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

DocketNo.FAA-J015 - \LfJ.d.. ·80 IL/-(V jl-/j ·- I ;zS -AD 

Directorate Identifier: ~ 

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 Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products '3~0fd 

Inspection llf lv $4. 165.0 

C).'{ ~ $t;We j $5.365 .00 17 .; s~oo 0 

e...v. ~IJ! ·a $ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

I 'filtn..:..· $ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s 0.00 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $91,205 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

testing, and closev' 

replacement) up) ~tb 1. ~\0 ~ '5 ~ ,, J,..-L-'l ~- " 

lion 'Th lH l-1 J!l,o.A9 $ 0.00 ~ $ 0.00 

I $ 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*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory 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. ~ 

YESO 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*0 NO~ 

*Explanation:
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Michael R.Haislip, certify that:

1.               Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Monitronics International,Inc.;

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 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.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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:       November14, 2006
|   | /s/ Michael R. Haislip                 |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Michael R. Haislip                     |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer  and President |   |
|   | (Principal Executive  Officer)         |   |

 

----
#### RALSTON, Executor Of The Estate Of George Ralston *v.*RALSTON

[No. 228,

September Term, 1968.]

*Decided October 7, 1969.*

*49Appeal from Orphans’ Court for Howard County (Stromberg, C. J., and Dasher and Nichols, JJ.)

Melvin Ralston, executor of the estate of George Ralston, petitioned the Orphans’ Court for Howard County for authority to retain the assets of the estate pending determination of estate’s federal estate tax liability. Edith M. Ralston, the deceased’s wife objected and demanded distribution. From an order denying the petition, the executor appeals.

The cause was argued before Hammond, C. J., and Marbury, McWilliams, Finan and Smith, JJ.

Reargued before Hammond, C. J., and Marbury, Barnes, McWilliams, Finan, Singley and Smith, JJ.

*Benjamin Lipsitz*for appellant.

No brief filed on behalf of appellee.

Hammond, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appeal is by an executor from an order of the Orphans’ Court for Howard County directing him to make distribution and close the estate. The executor had been dilatory in filing the federal estate tax return — the default really being that of his lawyer — and had urged the court to allow him to retain assets until the amount of the estate tax could be determined. The estate in the hands of the executor amounted to some $10,000 but the decedent left to his family about $95,000 in life insurance proceeds and equities of unrevealed amounts in two properties, one in Howard County and one in Baltimore City.

The order appealed from was entered in August 1968 and the appeal came on to be heard in April 1969. Counsel for the executor then told us that he was in a position to file the estate tax return and that he would as*50sume and pay all costs, expenses, interest and penalties that the unwarranted delay in filing would bring about.

On these representations no legal problem seemed to be presented for solution and with the concurrence of the lawyers for the appellant and the appellee, the widow of the decedent, we ordered that the consideration and decision of the case be postponed for sixty days, later extended to ninety, to permit the closing of the estate with all deliberaté speed. Thereafter, the appellee dismissed her lawyer and the cooperation of the parties ceased. On July 29, 1969, we set the appeal for reargument on September 9. The appellee did not appear. Counsel for the executor advised us that the estate tax return has been filed and the tax paid and that the government has accepted the return as filed. He urged us, however, not to affirm the order appealed from because there remain certain claims of and against the estate to be settled. We can see no valid reasons why the appeal now should not be affirmed. The claims first and the estate next can be settled promptly, as if the appeal had not been taken. Because we think it was unjustifiably taken, the costs will be imposed on the executor personally.

*Order affirmed, costs to be paid by the executor personally.*
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-1023

 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM042AD

747-53-2088, R3 --- 9/8/94

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bumgardner, Kelsey and Senior Judge Overton

TULANA FORTE MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1422-04-1 PER CURIAM DECEMBER 14, 2004 CITY OF HAMPTO N DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON Wilford Taylor, Jr., Judge (Charles E. Haden, on brief), for appellant. (Lesa J. Yeatts, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence A. Martin, Guardian ad litem for the minor child; Coyle & Martin, on brief), for appellee.

On June 14, 2004, the trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Tulana Forte to her daughter pursuant to Code § 16.1-283(C)(2). During cl osing argument at the conclusion of the termination proceeding, appellant’ s attorney stated appellant did not consent to the termination or find it “appropriate.” 1 Appellant’s attorney endor sed the termination order as “seen and objected to” and wrote that “reasona ble and appropriate efforts of Hampton Social Services were not made to Tulana Forte to prevent or avoid the term ination of her parental rights. This resulted in her inability to substantially re medy the conditions that le d to the child’s foster care placement.” In contrast to appellant’s po sition in the trial court, on appeal appellant

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 Appellant was not present at the termination proceeding in the trial court. Nor had she been present at the hearing dur ing which the juvenile and dome stic relations district court terminated her parental rights.- 2 - contends the evidence did not pr ove she had not substantially re medied the conditions which led to the child’s foster care placement. The argument advanced on appeal was not rais ed in the trial cour t. “The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” Ohree v. Commonwealth , 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998). See Rule 5A:18. Accordingly, Rule 5A:18 bars our cons ideration of this question on appeal. Although Rule 5A:18 allows exceptions for good cause or to meet the ends of justice, appellan t does not argue that we should invoke these exceptions. See e.g. , Redman v. Commonwealth , 25 Va. App. 215, 221, 487 S.E.2d 269, 272 (1997) (“In order to avail oneself of the exception, a defendant must affirmatively show that a miscarriage of justice has occurr ed, not that a miscarriage might have occurred.” (emphasis added)). We will not consider, sua sponte , a “miscarriage of justice” argument under Rule 5A:18. Edwards v. Commonwealth , 41 Va. App. 752, 761, 589 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2003) ( en banc ). Accordingly, we summarily affirm th e decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION 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 BioVeris Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel J. Wohlstadter, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                                                                                                      

| Dated: February 6, 2007 | /s/ Samuel J. Wohlstadter            |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                    | Samuel J. Wohlstadter                |
|                    | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

                

 

A signed copy 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.
Exhibit 99.10  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-10 No. 333-178184) of Sprott Physical Silver Trust (the Trust) of our reports dated March 25, 2013, with respect to the financial statements of the Trust for the years ended 2012 and 2011, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in this Annual Report (Form 40-F) of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2012.   /s/   Ernst &Young LLPChartered   AccountantsLicensed   Public AccountantToronto,   CanadaMarch   25, 2013
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Kevin L. Tate, Chief Financial Officer of United National Group, Ltd.
(the Company), hereby 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
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March
31, 2004 (the Form 10-Q), fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: May 14, 2004/s/ Kevin L. TateName: Kevin L. TateTitle: Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1





SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, Richard S. Kahlbaugh , certify that:


1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Fortegra Financial Corporation (Registrant);


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


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


4. The Registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:


(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and


(c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.


5. The Registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.


Date: March 15, 2011/s/ Richard S. KahlbaughRichard S. KahlbaughChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 4.4
                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                              CLAIRE'S STORES, INC.
                             1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN

     THIS  FIRST  AMENDMENT, made effective as of February 16, 2000, by CLAIRE'S

STORES,  INC.  (the  "Company")  to  the CLAIRE'S STORES, INC. 1996 STOCK OPTION

PLAN  (the  "Plan").


                              W I T N E S S E T H:
                          ----------------------------

     WHEREAS,  the  Company  did  establish  the Plan for the sole and exclusive

benefit of its eligible participants and their respective beneficiaries in order

for  the  Company  to  attract, motivate, retain and reward such individuals for

contributing  to  the  success  of  the  Company;  and


     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16 of the Plan, the Company reserved the right
to  amend  said  Plan;


     NOW,  THEREFORE,  effective  as  of  February  16,  2000, the Plan shall be
amended  as  follows:


1.     The  first  sentence  of  Section 3 is hereby amended to read as follows:

     "The  Committee  or  the  Board  may  grant  to Optionees from time to time
     Options  to  purchase an aggregate of up to FOUR MILLION (4,000,000) Shares
     (plus  the  number  of shares unused or recaptured under the Company's 1991
     Stock  Option  Plan)  from  the  Company's authorized and unissued Shares."

2.     In all other respects, the Plan shall remain unchanged by this Amendment.

     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed

the  day  and  year  first  above  written.


                                          CLAIRE'S  STORES,  INC.

                                          By:
                                             ----------------------------------


                                       16
<PAGE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8856 

To protect the constitutional right to trial and discourage imposition of 

extended sentences for defendants who elect to go to trial instead of 

accepting a plea offer, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2024 

Mr. ARMSTRONG (for himself, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mr. BURGESS, Ms. SCANLON, 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, and Mr. TRONE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To protect the constitutional right to trial and discourage 

imposition of extended sentences for defendants who elect 

to go to trial instead of accepting a plea offer, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Right to Trial Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8856 IH

1 SEC. 2. FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION WHEN IMPOSING A 

2 SENTENCE; AUTHORITY TO DEVIATE FROM 

3 STATUTORY MINIMUM. 

4 (a) FACTORS.—Section 3553(a) of title 18, United 

5 States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (5)(B), by striking the period 

7 and inserting a semicolon; 

8 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and 

9 inserting a semicolon; 

10 (3) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and 

11 inserting a semicolon; and 

12 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(8) the need to protect the constitutional right 

14 to a trial, including by prohibiting impairment of 

15 such a right in any case in which an increased sen16 tence is threatened or imposed based on a defend17 ant’s decision to go to trial and not accept a plea 

18 offer; 

19 ‘‘(9) in the case of— 

20 ‘‘(A) crimes involving similarly situated co21 defendants or group conduct, the plea offer, if 

22 applicable, and each sentence (and anticipated 

23 sentence) of any similarly situated codefendant 

24 or similarly situated other person charged in 

25 the same or related offense who pled guilty; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8856 IH

1 ‘‘(B) crimes not involving codefendants or 

2 group conduct, the plea agreements and the 

3 sentences for similarly situated defendants who 

4 pled guilty to similar offenses; and 

5 ‘‘(10) whether imposition of a statutory min6 imum sentence would constitute a penalty for assert7 ing the constitutional right to a trial, thereby war8 ranting imposition of a sentence below the statutory 

9 minimum.’’. 

10 (b) AUTHORITY.—Section 3553(e) of title 18, United 

11 States Code, is amended by inserting after ‘‘committed an 

12 offense.’’ the following: ‘‘The court shall have the author13 ity to impose a sentence below a level established by stat14 ute as a minimum sentence so as to protect the constitu15 tional right to trial.’’ 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS