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

Docket No. FAA-2015-3636 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-043-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

Inspection 30.0 $2,550.0

0

$0 $2,550.00 24 $61,200.00

0.0 $ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00 0 $ 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 compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $61,200

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

Repair 15.0 $1,275.00 $0 $1,275.00

$ 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:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Chapa Products Corp., as Assignee of Luz Ortega, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>ELRAC, Inc., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Carman, Callahan &amp; Ingham, LLP (Paul A. Barrett, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered June 19, 2015. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs).</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's only contention, the proof submitted by defendant was sufficient to demonstrate that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for the scheduled IMEs (<i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 19, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1906 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust the estimated tax 

payment safe harbor based on income for the preceding year in the 

case of individuals with adjusted gross income greater than $5 million. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 18, 2007 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust 

the estimated tax payment safe harbor based on income 

for the preceding year in the case of individuals with 

adjusted gross income greater than $5 million. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF ESTIMATED TAX PAYMENT 

4 SAFE HARBOR FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS 

5 WITH ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME GREATER 

6 THAN $5 MILLION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (C) of section 

8 6654(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1906 IH

1 to limitation on use of preceding year’s tax) is amended 

2 by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (iii) and 

3 (iv), respectively, and by inserting after clause (i) the fol4 lowing new clause: 

5 ‘‘(ii) INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTED GROSS

6 INCOME GREATER THAN $5,000,000.—If the 

7 adjusted gross income shown on the return 

8 of the individual for such preceding taxable 

9 year exceeds $5,000,000, clause (i) shall be 

10 applied by substituting ‘110.1’ for ‘110’ in 

11 the last row of the table therein.’’. 

12 (b) SEPARATE RETURNS.—Clause (iii) of section 

13 6654(d)(1)(C) of such Code, as redesignated by subsection 

14 (a), is amended by inserting ‘‘and clause (ii) shall be ap15 plied by substituting ‘$2,500,000’ for ‘$5,000,000’ ’’ be16 fore the period at the end. 

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

19 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
HomeOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in PersonsRemarks & Releases...FY 2020 TIP Office Initial Notification of Funding Opportunity

# 									FY 2020 TIP Office Initial Notification of Funding Opportunity							

Other Release

Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

August 19, 2020

The Department of State’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (TIP Office) announces an open competition for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 projects to combat trafficking in persons outside of the United States.  Applicants are invited to submit applications describing how they will address a minimum of one of the programming activities described in the Notice of Funding Opportunity.

Organizations eligible to apply include U.S.-based and foreign nongovernmental organizations (including faith-based organizations), public international organizations (PIOs), non-profits, for-profit organizations, and institutions of higher education.  For-profit organizations are not permitted to generate profits from grant-funded activities.  U.S. government agencies and foreign governments are not eligible to apply.

All applications must be submitted via SAMS Domestic (https://mygrants.service-now.com/grants ) by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on **September 28, 2020**, to be eligible for consideration.  **To be competitive under this funding opportunity, applicants must be fully responsive to all directions in the Notice of Funding Opportunity.**

Tags

Human TraffickingHuman TraffickingOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

Back to Top
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 21, 2014

d0514

Order 

Clerk

May 21, 2014

148553

NATHAN M. BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 148553

COA: 315911

Clinton CC: 09-021478-DM

LYNETTE A. BROWN,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 10, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
PUBLIC LAW 114–205—JULY 29, 2016 130 STAT. 819 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4425: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

May 23, considered and passed House. 

July 14, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–205 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 110 East 

Powerhouse Road in Collegeville, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Eugene J. McCarthy Post 

Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EUGENE J. MCCARTHY POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 110 East Powerhouse Road in Collegeville, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Eugene J. McCarthy 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Eugene J. McCarthy Post Office’’. 

Approved July 29, 2016. 

July 29, 2016 

[H.R. 4425] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
****

This chart presents 1997 Virginia exports to the Newly IndependentStates of the former Soviet Union.  Data used to create the chart werecollected by the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,with further analysis by the University of Massachusetts,Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER). Formore information call BISNIS at (202) 482-4655 or visit the MISER websiteat www.umass.edu/miser.
'96 export data for Virginia
'95 export data for Virginia
Return to USA Export Map
Return to BISNIS Home Page
HomePolicy Issues…Economic Prosperity and Trade Policy

Policy Issues

# Economic Prosperity and Trade Policy

The Economic Bureau (EB) comprises an extensive group of officers focused on building a strong U.S. economy that creates jobs and underpins national security.  A central element of that vision is the pursuit of free, fair, and reciprocal trade.

Our officers highlight economic considerations in policy formulation.  They build the relationships needed to expand commercial ties that drive American prosperity.  Our role in policy also extends to implementing sanctions against terrorists, human rights abusers, and corrupt officials.  The Department of State additionally works to strengthen property rights and contract enforcement, competition policies, sound commercial law, and the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights around the world. The Department’s efforts aim to ensure that the United States remains the world’s strongest and most dynamic economy.

Read more about what specific bureaus and offices are doing to support this policy issue:

**Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB):** EB works to create jobs at home, boost economic opportunities overseas, and make America more secure. It promotes a strong American economy by ensuring a level-playing field for American companies doing business around the world and attracting foreign investors to create jobs in America. Read more about EB

**Trade Policy and Negotiations (EB/TPN):**The TPN staff — in the Bilateral Trade Affairs, Multilateral Trade Affairs, Agricultural Policy, and Intellectual Property Enforcement offices — works to open markets for U.S. products and services overseas and strengthen U.S. trade relationships around the world.

## 			Top Stories		

## Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence

                    -  June 1, 2024							Inauguration of President Bukele of El Salvador						   
                    -  May 16, 2024							‘I have come to Ukraine with a message: You are not alone.’						     
                    -  May 10, 2024							Joint Communique – United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Environment Chapter Implementation and Memorandum of Intent Biennial Review						   
Read All Top Stories

Back to Top

                        - White House
                        - USA.gov
                        - Office of the Inspector General
                        - Archives
                        - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

                      - Privacy Policy
                      - Accessibility Statement
                      - Copyright Information
                      - FOIA
                      - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30220 Conference Calendar

BRIAN K. CHISHOLM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus L. HALL, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-413

- - - - - - - - - - December 9, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Brian K. Chisholm, Louisiana prisoner 323477, argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint as frivolous. Chisholm argues that the defendant Nurse Hall was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs because she did not refer him to a doctor and told Chisholm that his pain was psychological. We have reviewed the record, including the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and the brief of theNo. 97-30220 -2- plaintiff, and affirm the dismissal of the complaint as frivolous substantially for the reasons adopted by the district court. See Chisholm v. Hall , No. 96-CV-413 (W.D. La. Feb. 11, 1997).
AFFIRMED.
§ 493.845 Standard; Toxicology. ( a ) Failure to attain a score of at least 80 percent of acceptable responses for each analyte in each testing event is unsatisfactory analyte performance for the testing event.
( b ) Failure to attain an overall testing event score of at least 80 percent is unsatisfactory performance.
( c ) Failure to participate in a testing event is unsatisfactory performance and results in a score of 0 for the testing event. Consideration may be given to those laboratories failing to participate in a testing event only if— ( 1 ) Patient testing was suspended during the time frame allotted for testing and reporting proficiency testing results;
( 2 ) The laboratory notifies the inspecting agency and the proficiency testing program within the time frame for submitting proficiency testing results of the suspension of patient testing and the circumstances associated with failure to perform tests on proficiency testing samples; and
( 3 ) The laboratory participated in the previous two proficiency testing events.
( d ) Failure to return proficiency testing results to the proficiency testing program within the time frame specified by the program is unsatisfactory performance and results in a score of 0 for the testing event.
( e ) ( 1 ) For any unsatisfactory analyte or test performance or testing event for reasons other than a failure to participate, the laboratory must undertake appropriate training and employ the technical assistance necessary to correct problems associated with a proficiency testing failure.
( 2 ) For any unacceptable analyte or testing event score, remedial action must be taken and documented, and the documentation must be maintained by the laboratory for two years from the date of participation in the proficiency testing event.
( f ) Failure to achieve satisfactory performance for the same analyte or test in two consecutive testing events or two out of three consecutive testing events is unsuccessful performance.
( g ) Failure to achieve an overall testing event score of satisfactory performance for two consecutive testing events or two out of three consecutive testing events is unsuccessful performance.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00813-CR

Wesley Perkins, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CR-13-200882, HONORABLE JOHN LIPSCOMBE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Wesley Perkins filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s pretrial orderincreasing

his bond and the “effective denial of his special appearance” in the underlying prosecution for the

offense of driving while license invalid. See Tex. Transp. Code § 521.457.

We do not have jurisdiction to review interlocutoryorders in a criminal appeal absent

express statutory authority. Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). And

this Court has ruled that we lack jurisdiction over a direct appeal from an interlocutory pretrial order

on a motion to increase a bond. Ex parte Shumake, 953 S.W.2d 842, 846-47 (Tex. App.—Austin

1997, no pet.).

As such, we notified the parties that it appeared we lacked jurisdiction over

this appeal and requested a response to this jurisdictional issue. Perkins’s response that this is an

interlocutory appeal of a civil matter is unpersuasive and does not demonstrate our jurisdiction
because the record reflects a criminal prosecution. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(f)

(authorizing trial courts to issue written orders granting permission to appeal otherwise unappealable

interlocutory orders in certain civil cases). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 15, 2014

Do Not Publish

2
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 27, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 00517

- CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Marli Shealyn Elrod, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JO NES, JUSTICES GOODWI N AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s order

of suppression : IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the trial

court’s order of suppression is in all things affirmed; that the appellant pay all costs relating to

this appeal; and that thi s decision be certified below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6058

LARRY MAURICE WILSON, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARION CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT CENTER; K. L.

OSBORNE; DOCTOR RAYMOND; OFFICE RATCLIFFE;

JUDY CODY; OFFICER SHARITZ,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-97-649)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Maurice Wilson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Wilson v. Marion Corr. Ctr., No. CA-97-649 (W.D. Va. Dec.

24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Remarks by John Tefft (Deputy Chief of Mission for the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, Russia) toU.S. Business Leaders at the UK AmCham EastWest Forum in London

----

Deputy Chief of Mission John F. Tefft
HomeReports – U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy...Public Diplomacy and DEIA Promotion: Telling America’s Story to the World (2023)

# 									Public Diplomacy and DEIA Promotion: Telling America’s Story to the World (2023)							

ACPD Special Report

November 21, 2023

The ACPD is a bipartisan panel created by Congress in 1948 to formulate, assess, and recommend policies and programs to carry out the Public Diplomacy (PD) functions vested in U.S. government entities, to include the Department of State. This special report focuses on the integration of principles of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) into U.S. government (USG) public diplomacy outreach and program activities.

In fulfillment of Executive Order 13985, the Department of State has undertaken the comprehensive internal adoption of and adherence to principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility. As the lead foreign affairs agency and the face of the nation to the rest of the world, the Department of State also has a mandate to promote DEIA principles abroad.

Much of the responsibility for this external DEIA outreach and engagement lies with the Department’s public diplomacy practitioners. The ACPD is pleased to offer this assessment of the current programmatic focus on DEIA and how it has shaped the practice of public diplomacy. 

We are also proud to showcase the great work that public diplomacy professionals at home and aboard have done to put these principles into practice, producing significant, and in some cases remarkable, outcomes despite resource and capacity constraints.

 
Download Report						 [4 MB]

Tags

Advisory CommitteePublic DiplomacyU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
HomeForeign Service National...Joaquim Zapata Romero

# 									Joaquim Zapata Romero							

DS Memorial

April 16, 1984

		Diplomatic Security Memorial		

**Foreign Service National****Year of Death: 1984**Joaquim Alfredo Zapata Romero, Foreign Service National, died on April 16, 1984, in San Salvador, El Salvador. The Regional Security Office investigator was shot by five armed men.

**Private collection image**

 

Tags

DS Foreign Service NationalEl Salvador

Back to Top