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

Docket No. FAA

- 

### FAA

- 2012

- 0008 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2011

-NE

- 43

- 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 and 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) Labo r

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

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

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Inspection 5.0 $ 425.00 $ 425.00 

### 96 $40,800.00 

### Part Rework 8.0 $ 680.00 $ 680.00 

### 96 $65,280.00 $ 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 pro ducts in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $106,080 

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

- h ours

(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. 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: **Re gulatory Flexibility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alas ka. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
#### Charles E. Beard, *Respondent, v.*Daniel F. Cridler, *Appellant.*

Motion denied with leave to either party to produce a certified copy of the notice of appeal to the County Court, on the argument of the appeal in this court, without costs to either party.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40325

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

VICTOR MANUEL MENDOZA-TOLEDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-1192-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victor Manuel Mendoza-Toledo (Mendoza) appeals his 30-month 

sentence for illegal reentry on the ground that the district court erred by 

imposing an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). As 

Mendoza objected in the district court on this basis, we review the imposition

of the enhancement de novo. See United States v. Morales-Martinez, 496 F.3d 

356, 357 (5th Cir. 2007). We have rejected Mendoza’s reading of Moncrieffe v. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40325 Document: 00513125473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2015
No. 14-40325

2

Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013), and his argument that a state drug conviction 

need involve financial remuneration to constitute a drug trafficking offense for 

purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). See United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 

198, 201-05 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-40325 Document: 00513125473 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2015
No. 64165.

protests 59/25105 and and 59/25892 (New York).

#### Dunnington & Arnold, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion'by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification of Litigation Trustee Pursuantto18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofInformation Resources, Inc. Litigation Contingent Payment Rights Trust forthe quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of her knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ MONICA M. WEED |   |
|--------------------|--------|
| Monica M. Weed     |
| Litigation Trustee |
| May 8, 2006   |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of § 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

1

----
#### Meinhard Brothers & Company *vs.*Mullin.

1. If there were any errors in the charges of the court excepted to, they were not adverse to the claimant or beneficial to her adversaries.

2. Under the evidence submitted in this case, a verdict might have *594been rendered in favor of either the plaintiffs orthe claimant; and this being so, there was no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial.

March 21, 1888.

Charge of court. New trial. Before Judge Kibbee. Dodge superior court. February term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

Roberts & Smith and C. O. Smith, for plaintiffs in error.

DeLacy *&*Bishop and J. H. Lumpkin, *contra.*

Brandford, Justice.

This was a claim case. Meinhard Bros. & Co. obtained a judgment against James- Mullin, upon which execution issued and was levied upon certain property; to which property a claim was interposed by Mrs. Eliza J. Mullin, the wife of the defendant in execution. The property was found subject to the execution; and the claimant moved for a new trial, upon numerous grounds, alleging as error certain charges of the court, and that the verdict was contrary to law and to the evidence. The court granted a new trial, generally, upon that motion; whereupon the plaintiffs in execution excepted.

We have looked through the charges of the court excepted to, and if there is any error in these charges, it is error in favor of the claimant, and not error which gave any benefit to the plaintiffs in execution.

The plaintiffs in error insist that the testimony demanded the verdict rendered by the jury that the property was subject. We do not think so. It is a very close case, under the evidence submitted, and in our opinion, a verdict might have been rendered either way; and this being so, there was no abuse, of discretion by the court in granting a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)

**Title:** Crash course :lessons learned from accidents involving remotely piloted and autonomousaircraft

 
PDF,Mobi, epub

 
SuDoc Number: NAS 1.120:2013-600

Item Number: 0830-I (online)

 
CGP system Number: 000896284
** **

**Exhibit31(b)**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, William R. Talley, Jr., certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)           Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: November 2, 2006
|        |   |   |   | /s/ William R.  Talley, Jr. |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | William R.  Talley, Jr.     |
|   |   |   |   | Executive Vice  President   |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Financial  Officer    |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Weston Hamilton, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 211]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered April 15, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Two police officers observed the defendant in the hallway of an apartment building holding a clear plastic bag that contained red-capped vials of a white substance and engaging in what appeared to be a drug transaction with another person. The officers identified themselves and pursued the defendant, who fled into an apartment that was not his residence. One of the officers chased the defendant through the apartment and grabbed his jacket, which slipped off and fell to the ground in the living room. The defendant then fled to the kitchen where the pursuing officer observed him throw the plastic bag with the red-capped vials into a space between the refrigerator and the stove. After the defendant was arrested, the officers returned to the living room, lifted the defendant’s jacket from the floor, and discovered underneath it a bag containing, *inter alia,*102 vials of cocaine.

The hearing court denied the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the cocaine that was found in the kitchen and the cocaine that was found in the living room. After a trial, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree for his possession of the 49 vials of cocaine that he had discarded in the kitchen. The defendant was acquitted of possession of the 102 vials of cocaine that were recovered from the bag that was found under his jacket in the living room. On appeal, the defendant contends, *inter alia,*that the court erred in denying suppression of the cocaine that was found in the living room. We affirm.

Assuming that the court erred in denying suppression of the *657cocaine that was found in the living room, the error was harmless. The record demonstrates that the evidence of the defendant’s possession of the cocaine that was found in the kitchen is overwhelming and independent of the evidence with respect to the cocaine that was found in the living room. Under these circumstances, there was no reasonable possibility that the admission of the disputed evidence regarding the cocaine that was found in the living room contributed to the defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of the cocaine that was found in the kitchen *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *cf., People v Baghai-Kermani,*84 NY2d 525, 532; *People v Felton,*77 NY2d 912, 914).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit *(see, People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
#### Nathaniel Dominy, and others, *Respondents, v.*John P. Terry, and others, *Appellants.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Gilbert, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4290

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MESURON D. TAYLOR, a/k/a Mezy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (CR-04-250)

Submitted: August 10, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005

 

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Audrey Freeman jaCobs, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J.

McNulty, United States Attorney, Matthew C. Ackley, Special

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mesuron D. Taylor, a.k.a. “Mezy,” appeals his thirty-four

month term of imprisonment following his guilty plea to possession

of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

(2000). Taylor contends that the district court clearly erred in

applying a four-level enhancement for possession of a firearm “with

knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or

possessed in connection with another felony offense” pursuant to

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2004). We find no

error and affirm Taylor’s sentence.

“When reviewing the District Court’s application of the

Sentencing Guidelines, . . . [w]e accept the findings of fact of

the District Court unless they are clearly erroneous and give due

deference to the District Court’s application of the guidelines to

the facts.” United States v. Cutler, 36 F.3d 406, 407 (4th Cir.

1994). Our review of the record reveals that Taylor and three

others attempted to confront the individual responsible for the

theft of a companion’s firearm. Testimonial evidence supported a

finding that after some discussion on the necessity of being armed

for the confrontation, Taylor retrieved a firearm in order to “go

shoot his ass.” Police intercepted Taylor and his three companions

prior to their arrival at their intended destination. A firearm

was recovered from the vehicle. Because evidence supported the

district court’s factual conclusions, we find that the district
- 3 -

court did not clearly err in its application of the challenged

enhancement.

Accordingly, we affirm Taylor’s sentence. 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
No. 51050.

#### Protests 12540-K, etc., of Toma Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303). In accordance therewith certain items of the merchandise were held entitled to free entry under paragraph *if 05*as kelp, and other items were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 as seaweeds, manufactured.
** **

**Exhibit32(a)**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection withthe Form 10-Q of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended September30, 2006, I, Martin S. Lapera, President and Chief Executive Officer ofFrederick County Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of myknowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended September 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the informationcontained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.

 
| /s/ Martin S. Lapera                  |   |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Martin S. Lapera                      |   |   |   |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |

 

----
Before the First Division,

January 5, 1940

No. 42953.

#### Protest 920551-G of A. Leo Haas (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 41389 the fur pieces in question were held dutiable as waste at 10 percent under paragraph 1555 as claimed.
#### Joseph A. Kaplan, as Limited Administrator of the Estates of Joseph J. Kaplan and Another, Deceased, Appellant, v Paul Sparks et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 396]

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and new trial granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: We reject the contention of plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in refusing to submit to the jury plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages. There was no evidence that defendants " 'acted "maliciously, wantonly, or with a recklessness that betokens an improper motive or vindictiveness” * * * or engaged in "outrageous or oppressive intentional misconduct” or with "reckless or wanton disregard of safety or rights” ’ ” *(Camillo v Olympia & York Props. Co.,*157 AD2d 34, 46, quoting *Sharapata v Town of Islip,*56 NY2d 332, 335; *see, Frenya v Champlain Val. Physicians’ Hosp. Med. Ctr.,*133 AD2d 1000, 1001).

Given the lack of knowledge and experience of the witness plaintiff sought to qualify as an expert, the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding his testimony *(see, Meiselman v Crown Hgts. Hosp.,*285 NY 389, 398-399).

The court did err, however, in precluding the testimony of Harry Trippett, plaintiff’s witness. The excluded evidence was crucial to plaintiff’s case and was relevant to the critical issue whether the truck owned and operated by defendants had a detent and neutral lockout mechanism, especially in light of the testimony of the vice-president of defendant William Pfohl Trucking Corp. that the truck was equipped with a detent. The testimony of Trippett would have related only to what he had personally observed and, therefore, advance disclosure of his identity was not required *(see,*CPLR 3101 [d]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach plaintiff’s remaining contentions. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J.—Negligence.) Present—Law-ton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
#### Frederick Frelinghuysen, *as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v.*Theodore F. Baldwin, *Appellant.*

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Daniels, J.
No. 51782.

#### Protests 742672-G, etc., of Edgar S. Bibas, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

THOMAS E. KIRALY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Thomas E. Kiraly, of Concentra Operating
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

I further certify that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

March 29, 2006



/s/ THOMAS E. KIRALYThomas E. KiralyExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
No. 65567.

#### The Huffman Manufacturing Company *v.*United States,

protests 60/23855-16180, 316466-K/15066, and 316473-K/15101 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard*& *Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
113° W 112.5° W
36.5° N
NExeiI206 1.) Kanab
a
i era
— | SE3611206 BSw3611205 |440.0
] Grand Canyon
National Park NE36112G7 | NW3611206
NE36112C8
SE36112C8 Havasu
«| Creek
160.04 - <L€ \
r~\, Ad
swastt2c7| sesgexzt7 | swa61t2ce Nill)
ail
Havasupai
nwvaét12es] Nesett268 | eel ies hi
( \
}
Hualapai |
Reservation
0 10 KILOMETERS

36° N

¢ SMILES