alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 431.35 Acceptable reusable launch vehicle mission risk. ( a ) To obtain safety approval for an RLV mission, an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed mission does not exceed acceptable risk as defined in this subpart. For purposes of this section, the mission commences upon initiation of the launch phase of flight and consists of launch flight through orbital insertion of an RLV or vehicle stage or flight to outer space, whichever is applicable, and reentry or descent flight, and concludes upon landing on Earth of the RLV.
( b ) Acceptable risk for a proposed mission is measured in terms of the expected average number of casualties (Ec). ( 1 ) To obtain safety approval, an applicant must demonstrate the following for public risk: ( i ) The risk to the collective members of the public from the proposed launch meets the public risk criteria of § 417.107(b)(1) of this chapter;
( ii ) The risk level to the collective members of the public, excluding persons in water-borne vessels and aircraft, from each proposed reentry does not exceed an expected number of 1 × 10−4 casualties from impacting inert and explosive debris and toxic release associated with the reentry; and
( iii ) The risk level to an individual does not exceed 1 × 10−6 probability of casualty per mission.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) To demonstrate compliance with acceptable risk criteria in this section, an applicant shall employ a system safety process to identify the hazards and assess the risks to public health and safety and the safety of property associated with the mission, including nominal and non-nominal operation and flight of the vehicle and payload, if any. An acceptable system safety analysis identifies and assesses the probability and consequences of any reasonably foreseeable hazardous event, and safety-critical system failures during launch flight or reentry that could result in a casualty to the public.
( d ) As part of the demonstration required under paragraph (c) of this section, an applicant must— ( 1 ) Identify and describe the structure of the RLV, including physical dimensions and weight;
( 2 ) Identify and describe any hazardous materials, including radioactive materials, and their container on the RLV;
( 3 ) Identify and describe safety-critical systems;
( 4 ) Identify and describe all safety-critical failure modes and their consequences;
( 5 ) Provide drawings and schematics for eachsafety-critical system identified under paragraph (d)(3) of this section;
( 6 ) Provide a timeline identifying all safety-critical events;
( 7 ) Provide data that verifies the risk elimination and mitigation measures resulting from the applicant's system safety analyses required by paragraph (c) of this section; and
( 8 ) Provide flight trajectory analyses covering launch or ascent of the vehicle through orbital insertion and reentry or descent of the vehicle through landing, including its three-sigma dispersion.
[Doc. No. FAA-1999-5535, 65 FR 56658, Sept. 19, 2000, as amended by Amdt. 431-2, 72 FR 17019, Apr. 6, 2007; Docket No. FAA-2014-0418, Amdt. No. 431-4, 81 FR 47027, July 20, 2016]
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Relative to the Closing of a Portion of Old White Plains Road in the Borough of the Bronx. Frank J. Taylor, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Appellant; Elizabeth Downs et al., as Executrices of Mary A. Ullman, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Argued March 3, 1937;

decided March 23, 1937.

*612
      *Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Phillip W. Haberman, Jr., Paxton Blair*and *Samuel K. Handel*of counsel), for appellant.

*Thomas C. Blake*and *Denis Quinn*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Gh. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
```

[113th Congress Public Law 117]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 1182]]

Public Law 113-117
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by 
the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility 
    Authority, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: June 9, 2014 -  [H.R. 
                                4032]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: North Texas 
Invasive Species Barrier Act of 2014.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North Texas Invasive Species Barrier 
Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1981.

    Section 5 of Public Law 112-237 (126 Stat. 1629) is amended by 
inserting after ``zebra mussels'' the following: ``and other fish, 
wildlife, and plants present in Lake Texoma that are prohibited under 
section 3 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3372) or under section 42 of title 18, 
United States Code''.

    Approved June 9, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4032:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113-413, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Apr. 28, considered and passed House.
            May 22, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### PYLE v. PENNINGTON GROC. CO.

No. 29622.

April 2, 1940.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1940.

*101 P. 2d 847.*

R. E. Bowling, of Pauls Valley, for plaintiff in error.

O. W. Patchell, of Pauls Valley, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is the second appeal in this cause. See Pennington Grocery Co. v. Ortwein, 184 Okla. 501, 88 P. 2d 331. The proceeding grew out of an earlier case of Pennington Grocery Co. v. Ortwein, 130 Okla. 130, 265 P. 765, so it may be seen that in reality this is the third appeal filed in the Supreme Court involving the controversy, the first' appeal having been determined in March, 1928.

. In the last appeal the question in- •. -volved was the right to recover against .the sureties on a replevin bond. After ‘the mandate reached the trial court, a motion was filed by the Pennington Grocery Company to spread the mandate of record, and the court thereupon caused said motion to be heard and ordered the mandate spread of record and judgment entered for the plaintiff in accordance with the opinion.

The defendant, E. C. Pyle, appeared and objected to the spreading of the mandate of record in a response filed in the trial court. Therein the said E. C. Pyle attempted to raise the jurisdiction of the county court, alleging in effect that the amount involved in the county court was in excess of the amount prescribed under the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, and therefore any judgment rendered would be void, which question had already been determined by this court.

We are of the opinion, and hold, that the appeal should be dismissed for the reason that the mandate was spread of record in conformance with the opinion in Pennington Grocery Co. v. Ortwein, supra. The mandate is the formal advice and order of the Supreme Court. Schneider v. Decker, 144 Okla. 213, 291 P. 80. It is the duty of the trial court to enter judgment in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court and cause the mandate to be spread of record. Crews v. Bird, 141 Okla. 143, 285 P. 132; Schneider v. Decker, supra; Rose v. Oklahoma City, 182 Okla. 422, 78 P. 2d 315.

The decision on the first appeal becomes the “law of the case” in all subsequent stages. Amerada Pet. Co. v. Elliff, 171 Okla. 38, 41 P. 2d 850; Hunt v. Tribune Publishing Co., 172 Okla. 139, 44 P. 2d 889.

The mandate was issued and direction was given therein to spread the same upon the record of the trial court in’ accordance with the opinion written by this court in Pennington Grocery Company *134v. Ortwein, 184 Okla. 501, 88 P. 2d 331. It appears that the mandate of this court was followed, and therefore, after the same was spread of record in accordance with the opinion, there was nothing further to litigate, and the appeal should be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and RILEY, HURST, and DAVISON, JJ., concur.
§ 61.311 What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply for a sport pilot certificate? To apply for a sport pilot certificate you must receive and log ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the following areas of operation, as appropriate, for airplane single-engine land or sea, glider, gyroplane, airship, balloon, powered parachute land or sea, and weight-shift-control aircraft land or sea privileges: ( a ) Preflight preparation.
( b ) Preflight procedures.
( c ) Airport, seaplane base, and gliderport operations, as applicable.
( d ) Takeoffs (or launches), landings, and go-arounds.
( e ) Performance maneuvers, and for gliders, performance speeds.
( f ) Ground reference maneuvers (not applicable to gliders and balloons).
( g ) Soaring techniques (applicable only to gliders).
( h ) Navigation.
( i ) Slow flight (not applicable to lighter-than-air aircraft and powered parachutes).
( j ) Stalls (not applicable to lighter-than-air aircraft, gyroplanes, and powered parachutes).
( k ) Emergency operations.
( l ) Post-flight procedures.
[Doc. No. FAA-2001-11133, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004, as amended by Amdt. 61-125, 75 FR 5221, Feb. 1, 2010]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

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. 

 

 

April 3, 2018 

d0326 

Order 

 

Clerk 

April 3, 2018 

155837 & (26) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 155837 

 COA: 335752 

Macomb CC: 1994-000214-FC 

WILLIE GEORGE TINSLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2017 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to default appellee is DENIED.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-1049MN

_____________ Robert A. Lamminen, * * Appellant, *

* v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District City of Cloquet; Donald Panger; Neil * of Minnesota. Nemmers; Cynthia Singpiel; Herbert * Johnson; Peggy Roy; Beverly Wetzel; * [UNPUBLISHED] Jim Nelson; Cloquet Chamber of * Commerce; Alan Pelvit, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: June 8, 1998

Filed: June 15, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Robert A. Lamminen appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgmen t in Lamminen's action for violations of the Sherman Act, interference wit h business relationships and conspiracy to restrain trade, and failure to f ollow requirements of the Minnesota competitive bidding statute. Having reviewed the record and th e parties' submissions, we agree with the district court's analysis and conclude that a n extensive discussion is not warranted. Because the district court dismissed all-2-

of Lamminen's claims with prejudice, we modify the judgment to specify that th e dismissal of Lamminen's state law claims is without prejudice. As modified, we affirm the judg ment on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant the City of Cloquet's motion to strike. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
REASON FOR ISSUE:To introduce a Detailed Inspection of the Engine Support Beam.ACTION:Add task 53−30−00−155* as follows:Source Document Ref. No. Chapter 5 Task No. Task Title Task IntervalRAS604−990Rev. G26 4.4.3353−30−00−155 *(one star)Detailed Inspection of the Engine Support BeamT7800 LR1100 L



# May 31/2011 

# 5−10−30 Page 1 of 1



# PART 2 TR 5−2−47 CL−604 TIME LIMITS/MAINTENANCE CHECKSTEMPORARY REVISION NO. 5−2−47INSERT IN SECTION 5−10−30FACING PAGE 15NOTE:Record the incorporation of this Temporary Revision on the yellow RECORD OF TEMPORARY REVISIONS sheet at the front of thismanual and LIST OF EFFECTIVE TEMPORARY REVISIONS sheet at the front of Part 2.



# EFFECTIVITY: ALL
#### International Harvester Company of America, Inc., Appellant and Respondent, *v. James*P. Whelan et al., Respondents, and Bethlehem Steel Corporation et al., Respondents and Appellants.

Argued January 4, 1937;

decided January 12, 1937.

*Joseph Day Lee*in support of motion to dismiss appeal of plaintiff and in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal of defendant-appellant.

*Allen H. Pulsifer*and *Alfred D. Dennison*in support of motion to dismiss appeal of defendant-appellant and in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal of plaintiff.

Motion to dismiss appeal by plaintiff granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.

Motion to dismiss appeal by defendant denied, with ten dollars costs.
Comments in Response to 

"Final rule; request for comments" 

Docket: FAA-2015-1278 

Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-223-AD 

Comments have been received in response to: "Final rule; request for comments," 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. 

(Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted. 

Once you have made your determination. please fill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the 

appropriate response below. Include additional iriformation following the appropriate response, 

flnecessary. Then include your name and tlte date in the spaces provided, and return it to the 

AD directorate focal. 

The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: 

The Boeing Company 

1. Request to revise the Supplementary Information to clarify the added airplanes are "line 

numbers" 922 through 933, not "serial numbers". The line numbers listed in the service bulletin 

are correct, and the AD applicability per paragraph (c) specifies the service bulletin. Therefore, 

no change to the AD is required. 

2. Request to add line number 912 to the applicability of the AD. Line number 912 is a -200ER 

tanker in public use for the Italian Air Force. Notification of the potential safety concern will be 

made by letter to the appropriate authority. No change to the AD is required. 

(Please check one) 

~ These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration 

or change of this AD. 

0 These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of 

additional regulatory action. (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual 

F AA-IR-M-8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.) 

Wayne Lockett ~ 9 July 2015 

Name: Date: 

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.) 

Rev 0 (9/08)
§ 91.139 Emergency air traffic rules. ( a ) This section prescribes a process for utilizing Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) to advise of the issuance and operations under emergency air traffic rules and regulations and designates the official who is authorized to issue NOTAMs on behalf of the Administrator in certain matters under this section.
( b ) Whenever the Administrator determines that an emergency condition exists, or will exist, relating to the FAA's ability to operate the air traffic control system and during which normal flight operations under this chapter cannot be conducted consistent with the required levels of safety and efficiency— ( 1 ) The Administrator issues an immediately effective air traffic rule or regulation in response to that emergency condition; and
( 2 ) The Administrator or the Associate Administrator for Air Traffic may utilize the NOTAM system to provide notification of the issuance of the rule or regulation. Those NOTAMs communicate information concerning the rules and regulations that govern flight operations, the use of navigation facilities, and designation of that airspace in which the rules and regulations apply.
( c ) When a NOTAM has been issued under this section, no person may operate an aircraft, or other device governed by the regulation concerned, within the designated airspace except in accordance with the authorizations, terms, and conditions prescribed in the regulation covered by the NOTAM.
<PAGE>   1

Item 6A

Exhibit 11

                  SMITH ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
                    COMPUTATION OF (LOSS) EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three months ended
                                                      December 31,
                                               -------------------------
                                                  1995           1994     
                                               -----------   -----------
<S>                                             <C>          <C>
PRIMARY

Weighted average shares of common
   stock outstanding                             5,852,004    5,751,127
Incremental shares applicable to assumed
   exercise of stock options                        30,819      199,236
                                                -----------  ----------
Weighted average number of common and
   common equivalent shares outstanding          5,882,823    5,950,363
                                                ===========  ==========
Income before extraordinary item                  $385,000   $  912,000
Extraordinary item                              (1,282,000)           -
                                                -----------  ----------
Net (loss) income                                ($897,000)  $  912,000
                                                ===========  ==========

Net (loss) income applicable to common stock    (1,034,000)  $  781,000
                                                ===========  ==========




Income (loss) per common and common
   equivalent share:

Income before extraordinary item                $     0.07   $     0.15
Extraordinary item                                   (0.22)        0.00
                                                -----------  ----------
Net (loss) income                               $    (0.15)  $     0.15
                                                ===========  ==========

Net (loss) income applicable to common stock    $    (0.18)  $     0.13
                                                ===========  ==========
</TABLE>


The computation of income (loss) per common equivalent share on a fully diluted
basis does not materially differ from the amounts calculated on a primary
basis.





                                      16
#### § 61.33 Tests: General procedure.

Tests prescribed by or under this part are given at times and places, and by persons designated by the Administrator.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James VAN BUREN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 74-1255.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 18, 1975.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1975.

Certiorari Denied June 2, 1975.

See 95 S.Ct. 2402.

*1328Robert L. Pitler of Levine, Pitler & Westérfeld, Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellant.

James L. Treece, U. S. Atty., and David T. Fisher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

LEWIS, Chief Judge.

Defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the unlawful distribution of cocaine. He was acquitted on Count 1, an incident alleged to have occurred in Aspen, Colorado, and found guilty on Count 2, a transaction occurring in Denver. He appeals from the judgment and sentence imposed on the second count.

Defendant’s appellate claims of trial error are two-fold neither being complex or meritorious. First, a fatal variance between the charge and proof is asserted premised upon a charge alleging the distribution of cocaine and proof of distribution of cocaine hydrochloride. We take judicial notice of the fact that cocaine hydrochloride is a prohibited drug under the subject statute and that no variance is present. Jordan v. United States, 10 Cir., 345 F.2d 302. *And see*United States v. Mills, 149 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 463 F.2d 291, 296 n.27.

In submitting the case to the jury, the trial court instructed on the so-called “procuring agent” defense.1 Defendant testified that his activity in the procuring and distribution of the drug was simply that of a conduit, “nonprofit” procuring agent. His testimony was not rebutted nor did the government object to the instruction. The instruction, though erroneous,2 was clearly favorable to the defendant and thus does not require reversal. Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 258, 82 S.Ct. 302, 7 L.Ed.2d 256. The instruction did not, as in Michaud v. United States, 10 Cir., 350 F.2d 131, insert a confusing and false issue into the case to the detriment of the defendant.

Affirmed.

1

. “You are further informed if you find that the actual purchaser of the drugs was a narcotics agent or an informer of the agent who requested the defendant James Van Burén to obtain the drugs and that the defendant James Van Burén did not himself furnish the drugs but obtained them from another, and that the defendant did not profit from the proceeds, then you must find the defendant not guilty as to that count.”

2

. United States v. Marquez, 10 Cir., 511 F.2d 62, dec. February 10, 1975, and cases cited.
Rev 0 (9/08)

Comments in Response to 

“Final rule; request for comments”

Docket: FAA-2011-1317 Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-193-AD

Comments have been received in response to: “Final rule; request for comments,”

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. 

(Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted.

Once you have made your determination, please fill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the 

appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, 

if necessary. Then include your name and the date in the spaces provided, and return it to the 

AD directorate focal.

The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: 

United/Continental

(Please check one)

 These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration 

or change of this AD.

 These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of 

additional regulatory action. (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual 

FAA-IR-M-8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)

______Margaret Langsted_____ 3/7/2012__

Name: Date:

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Notes: 1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

§ 21.150 Changes in quality system. After the issuance of a production certificate— ( a ) Each change to the quality system is subject to review by the FAA; and
( b ) The holder of a production certificate must immediately notify the FAA, in writing, of any change that may affect the inspection, conformity, or airworthiness of its product or article.