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

Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 1229 Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NM

- 132

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. I f they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed c ell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost T otal Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

10 50.0 $4,250.0 0 $35,000 $39,250.00 600 $23,550,000. 00 10 35.0 $2,975.0 0 $17,000 $19,975.00 688 $13,742,800. 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: $ 37,292,800 

### Costs covered 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 assu med 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 Procedures:**
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 Alaska:** Thi s 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 :
Exhibit 15.3




12 York gate

London NW1 4QS

United Kingdom




Board of Directors

Lumenis Ltd.

P.O. Box 240

Yokneam 20692

Israel
Direct contact no. +44 (0)20 7544 8805

Contact name: Mark Hart





6 April 2010





Dear Sirs





LUMENIS (UK) LIMITED


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 (333-148460) of Lumenis Ltd., of our report dated 25 June 2008 with respect to the profit and loss account of Lumenis (UK) Limited for the year ended 31 December 2007, which report appears in the annual report on Form 20-F of Lumenis Ltd. for the year ended 31 December 2009.





Yours faithfully




/s/ Blick Rothenberg
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William CRAWFORD, a/k/a Pop, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7481.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 28, 2004.

Decided March 22, 2004.

William Crawford, Appellant pro se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

William Crawford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Crawford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the matei’ials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### §§ 95.1735-95.1739 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

#### § 36.181 Material and supplies—Account 1220.

(a) The amount included in Account 1220 is apportioned among the operations on the basis of the apportionment of the cost of cable and wire facilities in service. Any amounts included in Account 1220 associated with the Customer Premises portion of Account 2310 equipment, shall be excluded from the amounts which are allocated to the interstate operation.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Western Water Company:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-71616, 333-28759, 333-19595, 333-10367, 33-47606, 33-64750, 33-74278,
33-80137 and 33-88062) on Forms S-3 and S-8 of Western Water Company of our
report dated July 9, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Western Water Company and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2002 and 2001, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2002, which
report appears in the March 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Western Water
Company.


San Francisco, California
July 12, 2002
No. 11-10089.

#### Speight *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Zap.Com Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Avram A.
Glazer, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) 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 result of
operations of the Company.

|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Avram A. Glazer                  
|                                     
|Avram A. Glazer                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 12, 2003                    

This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

18
EX-10.6 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO 2003 STOCK OPTION PLAN



 





EXHIBIT 10.6




AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO

INTEGRITY BANCSHARES, INC.

2003 STOCK OPTION PLAN




     This Amendment No. 3 to the Integrity Bancshares, Inc. 2003 Stock Option Plan is made
effective as of the 17th day of May, 2006.



W
 I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H:




     WHEREAS, Integrity Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted a 2003 Stock Option Plan (the
“Plan”) which, as amended to date (and adjusted for stock splits), currently authorizes 1,650,000
shares of the Company’s common stock upon the exercise of options issued under the Plan;



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has authorized this Amendment No. 3 to the Plan
to increase the number of shares authorized and reserved for issuance under the Plan to 1,950,000
and directed that the amendment be presented to the Company’s shareholders for ratification at the
next annual shareholders’ meeting;



     NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth
herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:


Section 3 of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced with a new Section 3 which reads as
follows:




“3. SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN





Subject to adjustments pursuant to the provisions of Section 14, there shall be
authorized and reserved for issuance upon the exercise of Options to be granted
under the Plan, One Million Nine Hundred Fifty Thousand (1,950,000) shares of Common
Stock.”




As herein amended, the Plan continues in full force and effect.
ESCO TECHNOLOGIES INC.
 STATE OR JURISDICTIONOF INCORPORATION
    
    NAME UNDER WHICH ITNAME
    
    OR ORGANIZATION
    
    DOES BUSINESSAclara Power-Line Systems Inc.
    
    Missouri
    
    SameAclara RF Systems Inc.
    
    Ohio
    
    SameAclara Software Inc.
    
    Massachusetts
    
    SameBeijing Lindgren ElectronMagnetic Technology
Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    SameDistribution Control Systems Caribe, Inc.
    
    Puerto Rico
    
    SameDoble Engineering Company
    
    Massachusetts
    
    SameDoble Lemke AG
    
    Switzerland
    
    SameDoble Lemke GmbH
    
    Germany
    
    SameDoble PowerTest Limited
    
    United Kingdom
    
    SameDoble TransiNor AS
    
    Norway
    
    SameESCO Technologies Holding Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    SameETS Lindgren Engineering India Private Limited
    
    India
    
    SameETS-Lindgren, L.P.
    
    Texas
    
    Same and Acoustics SystemsETS Lindgren Japan, Inc.
    
    Japan
    
    SameETS Lindgren Limited
    
    England
    
    SameETS-Lindgren OY
    
    Finland
    
    SameLindgren R.F. Enclosures, Inc.
    
    Illinois
    
    Same and ETS-LindgrenPTI Technologies Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    SameTekPackaging LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    SameVACCO Industries
    
    California
    
    Same
 29
V

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4904

For the relief of Eugene Hasenfus.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 4, 1994

Mr. ROTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Eugene Hasenfus.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIM.

4 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any

5 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Eu6 gene Hasenfus of Marinette, Wisconsin, the sum of

7 $805,209. The payment required by this section shall be

8 in full satisfaction of all claims that Eugene Hasenfus or

9 his family may have against the United States in connec10 tion with any physical or mental injury of Eugene

11 Hasenfus, or any financial loss of Eugene Hasenfus or his

12 family, arising from the October 5, 1986, missile attack
2

•HR 4904 IH

1 on the airplane in which he was a crewmember or from

2 his subsequent detention in Nicaragua.

3 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

4 It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 per5 cent of the payment required by section 1 to be paid to

6 or received by any agent or attorney for any service ren7 dered in connection with the payment. Any person violat8 ing this section shall be guilty of an infraction, and shall

9 be subject to a fine in the amount provided in title 18,

10 United States Code.

Æ
<PAGE>
 
                    CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (dollars in millions)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Years Ended
                                                                December 31,
                                                               ----------------
                                                               1998  1997  1996
                                                               ----  ----  ----
<S>                                                            <C>   <C>   <C>
Net Income.................................................... $ 85  $ 82  $ 85
Add:
  Interest expense............................................  143    98    72
  Amortization of capitalized debt expense....................    2     1     2
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income................   46    40    45
  Extraordinary loss..........................................  --    --      3
                                                               ----  ----  ----
    Earnings as defined....................................... $276  $221  $207
                                                               ====  ====  ====
Interest expense.............................................. $143  $ 98  $ 72
Amortization of capitalized debt expense......................    2     1     2
                                                               ----  ----  ----
    Fixed charges as defined.................................. $145  $ 99  $ 74
                                                               ====  ====  ====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges............................ 1.90x 2.23x 2.80x
                                                               ====  ====  ====
</TABLE>
 
                                       35
§ 3.43 Applicable rules and regulations. Accounting authority operations must be conducted in accordance with applicable FCC rules and regulations, the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR), and other international rules, regulations, agreements, and, where appropriate, ITU-T Recommendations. In particular, the following must be adhered to or taken into account in the case of ITU-T. ( a ) The latest basic treaty instrument(s) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU);
( b ) Binding agreements contained in the Final Acts of World Administrative Radio Conferences and/or World International Telecommunication Conferences;
( c ) ITU Radio Regulations;
( d ) ITU International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR);
( e ) ITU-T Recommendations (particularly D.90 and D.195); and
( f ) FCC Rules and Regulations (47 CFR part 3).
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0828. STACY B. BOHANNON v. THE STATE.

On August 4, 2016, Stacy B. Bohannon entered a guilty plea to home invasion

and kidnapping.

1

In September 2018, Bohannon filed a motion to reduce/modify his

sentence, arguing that he received ineffective assistance, that hissentence was unfair,

and that he should have been charged with false imprisonment rather than

kidnapping. The trial court denied the motion, and Bohannon filed this appeal. We

lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a sentencing court has the authority to modify a

sentence within one year of the date upon which the sentence is imposed, or within

120 days after receipt of the remittitur upon affirmance of the judgment after direct

appeal, whichever is later. Beyond this time, a sentencing court may only modify a

sentence that is void. See Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004). 

A direct appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to vacate a void sentence

where the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void. See 

Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 348 (691 SE2d 247) (2010); Burg v. State, 297

Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). “Motions to vacate a void sentence

generally are limited to claims that – even assuming the existence and validity of the

conviction for which the sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that

sentence, most typically because it exceedsthe most severe punishment for which the

1 A count for armed robbery was merged into the home invasion conviction,

and the State entered an order of nolle prosequi with respect to a count for possession

of a firearm by a convicted felon.

December 20, 2018
applicable penal statute provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748

SE2d 446) (2013). When a sentence is within the statutory range of punishment, it

is not void. Jones, supra at 670.

Here, Bohannon does not assert that his sentence was void. Although

Bohannon contends he received ineffective assistance and that his sentence was

unfair, these do not constitute valid void sentence claims. See Jones, supra at 670;

Jordan v. State, 253 Ga. App. 510, 511 (1) (559 SE2d 528) (2002) (allegation of

ineffective assistance of counsel was not colorable void sentence claim).Accordingly,

we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/20/2018
§ 87.25 Filing of applications. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) An application must be filed with the Commission in accordance with part 1, subpart F of this chapter. Applications requiring fees as set forth at part 1, subpart G of this chapter must be filed in accordance with § 0.401(b) of the rules.
( c ) One application may be submitted for the total number of aircraft stations in the fleet (fleet license).
( d ) One application for aeronautical land station license may be submitted for the total number of stations in the fleet.
( e ) One application for modification or transfer of control may be submitted for two or more stations when the individual stations are clearly identified and the following elements are the same for all existing or requested station licenses involved: ( 1 ) Applicant;
( 2 ) Specific details of request;
( 3 ) Rule part.
[53 FR 28940, Aug. 1, 1988, as amended at 56 FR 64715, Dec. 12, 1991; 63 FR 68957, Dec. 14, 1998; 64 FR 53241, Oct. 1, 1999; 69 FR 32879, June 14, 2004]
# House Floor Proceedings

House Floor proceedings of the previous legislative day, including current legislative days in progress.
No. 11-5614.

#### Zavala-Lopez *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 80.451 Supplemental eligibility requirements.

A public coast station license may be granted to any person meeting the citizenship provisions of § 80.15(b).
No. 11-9742.

#### Alexander v. Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 790/2005

of 25 May 2005         

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2406/96 laying down common marketing standards for certain fishery products

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1), and in particular Article 2(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 2406/96 is amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 May 2005.

For the Commission

Joe BORG            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22. Regulation as last amended by the 2003 Act of Accession.

(2)OJ L 334, 23.12.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by the 2003 Act of Accession.

----

ANNEX

----
#### Jacksonville Traction Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. Pearl Seelbach, by Matilda Seelbach, her next friend, *Defendant in Error.*

141 So. 892.

Division B.

Opinion filed July 5, 1932.

Petition for rehearing denied August 6, 1932.

*James Royall*and *Walter F. Rogers,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*John F. Hall*and *Gov Hutchinson,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

Defendant in error was a passenger on a street ear of plaintiff in error. The car on which defendant in error was riding collided with a second car and threw defendant in error to the floor as a result of which she was bruised and received other minor injuries. As plaintiff *73below ¿he brought this action and secured a judgment in the sum oí $2,000. To' that judgment defendant took writ of error.

It is contended here that plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the street ears were negligently operated, that the damages awarded were excessive, and that the trial court committed error in refusing to strike the testimony of certain expert witnesses'.

We have examined the record and do not think the • evidence which plaintiff sought to' strike was harmful. There was some evidence to support negligence and damages but on the whole showing made the personal injuries received were of minor character for which the damages awarded were excessive. If the plaintiff will enter a remittitur in the sum of $1,500.00 the judgment will be permitted to stand for the balance, otherwise the cause is reversed for a new trial.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.