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

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 4866 Directorate Identifier: 2015

-NE

- 33

- 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. 

### Updat e Field s

**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
Replac ement 2 nd stage compressor impeller

. See Note 1 See Note 2 $ 0.00 $1,513.25 $1,513.25 4,000 $6,053,000. 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: 

### Number Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 6,053,000 Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### Warranty

**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

Inspection $ 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 anyt hing in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) **Note 1** : Service able part cost calculated as follows: pro

-rated part cost = $12,500 based on 50% of impeller new part cost of $25,000 for 200 engines; total pro

-rated cost = $2.5M; plus rework costs (with impeller re

grind) 16 hours labor @ $85/hour for 1 , 900 engines = $2.584M; plus rework costs (without impeller re

grind) 6 hours labor @ $85/hour for 1 , 900 engines = $0.969M; To tal Cost = $6.053M. **Note 2** : There are no labor costs for removal or replacement because these actions will occur at the next scheduled removal of the 2 nd stage compressor impeller within the required compliance times. **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD b e considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * ☐ NO ☐

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory P olicies and Procedures:**  Is the AD significant? YES * ☐ NO ☐

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibil ity 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 ☐
**EXHIBIT      10.23(b)**

**Salary      and Bonus Information for Executive Officers**

|                                           |                        |   |                          |   |                            |   |                           |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                                           |                        |   |                          |   |                            |   |                           |
| Name:                                          | Jan                W. Clark |   | John                G. Warner |   | Michael                T. Storm |   | Michael                L. Derr |
|                                           |                        |   |                          |   |                            |   |                           |
| Salary                Effective January1, 2005 | $178,500                    |   | $161,700                      |   | $117,600                        |   | $100,800                       |
| Bonus                paid in 2005:             | $7,500                      |   | $7,500                        |   | $7,500                          |   | $7,500                         |
|                                           |                        |   |                          |   |                            |   |                           |
|                                           |                        |   |                          |   |                            |   |                           |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2255 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 393
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2255

                          [Report No. 115-528]

  To clarify that nonprofit organizations may accept donated mortgage 
                  appraisals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2017

  Mr. Trott introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

                            January 29, 2018

           Additional sponsors: Mr. Gottheimer and Ms. Sinema

                            January 29, 2018

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify that nonprofit organizations may accept donated mortgage 
                  appraisals, and for other purposes.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Housing Opportunities Made Easier 
Act'' or the ``HOME Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM TRUTH IN LENDING ACT.

    Section 129E(i) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639e(i)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Rule of construction related to appraisal 
        donations.--For purposes of paragraph (1), if a fee appraiser 
        voluntarily donates appraisal services to an organization 
        described in section 170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986, such voluntary donation shall be deemed customary and 
        reasonable.''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 393

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2255

                          [Report No. 115-528]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To clarify that nonprofit organizations may accept donated mortgage 
                  appraisals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 29, 2018

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
Order entered February 2 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 01426

- CR

RICHARD THOMAS ALFAN O, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 41 6th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416

- 83426

- 2015



### O RDER

The Court has before it court reporter Susan Maienschein’s February 1, 2017 request for

additional time to file the reporter’s record in this appeal

. We GRANT th e request and ORDER

the reporter’s record filed March 3, 2017.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### Woods, Respondent, vs. Sentinel-News Company, Appellant.

*December 3, 1934*

January *8, 1935.*

*629For the appellant there was a brief by *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Arthur T. Spence*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Arthur T. Spence.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Frank H. Hanna-ford,*attorney, and *Otto Dorner*of counsel, both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Dorner.*

Fairchild, J.

When language claimed to be libelous does not carry a sense supporting the meaning alleged and is not reasonably capable of conveying to the ordinary mind a defamatory meaning, it cannot be the basis of a right to maintain an action. It is the duty of the court in the first instance to determine whether the meaning ascribed by the pleader to the words set forth in the complaint is a natural and proper one, and if it is not, then the complaint must fall. *Lubcke v. Teckam,*179 Wis. 543, 191 N. W. 968; *Scofield v. Milwaukee Free Press Co.*126 Wis. 81, 105 N. W. 227; *Robertson v. Edelstein,*104 Wis. 440, 80 N. W. 724; *Leuch v. Berger,*161 Wis. 564, 155 N. W. 148; *York v. Cole,*190 Wis. 179, 208 N. W. 944. The effect upon the reader of the natural and reasonable import of the words used is the gist of the matter. *Bradley v. Cramer,*59 Wis. 309, 18 N. W. 268. Upon a fair construction of the published article set forth in the statement of facts, all suggestion that respondent was charged with the commission of any offense is positively excluded. While liberal rules of pleading are followed in construing a complaint, the pleader’s statement that particular words impute a criminal charge cannot in *630themselves enlarge the reasonable and natural meaning of the- words used. The article says that respondent’s wife called the police saying that her husband was a bank robber and was wanted in Indiana; that upon receipt of the message, the police investigated the matter and found that the wife had made a false accusation because of trouble with her husband.

The publication under consideration should be read as a whole and not in detached fragments. *Leuch v. Berger, supra.*When this is done, we find the respondent to be the object of an unfounded accusation by his wife. He is not charged with the commission of any offense or the doing of any act which would hold him up to ridicule, hatred, or scorn. He was not detained by the police, but his wife was arrested, because of what happened, on a charge of disorderly conduct. The conclusion that follows from the reading of the article is that the respondent was guilty of no transgression. Because the words here used are not reasonably susceptible of a meaning indicating that respondent was charged with a criminal offense or accused of being a criminal, the demurrer to the complaint should have been sustained.

*By the Court.*— Order reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 D0 38 6 .GRADY TAYLOR v . THE STATE

I n D ec ember 2023, Grad y Taylo r p l e ad e d gu ilty to interf erenc e w ith

go v ernment p ro p erty and the trial c o u rt sentenc ed him to a t otal of f iv e years, w ith the
f irst fo u r years to b e serv ed in co nf inement and the remaind er on p ro batio n. Taylo r then f iled a timely mo tio n f

o r sentenc e mo d if

ic a tio n, w hic h t he trial c o u rt d enied o n
M arc h 27 , 2024. On M ay 6 , 2024, Taylo r f iled a n ap p lic atio n f

o r d isc retio nary ap p eal
in the Geo rgia Su p reme Co u rt, w hic h t ransf erred the ap p eal here. W e, ho w ev er, lac k j u risd ic tio n.

The d e nial o f a timely mo tio n und er OCGA § 1 7- 1 0- 1 (f ) is generally su bj ec t to
d irec t ap peal. See, e. g. , A n ders o n v

. S ta te , 29 0 Ga. A p p

. 89 0 (6 6 0 SE2d 87 6 ) (2008);

Ma ldo n a do v

. S ta te , 26 0 G a. A p p

. 580 (580 SE2d 330) (2003). A nd o r dinarily, w hen

a p arty has a right o f d irec t ap p eal and f iles a n ap p lic atio n f

o r d isc retio nary ap p eal, w e

w ill grant the a p p l i c a t i o n. See OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 (j ). H o w ev er, the ap p lic atio n f o r a d isc r etio nary ap peal mu st b e f iled w ithin 30 d ays o f t h e o r d er being ap pealed

. See
OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 ( d ). The requ irements o f OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 are j u risd ic t io nal, and this

Co u rt c anno t ac c ep t an ap plic atio n f o r ap p eal no t ma d e i n co m p l i a n ce therew ith. Bo yle

v

. Sta te , 1 9 0 Ga. A p p

. 7 34, 7 34 (380 SE2d 57 ) (1 9 89 ). July 10, 2024H ere, Taylo r f iled his ap p lic a t io n 40 d ays a f t e r entry o f the o rd er he seek s to ap p eal.
Giv en that the ap plic atio n is u ntimely, w e are w itho u t j u risd ic t io n to c o nsid er it.

A c c o rd ingly, this ap p lic atio n is hereby D I SM I SSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t

r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

. W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 07/10/2024
#### Leicht Transfer & Storage Company and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Otjen & Otjen*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent Industrial Commission: *John W. Reynolds,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
*June 20, 1939.*

#### Will of Voellings: Bensene and others, Appellants, vs. Horter, Executor, and others, Respondents.

For the appellants: *Hayes & Hayes,*attorneys, and *William A. Hayes*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent George Horter, Executor: *Walter Schins, Jr.,*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents Sacred Heart Monastery and William Schaefer: *C. F. Mullen*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

— Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the registrant, 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, after due inquiry:



|(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 registrant.



|               |  |                            
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:          |  |                            
|March 10, 2005 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|               |  |                            
|               |  | Marc N. Teal               
|               |  | Principal Financial Officer
|               |  |                            
|               |  |                            
|               |  |                            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2007

The undersigned executive officer of the Registrant hereby certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Michael J. DeeName:

Michael J. DeeTitle:

President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer


February 13, 2008
#### Newman, Respondent, vs. Erchens, Appellant. Newman, by guardian *ad litem,*Respondent, vs. Erchens, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Geo. H. Gordon, Law & Gordon*of La Crosse.

For the respondent: *Q. H. Hale*of La Crosse.

*By the Court.*

Orders affirmed.
AFS-11-004-E 

November 19, 2010 

 Exemption No. 7926D 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-13291 

Mr. Steven L. Hotle 

Director/Testing Center Supervisor 

Pulaski Technical College 

Aerospace Technology Center 

1600 West Maryland Avenue 

North Little Rock, AR 72120 

Dear Mr. Hotle: 

We are pleased to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 7926, 

as amended. This letter explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for our Decision 

By letter dated September 28, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Pulaski Technical College (PTC) for an extension of Exemption No. 7926, as 

amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

permits PTC to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to students immediately 

following their successful completion of the general curriculum but before they meet the 

experience requirements of § 65.77. 

In your petition, you indicate that the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety 

that were the basis for granting the exemption have not changed. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in 

the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, 

and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to PTC. 
 2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 7926, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 7926, as amended, to 

November 30, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 7926 remain the same. This letter will be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 7926. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service
#### Badger Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. Werba and others, Appellants.

For the appellants : *Louis R. Potter*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Anderson, Donovan & Steinle*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.-*

Judgment affirmed.
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2229 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide permanent 

authority for judicial review of certain Merit Systems 

Protection Board decisions relating to whistleblowers, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2229 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘All Circuit Review 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

5 BOARD DECISIONS RELATING TO WHISTLE6 BLOWERS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7703(b)(1)(B) of title 5, 

8 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘During the 

9 5-year period beginning on the effective date of the Whis10 tleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012, a peti11 tion’’ and inserting ‘‘A petition’’. 

12 (b) DIRECTOR REVIEW.—Section 7703(d)(2) of such 

13 title is amended by striking ‘‘During the 5-year period be14 ginning on the effective date of the Whistleblower Protec15 tion Enhancement Act of 2012, this paragraph’’ and in16 serting ‘‘This paragraph’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 11, 

2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2229 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide 

ing to whistleblowers, and for other purposes. Merit Systems Protection Board decisions relatpermanent authority for judicial review of certain
# C_2005006EN.01001102.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 11 November 2004

in Case C-73/03 Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(State aid - Tax benefits for the transfer of agricultural holdings - Subsidising of loans and guarantees for owners of agricultural holdings)

(2005/C 6/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-73/03 Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J.L. Buendía Sierra) – action for annulment under the first paragraph of Article 230 EC, brought on 19 February 2003 – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

1

---
# APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF COLLECTION & ANALYSIS OF SILT

SAMPLES FROM PAVED ROADS IN MARICOPA COUNTYD-1 

### SUMMARY OF COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF

SILT SAMPLES FROM PAVED ROADS

IN MARICOPA COUNTY

September 7, 2007

Prepared for:

Sierra Research

1801 J Street

Sacramento, California 95811

Prepared by:

Applied Environmental Consultants, Inc.

1553 W. Elna Rae, Suite 101

Tempe, Arizona 85281
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2016

No. 04-16-00242-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.S.R., J.H.R. JR., AND G.D.R.,

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-01761

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s motion for extension of time to file its brief is granted. We order appellee’s 

brief due July 26, 2016. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 15th day of July, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court