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

Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0547 Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NE

- 13

- 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 an d then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) 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 Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

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

for U

. S

. Fleet 

### Inspection 0.5 $ 42.50 $0 $ 42.50 

### 6 1 ,000 $2,592,500.0 0 

### Remove, Repair and Replace 2.0 $ 170.00 $ 565 $ 735.00 

### 261 $191,835.00 $ 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: $2,784,335 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### Special considerat **ions 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 consi dered 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 

### :
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, H. Michael Krimbill, President, 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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: January 9, 2006



/s/    H. MICHAEL
KRIMBILLH. Michael KrimbillPresident and Chief Financial Officer




|* | A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to and will be retained by Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

THE ESTATE OF DORIS L. BRANTLEY, BY AND THROUGH SHANNON R.

BRANTLEY, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE,

APPELLANT,

V.

CLEAR WATER CARE ACQUISITION, LLC; CW CARE HOLDINGS, LLC;

CITADEL CARE GROUP, LLC; LEOPOLD FRIEDMAN; 2055 PALMETTO

REALTY, LLC; MELANIE WILSON; AND DESTENY OLIVER (AS TO

KENSINGTON GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER),

APPELLEES.

NO. 2D 20 23

- 2228

August 14, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Amy M. Williams,

Judge.

Lisa M. Tanaka of Wilkes & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

David O. Doyle, Jr. and Bethany w. Nduka of Pearson Doyle Mohre &

Pastis LLP, Maitland, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM

.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA

, ROTHSTEIN

- YOUAKIM , and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
# Europeiska unionens C 273/2015

| | ISSN 1977-1061 |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 273 |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 58 årgången18 augusti 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1061

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 273

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

58 årgången18 augusti 2015

---

| Informationsnummer | Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rättelser |
| 2015/C 273/01 | Rättelse till rådets ståndpunkt (EU) nr 10/2015 vid första behandlingen inför antagandet av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning om ändring av rådets förordning (EG) nr 515/97 om ömsesidigt bistånd mellan medlemsstaternas administrativa myndigheter och om samarbete mellan dessa och kommissionen för att säkerställa en korrekt tillämpning av tull- och jordbrukslagstiftningen – Antaget av rådet den 15 juni 2015( EUT C 239, 21.7.2015 ) | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

Rättelser

2015/C 273/01

Rättelse till rådets ståndpunkt (EU) nr 10/2015 vid första behandlingen inför antagandet av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning om ändring av rådets förordning (EG) nr 515/97 om ömsesidigt bistånd mellan medlemsstaternas administrativa myndigheter och om samarbete mellan dessa och kommissionen för att säkerställa en korrekt tillämpning av tull- och jordbrukslagstiftningen – Antaget av rådet den 15 juni 2015( EUT C 239, 21.7.2015 )

( EUT C 239, 21.7.2015 )

1

---

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

Rättelser

| 18.8.2015 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | C 273/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2015

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

C 273/1

---

Rättelse till rådets ståndpunkt (EU) nr 10/2015 vid första behandlingen inför antagandet av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning om ändring av rådets förordning (EG) nr 515/97 om ömsesidigt bistånd mellan medlemsstaternas administrativa myndigheter och om samarbete mellan dessa och kommissionen för att säkerställa en korrekt tillämpning av tull- och jordbrukslagstiftningen – Antaget av rådet den 15 juni 2015

(
  Europeiska unionens officiella tidning C 239 av den 21 juli 2015
  )

(2015/C 273/01)

I innehållsförteckningen samt på sidan 1, ska det i titeln

i stället för:

”Antaget av rådet den 15 juni 2015”

vara:

”Antagen av rådet den 15 juni 2015”.

På sidan 10, artikel 1.15:

Följande led ska läggas till:

| ”c) | punkt 3 ska utgå.” |
| --- | --- |

”c)

punkt 3 ska utgå.”

---
*OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 20, 2009*

#### MONONGALIA GENERAL HOSPITAL VS. DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS

(CC-07-0341)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Charles P. Houdyschell Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Amended Answer.

Claimant seeks payment in the amount of $477.60 for medical services provided to an inmate at Huttonsville Correctional Center. Respondent, in its Amended Answer, admits the validity of the claim in this amount and further states that sufficient funds to pay the claim were not appropriated in its budget during the subject fiscal years.

While the Court believes that this is a claim which in equity and good *239conscience should be paid, the Court further believes that an award cannot be recommended based upon the decision in *Airkem Sales and Service, et al. v. Dep’t of Mental Health,*8 Ct. Cl. 180 (1971).

Claim disallowed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The subsidiaries listed below are, directly or indirectly, wholly-owned (except
for Zemex Fabi-Benwood, LLC, of which 60% is owned by Zemex) and all are
consolidated in the financial statements.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

SUBSIDIARY NAME                              STATE OR COUNTRY
                                                 IN WHICH
                                        INCORPORATED OR ORGANIZED

<S>                                            <C>

Alumitech, Inc.                                   Delaware

Alumitech of Cleveland, Inc.                      Delaware

Alumitech of Wabash, Inc.                         Indiana

AWT Properties, Inc.                                Ohio

ETS Schaefer Corporation                            Ohio

The Feldspar Corporation                        North Carolina

Suzorite Mica Products Inc.                    Ontario, Canada

Suzorite Mineral Products, Inc.                   Delaware

Zemex Fabi-Benwood, LLC                         North Carolina

Zemex Industrial Minerals, Inc.                   Delaware

Zemex Mica Corporation                            Delaware

Zemex U.S. Corporation                            Delaware

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of FBL Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James E. Hohmann, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, James P. Brannen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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: May 9, 2011





By/s/ James E. HohmannJames E. HohmannChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


By/s/ James P. BrannenJames P. BrannenChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to FBL Financial Group, Inc., and will be retained by FBL Financial Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50306 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FRANCISCO ZAMARRON-MARTINEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-2551-ALL
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Francisco Zamarron-Martinez (Zamarron) pleaded guilty to the charge of entering the United States illegally after having been deported previously. Because Zamarron had been convicted previously of a crime of violence, Zamarron’s offense level wasadjusted upward by 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Zamarron requested a variance from the guidelines sentence. The request was denied, and Zamarron was sentenced in the middle of the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-50306

2 guidelines imprisonment range to a 79-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. Zamarron contends that his sentence of imprisonment was greater than necessary to accomplish the goals ofsentencing listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Zamarron concedes that this court ordinarily applies a presumption of reasonableness to within-guideline sentences. See United States v. CamposMaldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), c ert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008); United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Citing Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 574-75 (2007), he contends that the presumption should not apply in this case because § 2L1.2 is not empirically supported. Zamarron points out that the instant offense did not involve violent conduct and did not pose a danger to others. He contends that the offense was not inherently evil and “was, at bottom, an international trespass.” He contends also that the guidelines range did not account for his benign motivation for reentering the United States—to be with his sick mother. We decline to reconsider the application ofthe presumption in light ofthe undeveloped record. Zamarron’s reliance upon K imbrough to challenge the appellate presumption is misplaced, and he has failed to show that the presumption should not be applied. The district court considered Zamarron’s request for leniency in light of his personal circumstances, but it ultimately determined that a sentence w ithin the guidelines range was appropriate. Zamarron’s within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. See Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d at 338; Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d at 565-66. Because Zamarron has failed to make a showing sufficient to rebut that presumption, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6661

UBALDO ARRIAGA RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LARRY RABON, MD (UCAC); STEPHEN HOEY, D.O. (BOP) Contract; 

CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, Public Health (APRN/FNP-C); MICHAEL BUNNELL, 

RN Public Health; LAWRENCE CROSS, HSA Public Health,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (0:18-cv-01846-DCC)

Submitted: July 18, 2019 Decided: July 23, 2019

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ubaldo Arriaga Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ubaldo Arriaga Ramirez appeals the district court’s order adopting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying Ramirez’s motion for the appointment 

of counsel, and denying relief on his complaint alleging a Bivens* claim, a Federal Tort 

Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2012) claim, and a state medical 

malpractice claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ramirez v. Rabon, 

No. 0:18-cv-01846-DCC (D.S.C. Apr. 24, 2019). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

 * Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971).
Order filed, May 13, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00094-CV

____________

JAMES STEARNS, Appellant

V.

LISA MARTENS AND STEARNS POOLS AND SPAS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 09-DCV-169484

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due March 8, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. On March 11, 2013, this court granted the court reporters request for 

extension of time to file the record until April 8, 2013. On April 10, 2013, this 

court granted the court reporter’s second request for extension of time to file the 

record until May 08, 2013. To date, the record has not been filed with the court. 

Because the reporter’s record was not filed within the time prescribed in the first or 
second request, the court GRANTS your third request and issues the following 

order.

We order Mindy Hall, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal on or before June 7, 2013. No further extension will be entertained. 

The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate 

record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Mindy Hall does not timely 

file the record as ordered, the Court may issue an order directing the trial court to 

conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 23(a)
                                        
                                        
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No. 33-41050, No. 33-12276, No. 33-48808, No. 33-65132 and No. 33-60891
of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. on Forms S-8 and Registration Statements
No. 2-97482, No. 33-61177 and No. 33-65319 on Form S-3 of our report dated
December 18, 1995, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Optical Coatng Laboratory, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 1995.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
aforementioned report also included the financial statement schedule of
Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc., listed in Item 14(a)(2). The financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our
opinion, the financial swtatement schedule, when considered in relation to
the basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly, in
all material respects, the information set forth therein.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
San Francisco, California

January 26, 1996
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Thursday, September 19, 2024, 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

Hybrid Meeting: 1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC (12th Floor) and Virtual.

Note: If you would like to virtually access the meeting, see the instructions below.

# STATUS: 

                        This meeting will be open to the public. To access the meeting virtually, go to the commission's website                         *www.fec.gov*                         and click on the banner to be taken to the meeting page.                    

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Draft Advisory Opinion 2024-09: U.S. Representative Nanette Barragán and Barragán for Congress

Draft Advisory Opinion 2024-10: Former U.S. Representative Alan Lowenthal and Alan Lowenthal for Congress

Draft Advisory Opinion 2024-12: Shawn McCutcheon

REG 2024-01(Candidate Security)—Draft Final Rule and Explanation and Justification

REG 2023-02 (Artificial Intelligence in Campaign Ads)—Draft Notice of Disposition

Draft Interpretive Rule Regarding 52 U.S.C. 30124 (Artificial Intelligence in Campaign Ads)

Management and Administrative Matters

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

                        Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040 or                         *secretary@fec.gov,*                         at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.                    

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Laura E. Sinram,

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2024-21124 Filed 9-12-24; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6917

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD L. TROWELL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-96-234, CA-98-448-22-4) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward L. Trowell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Edward L. Trowell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Trowell , Nos. CR-96-234; CA-98-448-22-4; CA-98-379-22BE (D.S.C. May 28, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED