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

Docket No. FAA-2015-4031 Directorate ID: 2014-SW-72-AD

Helicopter Model: 

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 729 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: These proposed AD actions are intended to prevent hydraulic pump drive belt failure, 

loss of hydraulic servo assistance, and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

Costs:

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 729 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that

labor costs average $85 per work hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following

costs:

 Greasing and visually inspecting the bearing would require 1.5 work hours and 

no parts would be needed. We estimate a total cost of $128 per helicopter and $93,312 for 

the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. 

 Inspecting and manually rotating the bearing would require 2 work hours and no 

parts would be needed. We estimate a total cost of $170 per helicopter and $123,930 for 

the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.

 Replacing the bearing would require 2 work hours and $1,571 for parts, for a 

total cost of $1,741 per helicopter and $1,269,189 for the U.S. fleet.

 Replacing the hydraulic pump drive assembly would require 2 work hours and 

$8,543 for parts, for a total cost of $8,713 per helicopter and $6,351,777 for the U.S. fleet.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()
2

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
§ 151.1009 Transportation of municipal or commercial waste. A vessel may not transport municipal or commercial waste in coastal waters without— ( a ) A conditional permit to transport municpal or commercial waste issued under this subpart; and
( b ) Displaying a number in accordance with § 151.1024.
[CGD 89-014, 54 FR 22548, May 24, 1989; CGD 89-014, 54 FR 24078, June 5, 1989]
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0695 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-264-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
§ 331.10 Final Corps decision. The final Corps decision on a permit application is the initial decision to issue or deny a permit, unless the applicant submits an RFA, and the division engineer accepts the RFA, pursuant to this Part. The final Corps decision on an appealed action is as follows: ( a ) If the division engineer determines that the appeal is without merit, the final Corps decision is the district engineer's letter advising the applicant that the division engineer has decided that the appeal is without merit, confirming the district engineer's initial decision, and sending the permit denial or the proffered permit for signature to the appellant; or
( b ) If the division engineer determines that the appeal has merit, the final Corps decision is the district engineer's decision made pursuant to the division engineer's remand of the appealed action. The division engineer will remand the decision to the district engineer with specific instructions to review the administrative record, and to further analyze or evaluate specific issues. If the district engineer determines that the effects of the district engineer's reconsideration of the administrative record would be narrow in scope and impact, the district engineer must provide notification only to those parties who commented or participated in the original review, and would allow 15 days for the submission of supplemental comments. For permit decisions, where the district engineer determines that the effect of the district engineer's reconsideration of the administrative record would be substantial in scope and impact, the district engineer's review process will include issuance of a new public notice, and/or preparation of a supplemental environmental analysis and decision document (see 33 CFR 325.7). Subsequently, the district engineer's decision made pursuant to the division engineer's remand of the appealed action becomes the final Corps permit decision. Nothing in this part precludes the agencies' authorities pursuant to Section 404(q) of the Clean Water Act.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 7, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128392 & (32) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 Justices 

v SC: 128392 

 COA: 251680 

Genesee CC: 03-011297-FH 

TYRONE LEE DOBY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

AMENDMENT TO ORDER 

On order of the Court, the order of December 15, 2005 is amended to 

correct a clerical error by correcting the second sentence of the text thereof to read: 

“We take this opportunity to clarify that, although defendant is not entitled to the 

new sentencing provisions contained in MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(ii), he is entitled to early 

parole eligibility under MCL 791.234(11).” 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

February 7, 2006 

Clerk
ACL Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA)

FY 2015 Annual Allocation

9/30/2015

State

Priority 1 - 

SHIPs

Priority 2 - 

AAAs

Priority 3 - 

ADRCs Total for State

Alabama $205,831 $198,579 $115,200 $519,610

Alaska $13,886 $13,397 $6,617 $33,900

Arizona $94,059 $90,745 $118,262 $303,066

Arkansas $155,054 $149,591 $72,660 $377,305

California $349,109 $336,809 $196,096 $882,014

Colorado $93,446 $90,154 $82,417 $266,017

Connecticut $40,428 $39,004 $77,572 $157,004

Delaware $23,075 $22,261 $20,283 $65,619

District Of Columbia $5,848 $5,642 $10,673 $22,163

Florida $369,764 $356,736 $455,594 $1,182,094

Georgia $305,140 $294,390 $167,708 $767,238

Hawaii $34,494 $33,278 $28,145 $95,917

Idaho $56,865 $54,862 $31,080 $142,807

Illinois $286,317 $276,229 $229,205 $791,751

Indiana $197,348 $190,395 $137,381 $525,124

Iowa $110,682 $106,783 $17,673 $235,138

Kansas $95,339 $91,981 $59,271 $246,591

Kentucky $230,737 $222,607 $103,726 $557,070

Louisiana $140,776 $135,816 $93,434 $370,026

Maine $46,114 $44,490 $36,145 $126,749

Maryland $109,163 $105,317 $106,854 $321,334

Massachusetts $82,042 $79,151 $144,619 $305,812

Michigan $252,653 $243,752 $210,062 $706,467

Minnesota $116,336 $112,237 $106,876 $335,449

Mississippi $157,884 $152,322 $32,057 $342,263

Missouri $205,013 $197,790 $8,436 $411,239

Montana $48,407 $46,701 $16,433 $111,541

Nebraska $59,131 $57,048 $7,834 $124,013

Nevada $53,588 $51,701 $47,207 $152,496

New Hampshire $44,208 $42,650 $29,646 $116,504

New Jersey $140,037 $135,104 $181,477 $456,618

New Mexico $65,825 $63,506 $42,536 $171,867

New York $356,583 $344,020 $225,708 $926,311

North Carolina $356,674 $344,108 $128,010 $828,792

Ohio $269,091 $259,612 $259,305 $788,008

Oklahoma $134,759 $130,011 $82,341 $347,111

Oregon $99,548 $96,040 $30,901 $226,489

Pennsylvania $334,940 $323,138 $311,745 $969,823

South Carolina $194,301 $187,455 $104,866 $486,622

South Dakota $33,030 $31,866 $18,694 $83,590

Tennessee $219,033 $211,316 $143,669 $574,018

Texas $650,071 $627,168 $287,630 $1,564,869

Utah $42,914 $41,402 $35,767 $120,083

Vermont $25,432 $24,536 $15,163 $65,131

Virginia $234,069 $225,823 $133,191 $593,083

Washington $119,344 $115,139 $46,680 $281,163

West Virginia $109,778 $105,911 $52,324 $268,013

Wisconsin $125,106 $120,699 $124,099 $369,904

Total $7,493,272 $7,229,272 $4,993,272 $19,715,816
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"GAO ADR Practice Tips","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"aTN5IVc45V\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/10-adrpt\/\">GAO ADR Practice Tips<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/10-adrpt\/embed\/#?secret=aTN5IVc45V\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“GAO ADR Practice Tips” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"aTN5IVc45V\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4806 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4806

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the Federal building located at 1710 Alabama Avenue in 
       Jasper, Alabama, as the ``Carl Elliott Federal Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4806

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the Federal building located at 1710 Alabama Avenue in 
       Jasper, Alabama, as the ``Carl Elliott Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 1710 Alabama Avenue in Jasper, 
Alabama, shall be known and designated as the ``Carl Elliott Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Carl Elliott 
Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# Europeiska unionens C 427I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-1061 |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 427I |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 62 årgången19 december 2019 |

ISSN 1977-1061

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 427I

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

62 årgången19 december 2019

---

| Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Yttranden |
| | ADMINISTRATIVA FÖRFARANDEN |
| | Europeiska kommissionen |
| 2019/C 427 I/01 | Inbjudan att lämna in ansökningar – Jan Amos Comenius-priset för utmärkt undervisning om Europeiska unionen | 1 |

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

V   Yttranden

ADMINISTRATIVA FÖRFARANDEN

Europeiska kommissionen

2019/C 427 I/01

Inbjudan att lämna in ansökningar – Jan Amos Comenius-priset för utmärkt undervisning om Europeiska unionen

1

---

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

V Yttranden

ADMINISTRATIVA FÖRFARANDEN

Europeiska kommissionen

| 19.12.2019 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | CI 427/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2019

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

CI 427/1

---

Inbjudan att lämna in ansökningar –

Jan Amos Comenius-priset för utmärkt undervisning om Europeiska unionen

(2019/C 427 I/01)

EU-kommissionens generaldirektorat för utbildning, ungdom, idrott och kultur har inlett en ansökningsomgång för Jan Amos Comenius-priset för utmärkt undervisning om Europeiska unionen.

Priset kommer att delas ut till högstadie- och gymnasieskolor som på ett inspirerande sätt hjälper sina elever att skaffa sig kunskap om EU. Syftet med priset är både att uppmärksamma skolornas viktiga arbete i medlemsländerna och att belysa vikten av undervisning i EU-kunskap i tidig ålder. Priset kommer också att lyfta fram och sprida inspirerande undervisningsmetoder som uppmuntrar eleverna att aktivt söka EU-kunskap.

Alla högstadie- och gymnasieskolor (ISCED-nivå 2 och ISCED-nivå 3) i EU kan ansöka om att få priset (enskilda lärare får inte ansöka).

Upp till tjugoåtta (28) priser på 8 000 euro vardera, ett i varje EU-land, kommer att delas ut.

Om Storbritannien lämnar EU utan ett avtal som garanterar att brittiska skolor får fortsätta att delta i tävlingen, innan Europeiska kommissionen har beslutat vilka skolor som ska få priset (detta görs strax efter bedömningen av ansökningarna), kommer priset inte att delas ut till någon skola i Storbritannien. I så fall kommer högst 27 priser (istället för 28) att delas ut. Prissumman förblir oförändrad (8 000 euro).

Sista ansökningsdag är torsdagen den 6 februari 2020 kl. 17.00 (centraleuropeisk tid).

Ansökningsblanketterna och mer information finns på:

https://ec.europa.eu/education/resources-and-tools/funding-opportunities/jan-amos-comenius-prize_sv

---
Royal Elite Trans LLC

1/1/2019 - 

1/31/202

2/1/2020 - 

1/31/2021

Before Adjustments $130,000 $156,889 $335,451

Adjustments:

Returned Checks / Debits -$27,989 -$6,525

Transfers from Royal Elite Trans -$10,410 -$79,551

IRS Refunds -$4,586 -$1,700

Transfers from Leonardo Lucas -$3,500 $0

Misc Credit Adjustments -$3,200 $0

Transfers from Excelcium Financial Inc. $0 -$77,000

Transfers from Stelle Martial $0 -$40,150

Transfers from Joff Philossaint $0 -$22,857

Transfers from Clear Shot Entertainment LLC $0 -$18,270

Transfers from Ferlinda Philossaint $0 -$3,660

EIDL $0 -$2,000

PPP Loan $0 -$2,536

Transfers from Worlf Philossaint $0 -$45

After Adjusmtments $130,000 $107,204 $81,157

Bank Records

Reported vs Potential Gross Receipts

Potential Gross Receipts

 EIDL 

Application

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 204-22 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2023 Page 1 of 1
#### Veruki *v.*The State.

Atkinson, J.

Upon the trial of one charged with keeping open a tippling-house on the Sabbath day, it was error for the judge to instruct the jury as follows: “This is a charge of keeping open a tippling-house on the Sabbath or Sunday. That is a State law, applies all ° over the State. It is not an ordinance you are acting under, and our Supreme Court have held time and again that if a man who keeps a barroom, opens his door on that day he is guilty of the offense of keeping a tippling-house on Sunday. A man who keeps a barroom or tippling-house has got to be more careful than any other man in this State. It takes less to convict him than any other offense, because the law says if he keeps it open at *290all, if -lie opens' it at all, he violates the law. It is very different from the man opening his place on the Sabbath and doing business on the Sabbath and selling- goods in the case of necessity or charity.” Such a charge is argumentative and subject to the objection that it is calculated to leave the impression upon the minds of the jury that a conviction in such a case would be authorized under a less weight of evidence than the law requires in other criminal eases. The error committed in such instruction was so prejudicial as to require the granting of a new trial.

Submitted December 18, 1906.-

-Decided January 15, 1907.

Accusation of keeping open tippling-bouse on the Sabbath, day. Before Judge Norwood. City court of Savannah. October 26, 1906.

*Robert L. Golding,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. W. Osborne, solicitor-general,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Centennial Bank, Plaintiff,

v. 

M/V Why Not and Why Not I, LLC, 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-22883-Civ-Scola 

Order Adopting Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation 

This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan 

Goodman for a report and recommendation on Plaintiff Centennial Bank’s 

motion for attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest (ECF No. 48). Judge 

Goodman issued a report, recommending that the Court grant in part and 

deny in part Centennial’s motion, awarding it $36,140.00 in attorney’s fees1 and 

$9,531.20 in prejudgment interest.2 (Rep. & Recs., ECF No. 54.) No objections 

have been filed and the time to object has passed. Irrespective of the lack of 

objections, the Court has considered Judge Goodman’s report on a de novo basis 

and finds it cogent and compelling. 

Accordingly, the Court affirms and adopts Judge Goodman’s report and 

recommendations (ECF No. 54) and grants in part and denies in part 

Centennial’s motion for attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest (ECF No. 48). 

Consistent with the report, the Court awards $36,140.00 in attorney’s fees and 

$9,531.20 in prejudgment interest to Centennial Bank, to be paid by 

Defendants M/V Why Not and Why Not I, LLC, jointly and severally, and for 

which sum let execution issue. 

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on June 17, 2024. 

 _______________________________ 

 Robert N. Scola, Jr. 

 United States District Judge 

1 Reduced from the $59,944.00 in attorney’s fees Centennial Bank sought. 

2 After Judge Goodman ordered supplemental briefing, Centennial Bank reduced the 

prejudgment interest it sought from $40,555.44 to $9,531.20.

Case 1:22-cv-22883-RNS Document 55 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2024 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.1

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
 OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY

 

TERMINATION OF THE
 AMENDED CONSENT ORDER BY AND BETWEEN
 SOLERA NATIONAL BANK, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO
 AND
 THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY

 

WHEREAS, in an effort to protect the depositors, other customers and shareholders of Solera National Bank, Lakewood, Colorado (“Bank”), and to ensure the Bank’s operation in accordance with safe and sound banking practices and all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, the Bank and the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States of America (“Comptroller”), entered into an Amended Consent Order, dated December 16, 2010; and

 

WHEREAS, the Comptroller believes that the protection of the depositors, other customers and shareholders of the Bank, as well as its safe and sound operation, no longer require the continued existence of the aforementioned Amended Consent Order;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Comptroller directs that the Amended Consent Order dated December 16, 2010, be, and it hereby is, TERMINATED.

 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the undersigned, designated by the Comptroller as his authorized representative, has hereunto set his hand.

 

 

	
/s/ Gary D. TeKolste
    	
 
    	
6-29-12
    
	
Gary D. TeKolste 
    	
 
    	
Date
    
	
Assistant Deputy Comptroller
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Denver Field Office