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

Docket No. FAA- '1 0 b-\ ') '3 ~ Directorate Identifier: DI: 20 15-CE-0 14-AD 

lfyou make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensw·e 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 

Inspect Pins 6.0 $50 2 

I 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1,120 

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) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Replace Pin 0.5 $100 

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) : The OnCondition Costs only include the cost estimate for replacing the two pivot pins on an aircraft. If 

the pivot pin is found cracked or if it does not meet the dimensional check during the Inspection, 

then it is replaced with a new pin. 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? 0 

YES* D N0[8] 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? @ 

YES* D N0[8] 

*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. G 

YES D NO [8] 

Explanation: The AD only affects 2 US registered aircraft. 

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? G 

YES* D NO [8] 

*Explanation:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT FOUND ON PAGE 3 OF THIS PARTNERSHIP'S FORM 10-Q FOR
THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   300
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 245,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              444
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     244,637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   245,081
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,986
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,986
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17


</TABLE>
**Your email address:**  eg. [email protected]
**Your Question (Hit Return after each line):
USDA Economics and Statistics System**
#### Quinnie Perry CHEW v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50462.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 10, 1978.

John C. Webb, Greenville, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Calvin Coolidge Williams, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and SUGG and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., ROBERTSON, P. J., and WALKER, LEE, BOWLING and COF-ER, JJ., concur.
#### S. M. CLAYTON, Sr., Joseph P. Dubeau and Harold E. Koch, Petitioners, v. Sidney SOREL, as City Clerk of the City of Cooper City, Florida, and the City of Cooper City, Florida, a municipal corporation, Respondents.

No. 70-69.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 30, 1970.

Ordered that appellants’ motion for constitutional stay writ, filed January 28, 1970, is hereby denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1849 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1849

             For the relief of Gisele Goldberg Schexnider.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 6, 2005

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             For the relief of Gisele Goldberg Schexnider.

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

SECTION 1. NATURALIZATION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any 
order, Gisele Goldberg Schexnider shall be deemed to have complied with 
all the requirements of chapter 2 of title III of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.) to become a naturalized citizen 
of the United States, including the residency requirement under section 
319 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1430).
    (b) Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance.--The Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall schedule, as soon as practicable, a public ceremony at 
which Gisele Goldberg Schexnider may take the oath of citizenship in 
accordance with section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1448).
    (c) Certificate of Naturalization.--After the oath is taken under 
subsection (b), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide Gisele 
Goldberg Schexnider with a certificate of naturalization in accordance 
with section 338 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1449).
                                 <all>
```
#### Daniel VELAZQUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-837.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 18, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., PEARSON, J., and CRAWFORD, GRADY L. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Johnson v. State,*348 So.2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: ANGEL ROMERO,

Relator. '

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 15

- 00194

- CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator
, Angel Romero
, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the Honorable
Patrick Garcia, Judge of the 384th District Court of El Paso County, Texas . Relator seeks an
order compelling Respondent to modify the certification of defendant’s right to appeal 1 to reflect
that Relator did not voluntarily waive his right to appeal in 2010 when he entered the guilty plea.

We dismiss the mandamus petition for lack of jurisdiction

. Based on the facts alleged in his mandamus petition, Relator entered a negotiated plea of
guilty to multiple felony offenses in 2010
, and the trial court assessed in punishment in
accordance with the plea bargain at imprisonment for twenty years on each count . Relator filed
notice of appeal and the trial c ourt certified that Relator had waived the right to appeal. On
February 23, 2011, we dismissed his appeal because the record reflected that Relator had waived
the right to appeal. Romero v. State , No. 08

- 10

- 00357

- CR, 2011 WL 664688 (Tex.App.

-- El

1 See T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(d).- 2

-

Paso Feb

. 23, 2011, no pet.).
In his mandamus petition, Relator asserts that his waiver of the right to appeal was not
voluntary because he intended to reserve the right to appeal certain pre

- trial rulings

. Relator is
effectively attempting to challenge his final felony convictions. The exclusive remedy available
to Relator is an application for writ of habeas corpus. As an intermediate appellate court, we

ha ve no original habeas jurisdiction in criminal matters. See In re McAfee , 53 S.W.3d 715, 717
(Tex.App.

-- H ouston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). Jurisdiction to grant post

- conviction
habeas corpus relief in felony cases rests exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

See T EX .C ODE C RIM .P ROC .A NN

. art. 11.07, § 3 (West 2015 ). Accordingly, the petition for writ
of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

July 8, 2015 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
#### Arthur M. JOHNSON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50494.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 22, 1978.

John Paul Moore, Starkville, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Catherine W. Underwood, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and WALKER and LEE, JJ.

Affirmed.

INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, BROOM and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Willie HUMPHREY.

No. 60956.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 15, 1978.

John M. Blanchard, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Dist. Atty., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Joseph Roberts, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 9220.

#### Barton *v.*The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago *&*St. Louis Railway Company.

(Decided April 17, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Crawford county. ■

*Messrs. Finley <& Galling er*and *Mr. Chas. Schaber,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Dan Babst, Jr.,*and *Messrs. Cummings & McBride,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

*480Shauck, C. J., Crew, Summers and Davis,. JJ., concur.

Spear, J., dissents.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00535

- CR

Jason David KIMBALL

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR10002

Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED September 11, 2019.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY D. HILL :

: Case No. 4:05-CV-1229

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

: (Judge McClure)

EVELYN DERRICK, :

RICHARD SUTTON, :

JANE STUGART-OTTERBEIN, :

AND LORI CRESSMAN, :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

February 3, 2006

BACKGROUND:

On June 20, 2005, plaintiff Jeffrey D. Hill commenced the instant litigation by

filing a pro se complaint in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The complaint

arises out of plaintiff’s banishment from the Muncy Public Library. On November

3, 2005, we granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, but allowed plaintiff’s

section 1983 claims, liberally construed as alleging violations of the First and

Fourteenth Amendments, to remain against defendants Derrick and Cressman. 

(Order, Rec. Doc. No. 20.)

In our November order we dismissed the claims against defendant Richard

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 47 Filed 02/03/06 Page 1 of 3
2

Sutton. Now before the court is Hill’s January 27, 2006 motion to reconsider our

decision to dismiss the claims against Sutton. For the following reasons we will

deny Hill’s motion.

DISCUSSION:

First, we agree with defendants that Hill failed to comply with Local Rule

7.10, which requires any motion for reconsideration or reargument to be filed within

ten days after entry of the contested order. Second, even if Hill’s motion were

timely we would deny it on the merits. As noted in the November order, Hill

cannot succeed on a claim against Sutton for failure to adequately investigate and

his allegations of a conspiracy were conclusory. (Rec. Doc. No. 20, at 7-8.) We

also noted in our order dismissing the claims against Sutton that although Hill

asserts that Sutton directed subordinates to arrest him, Hill was not arrested and

criminal charges were not filed against him. (Id. at 7. n.2.) Thus, Hill’s recent

motion to reconsider our November order would fail on the merits even if it were

timely.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Hill’s pro-se motion “Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate Richard Sutton as a

Defendant” construed as a motion to reconsider our November 3, 2005 order

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 47 Filed 02/03/06 Page 2 of 3
3

dismissing claims against defendant Richard Sutton is denied as untimely under

L.R. 7.10. (Rec. Doc. No. 42.)

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01229-JFM Document 47 Filed 02/03/06 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22762]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-398-001]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 21, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 13, 1997, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National Fuel) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in 
Appendix A to the filing, to be effective August 1, 1997.
    National Fuel states that the purpose of this filing is to comply 
with the Commission's letter order issued July 29, 1997, in Docket No. 
RP97-398-000.
    National Fuel states that it is serving copies of the filing with 
its firm customers, interested state commissions and each party 
designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary. 
National Fuel also states that its copies are also being served on all 
interruptible customers.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22762 Filed 8-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

P. O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, California 95812 

February 5, 2002 

ARB Staff Rule Review Results 

To: Mr. Steven Moore, Senior Engineer 

 San Diego County Air Pollution Control District 

 Telephone Number: (858) 650-4598 

 e-mail: Steve.Mooore@sdcounty.ca.gov 

From: Alex Krichevsky, (916) 324-6222 

e-mail: akrichev@arb.ca.gov 

The following rule, which was amended at a public hearing held by your District Board 

on December 21, 2001, was received by us on January 9, 2002, for our review: 

Rule 67 Architectural Coatings 

The Air Resources Board staff has reviewed the rule and, based on the information 

available to us at this time, we have no comments. 

The rule was examined by the Stationary Source Division, the Compliance Division, the 

Monitoring and Laboratory Division, and the Office of Legal Affairs. 

If you have any questions, please contact me by e-mail or at the telephone number 

above.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2126
RICHARD E. SNYDER; MARION B. SNYDER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. On Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 97-24568) Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 3, 2008 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Snyder and Marion B. Snyder, Appellants Pro Se. Thomas J. Clark, Bethany Buck Hauser, John Schumann, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Richard E. Snyder and Marion B. Snyder appeal from the tax court’s order determining the Snyders’ income tax liability and penalties for 1988 and 1989, and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. See Snyder v. Internal Revenue Serv. , Tax Ct. No. 97-24568 (U.S.T.C. May 11, 2007 & June 11, 2007). 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
#### Robert C. WATTS, Appellant v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-404.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 14, 1971.

Kenneth Deacon, Jr., of Harris, Barrett & Dew, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

HOBSON, Judge.

This is an appeal seeking review of an order sentencing appellant to two years of probation. The parties will be referred to here as they were below.

Defendant was found guilty by jury verdict of willfully and maliciously setting fire to two dwelling houses which were rental apartments and an abandoned shop which was being readied for similar use. Having moved for a new trial or in the alternative, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which were both denied by the trial court, defendant now alleges on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury verdict of guilty and the sentence thereon. It would serve no useful purpose to enumerate the voluminous facts adduced at the trial.

The State bases its case entirely on circumstantial evidence. The law concerning the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence is stated in Davis v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 629, 631-632, to the effect that:

> “Evidence which furnishes nothing stronger than a suspicion, even though it would tend to justify the suspicion that the defendant committed the crime, it is not sufficient to sustain conviction. It is the actual exclusion of the hypothesis of innocence which clothes circumstantial evidence with the force of proof sufficient to convict. Circumstantial evidence which leaves uncertain several hypotheses, any one of which may be sound and some of which may be entirely consistent with innocence, is not adequate to sustain a verdict of guilt. Even though the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to suggest a probability of guilt, it is not thereby adequate to support a conviction if it is likewise consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”

It is our opinion, after a thorough review of the record on appeal, that the circumstantial evidence, although sufficient to suggest the probability of defendant’s guilt, is also consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Therefore, the conviction cannot stand.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

LILES, A. C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
#### William O. HUDSPETH v. James A. WYSOCKI.

No. 60078.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 2, 1977.

In re: James A. Wysocki applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. Judgment not final.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23664]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2222]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceedings

September 2, 1997.
    Petition for reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's 
rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this document is 
available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to this petition must 
be filed September 23, 1997. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's 
rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 
10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.
    Subject: Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the 
Existing Television Broadcast Service. (MM Docket No. 87-268).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 62.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23664 Filed 9-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47694-47695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23990]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (97-136)]


Agency Information Collection: Submission for OMB Review, Comment 
Request

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following 
proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before 
October 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Mr. Richard Kall, Code 
HK

[[Page 47695]]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Carmela Simonson, Office of the Chief Information Officer, (202) 
358-1223.
    Title: NASA acquisition process, bids and proposals for contracts 
with an estimated value more than $500,000.
    OMB Number: 2700-0085.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Need and Uses: Information collection is required to evaluate bids 
and proposals from offerors in order to award contracts for required 
goods and services in support of NASA's mission.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 590.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Estimated Annual Responses: 590.
    Estimated Hours Per Request: 1,220.
    Estimatd Annual Burden Hours: 719,800.
    Frequency of Report: On occasion.
Donald J. Andreotta,
Deputy Chief Information Officer (Operations) Office of the 
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-23990 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M