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

Docket No. FAA-2015-3990 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-225-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 oncondition costs here

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

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection of 

Connectors 5.0 $ 425.00 $0 $ 425.00 7 $2,975.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,975

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 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? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
|EXHIBIT 23.0


INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS CONSENT


The Board of Directors
and StockholdersCPI Corp.:


We consent to the incorporation by
reference in registration statements No. 333-08634, No. 333-08636, and No. 333-64296, on
Forms S-8 of CPI Corp. of our report dated April 8, 2004, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of CPI Corp. and subsidiaries as of February 7, 2004 and February 1, 2003
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
February 7, 2004, which report appears in the February 7, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K
of CPI Corp.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|/s/ KPMG LLP 

KPMG
LLP
|--------------------------------

|St. Louis, Missouri
April 8, 2004
|---------------------------------
Exhibit 31.1

Certification Under Section 302

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Peter W. Knitt, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PSB Holdings, Inc. (the 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)) for the registrant and we 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 most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



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 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:  August 14, 2006

PETER W. KNITT

Peter W. Knitt

President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2011291EN.01000101.xml

| 4.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/1

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

1,50 % on 1 October 2011

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

3 October 2011

2011/C 291/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3327 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 102,39 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4423 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85960 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1592 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2140 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8260 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,878 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 294,50 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7092 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3815 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3001 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4885 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3838 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3967 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3801 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7516 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7488 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 574,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,8153 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,4973 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5038 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 857,04 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2753 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,610 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,2470 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,594 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5224 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,5179 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,5160 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3327

JPY

Japanese yen

102,39

DKK

Danish krone

7,4423

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85960

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1592

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2140

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8260

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,878

HUF

Hungarian forint

294,50

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7092

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3815

RON

Romanian leu

4,3001

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4885

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3838

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3967

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3801

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7516

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7488

KRW

South Korean won

1 574,50

ZAR

South African rand

10,8153

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,4973

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5038

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 857,04

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2753

PHP

Philippine peso

58,610

RUB

Russian rouble

43,2470

THB

Thai baht

41,594

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5224

MXN

Mexican peso

18,5179

INR

Indian rupee

65,5160

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source:

---
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-74400, 333-08689, 333-72139,
333-44612, 333-49954 and 333-49956) and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-02969, 333-31349 and 333-62621) of our report dated August 5, 2003, except
for Note 5 for which the date is September 18, 2003 and Note 13 for which the date is September 8, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appear in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

|                                           |  | 
|------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP              |  | 
|Los Angeles, California
September 24, 2003 |  | 

---

QuickLinks
# C_2012204EN.01000201.xml

| 12.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 July 2012

2012/C 204/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2260 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 97,14 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4363 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78815 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,5384 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2010 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,4745 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,395 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 288,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1697 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5255 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2191 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,1953 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2493 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5070 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5369 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5499 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 398,56 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,0655 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7828 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4858 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 558,92 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,8944 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,288 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,2341 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,864 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4899 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,3330 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,2000 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2260

JPY

Japanese yen

97,14

DKK

Danish krone

7,4363

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78815

SEK

Swedish krona

8,5384

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2010

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,4745

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,395

HUF

Hungarian forint

288,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1697

RON

Romanian leu

4,5255

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2191

AUD

Australian dollar

1,1953

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2493

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5070

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5369

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5499

KRW

South Korean won

1 398,56

ZAR

South African rand

10,0655

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7828

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4858

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 558,92

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,8944

PHP

Philippine peso

51,288

RUB

Russian rouble

40,2341

THB

Thai baht

38,864

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4899

MXN

Mexican peso

16,3330

INR

Indian rupee

68,2000

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-03201, 333-71631, 333-75187, 333-75189 and 333-118033 of Courier Corporation on Form S-8 of our report, dated December 3, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Courier Corporation for the year ended September 25, 2004.

 

 
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |
| Boston, Massachusetts         |
| December 3, 2004         |
# C_2012226EN.01000102.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6587 — Molson Coors/StarBev)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 226/02

On 6 June 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6587. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6587. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________
No. 98-41590

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATRICK BOUVIER WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:98-CR-11-ALL)

_________________________________________________________________ July 19, 1999

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Patrick Bouvier Washington appeals his sentence, following a

guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(a).

First, Washington contests his U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction of

justice enhancement, a factual finding we review only for clear

error. E.g. , United States v. Upton , 91 F.3d 677, 687 (5th Cir.

1996). We find none, given Washington’s refusal to provide a

handwriting exemplar even in the face of a grand-jury subpoena and

court order. Other circuits have found such refusal to constitute

§ 3C1.1 obstruction of justice. See United States v. Valdez
, 16

F.3d 1324, 1335 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied
, 513 U.S. 810 (1994);- 2 -

United States v. Ruth
, 65 F.3d 599, 608 (7th Cir. 1995); United

States v. Reyes , 908 F.2d 281, 290 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied
,

499 U.S. 908 (1991); U nited States v. Taylor
, 88 F.3d 938, 943-44

(11th Cir. 1996); cf. Upton , 91 F.3d at 688 (refusal under grand

jury subpoena to produce business records warra nts § 3C1.1

enhancement).

Second, Washin gton challenges the denial of a § 3E1.1

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, a determinati on reviewed

“even more deferential[ly] than a pure ‘clearly erroneous’

standard”, United States v. Gonzales
, 19 F.3d 982, 983 (5th Cir.

1994), and on which the defendant has the burden of proof, United

States v. Tremelling
, 43 F.3d 148, 152 (5th Cir. 1995). We find no

reversible error, given Washington’s obstruction of justice,

failure to plead guilty until a jury was impaneled, and denial of

relevant conduct described in his Presentence Report. S ee § 3E1.1,

application note 4 (obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 normally

shows lack of acceptance of responsibility); id.
, application note
3 (guilty pleas prior to trial show acceptance of responsibility,

and failure to admit relevant conduct shows lack of acceptance).

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 7, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30028 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaint iffAppellee,

versus STEVEN JOSEPH GUIDRY,

DefendantAppellant.

---------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:04-CR-60049

--------------------------------------------------------- Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Steven Joseph Guidry was convicted following a guilty plea to one count of possessing stolen
firearms, in

vio lat io n of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). He argues that the district court erred by imposing a

sentence under a mandatory federal sentencing guideline sc heme, which was held to be

unconstitutional in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The Government concedes that-2-

the issue was preserved in the district court, that the district court committed error, and that it cannot

prove that the error was ha r mless. In light of the foregoing, we VACATE the district court’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing in accordance with Booker

.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB09-CR.15R   **REVISED** **Contact:**  Samantha O'Neil
Public Information Office
(301) 763-3030 (phone)
(301) 763-3762 (fax)
(301) 457-1037 (TDD)PIO@census.gov
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  WEDNESDAY, DEC. 30, 2009 Media Advisory — National 2010 Census Road Tour Launches in New York City Traveling for a total of 1,547 days and more than 150,000 miles across the country, 13 road tour vehicles will provide the public with an educational, engaging and interactive experience that brings the 2010 Census to life. Beginning at New York City's Times Square, and at each event across the country, attendees will have the opportunity to learn about the 2010 Census and understand the benefits a complete count can bring to communities everywhere; view a sample 2010 Census form and learn how the collected information is used; and contribute stories and photos to the Portrait of America project to explain why "I count!" and view messages from other Road Tour participants.
  Monday, Jan. 4, 12:30 to 1 p.m. (EST) - Press Conference
  Monday, Jan. 4, 1 to 6 p.m. (EST) - Public Event
  Michael R. Bloomberg, mayor, City of New York
  For more information about the 2010 Census and the Road Tour, please visit 2010census.gov and follow 
us on Twitter (@2010Portrait), Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
No. 11421.

#### Risiden *v.*Rau, Exrx.

Decided December 21, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. Stanley Matthews*and *Messrs. Burch, Peters & Matthews,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Cormany & 'Cormany*and *Mr. John J. Gasser,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed, the order to which error was prosecuted not being a final order within the meaning of Section 6707, Revised Statutes, and this cause is remanded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings according to law.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00422-CV

Jeffrey T. Hanson, Appellant

v.

NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 1, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 2, LLC;

NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 3, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 4, LLC;

NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 5, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 7, LLC; 

NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 10, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 11, LLC; 

NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 12, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 13, LLC; 

NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 17, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 18, LLC; 

NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 19, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 20, LLC; 

NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 21, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 22, LLC; 

NNN 1 & 2 Met Center 23, LLC, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-12-002595, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Jeffrey T. Hansen has filed a motion to reinstate this appeal. Appellees

oppose the motion and have informed the Court that settlement negotiations have resulted in a

prospective settlement agreement approved byall keyparties that, if finalized, will moot this appeal. 

We deny the motion to reinstate and abate the appeal until May 2, 2014. All appellate deadlines will

be tolled during the period of abatement. The parties shall submit either a motion to reinstate or a

joint status report concerning the status of settlement negotiations no later than May 2, 2014.
_____________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field

Abated

Filed: April 4, 2014

2