alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Regulatory Evaluation
D ocket No. FAA

- Directorate Id enti fier : -A D

Add /he 

### wvrk hours. 

### parts c.:osl , 

### and number(!/ 

### U.S. registered pmducts 

### to the tahfe he/ow. 

### When you are

. finished. 

### dick on the "Upda te Fields., hullon 10 

### awo matical/y.fl/l i11the 

### total s. 

### Up date Fields 

# I

Est imated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g ., aircraft, engine, (e .g., Ins p ectio n, propell er, ap pliance) Work

- hours Labor Parts Cost T o t a l Costs Numb er of Total Cost replacem e nt) (include co st (labor+ 

## u.s . for U.S. Fl eet D o n ot includ e on co ndition costs here 

### access, testing, (@$85/h part s) Re gistered and close- up ) our) Produ cts R

&R 

### 30 NA 22 l I f\(11 tj (Ill ( • (Ill 

### n 1111 (I ttl! ' (I I(J 

## nn· fill) I 'I

q (• I (t I I J II I lj p I J •,I t I 'I 1) (I (Ill I I ;

**~** 'I I 

### u .. •l •ll

**~** I j ' 0 lj •t (I 'I r 1{) 1 1, Ill f'(l f) 11(1 '' ')I) I' (l I \)Ill 1 (J I I !I ttl

' '! I



# ... II ,Ill( 

### Th e known number of prod ucts in compliance: Number T otal Costs of comp l iance for U .S. fleet: $56, 1 00 Cos ts covered un der warranty (if known)

**Warrant~** 

### On-Condition Cos ts: • Action Work-h o urs Labor cost Part s Cost Cos t per Produc t (e .g. , In specti on, ( in c lud e access, ( @$ 85/hour) testin g, and c l ose- replac ement) up) Inspection

**~** ' I !}t. •• (l,

.... I'' 

### n•(I (til 

### Special considerations for Eco nomic Analysis (Use this field to explain anyth ing in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvio us. Thisfield can also be used t o expla in wa rran ty costs): 

### Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be cons id e red a "s i g nificant regulatory action " ? · - YES* 

### 0 NO 

### l8l *Explanation: 

### DOT R eg ulatory Policies and Procedures: I s the AD s ig nificant? · - YES* 

### 0 NO 

### l8l *Explanation: 

### Regulatory F lex ibility Act : Will the AD h ave a s ign ifi ca nt eco nom ic impact o n a substanti a l number of small e n tities? Ex plain for e ither 

### a Ye s o r No



# answer. **~** YES 

### 0 NO 

### l8l Explan ation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD cou ld aftect intra s tate av iation in Ala s ka. I s it ap propriate to include specific requi rements for ai rcraft opera te d in A laska wher e aviatio n might b e the only mode of tra n sportation?

- YES* 

### 0 NO 

### l8l *Explanation:
#### §§ 95.1707-95.1721 [Reserved]
April 25, 2012

Rick Albright, Director

Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101

Re: Washington Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

Dear Mr. Albright: 

It is my understanding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will soon 

propose to approve or partially approve Washington’s regional haze State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). In rule-making dockets proposing action on regional haze SIPs for other states, 

the EPA has specified comment periods of either 30 or 60 days.1 I am writing on behalf of 

the Association of Washington Business (AWB) to request the EPA to allow 60 days for 

interested parties to comment on the EPA’s proposed action on Washington’s regional haze 

SIP.

The basis for this request is that the EPA has previously notified AWB members that its 

proposed action on the Washington submittal may be complex, possibly including findings 

that the SIP submitted by Washington is inadequate in certain respects to meet the 

requirements of the EPA’s regional haze rules. AWB members understand that the proposal 

may include a Federal Implementation Plan.

Several of our members have expressed the need for an extended comment period so that 

they have adequate time to analyze the EPA’s proposal and to submit well-informed 

comments. A 60-day comment period is warranted to allow stakeholders to obtain the 

 

1 See, e.g. 77 Fed. Reg. 18052 (March 26, 2012) (60-day comment period on Colorado 

regional haze SIP) and 77 Fed. Reg. 11022 (February 24, 2012) (30-day comment period on 

Alaska regional haze SIP).
technical and scientific assistance needed to understand and analyze the findings 

supporting the proposed rule. 

For these reasons, AWB requests that the EPA include a 60-day comment period in its notice 

of proposed rule making on the Washington regional haze SIP. 

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Sincerely,

Gary Chandler 

Vice President of Government Affairs 

cc: Director Ted Sturdevant, Washington Department of Ecology
#### § 95.2703 Definitions, MURS.

*MURS.* A two-way, short distance voice or data communication service for facilitating personal or business activities of the general public.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Andres Lee Schuman Jr., * From the 441st District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR54799.

Vs. No. 11-22-00300-CR * February 29, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter, J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 6, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52535-52536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7444]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense, DoD.

ACTION:  Notice of closed advisory committee meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on VTOL/STOL will meet in 
closed session on September 12-13, 2006; at Strategic Analysis Inc., 
3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. This meeting is a classified 
executive session to begin the review of gathered data and to begin 
formulating the report's contents.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meeting, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess the features 
and capabilities VTOL/STOL aircraft should have in order to support the 
nation's defense needs through at least the first half of the 21st 
century.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the 
meeting will be closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense 
Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-
3140, via e-mail at [email protected], or via phone at (703) 
571-0083.
    Due to scheduling difficulties, there is insufficient time to 
provide timely notice required by Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act and subsection 102-3.150(b) of the GSA Final Rule on 
Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR part

[[Page 52536]]

102-3.150(b), which further requires publication at least 15 calendar 
days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: August 30, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 06-7444 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
```
No. 10-10783.

#### Wright *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### RECTANGLE RANCHE CO. v. BOARD OF COM’RS FOR BURAS LEVEE DIST. et al.

No. 13225.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1951.

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1951.

Writ of Certiorari Denied April 30,1951.

See 71 S.Ct. 742.

*9Louis C. Guidry, Taylor Caffery, John E. Jackson and Baldwin J. Allen, all of New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Cullen R. Liskow, Lake Charles, La., James W. Hopkins, L. H. Perez, Chalin O. Perez and Harry F. Stiles, Jr., all of New Orleans, La., for appellees.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal brings up for review the sole question whether the construction the district judge gave to Section 11 of Act 18 of the Louisiana Legislature of 1894, LSA-RS 38:791 was compelled by the decisions of the Louisiana courts on which he relied.1

Appellant admits that, superficially viewed, these decisions do support the view of the district judge. It insists, though: that the language relied on in one of them was *dicta;*the other was inadequately considered, and, therefore, wrongly decided; that the rule of *stare decisis*sought to be applied 'by the district judge did not apply; and that the district judge was free, indeed was compelled, to construe the act for himself as plaintiffs contend it should be construed. We cannot agree.

We will not undertake to independently assay or assess the correctness of the decisions relied on by the district judge, or the others cited to us by the appellee. It is sufficient to say that we are in complete agreement with the district judge that they were binding upon him, and with ap-pellee that the judgment should be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. State ex rel. Board of Com’rs v. N. A. Baker & Son, 146 La. 413, 83 So. 693; Waterman v. Tidewater Assoc. Oil Co., 213 La. 588, 35 So.2d 225.
No. 10-11288.

#### Jones *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### § 12.38 What happens if my property is subject to civil judicial actions to obtain forfeiture?

If a claim is filed in the forfeiture proceeding under § 12.36, the Solicitor will refer the case to the Department of Justice to include in a civil forfeiture complaint or in a criminal indictment.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10130 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
LUIS ALONZO PENA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08

- CR

- 118

- 1

Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis Alonzo Pena, federal prisoner # 36979

- 177 , requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the correction of a clerical error under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 35(a) and 36

. A dditionally, Pena asks this court to reduce his sentence

.

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 12, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10130 Document: 00513588361 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2016No. 16

- 10130

2 In the motion denied by the district court , Pena, relying on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, sought a reduction of the sentences imposed following his convictions for consp iracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance; possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and aiding and abetting; and maintaining a drug

involved pre mises and aiding and abetting. Pena was held accountable for
more th an the quantity of m arijuana that triggers the highest base offense level under both the version of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) in effect when he was
sentenced and the retroactive, amended version. Accordingly, Amendment 782
d id not change his offense level or lower his guidelines range, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying h im a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Further more, Pena’s challen ge to the denial of his request for correction of a clerical error under Rules 35(a) and 36 is unavailing because, as noted by the district court, he has never identified an error in need of correction and filed an untimely request under Rule 35(a).
Becaus e Pena’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous,
hi s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Pena’s motion for a sentence reduction is likewise DENIED. Pena is CAUTIONED that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings
will invite the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. MOTION S DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. Case: 16-10130 Document: 00513588361 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2016
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS41714 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
1The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1978

___________

Rick Lynn Stanton, also known *

as Rickie Lynn Stanton, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

Cindy L. Johnson, Deputy Clerk of * District of Iowa.

Court Ringgold County, Iowa; Clerk *

of District Court, Ringgold County, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Iowa; Ringgold County Attorney, *

Ringgold County, Iowa, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: May 4, 2001

 Filed: May 9, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rick Lynn Stanton appeals the district court’s1 dismissal with prejudice of his

civil rights action after the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for
-2-

summary judgment. Reviewing de novo, we agree with the district court that

Mr. Stanton failed to state a claim and that the doctrines of sovereign and judicial

immunity shielded defendants from liability. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer

Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993) (absent waiver of Eleventh

Amendment immunity, neither state nor its agencies may be subject to suit in federal

court); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (official-capacity

suit against state official is not suit against official but rather is suit against official’s

office; as such, suit is no different from one against state itself); Edelman v. Jordan, 415

U.S. 651, 666-68 (1974) (return of monies that were allegedly wrongfully withheld

from public-assistance-benefits applicants could not be classified as prospective

injunctive relief, as funds to satisfy award would inevitably come from state’s general

revenues; award was essentially indistinguishable from damage award against state);

Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 183 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir. 1999)

(standard of review); Boyer v. County of Washington, 971 F.2d 100, 102 (8th Cir.

1992) (per curiam) (clerk was entitled to absolute immunity for signing and issuing

arrest warrant regardless of whether judge instructed her to do so because these acts

are integral parts of criminal judicial process), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 974 (1993).

Turning to Mr. Stanton’s other arguments on appeal, we find no error in the

district court’s dismissal of the complaint without granting leave to amend: nothing in

the record suggests Mr. Stanton ever attempted to amend it. Contrary to his

suggestion, no claim for an accounting appeared in his complaint, nor was any state law

claim clearly alleged. See Smith v. St. Bernards Reg’l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255

(8th Cir. 1994) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires complaint include short and plain

statement of claim that gives fair notice of plaintiff's claim and grounds for relief).

Finally, we conclude dismissal with prejudice was proper. See Wright v. Anthony, 733

F.2d 575, 577 (8th Cir. 1984). 

Accordingly, we affirm. 
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I

★

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5144

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that no species

may be determined to be an endangered species or threatened species,

and no critical habitat may be designated, until that Act is reauthorized.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 30, 1994

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas (for himself, Mr. BONILLA, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr.

FIELDS of Texas, Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of

Texas, Mr. SARPALIUS, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. LAUGHLIN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr.

FROST, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. TEJEDA, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. BREWSTER,

Mr. POMBO, Mr. CONDIT, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. HERGER, Mr. CALLAHAN,

Mr. CALVERT, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. DOOLITTLE,

Ms. DUNN, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. ISTOOK,

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. LINDER, Mr. LUCAS, Ms. MOLINARI, Mr.

ROGERS, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. STUMP, and Mr. HUFFINGTON) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine

and Fisheries

A BILL

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide

that no species may be determined to be an endangered

species or threatened species, and no critical habitat

may be designated, until that Act is reauthorized.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5144 IH1S

1 SECTION 1. MORATORIUM ON DETERMINATION OF ENDAN2 GERED SPECIES AND THREATENED SPECIES

3 AND DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT.

4 Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

5 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)) is amended by adding at the end the

6 following new paragraph:

7 ‘‘(4) MORATORIUM.—Notwithstanding any

8 other provision of law, during the period beginning

9 on the effective date of this paragraph and ending

10 on the first day thereafter that occurs in a fiscal

11 year for which amounts are specifically authorized

12 by this Act to be appropriated to carry out this Act,

13 the Secretary may not—

14 ‘‘(A) determine that a species is an endan15 gered species or a threatened species for pur16 poses of this Act; or

17 ‘‘(B) designate any critical habitat of a

18 species under this Act.’’.

Æ
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-P193Reaching Out to the Private Sector: Building Partnerships and Managing Your WorkforceAs community needs and environments change, law enforcement executives and managers must learn how to make strategic, effective decisions about their organization. This lively and conversational book compiles suggestions and solutions from top criminal justice leaders and Fortune 500 executives on the topics of recruitment and retention, organizational transformation, and leadership development. Moreover, it includes a guide on how to approach a potential corporate partner successfully.Categories: Community PartnershipsLanguage: EnglishLow stockPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p193Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFBook • Oct 2010Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 02:17 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
#### LLANO DEL RIO CO. OF NEVADA v. ANDERSON-POST HARDWOOD LUMBER CO., Inc. et al.

No. 13174.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 20, 1951.

Gerald Weatherly, Corpus Christi, Tex., for appellant.

George T. Owen, Jr., Baton Rouge, La., A. B. Cavanaugh, A. L. Plauché and S. W. Plauché, Jr., all of Lake Charles, La., Stuart S. Kay, DeRidder, La., R. A. Fraser, Many, La., L. E. Colvin, Mansfield, La., Jack L. Simms, Leesville, La., for ap-pellees.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and McCORD and BORAH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Its complaint dismissed on motion, for the reasons assigned by the district judge in his elaborate opinion,12plaintiff is here seeking a reversal of the judgment.3

The defendants, insisting that the district judge was right, for the reasons that he gave, in dismissing the complaint, press upon us that the dismissal should have been also for the other reasons urged by them.

In no doubt that the dismissal was rightly ordered upon the ground given and the authorities cited,3 we here note our agreement and, without approving or disapproving what is said by the judge on any of the other grounds put forward, or ourselves considering or determining any of them, we affirm the judgment appealed from.

Affirmed.

1

. Llano Del Rio Co. v. Anderson-Post Hardwood Lumber Co., D.C., 79 F.Supp. 382.

2

. This is bow appellant in its brief states the nature and substance of its case and the grounds of jurisdiction:

“This is principally an equity suit, brought by appellant under the express provision for a ‘suit in equity’ in the Federal Civil Rights laws, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 43 and 47, to set aside as fraudulent and unconscionable certain state receivership sales of land and personalty, for accounting, and for damages. The complaint clearly and logically states the facts, and they can best be read there. Record 2-52; Summarized, R. 397-410; 79 F.Supp. 384-389.

“Jurisdiction exists by express provisions of the Federal Civil Rights Act (8 U.S.C.A. §§ 43 and 47; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343) as well as by reason of diverse citizenship, plaintiff being a Nevada Corporation and defendants all being citizens of Louisiana.” (R. 2-3).

3

. To which may be added Williams v. Tooke, 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 758 and Givens v. Moll, 5 Cir., 177 F.2d 765.