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 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

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 $ 0.00 $ 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: $44,220,000

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

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 $ 0.00

$ 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:
#### Winfred MARSHALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27546.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 13, 1955.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, fof the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $250 and confinement. in the county jail for 30 days.

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.
`EXHIBIT 10.2


10.2 Promissory Note dated July 6, 2001 between David Hancock and
     CommunicateNow.com, Inc.


                                 Promissory Note

$ 25,000.00 USD                   Temple, Texas              Date July 6, 2001



FOR VALUE RECEIVED, after date, without grace, in the manner, on the dates, and
in the amounts so herein stipulated, the Undersigned, Communicate Now.com Inc.

PROMISE TO PAY TO THE ORDER OF : David Hancock, At Temple, Texas in Bell County

              THE SUM OF TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00)

In lawful money of the United States of America, which shall be legal tender, in
payments of all debts and dues, public and private at the time of payment, and
to pay interest thereon from the date until maturity at the rate of 6.5% per
annum, payable as stipulated herein.

THIS NOTE IS DUE AND PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS TO WIT:

Twenty Five Thousand dollars ($25,000.00) principal due on December 06, 2001,
interest due on the 6th of each month (monthly interest amount 135.41)

IT IS AGREED that time is of the essence of this agreement, and that in the
event of default in the payment of any installment of principal or interest when
due, the holder of this note may declare the entirety of the evidenced herby due
and payable without notice, and failure to exercise said option shall not
constitute a waiver on part of the holder of the right to exercise the same at
any other time.

IN THE EVENT of default in the making of any payment herein provided, either or
principal or interest, or in the event the entirety of said note evidenced
hereby is declared due, interest shall accrue at the rate of 10.0% per annum
from such time.

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGREES to pay all expenses incurred, including an
additional 10.0% on the amount of principal and interest hereof as attorney's
fees, all of which shall become part of the principal hereof, if this note is
placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, or if collected by suite or
through any probate, bankruptcy or other legal proceedings,

EACH MAKER, SURETY and endorser waives demand, grace, notice, presentment for
payment, and protest and agrees and consents that this note an the liens
securing its payment, may be renewed, and the time of payment extended without
notice, and without releasing any of the parties.


                             CommunicateNow.Com Inc.



                    ----------------------------------------
                            David Hancock, President`
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of China Techfaith Wireless
Communication Technology Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Defu Dong, 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 my knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: June 29, 2006

By:   /s/ Defu Dong
      ---------------------------

Name:  Defu Dong
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Supplemental Agreement No5 as of July 16, 2018

to

DESIGN SERVICE CONTRACT

Between

Twidel Co.

And

Minaro Corp.

THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, made between Twidel Co., located at 7c 25 Martiou 2408 Egkomi, Nicosia, 2408, Cyprus (hereinafter called the “Customer”), and Minaro Corp., located at Kleonos 8A, Lakatameia, 2333, Cyprus (hereinafter called the “Executor”). Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Parties’ or the ‘Party’ if referred to separately. 

Works / services that are provided:

	Stage

	Services

	Terms


	1

	Understanding the general concept of the visualization

	1 working day


	2

	Project fulfillment

	30 working days


	3

	Fixing bugs (if any)

	5 working days




 

1.The total amount is $ 1,000 (One thousand US dollars). 

2.Customer pays for the services after they upon performed. 

3.This Supplemental Agreement is effective upon signing it by authorized representatives of the Parties. 

4.All other paragraphs of the DESIGN SERVICE CONTRACT shall remain effective and the Parties hereby confirm their obligations. 

5.This Supplemental Agreement is completed in English language, in two copies, one for each Party and currency of the Supplemental Agreement is US dollar. 

6.This Supplemental Agreement is an integral part of DESIGN SERVICE CONTRACT between Twidel Co. and Minaro Corp. as of February 6, 2018. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Supplemental Agreement to be duly executed. 

APPROVED BY:                             Twidel Co. / Customer 

 

/s/ Niles Apostolos                      

Director

 

APPROVED BY:                             Minaro Corp./ Executor 

 

/s/ Yulia Lazaridou                      

Director
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 23, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

132792 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. AMYRUTH L. COOPER, by her Next Friend, Stephen J. Markman, SHARON L. STROZEWSKI, and LORALEE Justices A. COOPER, by her Ne xt Friend, SHARON L. STROZEWSKI, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 132792 COA: 261736 Washtenaw CC: 03-000367-NF AUTO CLUB INSURA NCE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 21, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address whether the plaintiffs’ common law ca use of action for fraud is subject to the one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1).

p0516 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 23, 2007

Clerk
| **NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE - DILUTED (Details) - shares shares in Millions**           | Oct. 30, 2016 | Nov. 01, 2015 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|
| **Earnings Per Share, Diluted, by Common Class, Including Two Class Method [Line Items]** |          |          |
| Number of dilutive shares that could be issued upon vesting                               | 0.1           | 0.8           |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Represents the number of dilutive shares that could be issued upon vesting.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**pvh_NumberOfDilutiveSharesIssuedUponVesting**Namespace Prefix:**pvh_**Data Type:**xbrli:sharesItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Line items represent financial concepts included in a table. These concepts are used to disclose reportable information associated with domain members defined in one or many axes to the table.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_EarningsPerShareDilutedLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
#### Nick DANO, Defendant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 6384.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Aug. 5, 1937.

For opinion below, see 20 F.Supp. 458.

John D. Meyer, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Charles F. ‘Uhl, U. S. Atty., and George Mashank, Asst. U. S. Atty., both'of Pittsburgh, Pa.

Before BUFFINGTON, THOMPSON, and BIGGS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In the court below Nick Dano was tried, convicted, and sentenced on an indictment charging him with certain violations of Joint Resolution No. 373, section 1162a, .title 26 U.S.C.A., and Regulation 17 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. , Thereupon he took this appeal from an order of the court denying his motio.n in arrest of judgment, and the question involved is the constitutionality of such legislation and regulation. That question was decided in an opinion of the judge below reported in (D.C.) 20 F.Supp. 458.

After consideration had, we affirm the court’s action, adopting its opinion as the view of this court.
EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION



I, Brett White, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Corio, Inc.;
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 have:
5. 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;
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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 the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
9. 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
10. 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: May 14, 2004 | /s/ Brett White
|------------------ | ---------------
|                   |                

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1118

HEARN INSULATION AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CARLOS BONILLA; PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CORPORATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:09-cv-00990-AW)

Submitted: November 18, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey M. Schwaber, Mary Craine Lombardo, Laura M. Gagliuso, 

STEIN, SPERLING, BENNETT, DE JONG, DRISCOLL & GREENFEIG, P.C., 

Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Christopher R. Wampler, 

WAMPLER & SOUDER, LLC, Kensington, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hearn Insulation and Improvement Company, Inc.,

appeals the district court’s order denying its motion for 

attorney’s fees incurred in its action against Carlos Bonilla 

and his company, Premium Construction Services Corporation. We 

have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the 

parties, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hearn 

Insulation and Improvement Co., Inc. v. Bonilla, No. 8:09-cv00990-AW (D. Md. Jan. 21, 2011). 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
#### MARQUEZ v. STATE.

No. 26573.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of possession of marihuana and the jury assessed his punishment at two years in the penitentiary.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts and no bills of exception. The proceedings appear to be regular. Nothing is presented for review.

¡The judgment is affirmed.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

_____________________________

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)

August 18, 2004



Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)



|001-07572                | 13-1166910                          
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|(Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer Identification Number)



200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

Registrant's telephone number (212)-381-3500

Not Applicable

(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)











ITEM 7.	FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS

(c)	Exhibits:

|Exhibit | Description                          
|------- | -------------------------------------
|99.1    | Press Release, dated August 18, 2004.





ITEM 12.	RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION

On August 18, 2004, Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), issued a press release to
report the Company's 2004 second quarter earnings.

The full text of the press release issued by the Company on August 18, 2004 is being furnished pursuant to Item 12 of Form 8-K, is attached
hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.





SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION



By: /s/ Vincent A. Russo

Vincent A. Russo, Vice President &

Corporate Controller



Date:  August 18, 2004
<PAGE>

Exhibit 15.0



Letter re unaudited interim financial information

September 19, 2001



To Bracknell Corporation:

We are aware that Bracknell Corporation has incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statements Nos. 333-59656 and 333-59658, its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended July 31, 2001, which includes our report dated September 14, 2001,
covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant
to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a
part of those registration statements prepared or certified by our firm or a
report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11
of the Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any procedures
subsequent to September 19, 2001.

Very truly yours,

Arthur Andersen LLP
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

MAY 0 4 2015 

Mr. Rafael Gustavo Fassina Marques 

Airworthiness Office 

Embraer S.A. 

Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2.170 

12227-901 - S.J. dos Campos - SP 

Brasil 

Dear Mr. Marques: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton , Washington 98057-3356 

We have received your petition letter no. GCF-0335/2015, dated March 24, 2015, on behalf 

ofEmbraer S.A., requesting an amendment to exemption no. 10757. That exemption 

provided relieffrom § 25.809(a) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations regarding 

overwing emergency-exit requirements on Embraer Model EMB-550 airplanes. 

Your request for amendment, if granted, would include in the exemption the derivative 

Model EMB-545 airplane. 

Your petition has been added to public docket no. FAA-2012-0302 and is being processed. 

We will contact you if we need additional information. 

We will advise you of our final decision on your petition as soon as possible. lf you have 

questions in the meantime, you may call Jayson Claar at ( 425) 227-2194, e-mail 

jayson.claar@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Mark Forseth 

Standardization Branch 

Transpoti Airplane Directorate 

Federal Aviation Administration