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

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 3629 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 011

- - 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 ou t 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

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 / h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### SB modification 12 .0 $ 1,020.0

0 

### 801 $ 1,821.00 

### 778 $ 1,416,738.0

0

$ 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: $ 1,416,738



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/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:

Regulatory Flexibility Act :

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain 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 

### :
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Walter DAVIS.

No. 61726.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: Walter Davis applying for supervisory writs. Orleans Parish.

Denied.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 24.3

POWER OF ATTORNEY
DANIEL B. WARD

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, Daniel B. Ward
constitutes and appoints David T. Howard or Steven H. Moger his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, for him and his name, place and stead, in any and
all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB of Nutraceutix, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, and any amendments or
supplements thereto, and to file this Power of Attorney and the Form 10-KSB with
all exhibits thereto, and to the documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the NASDAQ National Market System,
granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and
perform each requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as
fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, may do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         Dated this 23rd day of March, 2002.

Signature:



/s/ Daniel B. Ward
-------------------------
Daniel B. Ward
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.6


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (333-01574,333-12789 and 333-24581); Form S-3 
(333-10383 and 333-14025); Form S-4 (333-13133); and Post-Effective Amendment 
No. 1 to Form S-4 on Form S-8 (333-36463) of our reports dated March 6, 1996 
and March 4, 1996 with respect to the financial statements of United Envelope 
Co., Inc. and its affiliate, Rex Envelope Co., Inc., and Huxley Envelope 
Corporation, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 1995, which 
reports appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of U.S. Office Products 
Company.


/s/ Hertz, Herson & Company, LLP
--------------------------------
HERTZ, HERSON & COMPANY, LLP
New York, New York
July 20, 1998
#### Jose Arango HOED, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-687.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1971.

.Carr & Warren, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Alan M. Medof, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals from a final judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty on one count of grand larceny. The appellant contends that the information was insufficient to charge him with the essential elements of the crime of larceny by false pretenses. A review of the information and the cases cited does not demonstrate clearly that the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the information on this ground. See Anglin v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 918; Gaynor v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 196 So.2d 19; and § 811.021(5), Fla. Stat., F.S.A.

'The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. We have reviewed the record and find that there was sufficient, competent and substantial evidence upon which the trial court could adjudicate the defendant guilty of the crime as charged in the information. See Hoover v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 95; and Pabst v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So.2d 329.

The final judgment is

Affirmed.
---

Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR


RULE
15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the annual report of Rick’s Cabaret International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric S.
Langan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec.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.





Date:
      December 17, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      Eric S. LanganEric
      S. LanganChief
      Executive Officer
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02402**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 02402\02402_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 02402\02402_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 02402\02402_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 02402\02402_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02402\02402_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02402\02402_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02402\02402_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02402\02402_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 02402\Certification Statement Plant ID 02402.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 02402\Supplemental Documents\02402_A5.2 MAP-1_PlantBoundary.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02402\Supplemental Documents\02402_A5.2 MAP-2_PlantAerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02402\Supplemental Documents\02402_A5.3 WB-1 HARDIN 02402.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 02402\Supplemental Documents\02402_C2.31 Fly Ash Block Diag 02402.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02402\Supplemental Documents\02402_C3.36 BottomAsh Block Diag 02402.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE  FISCAL  YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER  31,  1999,  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  193,012
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               338,699
<PP&E>                                          49,145
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 403,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,242,157
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,002
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,854,805)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   403,354
<SALES>                                      3,335,912
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,335,912
<CGS>                                        2,467,872
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,467,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,870,152
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           (1,002,112)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (683,616)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,893,357)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,893,357)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                595,399
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,297,958)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)




</TABLE>
261 La. 1041

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James Douglas SIMMONS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52390.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 1972.

In re: James Douglas Simmons applying for remedial writs.

Writ denied. Treating this attempted appeal as an application for writs we find no error in the ruling of the trial judge. See written reasons for judgment assigned by the trial judge.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Benihana Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended March 27, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joel A. Schwartz,
President and 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 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.


 /s/ Joel A. Schwartz
--------------------------
 Joel A. Schwartz
 President and
 Chief Executive Officer

 June 24, 2005



                                       60
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each
of the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Florida Rock Industries, Inc.


                                JOHN D. BAKER, II
                                John D. Baker, II
                                 President and Chief Executive
                                 Officer


                                JOHN D. MILTON, JR.
                                John D. Milton, Jr.
                                 Executive Vice President,
                                 Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                 Officer


                                WALLACE A. PATZKE, JR.
                                Wallace A. Patzke, Jr.
                                    Vice President, Controller
                                    and Chief Accounting Officer

	A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Florida Rock Industries, Inc., and will
be retained by Florida Rock Industries, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

   The foregoing certification accompanies the issuer's Quarterly
   Report on Form 10-Q and is not filed as provided in SEC Release
   Nos. 33-8212, 34-4751 and IC-25967, dated June 30, 2006.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001013844
<NAME>                        Colonial Realty Limited Partnership
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Currency


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1.000
<CASH>                            1,817,543
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     2,108,149
<ALLOWANCES>                         24,229
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                          778,955,846
<DEPRECIATION>                   89,781,230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  792,187,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0
<BONDS>                         354,885,585
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                      414,288,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    792,187,604
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 61,431,459
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    32,908,867
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    333,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               10,230,852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              18,624,878
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     478,240
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     18,146,638
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .72





</TABLE>
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-15-0221 SAT Date: 2/6/2015 Print Date: 4/1/2015
Related cases : Yes Health related cases: Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 1 1 PMN 3 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Hyd Pdt neg Keywords : Keywords: ONCO (UNCERT); SENS-L,S; IRR-L,M Summary of Assessment : Fate : Fate Summary: P-15-0221 FATE: MW = 1184 with 2.49% < 500 and 43.07% < 1000 Solid S = Reacts Hydrolysis half-life = hr-da VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = PMN 90-99 via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Hyd Pdt > moSorption to soils/sediments = Hyd Pdt v.strong PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P3B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = Hyd Pdt negl
Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil as neat all routes and poor in solution all routes for the low molecular weight (LMW) components ( p che m ). Irritation and sensitization to the skin and lungs is expected for the LMW components. Marginal expectation of oncogenicity for the LMW components.
Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments
fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value * algal

_ chronic value * Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions for the reaction products are based on SARs for N onionic Polymers- N CO; SAR chemical class = N onionic Polyme r - N CO; MW 1184; liquid with unknown mp (P); S reacts at 25 C; p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;
Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *
SARs N onionic Polymers- N CO SAR Class N onionic Polymers- N CO Ecotox Category N onionic Polymers
Ecotox Factors Comments: SAT Chair:
MEMORANDUM

To: expartecommunications@hq.doe.gov

From: Douglas Johnson

Date: June 19, 2012

Re: Docket No. EERE– 2008–BT–STD–0005, RIN 1904–AB57

Ex parte communication

Department of Energy

Meeting of June 13, 2012

This memorandum for the record provides a summary of a June 13, 2012, meeting with U.S. 

Department of Energy staff concerning DOE’s proposed rulemaking regarding amended energy 

conservation standards for Class A external power supplies (EPSs) and new energy conservation 

standards for non-Class A EPSs and battery chargers.

Meeting attendees:

John Cymbalsky (DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy)

Jeremy Dommu (DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy)

Daniel Cohen (DOE Office of General Counsel)

Michael Kito (DOE Office of General Counsel)

Douglas Johnson (Consumer Electronics Association)

Bill Chamberlain (Cobra Electronics)

Ric Erdheim (Philips Electronics)

Holly Evans (Canon)

John Hodges (Motorola Mobility)

Aya Kiy (Research In Motion)

Ted Marks (JVC)

Jennifer Mulveny (HP)

Jim Morgan (Sony)

Mark Sharp (Panasonic)

Steve Whitaker (Bose)

Rachel Wolkowitz (Microsoft)

The parties discussed the written comments submitted by the Consumer Electronics Association to 

the DOE on May 29, 2012, which are included in the DOE’s Docket No. EERE– 2008–BT–STD–

0005, RIN 1904–AB57.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 27, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 27, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0205. DAVID M. TYER, JR v. ELVIRA M. TYER.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2015SUCV366
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7833 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7833

To authorize the Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study for 
the project for comprehensive watershed study, Tuscarawas River Basin, 
                                 Ohio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2020

Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study for 
the project for comprehensive watershed study, Tuscarawas River Basin, 
                                 Ohio.

    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 ``Tuscarawas River Flooding Study 
Act''.

SEC. 2. TUSCARAWAS RIVER BASIN, OHIO.

    The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
is authorized to conduct a feasibility study for the project for 
comprehensive watershed study, Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio.
                                 <all>
```
#### Charles Calandra, Plaintiff, *v.*James P. Wucher, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

September 4, 1952.

*Jerome Kern*for plaintiff.

*William 8. O’Connor*and *David C. Daland*for defendant.

Stoddart, J.

Two motions.

These motions involve rule 121-a of the Buies of Civil Practice. The defendant simultaneously with the service of his answer served a notice of examination to take the plaintiff’s testimony thirty-seven days later. The day following receipt of the answer, the plaintiff served a notice to take the defendant’s testimony thirteen days after the date of the notice — or twenty-three days prior to the examination date provided in the defendant’s notice.

The defendant urges that the plaintiff may not have an examination prior to the defendant’s, but that both examinations must be held on the same date with the defendant’s examination *523of the plaintiff to be held first because he served his notice first.

The plaintiff contends (1) that a notice of examination served with the answer is served prematurely for rule 121-a provides that the notice be served “ at any time *after*service of an answer ” (emphasis supplied) and (2) that the defendant’s testimony need not be taken by the plaintiff on a date selected by the defendant.

I am inclined to agree with the plaintiff that service of the notice with the answer is premature. It would he possible under such practice for defendants to have absolute priority in their examinations and that certainly could not have been intended by the Justices of the Appellate Division. Moreover, assuming a notice is served after the answer, I do not believe the party named therein is required to examine the party serving the notice on the same date. It might he that it would be inconvenient for the party first examined to conduct an examination of his adversary at that time. I believe it was merely intended that a party who was to be examined could if he so desired have an examination of Ms opponent at the same time upon five days’ notice. Here the defendant’s notice provided for an examination thirty-seven days after service of said notice. It would be unreasonable to make the plaintiff wait thirty-seven days or any other lengthy period. Likewise, it would he unreasonable to hold that a party was barred from examining his opponent merely because he was not ready to proceed or did not realize the necessity for an examination until his own examination had been held.

Accordingly, I hold (1) that the defendant’s notice was served prematurely; (2) that the examinations shall he held on September 18, 1952, or some date agreeable to counsel, with the plaintiff’s examination of the defendant to he held first.

Settle orders on notice.