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

# I I


## \._ Regulatory Evaluation Docket No. 

### FAA- Directorate Identifier: 

### -AD

lfyuu mak e changes tu tile values in tile tablt! below.you must ensure thr! rotals update accordingly. 

## fl rhr?y 

### do not. click (or Tah) into and

### then out q(the 

### changedcl!l!. 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 Section 

### 41 Hole installation and 24.0 $664 ' 

### 3

**'-..~** I Bonded Plug, Change Section 

### 43 Bonded 26.0 $948 ·. I 

### 3 Plug, Change Section 

### 46 Bonded 26.0 $1,236 

### 3 Plug, Change Section 

### 47 Bonded 24.0 $618 

### 3 

### ' Plug, Change

**......-----~** 

# v 

# - ,k7l' / ? 

### JJ// 

## \ ( 

### /UV ) 

# "- -/7 0\:.::> I I 

# - ··

# . . , ; 

### ' ' l' I ·' 

### ' l ' ' .· 

# ,, ' . 

### '

I ,•if c ·'

., J '. '. ( ; f· > \ ' The known number ofproducts in compliance: 

### 0 Total Costs ofcompliance for U.S. fleet: $35,898 Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ On-Condition Costs: 

# Q Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (include access, (@$85/hour) (e.g., Inspection, testing, and close-

replacement) up)

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfield can also be usedto explain warranty costs): 

### Executive Order 12866:

**~** 

### Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory

**action"?~** 

### *Explanation: n/a 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and P•·ocedures: Is the AD significant?

# •

**"** 

### *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: YES* 

# 0 NO 

### [gj

YES* 

# 0 NO 

# lZJ
Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities? Explain for either a Yes orNo answer.



# ~ YES 

# 0 NO

# lZJ 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 oftransportation?



# ~ YES* 

# 0 NO 

# lZJ *Explanation:
# Hart - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Hartwell, GA: Digging into Downtown Revitalization   Building Appalachia’s infrastructure has been an ARC investment priority for 58 years, especially the development and maintenance of basic infrastructure systems for water, sewer, energy, highways, and more. ARC’s Area Development Program invested $66.8 million in water and sewer projects alone in Fiscal Year 2022. When thinking about economic growth, however, it can be difficult to [&#8230;]The post Hartwell, GA: Digging into Downtown Revitalization   appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Georgia Mountains Regional Commission Executive Director Heather Feldman Email &#x68;f&#x65;&#108;&#x64;&#x6d;a&#x6e;&#64;&#x67;&#x6d;r&#x63;&#46;&#x67;&#x61;&#46;&#x67;&#111;&#x76;The post Georgia Mountains Regional Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
# C_2008209EN.01006702.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/67

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008 — Vakakis v Commission

(Case T-41/08) (1)

1

(2008/C 209/121)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

1

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4791 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to establish requirements for salaries, 

financial disclosures, and office staff of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2018 

Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to establish requirements 

for salaries, financial disclosures, and office staff of the 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 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 ‘‘Federal Reserve Dis5 closure Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4791 IH

1 SEC. 2. SALARIES, FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, AND OFFICE 

2 STAFF OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF 

3 THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 11 of the Federal Reserve 

5 Act (12 U.S.C. 248) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating the second subsection (s) 

7 (relating to ‘‘Assessments, Fees, and Other Charges 

8 for Certain Companies’’) as subsection (t); and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub10 sections: 

11 ‘‘(u) PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED FINANCIAL IN12 TERESTS AND TRANSACTIONS.—The members and em13 ployees of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

14 System shall be subject to the provisions under section 

15 4401.102 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, to the 

16 same extent as such provisions apply to an employee of 

17 the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

18 ‘‘(v) DISCLOSURE OF STAFF SALARIES AND FINAN19 CIAL INFORMATION.—The Board of Governors of the Fed20 eral Reserve System shall make publicly available, on the 

21 website of the Board of Governors, a searchable database 

22 that contains the names of all members, officers, and em23 ployees of the Board of Governors who receive an annual 

24 salary in excess of the annual rate of basic pay for GS– 

25 15 of the General Schedule, and— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4791 IH

1 ‘‘(1) the yearly salary information for such indi2 viduals, along with any nonsalary compensation re3 ceived by such individuals; and 

4 ‘‘(2) any financial disclosures required to be 

5 made by such individuals.’’. 

6 (b) OFFICE STAFF FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE

7 BOARD OF GOVERNORS.—Subsection (l) of section 11 of 

8 the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248) is amended by 

9 adding at the end the following: ‘‘Each member of the 

10 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may 

11 employ, at a minimum, 2 individuals, with such individuals 

12 selected by such member and the salaries of such individ13 uals set by such member. A member may employ addi14 tional individuals as determined necessary by the Board 

15 of Governors.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 16

- 00725

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF E .S.R., JR. , a Child From the 438th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015

- PA

- 02014 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Delivered and Filed: January 11, 2017
DIS MISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION From our initial review of the record it appeared that a ppellant attempts to appeal the trial
court’s order of termination of parental rights

. An appeal from such an order is accelerated. T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § 109.002 (West 2014). The trial court signed the order of termination on June 23, 2016. Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice of app eal was due July 13, 2016. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1(b). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on July 28, 2016. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P . 26.3. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner ,04

- 16

- 00725

- CV

- 2

- 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the prede cessor to Rule 26). But “ once the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction. ” Id. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal on November 3, 2016. It thus appears that neither document was filed within the time allowed for filing a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. Therefore, on December 2, 2016 , this c ourt ordered appellan t to show cause in writing by December 17 , 2016, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond. It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mr. ELLISON led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________
```
Order entered August 18, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 21

- 00467

- CR

JULIO CESAR SOTO

- GALVAN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 3 54th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 32930CR

O RDER

Before the Court is the August 16, 2021 request of official court reporter

Shannon N. Sudderth for an additional twenty days to file the report er ’ s record. In

her request, Ms. Sud derth states the record is due A u gu st 16, 2021. Because a

ti mely motion for new tri al was filed, the record is due on October 15, 2021. In

light of this, we DENY the request as premature.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
CORRECTED OPINION

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6907

CLARENCE T. FOX, JR.; GERALDINE C. FOX,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; HARLEY G. LAPPIN;

JIM RALPH; STEPHEN M. DEWALT; LAURENE SHARPE,

Case Manager; GRETCHEN ROBINSON; PHILLIP

CLARK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-04-152-5-H)

Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004

Corrected Opinion Filed: November 4, 2004 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence T. Fox, Jr., Geraldine C. Fox, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Geraldine and Clarence Fox appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing their civil rights suit as frivolous and denying

their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, as to Clarence Fox, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Fox v.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. CA-04-152-5-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 31 &

May 27, 2004). As to Geraldine Fox, we agree that her claim is

frivolous for the reasons stated by the district court; however, we

affirm the dismissal of her claim as modified to reflect that the

dismissal should have been under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

(2000). We deny Geraldine Fox’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. 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
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: PIETRO PASQUALE ANTONIO SGROMO,

Petitioner

______________________

2020-107

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:19-

cv-00060-JRG-RSP, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Pietro Pasquale Antonio Sgromo petitions for a writ of 

mandamus to compel the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Texas to reverse its dismissal of the 

case and grant injunctive and other relief. 

Mr. Sgromo filed a complaint in the district court, alleging, inter alia, infringement of two patents and one 

trademark. On September 25, 2019, the district court entered judgment dismissing the case. On October 23, 2019, 

Mr. Sgromo filed this petition in the district court.

Mandamus is not available to Mr. Sgromo because he 

could have obtained review of the district court’s decision 

Case: 20-107 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2020
2 IN RE: SGROMO

through direct appeal. See In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331 

(1907) (“[M]andamus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal.”). However, we may construe a petition 

as a notice of appeal if filed within the filing deadline. 

Those are the circumstances here. We therefore construe 

the petition as a timely notice of appeal and direct the clerk 

to docket the appeal in the usual course.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied because 

the matter is treated as a timely notice of appeal. The clerk 

is directed to docket the case as an appeal.

 FOR THE COURT

 January 31, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

s28

Case: 20-107 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2020
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 4, 2015

Order 

November 4, 2015

152025(20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

JAMES SCOTT NEWMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 152025

COA: 327000

Livingston CC: 14-021983-FC; 

14-021984-FC

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to file a 

supplemental brief in support of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim only is 

GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or 

before November 25, 2015.
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 IVI Communications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, 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.



Date: August 14, 2004                    /s/ Nyhl Henson
                                           -------------------------
                                           Nyhl Henson, Chief Executive Officer







                                       42
<PAGE>
Termination Agreement - Roman Briskin



 






	 	 	 	 	 



EXHIBIT 10.2




TERMINATION AGREEMENT





     This Termination Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the 31st
day of March, 2005 (“Effective Date”), by and between AESP, Inc., f/k/a Advanced Electronic Support
Products, Inc. (“AESP”), a Florida corporation, and Roman Briskin (“Briskin”).



     WHEREAS, AESP and Briskin are parties to that certain Employment Agreement, dated February 19,
1997 (“Employment Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, AESP and Briskin have agreed that the Employment Agreement shall be terminated
effective as of the Effective Date; and



     WHEREAS, notwithstanding the termination of the Employment Agreement, Briskin shall continue
as an at-will employee of AESP following the Effective Date.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as follows:




	1.    	The Employment Agreement is hereby terminated, effective as of the Effective Date. As of such
date, the parties hereby release each other from any and all obligations under the Employment
Agreement.






	2.    	Notwithstanding the termination of the Employment Agreement pursuant to this Agreement,
following the Effective Date Briskin shall continue to serve as an at-will employee of AESP.
In that regard, and subject to such future determinations with respect to Briskin’s
compensation as may be made by the Board of Directors of AESP, Briskin shall continue to earn
his current annual base salary of $198,000 per annum, shall continue to receive an automobile
allowance of $500 per month and shall continue to participate in the benefit plans of the
Company in which he currently participates. Further, notwithstanding the termination of the
Employment Agreement, Briskin shall continue to hold the Company stock options that he
currently holds, all in accordance with the terms of the agreements with respect to such
options.






	3.    	Notwithstanding the termination of the Employment Agreement pursuant to this Agreement,
following the Effective Date, AESP shall continue to indemnify Briskin with respect to his
actions as an officer and director of AESP to the fullest extent provided by law, as more
particularly set forth in AESP’s articles of incorporation and by-laws.






	4.    	This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties in respect of its subject
matter and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings (oral or written) between or
among the parties with respect to such subject matter.






	5.  	The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the
parties and their respective successors and assigns.




 









 











     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above
written.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	                                         /s/ Roman Briskin
 	 
	 	Roman Briskin 	 
	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	AESP, INC., a Florida corporation

 	 
	 	BY: /s/ John F. Wilkens
 	 
	 	Name (print):  John F. Wilkens 	 
	 	Title:  	Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.0

CERTIFICATIONS OF  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Louis R. Bucalo, M.D., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



Signed
at the City of South San Francisco, in the State of California, this 31st day of March, 2003.

| |  | /s/LOUIS R. BUCALOLouis R. Bucalo, M.D.
| |  | ---------------------------------------

In
connection with the Annual Report of Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. Farrell, J.D., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



Signed
at the City of South San Francisco, in the State of California, this 31st day of March, 2003.

| |  | /s/ROBERT E. FARRELLRobert E. Farrell, J.D.
| |  | -------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6392

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CYRUS JONATHAN GEORGE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-78) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 7, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cyrus Jonathan George, Appellant Pro Se. William David Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 2 PER CURIAM:Cyrus Jonathan George appeals the district court’s order denying his request for Brady* material. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find, that to the extent the order is reviewable, cf. North Carolina Ass’n of Black Lawyers v. North Carolina Bd. of Law Examiners , 538 F.2d 547 (4th Cir. 1976), the denial of the motion was not erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See United States v. George , No. CR-90- 78 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 3, 1998); see also Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. We also deny George’s motion to consolidate this appeal with his earlier appeal in United States v. George , No. 98-6148 (4th Cir. June 23, 1998) (unpublished), because this court’s opinion in the earlier appeal has already been filed.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23(b)



                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
The Beard Company:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-85936, 33-87110, 33-98482, and 333-06757) on Form S-8 of The Beard Company
of our report dated April 7, 2000, except as to the last paragraph of note 1
which is as of August 31, 2001, relating to the statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and cash flows of The Beard Company and subsidiaries for
the year ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in the December 31, 2001
annual report on Form 10-K of The Beard Company.


                                                  KPMG LLP

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
April 11, 2002
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00759-CV

Cathy Brigham, Appellant

v.

Akbar Amin-Akbari, and 11907 Rennalee Loop, Austin, Texas 78753, Appellees

FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-17-006376, THE HONORABLE JAMES LEE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Cathy Brigham has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. 

We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: November 22, 2019