alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY EVALUATION

Regulatory Evaluation Form , Revision 2
. 4 Page 1 of 1 8 / 22 /08 

### AD Title: Elimination of Fan Shields From Tri
- Jet Airplanes Docket No. FAA
- 2006
- 24171 Directorate Identifier: 2006
- NE
- 08
- AD Costs: Costs per Product (e.g., engine, propeller) Action (e.g., Inspection, repla cement) Work
h ours Labor cost ( @ $80/hour) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

U.S. Registered Products Total Cost

for U
. S
. Fleet Install Fan Shields 2.5 $ 200.00 $9,451 $ 9,651.00 40 $ 386,040 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0



### Total Cost s of compliance for U
. S
. fleet: $ 386,040



### Costs covered under warranty Special considerations for Econom ic Analysis : 

### Exe cutive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES explain below NO DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES explain below NO Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES explain below NO 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 explain below NO 

### Explanation:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             209
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        685
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,105
<PP&E>                                           2,024
<DEPRECIATION>                                     646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              556
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,093
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,665
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    19
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (101)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,629)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,629)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,629)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.37)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.8

 

Power of Attorney

 

THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY (hereinafter, the “Power of Attorney”) is executed by Xudong ZHU (Domicile [*], ID card No.: [*]) as of September 10, 2011 and issued to Xin ZHOU (Domicile [*], ID card No.: [*]) (hereinafter, the “Entrusted Person”).

 

I, Xudong ZHU, hereby entrust the Entrusted Person with full representative power to exercise the following rights owned by me in the capacity of a shareholder of Beijing Yisheng Leju Information Services Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, the “Company”) on my behalf:

 

(1)         As my representative, to propose to convene and attend shareholders’ meetings of the Company according to the articles of association of the Company;

 

(2)         As my representative, to exercise, on my behalf, voting rights on all matters requiring discussion or resolutions of the shareholders’ meetings of the Company, including without limitation, the appointment and election of the Company’s directors and other officers, who should be appointed and removed by the shareholders;

 

(3)         As my representative, to exercise other voting rights of a shareholder as specified in the articles of association of the Company (including any other shareholder voting rights as specified in the amended articles of association).

 

I hereby irrevocably confirm that this Power of Attorney shall continue to be valid until the Shareholder Voting Right Proxy Agreement executed by and between Shanghai SINA Leju Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, the “WFOE”), the Company and the shareholders of the Company as of September 10, 2011 expires or is early terminated, unless the WFOE gives me a direction to replace the Entrusted Person.

 

Authorization is hereby made.

 

	
 
    	
Name:  Xudong ZHU
    
	
 
    	
Signature:
    	
/s/ Xudong ZHU
    
	
 
    	
Date:  September 10, 2011
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 8, 2023

No. 04

- 23

- 00036

- CR

IN RE Gredy Lazo PALACIO

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

On January 12, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed an emergency motion to stay the underlying proceedings pending disposition of the petition for writ of mandamus, which this court granted in part on January 13, 2023. After considering the petition, real party in interest’s response, relator’s reply, and the mandamus record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is

DENIED

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The stay imposed on January 13, 2023 is LIFTED

.

It is so ORDERED on March 8, 2023

.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of March, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 12722CR , styled State of Texas v. Gredy Lazo Palacio , pending in the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth presiding.
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00203

- CR

LUTHER JAY STOWE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Red River County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR

- 00479

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Luther Jay Stowe, appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The motion was

signed by both Stowe and his counsel in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2(a), we grant the motio n.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: February 19, 2014

Date Decided: February 20, 2014

Do Not Publish
p130839.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0839 Focus Ready Draft 9/5/2013 ENGINEER: Macek \ JAS PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:
USE:

OTHER USES:

TLV/PEL: None established.

Page 1p130839.eng

SAT (concerns) (08/27/2013): Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox Related Cases: // Human Health Related Cases: Migration to groundwater: Moderate PBT rating: P3B1T1 . Health: 1-2 Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 3 No releases to Water

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 0-1
NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0839 Page 2p130839.eng PROC:

Number of Sites/ Location: 1 unknown site(s) Days/yr: 333 Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: 0 Basis: Inhalation:

Dermal:

Page 3p130839.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: Yes PMN: 13-0839

USE:

Number of Sites/ Location: unknown site(s) Page 4p130839.eng Days/yr: Basis:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.

Incineration or Landfill Output 2: 8.3E+0 kg/site-day over 240 days/yr from

RELEASE TOTAL 2.0E+4 kg/yr - all sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation:

Dermal: Page 5p130839.eng



Page 6p130839.eng

Page 7
1

Order filed December 1, 2016. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00754-CV

____________

IN RE FORREST LOCKE AND SHERRI LEYENDECKER Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Probate Court No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 432,609

CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER

On September 22, 2016, relators Forrest Locke and Sherri Leyendecker filed 

a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 

(West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this court to 

compel the Honorable Rory R. Olsen, presiding judge of Probate Court No. 3 of 

Harris County, to set aside his (1) August 23, 2016 oral order denying relators’ 

motion to terminate the receivership; and (2) August 23, 2016 written order granting 

the applicant’s motion to give bond in the receivership in trial court cause number 
2

432,609, styled In re Estate of Cecil Wayne Clancy, Deceased. 

On September 29, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to abate this original 

proceeding through October 6, 2016, to allow the parties to continue settlement 

negotiations. On September 30, 2016, we granted the joint motion to abate, abated 

this case until October 6, 2016, and directed relators and real party in interest to 

advise this court of the status of the settlement. 

On October 6, 2016, relators and real party in interest advised this court that 

the parties were still attempting to settle the case, and requested that the abatement 

be continued through October 14, 2016. We granted the motion and issued an order 

on October 10, 2016, continuing the abatement through October 14, 2016.

On October 14, 2016, the relators and real party in interest filed a motion to 

extend the abatement because the parties are still attempting to settle the case. We

granted the motion and issued an order on October 20, 2016, continuing the 

abatement for thirty days.

On November 18, 2016, the parties advised this court that they agreed to 

continue the abatement pending performance of their mediated settlement.
3

Therefore, the abatement of this case is continued until such time when the 

parties advise this court that they have performed their mediated settlement. We 

order the parties to provide an update to this court every thirty days, starting from 

the date of this order, regarding the status of the case until they have performed their 

mediated settlement. The original proceeding will be reinstated on this court’s active 

docket when the parties file a motion to dismiss the original proceeding or other 

dispositive motion. This court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate 

the original proceeding, or the court may reinstate the original proceeding on its own 

motion.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
SCWC-14-0000647

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., solely as

nominee, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SHARON KEHAULANI WISE and BLOSSOM ILIMA NIHIPALI,

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants,

and

EWA BY GENTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-14-0000647; CIV. NO. 09-1-1064)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and 

Circuit Judge Kim, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants Sharon Kehaulani 

Wise and Blossom Ilima Nihipali’s Application for Writ of 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-14-0000647

18-SEP-2015

08:54 AM
2

Certiorari, filed on August 10, 2015, is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, September 18, 2015.

Gary Victor Dubin,

Frederick J. Arensmeyer, and

Richard T. Forrester

for petitioners

Ben Suter

for respondent

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Glenn J. Kim
---

EXHIBIT
32.1


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





(ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In
connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce A. Williamson,
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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
      at the dates and for the periods
indicated.





Date:
      November 5, 2009
            By:
            /s/ BRUCEA. WILLIAMSONBruce
      A. Williamson
              Chairman
      of the Board, President and Chief Executive
  Officer
2011 Certified Organic 

Production Survey

Data Release Briefing

United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

October 4, 2012 3:00 pm
About the Survey

• What?

– Census of all USDA-certified organic producers

– Conducted by NASS in conjunction with USDA’s 

Risk Management Agency (RMA)

– Data for 2011 calendar year

• When?

– Mailed December 2011, follow-up through August
Stakeholder Support

• Questionnaire Development

– Close consultation with RMA

– Questionnaire testing

• Marketing/Outreach

– Organic organizations

– Certifiers

– Media
Data Collection

• Mailing list included

– USDA-certified organic producers (National 

Organic Program)

– Individuals identified by NASS Field Offices

• 76% response rate
Data Highlights
Certified Organic Farms

• 9,140 USDA-certified organic farms

• Top states

• California 1,898

• Wisconsin 870

• New York 597

• Washington 493

• Iowa 467
Certified Organic Acreage

• 3.6 million organic acres

– 2 million acres cropland

• 1.5 million acres harvested cropland

– 1.6 million acres pasture/rangeland
Certified Organic Sales

• 2011 certified organic sales totaled $3.53 billion

– $2.22 billion in Crops

– $1.31 billion in Livestock & Poultry

• Average sales per farm $414,726

– Compared with $134,807 for all farms (2007 Census of 

Agriculture)
Certified Organic Sales - Top States

Amount % of U.S. Certified 

Organic Sales

California $1,388,847,000 39.3%

Washington $297,104,000 8.4%

Oregon $233,452,000 6.6%

Texas $165,499,000 4.7%

Wisconsin $132,457,000 3.8%
Certified Organic Sales – By 

Category

Amount % of U.S. Certified 

Organic Sales

Crops $2,220,627,000 62.9%

Livestock and Poultry Products $1,041,322,000 29.5%

Livestock and Poultry $269,857,000 7.6%
Certified Organic Sales – Crops

– Vegetables $1.1 billion

– Fruits $494.8 million

• Apples $122.2 million

• Grapes $160.6 million

– Field crops $464.9 million

– Berries $125.3 million

– Tree nuts $47.0 million

– Maple syrup $16.9 million
Certified Organic Sales – Livestock

– Milk $765 million

– Chicken eggs $276 million

– Broilers $115 million
Certified Organic Value-added 

Sales

• 2011 certified organic value-added sales 

totaled $118.6 million

• Average sales per farm $225,458

• Top states

• California

• Washington

• Oregon

• Vermont

• Pennsylvania
Marketing Outlets

Percent of sales

Wholesale 

Market

81% Direct-to-Retail

13%

Consumer Direct

6%
What’s Next for NASS?
United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

Upcoming Reports

October 11 Crop Production

October 19 Cattle on Feed

Milk Production

October 31 Agricultural Prices
United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

202-720-2127

800-727-9540

nass@nass.usda.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          14,724
<SECURITIES>                                    18,872
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                       483
<INVENTORY>                                         89
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,583
<PP&E>                                          11,932
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,913
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,669
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            97
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,449
<SALES>                                          6,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,841
<CGS>                                            1,265
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,531
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,504
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,306
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Bruce D.Horn, Chief Financial Officer of Oplink Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifiesthat, to the best of his knowledge:**1.**The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2005, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “***Annual Report***”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and**2.**The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report and results of operationsof the Company for the periods covered by the Annual Report.**In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 23rd day of September, 2005.     /s/ Bruce D. Horn     Bruce D. Horn    Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SECand is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Actof 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before orafter the date of theForm 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
BRANDON STEEN FUHRMANN , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 17

- 0615 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. 2013

- 459682

- 001 The Honorable Daniel J. Kiley , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED AND R ELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Brandon Steen Fuhrmann , Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe, Judge Kenton D. Jones, and Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 2-1-2018STATE v. FUHRMANN Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Brandon Steen Fuhrmann see ks review of the superior court’ s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proc edure 32.1. This is petitioner’ s first petition and it is untimely

. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court wi ll not disturb a superior court’ s ruling o n a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’ s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 A riz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter , the superior court’ s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We f ind that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
<PAGE>

                    DATA TRANSLATION, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                   NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Data Translation, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.

/s/ Alfred A. Molinari
Alfred A. Molinari
Chief Executive Officer
February 28, 2003