in § 403.232(b), that was submitted for previous certification.
( 2 ) The loss ratio supporting data specified in § 403.256(b).
( 3 ) A signed statement in which the president of the insuring organization, or a designee, attests that— ( i ) The policy continues to meet the requirements specified in § 403.232(a); and
( ii ) The information submitted to CMS for review is accurate and complete and does not misrepresent any material fact.
( b ) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, the insuring organization must file the material with CMS no later than June 30 of each year. The first time the insuring organization must file the material is no later than June 30 of the calendar year that follows the year in which CMS— ( 1 ) Certifies a new policy; or
( 2 ) Certifies a policy that lost certification as provided in § 403.245.
( c ) If the loss ratio calculation period, used to calculate the expected loss ratio for the last actuarial certification submitted to CMS, ends before the June 30 date of paragraph (b) of this section, the insuring organization must file the material with CMS no later then the last day of that rate calculation period.
{In Archive {In Archive In Archive} Fw:BART Analysis for NGS BART Analysis for NGS

Steve Frey Steve Frey to: Anita Lee 02/22/2011 11:56 AM

History: This message has been forwarded.

Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive .

----- Forwarded by Steve Frey/R9/USEPA/US on 02/22/2011 11:56 AM -----

BART Analysis for NGS

Colleen McKaughan Colleen McKaughan to: rhayslip, kwantaja 07/22/2007 08:04 PM

Cc: Steve Frey, Doug McDaniel

Hi, Dick and Kevin,

We would like to move forward with preparation of the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for the Navajo Generating Station on the Navajo Nation. Steve Frey of my 

office has had discussions with Kevin Wantaja concerning the submittal of a BART analysis for NOx and 

PM for the Navajo Generating Station by the end of September 2007. EPA Region 9 would like to request 

that SRP send our Divison Director, Deborah Jordan, a letter committing to submittal of the BART analysis 

by the end of September 2007. If this date would be difficult, please indicate when SRP will be able to 

submit the analysis and the reason for the delay. Thank you very much and feel free to call me if you 

have questions (520-498-0118).

Colleen McKaughan
§ 802.214 Excepted real estate foreign state. The term *excepted real estate foreign state* means, until February 13, 2023, a foreign state that meets the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section, and beginning on February 13, 2023, a foreign state that meets both the criteria in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section: ( a ) Is identified by the Committee as an eligible foreign state and
( b ) Is a foreign state for which the Committee has made a determination under § 802.1001(a).
Note 1 to § 802.214 :
The name of each foreign state identified by the Committee as an eligible foreign state will be available at the Committee's section of the Department of the Treasury website. See § 802.1001(c) regarding the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of a determination under § 802.1001(a). The list of excepted real estate foreign states will also be available at the Committee's section of the Department of the Treasury website.
[85 FR 3166, Jan. 17, 2020, as amended at 87 FR 732, Feb. 4, 2022]
#### § 21.34 Certification by candidate; requirement of new physical examination.

If a candidate for appointment in the Regular Corps or an officer of the Reserve Corps on inactive service has passed a physical examination within a period of one year from the date on which it is contemplated that he will be appointed or called to active duty, he shall, prior to being appointed or called to active duty, certify that to the best of his knowledge and belief he is free from all disease or injury not noted in his record at the time of his examination and that he is willing to serve in any climate. If a candidate for appointment in the Regular Corps, or an officer of the Reserve Corps on inactive service, has not passed a physical examination within a period of one year from the date on which it is contemplated that he will be appointed or called to active duty, he may, prior to being appointed or called to active duty, be required to undergo such physical examination as the Surgeon General may direct to determine his physical qualification for appointment or call to active duty in accordance with standards prescribed for original appointment, or he may be appointed or called to active duty after executing the certificate described in this section, but shall be physically examined to determine his physical qualification for continued active service in accordance with standards prescribed for original appointment within a period of 15 days after reporting for duty at his first station.

[21 FR 9806, Dec. 12, 1956, as amended at 24 FR 1790, Mar. 12, 1959. Redesignated at 25 FR 5184, June 10, 1960]

Provisions Applicable Only to Regular Corps
#### Glen Stark CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 47888.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 8, 1975.

Cause sua sponte vacated.
#### § 802.243 U.S. public entity.

The term *U.S. public entity* means the U.S. Government, a subnational government of the United States, or any other body exercising governmental functions of the United States, including air and maritime port authorities. The term includes, but is not limited to, the respective departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the U.S. Government and the subnational governments of the United States.
#### § 587.802 Delegation of certain authorities of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Any action that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to take pursuant to Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021, and any further Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared therein, may be taken by the Director of OFAC or by any other person to whom the Secretary of the Treasury has delegated authority so to act.
#### § 539.401 Reference to amended sections.

Except as otherwise specified, reference to any provision in or appendix to this part or chapter or to any regulation, ruling, order, instruction, direction, or license issued pursuant to this part refers to the same as currently amended.
#### Gilbert SENS, as Trustee, Appellant, v. SLAVIA, INC., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 73-813, 73-814.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 20, 1975.

Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Fink & Syna; Miami, Joe N. Unger, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., HAVER-FIELD, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on February 19, 1974 (292 So.2d 627) affirming the order of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed November 13, 1974, 304 So.2d 438 and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment with directions;

Now, therefore, It is ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on April 9, 1974 is withdrawn, the judgment of this court entered in this cause on February 19, 1974 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the order of the circuit court here appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16 subd. b., F.A.R.).
HomeSyria

# Syria

339 items

        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu	  March 24, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		On the Second Anniversary of ISIS’s Territorial Defeat	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 23, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 22, 2021	  Jalina PorterMarch 22, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Attacks on Civilians in Syria	  Ned PriceMarch 22, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 15, 2021	  Jalina PorterMarch 15, 2021Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement by the Secretary of State of the United States of America, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, and the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, and Italy	  March 15, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 11, 2021	  Ned PriceMarch 11, 2021Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		State Department Terrorist Designations of ISIS Affiliates and Leaders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mozambique	  March 10, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 5, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 5, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 2, 2021	  Ned PriceFebruary 2, 2021 

previous page1…293031323334next page

Back to Top
HomeGermany

# Germany

399 items

        -    Special Needs Profile  		Berlin, Germany: Berlin Brandenburg International School: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  February 15, 2024 
        -    Special Briefing  		Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs James O’Brien And Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Yuri Kim Previewing Secretary Blinken’s Upcoming Travel to Albania and Germany	  James O’BrienFebruary 13, 2024Via Teleconference 
        -    Media Note  		Special Advisor on International Disability Rights Minkara Travels to France, Germany, Italy, The Holy See, and Austria	  February 13, 2024 
        -    		Travel to Albania and Germany, February 14-17, 2024	   
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Pyatt’s Travel to Prague and the Munich Security Conference	  February 12, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Kerry’s Travel to UAE, France, Norway, and Germany	  February 9, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Secretary Blinken’s Travel to Albania and Germany	  Matthew MillerFebruary 9, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with German Foreign Minister Baerbock	  January 16, 2024Davos, Switzerland 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenJanuary 16, 2024World Economic ForumDavos, Switzerland 
        -    Media Note  		Formalization of the Tallinn Mechanism to Coordinate Civilian Cyber Assistance to Ukraine	  December 20, 2023 

previous page1…34567…40next page

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<CIK>                                       0000725394
<NAME>                                      IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
       
<S>                                     <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      368,000
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               3,848,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                295
<INVENTORY>                                 2,896,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            8,368,000
<PP&E>                                      1,217,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,610,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,790,000
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 2,176,000
<COMMON>                                    99,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  393,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,610,000
<SALES>                                     3,230,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            3,660,000
<CGS>                                       2,504,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               5,587,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          368,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,295,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,295,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,295,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.52)
        

</TABLE>
§ 405.535 Special rule for nonparticipating physicians and suppliers furnishing screening mammography services before January 1, 2002. The provisions in this section apply for screening mammography services provided from January 1, 1991 until December 31, 2001. Screening mammography services provided after December 31, 2001 are physician services pursuant to § 414.2 of this chapter paid under the physician fee schedule. If screening mammography services are furnished to a beneficiary by a nonparticipating physician or supplier that does not accept assignment, a limiting charge applies to the charges billed to the beneficiary. The limiting charge is the lesser of the following: ( a ) 115 percent of the payment limit set forth in § 405.534(b)(3), (c)(3), and (d)(3) (limitations on the global service, professional component, and technical component of screening mammography services, respectively).
( b ) The limiting charge for the global service, professional component, and technical component of a diagnostic bilateral mammogram under the fee schedule for physicians' services set forth at § 414.48(b) of this chapter.
[59 FR 49833, Sept. 30, 1994, as amended at 62 FR 59098, Oct. 31, 1997; 66 FR 55328, Nov. 1, 2001]
§ 2.63 Confidential communications. ( a ) A court order under the regulations in this part may authorize disclosure of confidential communications made by a patient to a part 2 program in the course of diagnosis, treatment, or referral for treatment only if: ( 1 ) The disclosure is necessary to protect against an existing threat to life or of serious bodily injury, including circumstances which constitute suspected child abuse and neglect and verbal threats against third parties;
( 2 ) The disclosure is necessary in connection with investigation or prosecution of an extremely serious crime, such as one which directly threatens loss of life or serious bodily injury, including homicide, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, or child abuse and neglect; or
( 3 ) The disclosure is in connection with a civil, criminal, administrative, or legislative proceeding in which the patient offers testimony or other evidence pertaining to the content of the confidential communications.
( b ) [Reserved]
[82 FR 6115, Jan. 18, 2017, as amended at 85 FR 80632, Dec. 14, 2020; 89 FR 12629, Feb. 16, 2024]