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

Docket No. FAA-2014-0465 Directorate ID: 2013-SW-044-AD

Helicopter Model: Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 115 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The proposed actions of this AD are intended to prevent loss of hydraulic power and 

subsequent loss of helicopter control.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $3, 089

Labor per Helicopter

(6 work-hour x $85/workhour to replace the hydraulic 

hoses)

$510

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $3,599

Total US Fleet Cost $413,885

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Matt Wilbanks
§ 4010.10 Due date and filing with the PBGC. ( a ) *Due date.* Except as permitted under paragraph (b) of this section, a filer must file the information required under this part with PBGC on or before the 105th day after the close of the filer's information year. The filing deadline is extended to the 106th date after the close of the filer's information year if the 105-day reporting period includes February 29.
( b ) *Alternative due date.* A filer that includes the statement specified in § 4010.8(b)(2)(i) with its submission to PBGC by the date specified in paragraph (a) of this section must submit the actuarial information specified in § 4010.8(b)(2) within 15 days after the deadline for filing the plan's annual report (Form 5500 series) for the plan year ending within the filer's information year (see § 2520.104a-5(a)(2) of this title).
( c ) *How and where to file.* PBGC applies the rules in subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter to determine permissible methods of filing with PBGC under this part. See § 4000.4 of this chapter for information on where to file.
( d ) *Date of filing.* PBGC applies the rules in subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter to determine the date that a submission under this part was filed with PBGC.
( e ) *Computation of time.* PBGC applies the rules in subpart D of part 4000 of this chapter to compute any time period under this part.
[61 FR 34022, July 1, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 61353, Oct. 28, 2003; 74 FR 11034, Mar. 16, 2009; 88 FR 76664, Nov. 7, 2023]
Ray Mabus is substituted for his predecessor, B.J. Penn, as Secretary

 *

of the Department of the Navy under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD L. PORTER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

RAY MABUS, Secretary, U.S.

Department of the Navy,*

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-15882

D.C. No. 1:03-cv-06291-AWISMS

MEMORANDUM**

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2011** 

Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Ronald L. Porter appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his employment action against the Navy. We have jurisdiction under

FILED

NOV 01 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-15882

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.

2008). We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to dismiss a

duplicative action. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th

Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Porter’s claims

that were duplicative of his claims in his other pending actions. See id. (“Plaintiffs

generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject

matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

After dismissing Porter’s duplicative claims, the district court properly

dismissed Porter’s action as moot because the court could not grant any relief on

Porter’s remaining claims. See Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir.

2003) (a case is moot if there is no longer a possibility that the litigant can obtain

relief for his claim); see also Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 254

(1994) (prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title VII did not

allow for recovery of backpay “unless the discrimination was also found to have

some concrete effect on the plaintiff’s employment status, such as a denied

promotion, a differential in compensation, or termination”); Walsh v. Nev. Dep’t of
3 10-15882

Human Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 1036-37 (9th Cir. 2006) (former employee, who did

not seek reinstatement in her lawsuit, could not seek injunctive relief regarding

former employer’s anti-discrimination policies); Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc., 285

F.3d 1174, 1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of

1991, Title VII forbade imposition of punitive, or of compensatory, damages; the

original Act provided only for equitable remedies.”).

Porter’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
(76 South. 479)

#### ROBERTSON v. STATE.

(5 Div. 251.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 1917.)

Criminal Law <S=^292(1) — Plea of Former Jeopardy — Sufficiency.

Defendant was indicted for assault with a weapon. He interposed a plea of former jeopardy, setting up a conviction in the justice court upon an affidavit charging an assault, alleging that the assault charged in the affidavit is the same assault alleged in the indictment, and that he is the identical person named in the affidavit in the justice court, and that the justice court had jurisdiction, and pleading said conviction in bar of the prosecution in the circuit court. *Held,*that a demurrer to the plea should have been overruled, as connivance of the defendant in procuring a conviction in the justice court was a matter for the state to set up by replication.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tallapoosa County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.

Mack Robertson was convicted of assault with a weapon, and appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction upon an indictment returned by the grand jury of Tallapoosa county, charging appellant with the offehse of assault with a weapon. The defendant interposed a plea of former jeopardy, which is shown by the record, setting up a conviction in the justice court of Tallapoosa county, upon an affidavit charging an assault, alleging that the assault charged in the affidavit in the justice court is the same assault alleged in the indictment, and that he is the identical person named in the affidavit in the justice of the peace court, and that the justice court had jurisdiction of the offense charged in the said affidavit, and pleading his said conviction in the justice court in bar of this prosecution in the circuit court.

The solicitor demurred to this plea, assigning three grounds of demurrer: (1) That the plea failed to aver that the prosecution alleged in the plea was without the conuivance *196or procurement of defendant. (2) That the plea failed to aver that the assault committed by defendant was such an assault as came within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. (3) That the plea failed to aver that the assault of which the defendant stands indicted, and of which he pleads he has heretofore been convicted in the justice of the peace court, was an assault in which no stick or other weapon was used.

The court sustained the demurrer to the said plea, and the defendant excepted. Upon the trial, the defendant was convicted, and from the judgment of conviction he appeals.

Bridges & Oliver, of Dadeville, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J.

The trial court committed error in sustaining the demurrer to the defendant’s plea. Moore v. State, 71 Ala. *307;*Brooke v. State, 155 Ala. 78, 46 South. 491. If there was connivance or procurement on the part of the defendant in the judgment rendered in the justice of the peace court, the solicitor .should have set it up by replication.

Eor the error of the trial court in sustaining the state’s demurrer to the plea, the judgment of the trial *court*is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
#### § 501.30 Applicability of procedures and rules in this subpart.

The procedures and rules contained in this subpart prescribe the administrative process that will be applied with respect to a determination to assess civil money penalties, debar, or increase the amount of a surety bond and which may be applied to the enforcement of provisions of the work contract, or obligations under 8 U.S.C. 1188, 20 CFR part 655, subpart B, or this part, or to the collection of monetary relief due as a result of any violation. Except with respect to the imposition of civil money penalties, debarment, or an increase in the amount of a surety bond, the Secretary may, in the Secretary's discretion, seek enforcement action in a District Court of the United States without resort to any administrative proceedings.
#### § 2704.204 Confidential financial information.

Ordinarily, the net-worth and annual-receipts exhibits will be included in the public record of the proceeding. However, an applicant that objects to public disclosure of information in any portion of such exhibits and believes there are legal grounds for withholding the information from disclosure may submit that portion of the exhibit directly to the administrative law judge in a sealed envelope labeled “Confidential Financial Information,” accompanied by a motion to withhold the information from public disclosure. The motion shall describe the information sought to be withheld and explain, in detail, why it falls within one or more of the specific exemptions from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1)-(9), why public disclosure of the information would adversely affect the applicant, and why disclosure is not required in the public interest. The material in question shall be served on counsel representing the Secretary of Labor against whom the applicant seeks an award, but need not be served on any other party to the proceeding. If the administrative law judge finds that the information should not be withheld from disclosure, it shall be placed in the public record of the proceeding. Otherwise, any request to inspect or copy the exhibit shall be disposed of in accordance with the established procedures under the Freedom of Information Act (29 CFR part 2702).
#### § 500.4 Effect of prior judgments and final orders obtained under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act.

The Secretary may refuse to issue or to renew, or may suspend or revoke, a Certificate of Registration under the Act, if the applicant or holder has failed to pay any court judgment obtained by the Secretary or any other person under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, or has failed to comply with any final order issued by the Secretary under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act. The Secretary may deny a Certificate of Registration under the Act to any farm labor contractor who has a judgment outstanding against him, or is subject to a final order assessing a civil money penalty which has not been paid.
#### § 4041.1 Purpose and scope.

This part sets forth the rules and procedures for terminating a single-employer plan in a standard or distress termination under section 4041 of ERISA, the exclusive means of voluntarily terminating a plan.
From: rekoot@gmail.com < rekoot@gmail.com > on behalf of John Tooker < tooker@psu.edu > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 11:27 PM

To: Martinez, Jeannette Subject: Re: CRW SAP docket for submitting comments

Hi Jeannette. I hope you are doing well. I was unable to meet the deadline for posting comment to the open docket on the corn rootworm issue, so I thought I would weigh in on one of the charge questions. You are welcome to share my comments with the panel as you see fit.

Question 1A: The panel is asked to comment on sampling approaches for conducting annual CRW resistance monitoring that support early resistance detection. Please discuss the strengths and limitations of BPPD’s proposal for a focused (risk based) sampling approach for the Corn

B elt, supplemented with samples from lower risk “fringe” areas for comparison.

Tooker's comment: Given lower regional populations of CRW and corn, it is evident that evolution of resistance to Bt by CRW is less likely in the "fringe" areas. Nevertheless, based on evidence from Michigan (Dr. Chris Difonzo, 2012, 2013) and NY (Elson Shields, 2013), it is clear that evolution of resistance is possible and even likely in areas with continuous corn and high rates of Bt adoption, even if these areas are smaller than similar areas in the midwest. In much
of the Mid

- Atlantic and New England states, these fringe areas of continuous corn tend to be dominated by dairies that need corn (grain or silage) for their animals. By talking to agronomists and other experienc ed agricultural professionals (university based and otherwise), it can be estimated which parts of states have high concentrations of continuous corn and high rates of Bt adoption. Given the availability of purchase information from companies that can
fur ther confirm or better delineate these areas, I would argue that it makes strong sense to use targeted sampling to find suspicious fields in fringe areas, rather than random sampling. Colleagues at Michigan State and Cornell more or less predicted where r esistance would first
arrive in their states. In Pennsylvania, I could highlight certain areas that are more likely to
evolve resistance. Combining my best guess with a similar estimate by local agronomists and seed purchase data could even better refine locations to sample. This directed, risk

- based sampling approach would remove randomness from the model, which is good because large portions of the Mid

- Atlantic and Northeast rotate their crops regularly and would not be expected to be profitable sites. Direct efforts looking for resistance in the most likely places seems like a more proactive approach that could detect shifts in susceptibility not easily noted by random sampling.

My two cents,

John Tooker

John

--John F. Tooker
Assistant Professo r Extension Specialist Department of Entomology
Penn State Extension Penn State University 501 ASI Building University Park, PA 16802
814

- 865

- 7082
Research: http://ento.psu.edu/research/labs/john

- tooker
Extension: http://ento.psu.edu/extension/field

- crops

- new
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 120 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 120

   Designating March 22, 2007, as National Rehabilitation Counselors 
                           Appreciation Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2007

 Mr. Chambliss (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Designating March 22, 2007, as National Rehabilitation Counselors 
                           Appreciation Day.

Whereas rehabilitation counselors conduct assessments, provide counseling, 
        support to families, and plan and implement rehabilitation programs for 
        those in need;
Whereas the purpose of the professional organizations in rehabilitation is to 
        promote the improvement of rehabilitation services available to persons 
        with disabilities through quality education and rehabilitation research 
        for counselors;
Whereas the various professional organizations, including the National 
        Rehabilitation Association (NRA), Rehabilitation Counselors and 
        Educators Association (RCEA), the National Council on Rehabilitation 
        Education (NCRE), the National Rehabilitation Counseling Association 
        (NRCA), the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA), the 
        Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC), the Council 
        of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR), and the 
        Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) have stood firm to advocate 
        up-to-date education and training and the maintenance of professional 
        standards in the field of rehabilitation counseling and education;
Whereas on March 22, 1983, Martha Walker of Kent State University, who was 
        President of the NCRE, testified before the Subcommittee on Select 
        Education of the House of Representatives, and was instrumental in 
        bringing to the attention of Congress the need for rehabilitation 
        counselors to be qualified; and
Whereas the efforts of Martha Walker led to the enactment of laws that now 
        require rehabilitation counselors to have proper credentials in order to 
        provide a higher level of quality service to those in need: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates March 22, 2007, as National Rehabilitation 
        Counselors Appreciation Day; and
            (2) commends all of the hard work and dedication that 
        rehabilitation counselors provide to individuals in need and 
        the numerous efforts that the multiple professional 
        organizations have made to assisting those who require 
        rehabilitation.
                                 <all>
```
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 
**No. 22 -**  **50384 consolidated with**  **No. 22 -**  **50402** Summary Calendar **United States of America,** Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Miguel Ortiz**
**- Castillo,**  Defendant
— Appellant **.** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21 - CR
- 674 - 1 USDC No. 4:21 - CR
- 744 - 1 Before **Wiener** , **Elrod** , and **Engelhardt** , Circuit Judges . **Per Curiam** : * Miguel Ortiz
- Castillo appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after removal, as well as the judgment revoking his term of supervised release for committing a new offense. He has not briefed, and has therefore

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5 TH**  **C IR**  **. R.**  **47.5** . United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 9, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50384 Document: 00516602845 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2023No. 22 - 50384 c/w No. 22
- 50402

2 abandoned, any challenge to the revocation of supervi sed release or his revocation sentence. See Hughes v. Johnson , 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999) . For the first time on appeal, Ortiz
- Castillo argues that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum and is therefore unconstitutional because the district cou rt enhanced his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on facts that were neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While he acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez
- Torres v. United States , 523 U. S. 224 (1998), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. In addition, Ortiz
Castillo has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99 (201 3), and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez
- Torres . See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553
– 54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Ortiz
- Castillo is correct that his argument is foreclosed, and summary disposition is appropri ate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Ortiz
- Castillo’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the district court’s judgments are **AFFIRMED** . Case: 22-50384 Document: 00516602845 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2023
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems (1196).                     

*Date and Time:*                         June 12-13, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         Room 330, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Filbert J. Bartoli, Program Director, Room 675, Division of Electrical and Communications Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 306-1339.                              ( print page 32131)    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate unsolicited proposals submitted in response to the program announcement (NSF 99-2).                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial date, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 17, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-12826 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M