alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Docket No: FAA-2015-6546 Dir ID: 2015-NM-179-AD

Regulatory

Evaluation

Add the work hours, parts cost, and number of 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 oncondition costs here

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

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost

(@$85/h 

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts)

Number of

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection, Re-torque 2 $ 170.00 0 $ 170.00 163 $27,710.00

$ 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: Number

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $27,710

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $Warranty

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 considerationsfor 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”?

*Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

YES* ☐ NO ☒

YES* ☐ NO ☒

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

for either a Yes or No answer.

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

YES ☐ NO ☒

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?

*Explanation:

YES* ☐ NO ☒
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41486

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL RUIZ, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:05-CR-643-2

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Ruiz, Jr., federal prisoner # 57857-179, pleaded guilty to 

possession with intent to distribute 4.83 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Ruiz was found to be a career offender under U.S.S.G. 

§ 4B1.1, but the district court varied from the applicable guidelines range of 

292 to 365 months for reasons related to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and 

sentenced Ruiz to 210 months of imprisonment. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41486 Document: 00513701982 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2016
No. 15-41486

2

Ruiz now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal 

from the denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2). In the § 3582(c)(2) motion, Ruiz argued that he was entitled to 

resentencing based on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782, which lowered 

the base offense levels for most drug-trafficking offenses. 

By moving to proceed IFP, Ruiz challenges the district court’s 

certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Our inquiry into a litigant’s good faith “is 

limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits

(and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 

1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We review the district court’s denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). 

The record confirms that Ruiz was not eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence 

reduction under Amendment 782 because, as a career offender pursuant to 

§ 4B1.1, he was not sentenced based on a guidelines range that was 

subsequently lowered by Amendment 782. See United States v. Anderson, 591 

F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir. 2009); § 3582(c)(2). The fact that the district court 

varied from the calculated guidelines range based on its consideration of the 

§ 3553(a) factors does not change Ruiz’s status as a career offender. See United 

States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 578 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the district 

court did not abuse its discretion by denying the § 3582(c)(2) motion. See 

Anderson, 591 F.3d at 791.

This appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue. See Howard, 707 F.2d 

at 220. Accordingly, Ruiz’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-41486 Document: 00513701982 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2016
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

January 4, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-10421

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 04-00020-CR-6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

MICHAEL HEADRICK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

_________________________

(January 4, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Julian B. Smith, Jr., appointed counsel for Michael Headrick in this direct

criminal appeal, filed a renewed motion to withdraw from further representation of

the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We denied counsel’s renewed motion without

prejudice and ordered him to provide a transcript of the Rule 11 change-of-plea

hearing. Counsel has now supplemented the record on appea with the requested

transcript, and we construe this filing as a resubmission of his renewed motion to

withdraw and Anders brief. Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Headrick’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### DAVIS v. STATE.

No. 26050.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for a violation of the liquor law in Scurry County. The punishment assessed is a fine of $1,000.

No notice of appeal appears in the record, in the absence of which we have no jurisdiction of the appeal. It is therefore dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

TECK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM

CORPORATION, No. 99-1428

Defendant-Appellee,

and

CROWN STATIONS, INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.

(CA-98-966-A)

Submitted: September 8, 1999

Decided: October 25, 1999

Before ERVIN* and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,

and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

*Judge Ervin was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to

the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the

panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
COUNSEL

Teck General Partnership, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Patrick McGovern, KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; Robert R. Vieth, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P.,

McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Teck General Partnership ("Teck") appeals from the district court's

order awarding attorneys' fees and costs to Crown Central Petroleum

Corporation ("Crown") pursuant to Crown's motion under the Virginia Oil Spill Act, Va. Code Ann. § 62.1-44.34:18.F (Michie 1998)

(the "Act"). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion

discloses that this appeal is without merit. We find that the district

court properly found Crown to be the prevailing party in this action.

We further find that the district court assessed the fees and costs

against Teck pursuant to the Act, and not because of Teck's failure

to meet court-imposed deadlines, and therefore find that the award

against Teck, rather than its attorney, was proper.

Finally, Teck asks this Court to return the case to the district court

for trial against all of Crown's entities that are appropriate defendants,

and allow the trial to continue without "sanctions." In essence, Teck

seeks to appeal from the district court's order of December 18, 1998,

dismissing with prejudice the case on Teck's motion. Teck failed to

note a timely appeal from this order dismissing the underlying action,

thus depriving this Court of jurisdiction to review this claim. See Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1); Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978).

 2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees and costs, and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the appeal

of the dismissal of the underlying action. 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

 3
#### WILSON v. STATE.

No. 22047.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1942.

F. M. Sheffield, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted on a charge of rape and assessed a penalty of five years in the penitentiary.

The procedure appears to be regular. No statement of facts or bills of exception *525are presented and there is nothing for this court to review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### DAVIS v. STATE.

No. 21610.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 7, 1941.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1941.

Joe' C, Luther, of Dallas, for appellant.

*369Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for theft of property under the value of $50, punishment covered by a fine of $25 and forty days in the county jail.

The information seems to be in proper form. The recor'd contains neither hills of exception nor statement of facts. In this condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant complains in her motion because the allegation in the information as to the party from whom the goods were alleged to have been stolen and the said injured party shown in the proo'f do not correspond, and are not the same. This, point thus raised, if shown by the record, might cause a reversal of this cause, but unfortunately for appellant there is no statement of facts found in the record, and we are therefore unable to pass upon this matter.

She also complains because she says that the trial court did not affirmatively submit her defense in this matter in his charge to the jury. Again we do not know what her defense was in the absence of a statement of facts, and we find no requested charge relative thereto in the record.

There is nothing in this motion that we can review.

The motion is overruled.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [AZ-910-0777-26-241A]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

 Arizona Resource Advisory Council Meeting notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces a meeting of the Arizona Resource Advisory Council (RAC). The meeting will be held on December 12, in Phoenix, Arizona. The RAC meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and will conclude at approximately 4:00 p.m. The agenda items to be covered include the review of the October 4, 2000 meeting minutes; BLM State Director's Update on legislation, regulations, and statewide planning efforts; Election of RAC Chair and Vice Chair; Draft National Off-Highway Vehicle Use Strategy Review and Discussion; Update on National Landscape Conservation System in Arizona, Report on 2001 Appropriations, Funding Allocation, and Arizona BLM Priorities; Update of State-Federal Land Exchange Agreement; Update on Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Legislation and Other Proposed Special Area Designations; Update Proposed Field Office Rangeland Resource Teams; Reports from BLM Field Office Managers; Reports by the Standards and Guidelines, Recreation and Public Relations, Wild Horse and Burro Working Groups; Reports from RAC members; and Discussion of future meetings. A public comment period will be provided at 11:30 a.m. on December 12, 2000, for any interested publics who wish to address the Council.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, 222 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2203, (602) 417-9215.

Denise P. Merdith,

Arizona State Director.

[FR Doc. 00-28768 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-32-M
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Virginia Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Virginia Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 1      | 1      | 1      | 2      | 3      | 3      | 2      | 2     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 2      | 2      | 1      | 1      | 1      | NA     | 1      | NA     | 1     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 1     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

                    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections                           ( print page 69035)                        552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.                

*Name of Committee:*                         National Human Genome Research Institute Initial Review Group, Ethical, Legal, Social Implications Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         December 5, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 pm to 3:00 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room B2B32, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rudy O. Pozzatti, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301 402-0838.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 3, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-29140  Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 52 
          - [MD107-3059, VA122 &123-5054; FRL-6899-2] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; extension of the comment period. 

# SUMMARY:

                        EPA is extending the comment period for a series of proposed rulemaking actions published on October 19, 2000. On this date, EPA proposed action on the following Maryland and Virginia provisions as revisions to their respective State Implementation Plans (SIP's): Maryland—New Source Review (65 FR 62675); and Virginia—Source-Specific Permits to Reduce  NOX                         Emissions in the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area (65 FR 62666).                     

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before November 20, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

Comments may be mailed to Makeba Morris, Chief, Permits and Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

1. Maryland—New Source Review: Perry R. Pandya, U.S. EPA Region III, (215) 814-2167. 

                        2. Virginia—Source-Specific Permits to Reduce  NOX                         emissions in the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area: Michael Ioff, U.S. EPA Region III, (215) 814-2166.                     

Dated: October 31, 2000. 

 Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 00-28705 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P