alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 121.425 Flight engineers: Initial and transition flight training. ( a ) Initial and transition flight training for flight engineers must include at least the following: ( 1 ) Training and practice in procedures related to the carrying out of flight engineer duties and functions. This training and practice may be accomplished either inflight or in an FSTD.
( 2 ) A flight check that includes— ( i ) Preflight inspection;
( ii ) Inflight performance of assigned duties accomplished from the flight engineer station during taxi, runup, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and landing;
( iii ) Accomplishment of other functions, such as fuel management and preparation of fuel consumption records, and normal and emergency or alternate operation of all airplane flight systems, performed either inflight or in an FSTD.
( b ) Flight engineers possessing a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument, category and class rating, or pilots already qualified as second in command and reverting to flight engineer, may complete the entire flight check, required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section, in an approved FFS.
( c ) Except as permitted in paragraph (d) of this section, the initial flight training required by paragraph (a) of this section must include at least the same number of programmed hours of flight training and practice that are specified for a second in command pilot under § 121.424(c) unless reduced under § 121.405.
( d ) If the certificate holder's approved training program includes a course of training utilizing an FSTD under § 121.409(c), each flight engineer must successfully complete in the FSTD — ( 1 ) Training and practice in at least all of the assigned duties, procedures, and functions required by paragraph (a) of this section; and
( 2 ) A flight check to a flight engineer level of proficiency in the assigned duties, procedures, and functions.
[Doc. No. 9509, 35 FR 90, Jan. 3, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 121-144, 43 FR 22647, May 25, 1978; Amdt. 121-382, 85 FR 10923, Feb. 25, 2020]
*

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge John C. Godbold has elected to

participate in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(c). 

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 93-9345.

Robin Joy SHAHAR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Michael J. BOWERS, Individually and in his official capacity as

Attorney General of the State of Georgia, Defendant-Appellee.

March 8, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Georgia (No. 1:91-cv-2397-RCF), Richard C. Freeman,

Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion December 20, 1995, 11th Cir., 1995, 70 F.3d 1218)

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON,

EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit

Judges.*

BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a

poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the

judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of

granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this

court en banc. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 183

#### Editorial Note:

For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this part 183, see Amdt. 183-1, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

#### § 183.59 Inspection.

The Administrator, at any time and for any reason, may inspect an ODA Holder's or applicant's facilities, products, components, parts, appliances, procedures, operations, and records associated with the authorized or requested functions.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3724 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from charging veterans 

copayments for preventive services relating to COVID–19. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 13, 2020 

Ms. DUCKWORTH (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. TESTER) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from charging 

veterans copayments for preventive services relating to 

COVID–19. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Coronavirus 

5 Copays for Veterans Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3724 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON COPAYMENTS AND COST SHARING 

2 FOR VETERANS RECEIVING PREVENTIVE 

3 SERVICES RELATING TO COVID–19. 

4 (a) PROHIBITION.—The Secretary of Veterans Af5 fairs may not require any copayment or other cost sharing 

6 under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, for 

7 qualifying coronavirus preventive services. The require8 ment described in this subsection shall take effect with 

9 respect to a qualifying coronavirus preventive service on 

10 the specified date. 

11 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘‘quali12 fying coronavirus preventive service’’ and ‘‘specified date’’ 

13 have the meaning given those terms in section 3203 of 

14 the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          76,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,439
<ALLOWANCES>                                       623
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               127,204
<PP&E>                                          67,505
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,988)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 673,805
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,929
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       864,699
<OTHER-SE>                                     247,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   673,805
<SALES>                                         16,157
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,157
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,557
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,250
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (752)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (116,941)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            116,941
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   116,941
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (3.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.93)


</TABLE>
§ 133.21 Personnel. ( a ) The applicant must hold, or have available the services of at least one person who holds, a current commercial or airline transport pilot certificate, with a rating appropriate for the rotorcraft prescribed in § 133.19, issued by the Administrator.
( b ) The applicant must designate one pilot, who may be the applicant, as chief pilot for rotorcraft external-load operations. The applicant also may designate qualified pilots as assistant chief pilots to perform the functions of the chief pilot when the chief pilot is not readily available. The chief pilot and assistant chief pilots must be acceptable to the Administrator and each must hold a current Commercial or Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, with a rating appropriate for the rotorcraft prescribed in § 133.19.
( c ) The holder of a Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate shall report any change in designation of chief pilot or assistant chief pilot immediately to the responsible Flight Standards office. The new chief pilot must be designated and must comply with § 133.23 within 30 days or the operator may not conduct further operations under the Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate unless otherwise authorized by the responsible Flight Standards office.
[Doc. No. 1529, 29 FR 603, Jan. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 133-9, 51 FR 40707, Nov. 7, 1986; Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 133-16, 83 FR 9174, Mar. 5, 2018]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0197

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

RICHARD D. HINMAN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to our Order of February 23, 2022, this cause is classified for oral argument 

before the Court sitting en banc and is hereby set for argument on Friday, April 8, 2022, at 

9:30 a.m. The Court has determined that the argument will be held in person in the 

Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, 

Montana. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Robert J. Whelan, District Judge.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 23 2022

03/23/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0197
| CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                     |
|-----------------------------------------------|
| SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 |
| (18 U.S.C. 1350)                              |

| 1.   | the Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date: May 14, 2010                   |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                 |   |
|   | /s/ Ron Howell                       |   |
|   | Ron Howell                           |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |   |
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3871 

To facilitate the performance of funeral honors details for veterans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 3, 2020 

Mr. ROUNDS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To facilitate the performance of funeral honors details for 

veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Veterans Fu5 neral Honors Reform Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PLAN ON PERFORMANCE OF FUNERAL HONORS DE7 TAILS BY MEMBERS OF OTHER ARMED 

8 FORCES WHEN MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

9 FORCE OF THE DECEASED ARE UNAVAIL10 ABLE. 

11 (a) BRIEFING ON PLAN.— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3871 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Sec3 retary of Defense shall provide a briefing to the 

4 Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

5 the House of Representatives setting forth a plan for 

6 the performance of a funeral honors detail at the fu7 neral of a deceased member of the Armed Forces by 

8 one or more members of the Armed Forces from an 

9 Armed Force other than that of the deceased 

10 when— 

11 (A) members of the Armed Force of the 

12 deceased are unavailable for the performance of 

13 the detail; and 

14 (B) the performance of the detail by mem15 bers of other Armed Forces is requested by the 

16 family of the deceased. 

17 (2) REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR ONE MEM18 BER OF ARMED FORCE OF DECEASED IN DETAIL.— 

19 Section 1491(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 

20 is amended in the first sentence by striking ‘‘, at 

21 least one of whom shall be a member of the armed 

22 force of which the veteran was a member’’. 

23 (3) PERFORMANCE.—The plan required by 

24 paragraph (1) shall authorize the performance of fu25 neral honors details by members of the Army NaVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:17 Jun 19, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3871.IS S3871

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3871 IS

1 tional Guard and the Air National Guard under sec2 tion 115 of title 32, United States Code, and may 

3 authorize the remainder of such details to consist of 

4 members of veterans organizations or other organi5 zations approved for purposes of section 1491 of 

6 title 10, United States Code, as provided for by sub7 section (b)(2) of such section 1491. 

8 (b) ELEMENTS.—The briefing under subsection (a) 

9 shall include a description in detail the authorities and re10 quirements for the implementation of the plan, including 

11 administrative, logistical, coordination, and funding au12 thorities and requirements. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
* 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. 08-60297 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. JAMES VAUGHN RANKIN Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:04-CR-186-1 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Vaughn Rankin appeals the district court’s denial ofhis motion for an extension of time to file an appeal under F ED
. R. A PP
. P. 4(b)(4). He argues that the district court abused its discretion when denying his motion. Although thedistrict court determined that Rankin failed toestablish both good causeand excusable neglect for an extension, on appeal Rankin relies solely upon the good cause requirement of Rule 4(b)(4). He argues that he changed his mind about appealing within the time permitted by Rule 4(b)(4), his appeal is nonfrivolous, United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 3, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-60297

2 and he could not focus on the decision toappeal because, after thejudgment was entered, he was transferred to a different facility. “Rule 4 provides limited recourse for defendants who miss the filing deadline by permitting the district court, upon finding good cause or excusable neglect, to extend the time to file a notice of appeal for up to 30 days from the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed.” See United States v. Plascencia, 537 F.3d 385, 388 (5th Cir. 2008). Rule 4 is an inflexible claims processing rule that the district court may strictly enforce. See id. at 389, n.14. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Rankin failed toestablish good c ause that warranted an extension of time under Rule 4(b)(4). See Rule 4(b)(4); United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 846 (5th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. PR95-18-002]

Take notice that on March 13, 2000, Duke Energy Intrastate Network, L.L.C. (DEIN) tendered for filing revised Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) pursuant to the Commission's February 10, 2000 Letter Order.

DEIN states that it has modified Article III of the SOC to remove the reference to the priority accorded to customers purchasing gas from DEIN. DEIN also states that it has added language to modify Article A-XI, Section 11.4 to clarify that rates negotiated between transporter and shippers are discounted rates.

                    Pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2)(ii), if the Commission does not act within                           ( print page 25714)                        150 days of the filing date of Lee 8's Petition, Lee 8's rates for firm and interruptible storage services will be deemed to be fair and equitable. The Commission may within such 150 day period extend the time for action or institute a proceeding in which all interested parties will be afforded an opportunity for written comments and the oral presentation of views, data and arguments.                

                    Any person desiring to protest this rate proceeding must file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All protest must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission on or before May 4, 2000. This petition for rate approval is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-10957  Filed 5-2-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### § 161.109 Notice of termination of restriction pursuant to an agreement.

An airport operator must notify the FAA within 10 days of the date of termination of a restriction pursuant to an agreement under this subpart.
Exhibit 10(a)  


[SUTHERLAND
ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP LETTERHEAD] 


April 22,
2003 


Board
of Directors

Protective Life Insurance Company

2801 Highway 280 South

Birmingham, Alabama 35223 



Directors: 


        We
hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption "Legal Matters" in the statement of additional information filed as part of post-effective amendment number 8
to the registration statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-68551) filed by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account with
the Securities and Exchange Commission. In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933. 



	 	 	Sincerely,
	

 	
 	

SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ David S. Goldstein
 David S. Goldstein
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-1215

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Brian LeBeau lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western

____________ Submitted: June 18, 2024 Filed: June 24, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Brian LeBeau appeals after the district court 1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 10 months in prison and an additional period of supervision. LeBeau challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse

its discretion in imposing the revocation sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). There is no indication the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (reciting considerations to discern whether revocation sentence is unreasonable); see also United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) (district courts have wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and are allowed to assign greater weight to some factors over others). Moreover, the revocation sentence is within the Guidelines range and accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
oc#:2488-3 Filed:02/13/18 Entered:02/13/18 17:14:22 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 9
oc#:2488-3 Filed:02/13/18 Entered:02/13/18 17:14:22 Desc:

Exhibit Page 2 of 9
oc#:2488-3 Filed:02/13/18 Entered:02/13/18 17:14:22 Desc:

Exhibit Page 3 of 9
oc#:2488-3 Filed:02/13/18 Entered:02/13/18 17:14:22 Desc:

Exhibit Page 4 of 9
oc#:2488-3 Filed:02/13/18 Entered:02/13/18 17:14:22 Desc:

Exhibit Page 5 of 9
oc#:2488-3 Filed:02/13/18 Entered:02/13/18 17:14:22 Desc:

Exhibit Page 6 of 9
oc#:2488-3 Filed:02/13/18 Entered:02/13/18 17:14:22 Desc:

Exhibit Page 7 of 9
oc#:2488-3 Filed:02/13/18 Entered:02/13/18 17:14:22 Desc:

Exhibit Page 8 of 9
oc#:2488-3 Filed:02/13/18 Entered:02/13/18 17:14:22 Desc:

Exhibit Page 9 of 9