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

Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0935 Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NM

- 256

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

. **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

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

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

for U

. S

. Fleet
Chem

- Mill Step Inspection 30.5 $2,592.5 0 $2,592.50 58 $150,365.00 $ 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 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $150,365 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ **On -**  **Condition Costs:** Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /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 assumed or might not be obvious. Th is field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : All parts are to

### be furnished by the operator. Therefore, an estimate of the parts cost is not include in the Total Costs

summary. **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 entiti es? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This 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 

### :
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00069-CV

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,

Appellant

v.

KELLIE MCDOUGALD,

Appellee

From the 378th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 88611

ORDER

Appellant’s Request for Leave to Supplement Record filed on July 2, 2015 is denied.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Request denied

Order issued and filed July 9, 2015
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00275

- CV

Jane Doe

v.

Columbia North Hills Hospital Subsidiary, L.P., Columbia North Texas Subsidiary GP, LLC, and HCA Health Services of Texas, Inc. §

§

§

§ From the 67th District Court

of Tarrant County (067

- 286449

- 16)

March 23

, 2017

Opinion by Justice Meier



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the

trial court is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion

.

It is further ordered that Appell ee s Columbia North Hills Hospital

Subsidiary, L.P., Columbia North Texas Subsidiary GP, LLC, and HCA Health

Services of Texas, I nc. shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution

issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier
Justice Bill Meier
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00435-CR

Tiffney Lynne McAdoo

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1247941R)

December 13, 2012

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00434-CR

NO. 02-12-00435-CR

TIFFNEY LYNNE MCADOO APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1

----------

Appellant Tiffney Lynne McAdoo attempts to appeal following her pleas of 

guilty to theft of property valued between $1,500 and $20,000 from an elderly 

individual and to making a false statement to obtain property or credit. See Tex. 

Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4), (f) (West Supp. 2012); id. § 32.32 (West 2011). 

Following the plea agreements, the trial court sentenced Appellant to five years’ 

incarceration in each case but suspended her sentence, ordering that Appellant 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

be placed on community supervision for five years and that Appellant make 

restitution.

The trial court’s certifications of Appellant’s right to appeal state in each 

case that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). On September 17, 2012, we notified Appellant

that these appeals could be dismissed unless she or any party desiring to 

continue the appeals filed a response showing grounds for continuing the 

appeals. We have to date not received any response.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure are clear that in a plea-bargain 

case, an appellant may appeal only those matters that were raised by written 

motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s permission to 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Because the trial court’s certifications

reflect that Appellant has no right of appeal, we dismiss these appeals for want of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 13, 2012
§ 1254.96 What credits must I give NARA? ( a ) You must agree to credit NARA as having custody of the original documents. The credit must appear at the beginning of a microfilm publication and in any publicity material or descriptions of the publication.
( b ) If the original documents are Federal records, you must agree to include on the film this statement: “The documents reproduced in this publication are among the records of the (name of agency) in the custody of the National Archives of the United States. (Name of microfilm publication producer) does not claim any copyright interest in these official U.S. Government records.”
( c ) If the original documents are donated historical materials, you must agree to include on the film this statement: “The documents reproduced in this publication are donated historical materials from (name of donor) in the custody of the (name of Presidential library or National Archives of the United States). The National Archives and Records Administration administers them in accordance with the requirements of the donor's deed of gift and the U.S. Copyright Law, Title 17, U.S.C. (Name of microfilm publication producer) does not claim any copyright interest in these donated historical materials.”
( d ) If the original documents are Presidential or Vice-Presidential records as specified in 44 U.S.C. 2201, you must agree to include on the film this statement: “The documents reproduced in this publication are Presidential records in the custody of the (name of Presidential library or National Archives of the United States). The National Archives and Records Administration administers them in accordance with the requirements of Title 44, U.S.C. (Name of microfilm publication producer) does not claim any copyright interest in these official Presidential records.”
( e ) If the original documents are records of Congress, you must agree to include on the film this statement: “The documents reproduced in this publication are among the records of the (House of Representatives/Senate) in the physical custody of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). NARA administers them in accordance with the requirements of the (House/Senate). (Name of microfilm publication producer) does not claim any copyright interest in these official congressional records.”
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 573

For the relief of Sanae Takahashi.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1993

Mr. HUNTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Sanae Takahashi.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS FOR SANAE

4 TAKAHASHI.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), for the

6 purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Sanae

7 Takahashi shall be considered to have been lawfully admit8 ted to the United States for permanent residence as of

9 the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of

10 the required visa fee.

11 (b) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION.—Subsection (a)

12 shall apply only if the individual applies to the Attorney
2

•HR 573 IH

1 General for permanent residence status under such sub2 section within two years after the date of the enactment

3 of this Act.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 525 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 525

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure that a child can sit 
       next to a family member on a flight at no additional cost.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 16, 2023

     Mr. Markey (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. 
  Blumenthal) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure that a child can sit 
       next to a family member on a flight at no additional cost.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Families Fly Together Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. ENSURING THAT A CHILD CAN SIT NEXT TO A FAMILY MEMBER ON A 
              FLIGHT AT NO ADDITIONAL COST.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 41727. Ensuring that a child can sit next to a family member on 
              a flight at no additional cost
    ``(a) In General.--Beginning on the date that is 6 months after the 
date of enactment of this section, each air carrier providing air 
transportation shall ensure that a child, who is age 13 or under on the 
date the flight is scheduled to occur, is able to be seated in a seat 
adjacent to the seat of an accompanying family member at no additional 
cost to the base fare price.
    ``(b) Investigations of Complaints.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
        investigate each complaint of a violation of the requirement 
        under subsection (a).
            ``(2) Publication of data.--The Secretary of Transportation 
        shall publish data on complaints of violations of the 
        requirement under subsection (a) in a manner comparable to 
        other consumer complaint data.
    ``(c) Family Member.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
`family member' means, with respect to a child described in such 
subsection, an individual who is--
            ``(1) 16 years of age or older; and
            ``(2) responsible for accompanying such child, including a 
        parent or legal guardian of such child.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 417 of such title 
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 41726 the 
following:

``41727. Ensuring that a child can sit next to a family member on a 
                            flight at no additional cost.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1




                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   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 Medical  Makeover  Corporation  of
America (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ending March 31, 2005, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Periodic Report"), I, Stephen H Durland,  Acting Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. The Periodic  Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



          /s/    Stephen H. Durland
        --------------------------------------
        Stephen H Durland
        Acting Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 23, 2005







----------------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  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.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
# EUR-Lex - 12006E004 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E004

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part One - Principles - Article 4 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0045 - 0046 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0041 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0182 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0008 - Consolidated version *

Article 4

1. For the purposes set out in Article 2, the activities of the Member States and the Community shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein, the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States' economic policies, on the internal market and on the definition of common objectives, and conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

2. Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable and the procedures set out therein, these activities shall include the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates leading to the introduction of a single currency, the ecu, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange-rate policy the primary objective of both of which shall be to maintain price stability and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the general economic policies in the Community, in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.

3. These activities of the Member States and the Community shall entail compliance with the following guiding principles: stable prices, sound public finances and monetary conditions and a sustainable balance of payments.

--------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of **Phage Genomics, Inc.** (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended **June 30, 2004** as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, **Graham R. Hughes**, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)     The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 12th day of August, 2004.

 
/s/ Graham R. Hughes 
Graham R. Hughes 
Chief Financial Officer
REQUIRED STATEMENT TO ACCOMPANY 

ALL MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 

All Cases: Debtor(s) Raul A. Hoare Case No. 16-25461 Chapter 13 

All Cases: Moving Creditor 

Federal National Mortgage Association 

(“Fannie Mae”), a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the United States of 

America Date Case Filed 8/8/2016 

Nature of Relief Sought: ■ Lift Stay □ Annul Stay ■ Other (describe) 

Chapter 13: Date of Confirmation Hearing 10/3/2016 Or Date Plan Confirmed 

Chapter 7: □ No-Asset Report Filed on 

 □ No-Asset Report not filed, Date of Creditors Meeting 

 

1. Collateral 

 a. ■ Home 

 b. □ Car Year, Make, and Model 

 c. □ Other (describe) 

 

2. 

Balanced Owed as of Date Judgment was 

entered $177,388.74 principal balance, $237,205.19 payoff balance 

 Total of all other Liens against Collateral $ 

 

3. 

In Chapter 13 cases, if a post-petition default is asserted in the motion, attach a payment history listing the amounts and 

dates of all payments received from the debtor(s) post-petition: 

 

4. Estimated Value of Collateral (must be supplied in all cases) $154,700.00. 

 

5. Default 

 a. □ Pre-Petition Default 

 Number of months Amount $ 

 b. □ Post-Petition Default 

 i. □ On direct payments to the moving creditor 

 Number of months Amount $ 

 ii. □ On payments to the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee 

 Number of Months Amount $ 

 

6. Other Allegations 

 a. □ Lack of Adequate Protection § 362(d)(1) 

 i. □ No insurance 

 ii. □ Taxes unpaid Amount $ 

 iii. □ Rapidly depreciating asset 

 iv. □ Other (describe) 

 

 b. □ No Equity and not Necessary for an Effective reorganization § 362(d)(2) 

 

 c. □ Other “Cause” § 362(d)(1) 

 i. □ Bad Faith (describe) 

 ii. □ Multiple Filings 

 iii. ■ Other (describe) 

Property sold prior to this case being filed and as such Colon v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 319 

F.3d 912 (7th Cir. Ill. 2003) is applicable 

 

 d. Debtor’s Statement of Intention regarding the Collateral 

 i. □ Reaffirm ii. □ Redeem iii. □ Surrender iv. □ No Statement of Intention Filed 

 

Date: 8/26/2016 /s/ Rocio Herrera 

 Counsel for Movant 

Case 16-25461 Doc 14-2 Filed 08/26/16 Entered 08/26/16 11:21:50 Desc

 Statement Accompanying Relief From Stay Page 1 of 1
Case 16-29761 Doc 11 Filed 09/21/16 Entered 09/22/16 09:35:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
Case 16-28378 Doc 11 Filed 09/08/16 Entered 09/09/16 10:19:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.

 

 March 11, 2024 

VIA EMAIL

jbartlett@dickinsonwright.com 

Jessica Brouckaert Bartlett

Dickinson Wright PLLC

1825 Eye St. NW, Ste. 900 

Washington, DC 20006 

 RE: MUR 8082 

 Unknown Respondents, et al.

 

Dear Ms. Bartlett: 

On November 3, 2022, the Federal Election Commission notified your client 

Conservative Action Fund (formerly Wingman PAC) (“the Committee”) of a complaint alleging 

that the Committee may have violated certain sections of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971, as amended (the “Act”). 

On February 27, 2024, the Commission voted to close its file in this matter. Documents 

related to the case will be placed on the public record within 30 days. See Disclosure of Certain 

Documents in Enforcement and Other Matters, 81 Fed. Reg. 50,702 (Aug. 2, 2016). 

 If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 694-1688 or mlupo@fec.gov. 

 Sincerely,

 

 Matthew Lupo

Attorney 

 

MUR808200493
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6536
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD B URNELL BASSETT, a/k/a Ronnie Bump, a/k/a The Kid, a/k/a Zachary Jack son, a/k/a Ronald Jackson, a/k/a Beamon Jackson, a/k/a Ronald Jones, a/k/a R. F. Jones, a/k/a Beamon West, a/k/a Harry VanDyke, a/k/a The Bird, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR85-541-S) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 23, 1996 Before ERVIN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Burnell Bassett, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(e) motion for return of property. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bassett , No. CR-85-541-S (D. Md. Feb. 13, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED