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

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier:

- 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


### Inspect for correct piston ring seal installation and that the piston ring is intact. 3.0 $ 255.00 $1 

### 8 $ 272.00 

### 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 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs cov ered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  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 explain warranty costs) 

### : **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedur es:**  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 Alask a:**  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 

### :
#### § 625.21 Filing and service of documents.

Any application for an award or other pleading or document related to an application shall be filed and served on all parties to the adversary adjudication in the same manner as other pleadings in the adversary adjudication (*see* §§ 622.18 and 622.19 of this chapter), except as provided in § 625.11(b) of this part for confidential financial information.
•/'iMENTO F

Sidney , N.Y . 1383 8 P.O . Bo x 23 5 -.'.•':'l}.\\)"^^'

- Dea r Vick y Dunn e ' ' ' ' • - ' ' ' Enclose di s Delawar e Aviation s reques t for exemptio n o f

aseparat e dru g an dalcoho l progra mt o operat e apart 91:14 7 progra m. A . Delawar e Aviatio n LL C P.O . Bo x 23 5 Sidney , N.Y , 1383 8 Phon e 607-563-377 7 Fax 607-563-377 7 E Mai l BCFORDfgAlRSERVlCE.NE T B . 91:14 7 Part^aph D Dru g an dAlcoho l testin g program . Delawar e Aviatio n LL C currentl y operate s a n part 13 5 operatio n an dtha t

it s progra m for Dru g an dAlcoho l testin g allo w th e par t 91:14 7 t o operat e usin g th e sam e program . C . Th e exten t

o f thi s reques t

woul db e fo r

Delawar e Aviatio n LL C pilot s only . Th e reaso n for this reques t

i s amanne r

o f economic s an dpubli c safet y woul dno t

b e jepordize d. Thi s woul dhel p kee p th e cos t dow n a s it s primar y fiinction (91:14 7 i s i n helpin g raise mone y b y severa l clubs . Activitie s hel da t th e airpor t

ar e fl y breakfast s an dacar

show . Th e mone y i s use dfor

Airport projects , scholarship s an dmunicipa l projects . D . Ther e woul db e n o los e i n safet y becaus e dru g an dalcoho l testin g woul db e i n effect . E . I n summar y th e expemtio n woul dallo w 91:14 7 operatio n usin g par t 13 5 dru g an d alcoho l testin g progra mal l operate db y th e sam e company . Sincerely , Bernar dFor d
Yi Wan Group, Inc. Exhibit 10.15



Exhibit 10.15


          The Document of Jiaozuo Foreign Trade and Economy Cooperation
                                     Bureau


            The Reply about Building "Qinyang Yi Wan Hotel Co., Ltd."

                    Jiao Wai Jing Mao Hang Zi (2002) No. 0019

                                                         Issued by: Han Shijiang



To Qinyang Planning Commission,

Your document of (2001) No.54 and relative documents have been received and
carefully examined. Our reply is as follows:

     1.   It is approved that Qinyang Hotel (Party A) and Yi Wan Group, Inc.of
          America (Party B) cooperate with each other to set the regulations and
          rules for "Qinyang Yi Wan Hotel Co., Ltd." and a certificate is
          issued.Its number is Wai Jing Mao Yu fu Jiao Zi Zi (2002) No.0007.

     2.   It has been verified that the total investment sum is RMB20,000,000
          yuan and the registered capital is RMB20,000,000yuan.
          Among it, the sum Party A offers is RMB4,000,000yuan that takes up 20%
          of the capital. The sum Party B offers is RMB16,000,000yuan that takes
          up 80% of the capital. Both parties should offer the sum they should
          pay in time according to the payment way the contract sets.Otherwise,
          they will be punished according to our country's relative regulations.

     3.   The verified business scope: board, lodging and other items concerning
          hotel service.

     4.   It is agreed that the members of the board of directors are: Mr. Cheng
          Wanming--chairman of the board, Mr.Guo Ruxing--vice chairman of the
          board, Mr.Chang Jufeng, Mr.Chen Hong and Ms.Liu Hua--members of the
          board.

     5.   The verified cooperative period is 30 years.

     6.   Our country's relative rules should be followed when some material
          objects are needed to be imported for business operation.

     7.   After the company is built, please present reports of verifying funds
          and forms for reporting statistics.

     8.   Please handle the procedure of the registration and put on record as
          soon as possible.



Jiaozuo Foreign Trade and Economy Cooperation Bureau

June 3,2002
(Seal)








Key words: Enterprise, Set, Reply

Presented to: Henan People's Government, Henan Foreign Economic Trade Ministry,
     Henan Foreign Economic Trade  Department, Henan Commercial and Industrial
     Bureau, Henan Tax Bureau, Zhenzhou Customs, Jiaozuo Municipal Government

Sent to: Relative working units of Jiaozuo City, Qinyang People's Government,
     Jiaozuo Foreign Administrative Bureau, Financial Departments, Jiaozuo
     Foreign Capital Department, Three copies on record



The Administrative Service Center of Jiaozuo Foreign Trade and Economy
Cooperation Bureau

Issued on June 3,2002

(22 copies in total)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL T. HAYES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

IDAHO CORRECTIONAL CENTER; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35841 

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00351-BLW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 

Idaho state prisoner Michael T. Hayes appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First 

Amendment claim arising out of the opening of his legal mail. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions for 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35841 

summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). 

We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Burke

because Hayes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

Burke personally participated in or caused the opening of his legal mail on 

December 28, 2010 and March 2, 2011. See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 

(9th Cir. 2002) (liability under § 1983 requires personal participation by the 

defendant in the alleged rights deprivation); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 

1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Hayes’s third 

amended complaint because Hayes did not seek and obtain leave of court to file an 

amended complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). See 

Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 403-04 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court has inherent 

power to control its docket, including power to strike items from the docket); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (explaining that a party may amend “only with the 

opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” when it cannot amend as a 

matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hayes’s untimely 

motion for leave to amend his complaint because Hayes did not demonstrate good 
3 18-35841 

cause for seeking amendment after the deadline to file motions to amend set forth 

in the Scheduling Order. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 

604, 607-09 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of review and good cause 

standard).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.1
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 The
undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:
 
 (1) The
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,
2009 of Clearfield, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The
information contained in the accompanying report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 
 February
      4, 2010
              
              /s/
      Cheryl P. BeranekBy:
      Cheryl P. Beranek, President and Chief Executive
Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
 
  February
      4, 2010
              
              /s/
      Bruce G. BlackeyBruce
      G. Blackey, Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)






15
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         389,623                       0
<SECURITIES>                                   790,248                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,153,609                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   504,607                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    112,933                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,991,510                       0
<PP&E>                                       1,035,307                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,107,070                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,125,803                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       764,519                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,148,412                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,107,070                       0
<SALES>                                      1,566,390                 514,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,899,130               4,726,977
<CGS>                                        1,321,002                 468,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,094,603               4,184,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             232,186                  71,307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,804,527                 542,064
<INCOME-TAX>                                   613,847                 181,839
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,190,680                 360,225
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,190,680                 360,225
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .17                     .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17                     .05


</TABLE>
#### Brooks *v.*Brooks.

No. 8807.

August 10, 1932.

Atkinson, J.

1. "When a ease has been withdrawn or dismissed, without a finding by the jury on the facts on which the defense rests, and the court below allows it to be reinstated, this court will not interfere with that discretion.” Vanzant v. *Arnold,*31 *Ga.*210; See also *Harrison*v. *Tate,*100 *Ga.*317 (27 S. E. 179); *Bird*v. *Burgsteiner,*113 *Ga.*1012 (39 S. E. 425); *City of Atlanta*v. *Miller,*125 *Ga.*495 (54 S. E. 538); *Southern Railway Co.*v. *James,*114 *Ga.*198 (39 S. E. 849); *Glenn*v. *Glenn,*152 *Ga.*793 (111 S. E. 378); *Miraglia*v. *Bryson,*152 *Ga.*828 (3 *a)*(111 S. E. 655).

2. The judge did not err in overruling the demurrer upon any of the grounds stated.

3. On the evidence the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in reinstating the case. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*314
      *R. D. Smith,*for plaintiff in error.

*Fulwood & Fulwood*and *R. R. Forrester,*contra.
DD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0521

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MONTANA, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA, by and through AUSTIN KNUDSEN, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for a 8-day extension of

time, and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 15, 2022, within which to prepare, serve, 

and file its reply brief.

Electronically signed by:

Jim Rice

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 29 2022

03/29/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0521
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3732

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal the recently 

enacted two-year delay in the implementation of the country of origin 

labeling requirements of such Act for certain agricultural commodities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2004

Mr. REHBERG (for himself and Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to repeal 

the recently enacted two-year delay in the implementation of the country of origin labeling requirements of 

such Act for certain agricultural commodities.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF 

4 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING REQUIRE5 MENTS OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT 

6 OF 1946. 

7 Section 285 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

8 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638d), as amended by section 749 of the 
2

•HR 3732 IH 

1 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Adminis2 tration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 

3 (division A of Public Law 108–199), is amended by strik4 ing ‘‘September 30, 2006’’ and all that follows through 

5 the period at the end and inserting ‘‘September 30, 

6 2004.’’.

Æ
a a) |

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

< i

BULLETIN 1030 PLATE 24

AS [ra

s. i,

i 8

ea,
———

NX
r

Bs ic - =

be =
7 =

C.

4,

/ ay

\
f

Si i MY, “

r \

ie }

\é :
Ig Psa | Yj

A i

a NN /

Ls _

SAA) 20 ;

\
\ we
IE. \ ~

2000
i h 4000 Feet
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.23



February 7, 2001


Theodore Gioia
1550 Laurel Street
Napa, CA 94559


Dear Ted,

Following our discussion, I am pleased to confirm the details of our agreement
for you to provide consulting services to SOLA.

You will be retained as a full time consultant, based on 5 days per week,
commencing February 19 and terminating no earlier than May 4, 2001. Your primary
assignment, on which the majority of your time will be spent, will be to support
Jeremy Bishop and Steve Neil in securing a debt financing agreement for SOLA
International Inc. As a secondary assignment, time permitting, we would like you
to help us develop an internal business communication process aimed at SOLA
management.

SOLA will provide you with office accommodation and support in Petaluma, which
will be your home base. We will also provide a laptop computer for your use for
the duration of the assignment. You will be required to spend significant time
in Del Mar and Sunnyvale to support your primary assignment. When in Del Mar,
overnight accommodation will be arranged at the Stratford Inn or similar. Your
accommodation and travel expenses for visits to Del Mar and Sunnyvale will be
reimbursed in addition to any other out-of-town travel expenses.

Your retainer fee will be $1,000 per day ($5,000 per week), paid at month-end on
presentation of your invoice, which should also include expense claims.

In addition, you will be paid a performance incentive bonus of $25,000 at the
end of the consulting assignment, based on SOLA's success in securing a
refinancing agreement. We will need to define further the criteria for success.
<PAGE>

We anticipate that your role and position as a member of SOLA's Board of
Directors will be unaffected by this consulting work and you will continue to
receive your retainer and meeting fees, plus expenses, as a Director. This is to
be confirmed following a conversation between Jeremy Bishop and Mo Cunniffe.

As we approach the end of your consulting period we will discuss the prospects
for further consulting or employment based on the prevailing business conditions
and prospects. In the event that this consulting assignment does not lead to
your becoming a SOLA employee, the Company will give you 4 weeks notice of
termination of this agreement.

Ted, I am delighted at the prospect of your increased association with SOLA and
I am looking forward to working with you again.

Please sign and return a copy of this letter to confirm our agreement on the
above.


With best regards,

/s/  Steve Lee

Steve Lee
VP Human Resources



          Agreed and acknowledged:      /s/  Theodore Gioia
                                       ----------------------
                                             Theodore Gioia


                             Date:      February 7, 2001
                                       ----------------------
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 235

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1030 PLATE 20

EXPLANATION

LE

sale

Terace deposits,
Peestocene ray
Co ‘Green River formaton
Sandstone
pene
eed,

Elevation 6587
Ore—schroeckngente pallets, density

&
2
= dots appronatesreatve
= Sshundance of pelets
Esato
3 HE ‘Contact, dashed where spprounetly
= Aoi located, not shown except between
E | toys Ge ed umtering ek
i
mie tegen we, A] Lf
oy hal as al im en ae, ste
"lope atone’ whe Sade

ge AE sree INSET CD

tit 9 5

Honzontal and

sta scale Horan! and

vertical scale
TRENOH Ly
Geol secon a st wa
“ened rom the soowest
‘Unrmiy pal ray green
(élevation 6615" Ota fee ined saree Oe Elevaton 6615 ~ Trench E Elevation 6515" Elevation 6616

‘ayaeen ingen sandstone Gry miso
fine arden a oy Sale . cy esa
snd rvs or pe pedis scroecgete
TRENCH E}
SOUTHEAST PART OF TRENCH E
‘Gece sc ag sot wal espe san lo ott al
ae. es F GH Elevation 6616,

Purple to brown stale
yparerous carseraned PURE brown, st

‘whe sans
‘Unity eeny fe Chase ranes
‘ane wit © ras ie gorge an
Bar sendsone ule sod broveSone INSET GH
° 5
Inset EF area
° GE Herzontal ena
verbal scale
Honontal ena
TRENCH C CEES
Ghologe ston lng southeast wal
"fovel on be seas

GEOLOGIC SECTIONS IN FIVE DRENCHES LOST CREEK SCHROECKINGERITE DEPOSIT, SWEETWATER COUNTY WYOMING

20 9 7 6p Feet

Hordonial ana verical scale

388177 O ~56 (In pocket) No. 3
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

109°52! 30”

BULLETIN 1030 PLATE 6

‘compiled on controlled aerial photomossic supplied

by U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

GEOLOGIC MAP SHOWING SWALE IN THE MONUMENT NO.2 AREA, APACHE COUNTY, ARIZONA

1

Poet RUAN Se

708°52"30"

Seale 1:31, 680
oO

1 Miles

2000

8000 Feet

Geology by I. J. Witkind, H

San Rafael group

Glen Canyon group

Chinle formation

Cutler formation

EXPLANATION

SEDIMENTARY ROCKS.

Allaviom Dune sand

‘Navajo sandstone

Kayenta formation

‘Wingate sandstone

‘Unnamed siltstone member

Petrified Forest member

Monitor Butte member

Shinarump conglomerate

045

‘Measured thickness of Moenkopi
and Hoskinnini strata combined

at

Strike and dip of beds

Strike and dip of joints

Inclined shaft

Mine

TRUE NORTH

JURASSIC (7) JURASSIC QUATERNARY

TRIASSIC

PERMIAN

aoe

TERTIARY TERTIARY

OR
QUATERNARY