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

Docket No. 

### FAA

- 2012

- 0102 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012

-NM

- 004

- 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 c ell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost T otal Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost for

U

. S

. Fleet



### Installation of oxygen system 24.0 

### $2,040.0 0 $6,000 

### $8,040.00 5,500 

### $44,220,000. 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 $ 0.0 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 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $44,220,000 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., I nspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /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 specif ic requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES NO Explanation:
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1595 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make all veterans eligible 

for home loans under the veterans mortgage revenue bond program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2011 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BILBRAY, Mrs. DAVIS of 

California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. AL GREEN

of Texas, Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas, Mr. SCHRADER, Mr. WALDEN, 

Mr. WU, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, and Mr. KIND) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

all veterans eligible for home loans under the veterans 

mortgage revenue bond program. 

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 ‘‘Veterans’ Home Loan 

5 Improvement Act of 2011’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1595 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALL VETERANS MADE ELIGIBLE FOR HOME LOANS 

2 UNDER VETERANS MORTGAGE REVENUE 

3 BOND PROVISIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 143(l) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

6 as follows: 

7 ‘‘(4) QUALIFIED VETERAN.—For purposes of 

8 this subsection, the term ‘qualified veteran’ means 

9 any veteran who served on active duty.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to financing provided after the date 

12 of the enactment of this Act under issues issued before, 

13 on, or after such date. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.28





AMENDMENT TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT
This Amendment to Independent Contractor Consultancy Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of February 20, 2019 and effective February 1, 2018 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Ross Stores, Inc. (“Company” or “Ross”) and Norman A. Ferber, an individual (“Contractor” or “Ferber”), and (i) amends the Amended and Restated Independent Contractor Consultancy Agreement entered into by the Company and Contractor effective as of January 6, 2010 and subsequently amended effective January 30, 2012, February 17, 2015, and March 1, 2017 and (ii) restates and replaces an amendment that was entered into as of June 13, 2018 to cure an inadvertent immaterial omission in such amendment (collectively, the “Agreement”) as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “$1,616,000” with the phrase “$1,875,000”. 


		
	2.
	Section 2.3 of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing both references therein to the phrase “May 31, 2019” with the phrase “May 31, 2020”.


		
	3.
	Section 8.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “May 31, 2019” with the phrase “May 31, 2020”.


		
	4.
	Except as so amended, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the first date first written above.
	
				
	Company:
	 
	Contractor:

	 
	 
	 
	 

	ROSS STORES, INC.
	 
	NORMAN A. FERBER



	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/George P. Orban
	 
	/s/Norman A. Ferber

	 
	George P. Orban
	 
	 

	 
	Chairman, Compensation Committee
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC T. HICKS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

GARFIELD BEACH CVS LLC; and

THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC., Str 9804,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55507

D.C. No. 5:10-cv-00793-VAP-OP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Eric T. Hicks appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

for an abuse of discretion, Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir.

FILED

AUG 05 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-55507

2007), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hicks’s motion for

a new trial because Hicks failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at

729 (setting forth grounds for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

59(a)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (setting forth grounds for relief from a final

judgment). 

To the extent that Hicks challenges the district court’s judgment dismissing

his underlying action, we do not consider his contentions because Hicks did not

file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (tolling

motion must be filed within 28 days from entry of judgment); Fiester v. Turner,

783 F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (order) (untimely motion does not suspend

time to appeal).

Hicks’s motion for discovery and sanctions, filed on November 7, 2011, is

denied. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    this Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2008 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Thor
Industries, Inc.
  /S/ WADE F. B. THOMPSONWade F. B. ThompsonChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Nick Plessas, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of Green Dolphin  Corporation (the
"Company"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10QSB of the Company for the quarterly period  ending March 31,
2003 (The "Report") fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or  78o(d); and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 14, 2003

By:/s/ Nick Pleases

Nick Pleases

Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
* 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 28, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10674 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT TODD WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-163-2-A

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Todd Willis was convicted of mail fraud and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 1341. He appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Willis argues that the district court erred by sentencing him above the statutory maximum sentence for revocation. In particular, he contends that once the district court imposed a two-year term of imprisonment, it was not authorized to impose an additional one-year term of supervisedNo. 04-10674 -2- release because this violated 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) (2002). The Government concedes error. We review the alleged imposition of a sentence above the statutory maximum de novo. See United States v. Sias , 227 F.3d 244, 246 (5th Cir. 2000). The penalties imposed on revocation of supervised release relate back to the original offense. See Johnson v. United States , 529 U.S. 694, 701-02 (2000). Accordingly, the statutes in effect at the time of Willis’s offense conduct, which occurred in 1995, apply. See United States v. Smith , 869 F.2d 835, 836-37 (5th Cir. 1989). Because Willis’s offense was a class D felony, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 3559(a)(4) (1995), the maximum term of imprisonment that he could receive upon revocation of supervised release was two years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1995). In light of the district court’s decision to sentence Willis to the maximum term of imprisonment, the court erred by also imposing a one-year term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h); United States v. Ferguson , 369 F.3d 847, 850-52 (2004). In sentencing Willis, the district court clearly stated its intention to impose the maximum term of imprisonment in order to allow Willis to obtain treatment for the drug problems that led to the revocation of his supervised release. See United States v. Mills , 9 F.3d 1132, 1139 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, we MODIFY the district court’s judgment by VACATING the one-year term of supervised release, and we AFFIRM the judgment AS
MODIFIED.
Exhibit 23.3

[ON PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP LETTERHEAD]

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our report**dated April 14, 2003, relating to the combined financial statements of Calvin Klein, Inc. which appear in the Current Report on Form8-K/A of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation dated February 12, 2003.    
 

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York

September 19, 2003

 **
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA-2013-0297

Directorate Identifier: 2012NM205AD

8-54-39, RA --- 8/2/12

8-54-39 --- 3/14/12

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

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

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

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### William B. DROPPLEMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27545.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 13, 1955.

Leon Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is drunken driving (second offense); the punishment, thirty days in jail.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented' for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO.PD-1651-13 COURT OF APPEAL 12th Court of Ap CHARLES RAY ROBINSON, Appellant 

### CATHY s7tU£K THE STATE OF TEXAS ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS HENDERSON COUNTY Per curiam. Keasler and Hervey, JJ., dissent. ORDER 

### The petition for discretionary review violates Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4(j), because it does notcontain acopy ofthe opinion of thecourt ofappeals. 

### The petition is struck. See Rule ofAppellate Procedure 68.6. 

### The petitionermay redraw the petition. The redrawn petition and copies must be filed in the Court ofCriminal Appeals within thirty days after the date ofthis order. Filed: April 2, 2014 Do Not Publish
Exhibit 10.18

July 20, 2009

Daniel H. Yergin

2959 Davenport Street, NW

Washington, DC 20008

Dear Dan:

Reference is made to the Employment Agreement dated September 1, 2004 (Employment Agreement) between you and IHS Global Inc., successor to IHS Energy Group Inc. (the Company).

This will confirm the agreement between you and the Company pursuant to Section 2 of the Employment Agreement that the Employment
Agreement shall automatically renew for an additional one-year Term, commencing on September 1, 2009.

With respect to
Section 3.1(c) of the Employment Agreement, you and the Company agree that you will be eligible for an annual cash bonus for the fiscal year beginning December 1, 2009 of up to $750,000, based upon attainment of targets and criteria to be
recommended for approval for such fiscal year by the Chairman and CEO of IHS Inc. and approved by the Human Resources Committee of the Board. For the fiscal year beginning December 1, 2009, your Base Salary increase and performance-based equity
award under the Companys Long-Term Incentive Plan will be set at the same time and at levels comparable to the 2010 percentage salary increase and performance-based equity awards made to the Companys other senior executives.

Except as specifically provided in the previous paragraph, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance
with its terms as originally executed.



Very truly yours,IHS Global Inc.By:

/s/ Stephen GreenStephen GreenSVP and General Counsel




|        |  |                     
|------- |  | --------------------
|Agreed: |  | /s/ Daniel H. Yergin
|        |  | Daniel H. Yergin
[ DO NOT P U BLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 1 2

- 14984 Non

- Argument Calendar

_____________ D.C. Docket No s . 1:11

- cv - 04595

- RLV ; 11

- bkc

- 81588

- MHM In R e: Mary Kay Pullen, Debtor

.

_ ____________________________________________________________ ATTORNEY GARY C. HARRIS, Plaintiff, CAIN V. HARRIS, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus MARY KAY PULLEN, Defendant

- Appellee.

____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern D istrict of Georgia

____________ (July 29, 2013) Before HULL, JORDAN, and HILL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 12-14984 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Page: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Cain Harris appealed the bankruptcy court’s vacation of its order lifting t he automatic stay entered on behalf of Mary Kay Pullen. The district court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in vacating its prior order. We
agree. The relevant facts are that Pullen filed for bankruptcy the day prior to the

sc heduled foreclosure sale of her property. Harris, her creditor, filed his emergency motion to modify the automatic stay, certifying that he had served Pullen by email notifying her of his emergency motion. Based in part upon this representation, the bank ruptcy court lifted its stay and the foreclosure sale took place. In its order, the bankruptcy court also directed Harris to file a motion within 48 hours to annul the automatic stay, stating that the limited relief granted by the modification would be va cated unless Harris timely filed such motion. Harris did not do so (he filed an untimely motion) and the bankruptcy court’s modification of the stay expired by its own terms. Subsequently, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on these proceedings and foun d as a matter of fact, conceded by Harris, that, contrary to his certification, he did not email notice of his emergency motion to Pullen. The court stated that it relied upon Harris’ representations to the contrary in granting ex parte the

Case: 12-14984 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Page: 2 of 33 emergency moti on. The court vacated its prior modification of the automatic stay and denied Harris’ motion for emergency relief. It is this order that Harris appealed to the district court. The district court denied Harris’ appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court’s

va cation of its order modifying the stay. The district court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it vacated its prior modification of the stay that was granted upon a false or mistaken representation that Pullen had been notifie d of the motion. We agree. Under these circumstances, the bankruptcy court was entitled to vacate its prior modification of the stay. The bankruptcy court found as a matter of fact that Pullen did not have adequate notice of the motion. The district co urt held that this finding of fact is not clearly erroneous and we agree. Therefore, we shall affirm the district court’s judgment affirming the vacation of the modification of the stay.
AFFIRMED. Case: 12-14984 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Page: 3 of 3
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0356 Directorate ID: 2011-SW-067-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK B-1, 

MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK C-1Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 12 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: This AD is intended to prevent uncommanded cutting of the hoist cable and subsequent injury to 

persons being lifted by the hoist.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $92 for modification

$18,500 for replacement

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 x $85/work-hour to pull 

& secure three circuit 

breakers)

OR

(1.5 x $85/work-hour to 

remove the hoist boom)

OR

(4 x $85 to modify the hoist 

operator handle)

(0.5 x $85 to inspect the 

operator handle)

(0.25 x $85 to replace the 

operator handle)

$43

$128

$340

$43 per monthly inspection

$21

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter varies

Total US Fleet Cost varies

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: George Schwab
**Exhibit 10.3**

** **

**2006 Executive Bonus Program**

 

Each executive officer of Network Engines, Inc. (the “Company”) has theopportunity to earn quarterly performance bonuses, based on his or herperformance and the achievement of specific goals. Under the Executive BonusProgram, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors selects, reviewsand/or approves individual objectives for each executive that directlycontribute to overall Company performance objectives.  The Compensation Committee and Chief ExecutiveOfficer assign a specific dollar value to each objective and evaluates eachexecutive’s performance against those selected goals, generally on a quarterlybasis. The Company will pay to each of the executive officers, on a quarterlybasis, a percentage of their annual base salaries if the executive achievesselected targets for the quarter.

 

The Compensation Committee has approved the following guidelines forthe Executive Bonus Program:

 

•                  TheChief Executive Officer of the Company (“CEO”), with approval from theCompensation Committee, will designate an executive as a participant in theExecutive Bonus Program.

 

•                  Participantsmust be full time employees for the entire period, either a quarter or theentire fiscal year, depending on the bonus component.

 

•                  TheCEO and/or the Compensation Committee reserve the right to modify the fiscal2006 program to reflect substantial changes in business conditions.

 

•                  Quarterlybonus payments will be paid at the rates defined in individual plans based onthe actual performance compared to targeted performance for specifiedparameters. Quarterly bonus payments are only payable to certain maximumamounts for each specified parameter.  Whereappropriate, quarterly performance for metrics such as revenue, contribution marginand operating income will be measured on the better of performance for thespecific quarter or the cumulative year-to-date performance at the end of thatquarter.

 

•                  TheCompensation Committee and CEO will approve any Management Based Objective (“MBO”)bonus opportunities and the CEO will determine if a participant hasachieved/partially achieved such qualitative bonuses.

 

•                  Bonuscomponents related to Company financial performance will be based onappropriate documents and reports filed with the SEC and/or as included ininternal financial reports provided to the Board of Directors by the CFO. TheCEO/CFO, with Compensation Committee approval, may modify such targets, forexample to eliminate non cash/non-recurring charges/credits.

 

•                  Sales,contribution margin and other financial metrics for purposes of the Executive BonusProgram are defined in advance by the CFO and CEO. The CFO and/or CEO, withapproval of the Compensation Committee, will determine the definition ofoperating metrics for purposes of executive bonuses.

 

----

 

This Executive Bonus Program and payments made to eligible participantsare subject to approval and/or modification by the Compensation Committee.

 

----
-----Original Message----- From: Artem Tarasenko [mailto:atarasenko@volga-dnepr.us] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 10:01 AM 

## 1EPARTMENTOF
i

## .:\N.JSPOHTATION 

## ·'·('vr:1·0°ERJ.tT!C)N'0 J\,·1\L I I ,, \J To: Johnson, Shelita (OST); Finamore, Robert (OST); Kruger,**Bret)_nW~~)f;-~ra~** 

### 2: 4W Bernice (OST); Ames, Angelia (OST)**-~~~** Cc: colon@volga-dnepr.us Subject: RE: Cabotage Application Request I Comment Tracking Number 80ff3a70 (2 x HSV-VBG I 26 Apr - 1 May, 2012) Angelia, Bernice, Shelita, Bob, Brett:
Reference Tracking number 80ff3a70, Application of Volga-Dnepr J.S. Cargo Airline, assigned docket number DOT-OST-2012-0060, please be advised polling of U.S. carriers has been completed without objections. Please action as soon as able. Thank you for your assistance and support.

Best regards,
Artem Tarasenko Operations Manager VolgaDnepr-Unique Air Cargo Inc. The Woodlands, TX Tel: +1 (832)**585~8611** Fax: +1 (832) 585-8618 Cell: +1 (713) 349-3388 E-mail: artem@volga-dnepr.us