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

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier:

- AD

Add the work hours, parts cost, and number o f U.S. registered products to the table below. When you are finished, click on the “Update Fields” button to automatically fill in the totals.



### Update Fields

Estimated Costs:

Action (e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include access, testing,

and close

- up ) Labor

cost (@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor +

parts) Number of

U.S. Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet

PART 1 Eddy current inspections 1 $ 85.00 0 $ 85.00 495 $42,075.00

$ 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: $42,075 Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action (e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost (@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

If skin cracks are found

then HFEC open hole inspection is required in accordance with Boeing

SB 737

- 57

- 1318, Original Issue, dated May 15, 2013 (data

taken from Costs of Compliance in AD

2014

- 12

- 13) 86 $7,310.00 0 $7,310.00

If wing rear spar chord

and web cracks are found then repair is required. Work

- hours associated with typical

SRM upper chord and

web repair s are used 3700 $ 314

, 50 0.00 0 $ 314,500 .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) :

### 10 Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * ☐ NO ☒

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * ☐ NO ☒

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

either a Yes or No answer.

YES ☐ NO ☒

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

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

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

YES * ☐ NO ☒



### * Explanation 

### :
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 22, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 22, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20D0244. DANIKKA BARTOLO v. ANNA GALLAGHER. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 18CV1371
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

ALLEN KELSO §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-00026-Z

Plaintiff §

§

VS. §

§

REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE, INC. and §

THE JIM and SHARYN REID §

IRREVOCABLE TRUST §

§

Defendant §

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(a)(1)

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

PLEASE BE ADVISED that the parties in this case, ALLEN KELSO Plaintiff 

and REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE, INC. and THE JIM and SHARYN REID

IRREVOCABLE TRUST Defendants have reached a resolution of Plaintiff’s claims and 

pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requests dismissal of all claims against Defendant in 

their entirety and with prejudice.

STIPULATION

It is stipulated by and between the parties hereto that this action be dismissed with 

prejudice as to all parties and as to all causes of action with each party to bear their own 

attorney’s fees and costs.

DATED: May 17, 2022 FOR ALLEN KELSO, Plaintiff

BY: /S/ R. Bruce Tharpe________

R. Bruce Tharpe

PO Box 101

Olmito, Texas 78575

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 11 Filed 05/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 56
(956) 255-5111 - Office

(866) 599-2596 - Fax

Texas State Bar ID No. 19823800

Colorado State Bar ID No. 54500

Federal Bar ID 13098

DATED: May 17, 2022 FOR REID'S APPLIANCE SERVICE, INC. and

THE JIM and SHARYN REID

IRREVOCABLE TRUST

BY: _/s/ W. Wade Arnold ____

W. Wade Arnold

UNDERWOOD LAW FIRM, PC

PO Box 9158

Amarillo, Texas 79105

(806) 376-5613 – Office

(806) 379-0316 - Fax

Case 2:22-cv-00026-Z Document 11 Filed 05/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 57
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350

In connection with the
Annual Report of iPass Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Evan L. Kaplan, 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:



|(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: March 15, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/    EVAN L.
KAPLAN                                                             
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Evan L. Kaplan President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of iPass Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 8, 2014

No. 04-13-00494-CR

EX PARTE Richard Anthony BALDEZ,

From the County Court at Law No. 4, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2519

Honorable Sarah Garrahan, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we ABATE the appeal to permit the 

trial court to clarify its June 25, 2013 order consistent with article 11.072, section 7(a). TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.072, § 7(a) (West Supp. 2013). The trial court is ORDERED to, within 

thirty days after the date of this order: (1) make appropriate orders and, if appropriate, enter 

findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (2) deliver any orders and findings of fact and 

conclusions of law to the trial court clerk. The trial court clerk is ORDERED to: (1) prepare a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing all orders and findings of fact and conclusions of law which 

the trial court renders or makes; and (2) file the supplemental clerk’s record with the clerk of this 

Court within thirty days after the date of this order. 

It is so ORDERED on January 8, 2014.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of January, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
#### BOGUS v. STATE.

No. 25280.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 25, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the murder of Waymon Bush, and the jury assessed his punishment at six years confinement in the penitentiary.

The parties are Negroes, and the trouble had its inception in what appears to have been a dice game which took place during the absence of the proprietor in a cafe. One Hill claimed that appellant owed him some money and the deceased entered into the argument between appellant and Hill.

Appellant went to the home of his brother-in-law where he obtained a .22 caliber rifle.

He soon thereafter took his place on the roof of a building, from which location he fired one shot at the deceased who was in the street below. The bullet struck the deceased in the back, and remained in the body. The deceased ran for a short distance, then fell. His death was shown to have resulted from the gunshot wound.

Appellant testified that he was afraid of the deceased; that deceased had threatened him; that t-he deceased saw him on the building but did not see the gun; that deceased had his hand in his bosom and told him to come off the building and said that if he did not he, the deceased, had something to make him come off with; that someone called the deceased, and he fired just as the deceased turned away.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and we have not been favored with a brief for appellant.

No error is found in the overruling of appellant’s objections to the court’s charge which requires reversal of the conviction. In fact, the trial court appears to have been more than liberal in submitting all suggested defensive issues. The jury might have assessed a much higher punishment upon the evidence before them.

The evidence being deemed sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,326<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,538
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,958
<PP&E>                                             458<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,904
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,666
<SALES>                                         33,167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,167
<CGS>                                           29,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   353
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,722)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNTS REPORTED FOR ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT ARE
NET AMOUNTS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       4,136,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,565,950
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,702,151
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,465,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,526
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (226,847)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,465,923
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               321,633
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               115,718
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             330,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (124,212)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (124,212)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (124,212)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (124,212)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (124.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (124.21)
        

</TABLE>
June 30, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BILL & ELIZABETH FIS HER D/B/A SARANAC OA KS RANCH , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 01014

- CV V.

ULTIMATE KOBE BEEF, L.L.C., CHAMPION GENETICS, I NC., ALLISON
MAE GODWIN AND BRUCE R. HEMMINGSEN , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard the parties ’ joint motion to reverse the judgment signed by the court below on May 21, 2012. Having c onsidered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the judgment REVERSED AND REMAND the cause to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with this Court's opinion. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 
 I, R. Llee Chapman, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Apollo Gold Corporation for the period ended June 30, 2004;
 
 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 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:
 
 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;
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officers 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):
 
 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: January 20, 2005
By:
/s/ R. Llee ChapmanR. Llee Chapman,Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 213 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28121]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328]


Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of Withdrawal of Application 
for Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to withdraw its August 
30, 1999, application for proposed amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79 for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 
and 2, located in Hamilton County, Tennessee. Notice of Consideration 
of Issuance of this amendment was published in the Federal Register on 
October 6, 1999 (64 FR 54382).
    The proposed amendments would have revised the facility technical 
specifications (TS) by adding a Section 3.0.7 to address the use of 
interim provisions upon the discovery of an unintended TS action.
    Subsequently, by letter dated October 17, 2000, TVA withdrew the 
proposed amendment application on the basis that approval of the 
amendment was unlikely because of legal concerns on the part of the 
Commission.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendments dated August 30, 1999, and the TVA's letter 
dated October 17, 2000, which withdrew the application for license 
amendments.
    These Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the 
Commission's Public Document room, located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of October 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ronald W. Hernan,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-28121 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April

5, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00012-CV

IN RE PANYA LERDTHAISONG & SG CATTLE SERVICES CO., LTD., 

Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

127th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-70875

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 10, 2022, relators Panya Lerdthaisong & SG Cattle Services Co.,

Ltd. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. 

§ 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this Court to 

compel the Honorable R. K. Sandill, presiding judge of the 127th District Court of 

Harris County, to vacate his orders of August 9, 2021 and November 10, 2021, 
2

granting Benjamin Cunningham’s motion for sanctions and denying relators’

motion to reconsider and defer sanctions.

We deny relators’ petition without prejudice to refiling because relators’

petition and appendix do not show that relators have complied with the 

requirements of the following Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure: (1) Rule 

52.7(a) (relator must file with the petition “a certified or sworn copy of every 

document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any 

underlying proceeding”); (2) Rule 52.7(b) (relator must file with the petition “a 

properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying 

proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no 

testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained”); and (3) Rule

52.3(k) (the appendix must contain a certified or sworn copy of any order 

complained of).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Zimmerer.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8341

RONALD GARY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MS. BREWINGTON, RN; DOCTOR S HERMAN, MD; MR. DOIGHERTY, Director of Greenville County Detention Center; COUNTY OF GREENVILLE,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (4:06-cv-02216-PMD-TER)

Submitted: July 13, 2009 Decided: July 21, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Gary, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM:

Ronald Gary appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gary v.

Brewington , No. 4:06-cv-02216-PMD-TER (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2008).

We deny Gary’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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