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

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 3696 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 113

- AD

- 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) int o and then out of the changed cell

.

**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) Labo r

cost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

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

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection of FC 1.0 $ 85.00 $ 

### 0 $ 85.00 

### 959 $ 81,515.00 $ 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: 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 81,515 

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

### 0

**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



### Replacement 21.0 $ 1,785.00 $26,500 $ 28,285.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic An **alysis** ( 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”?

YES * NO

* Ex planation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where 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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 3, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald
M. DiNella, the Chief Financial Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and

(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Mortons.

Date: May 6, 2011



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ RONALD M. DINELLA  
|Ronald M. DiNella      
|Chief Financial Officer
Richard RECKERT, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1606

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PEDRO ROMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1840

[October 31, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Samantha Schosberg 

Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2011CF006736B.

Pedro Roman, Bowling Green, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for postconviction relief without prejudice to appellant filing a petition for writ of 

mandamus in the trial court to obtain his records and trial transcripts. 

See Bush v. State, 947 So. 2d 685, 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). 

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### IN RE: Eric M. RICHARDSON, a/k/a Father, Petitioner.

No. 17-1489

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Eric Richardson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Richardson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. However, we find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Richardson also seeks an order granting relief on his claim that he does not qualify as a career offender and directing the district court to recuse itself. We conclude that Richardson is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426*U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought and no other adequate remedy is available. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Because Richardson can pursue his career offender claim through his § 2241 petition and subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, the relief he seeks is not available by way of mandamus. Nor has Richardson established a clear right to the district court’s recusal.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE APRIL 2,
2000 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-2000
<CASH>                                           2,289
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,454
<PP&E>                                          80,326
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,846
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,044
<BONDS>                                         63,221
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,935
<SALES>                                         63,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,595
<CGS>                                           21,422
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,934
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,359
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,308
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,051
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,051
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.58


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



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 Ariba, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Robert M. Calderoni, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James W. Frankola, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    ROBERT M.
CALDERONIRobert M. CalderoniChief Executive Officer




Date: December 6, 2005



/s/    JAMES W. FRANKOLAJames W. FrankolaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




Date: December 6, 2005
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the
Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Ray E. Winborne, the Acting Chief Financial Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                               
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------
|Date: November 12, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /S/    RAY E.
WINBORNE        
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Ray E. Winborne               
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Acting Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Douglas C. Lane, certify that:  1.   I have reviewed this report of Abviva, Inc.;  2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,  not  misleading  with  respect  to  the period covered by this report;  3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other financial information  included  in  this  report,  fairly  present  in  all material respects  the  financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the  registrant  as  of,  and  for,  the  periods presented in this report;  4.   The registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and  I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused such disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to  be  designed  under  our supervision,  to  ensure  that  material  information  relating to the registrant,  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us  by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which  this  report  is  being  prepared;  b)   evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's  disclosure controls  and  procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about  the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of  the  end  of  the  period  covered  by  this  report based on such evaluation;  and  c)   disclosed  in  this  report  any  change  in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most  recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the  case  of  an  annual  report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably  likely  to  materially  affect,  the registrant's internal control  over  financial  reporting;  and  5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent  functions):  a)   all significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in  the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are  reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,  process,  summarize  and  report  financial  information; and  b)   any fraud,  whether  or  not  material,  that  involves  management or other  employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in the registrant's internal  control  over  financial  reporting.    DATED  this  14th day  of  April 2008.  /s/ Douglas Lane ______________________________ Douglas Lane Principal Accounting Officer
Tyrik L. LEWIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Thomas M. KNIGHT, Sheriff Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4279

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 13, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. As the petitioner testified that he could post a bond with assistance from his mother, the bond is not excessive and tantamount to no bail. See Henley v. Jenne, 796 So. 2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ("By agreeing to become financially responsible for a defendant's bail these family members and friends have a very personal stake in seeing the defendant appear in court when scheduled. With that stake and their close relationship with the defendant comes their peculiar ability to use their power and influences to make certain that he will meet his obligation to appear. Hence in fixing the amount of bail, while the financial resources of the defendant himself are important, ... so too is the defendant's access to family and friends for the benefit of bail and, necessarily, their financial burdens and risks standing behind the posting of bail."). This denial is without prejudice to the petitioner's right to file a motion to modify bail should the circumstances presented to the trial court change.

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
# o
l TH TER F:

p 

### nd nt 

### T ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) -0 -2011-0 23 

## 8: I,

-,---,-

__Da of**-==d..:=~~:::"** , 2012

fficerCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the original ofthe allaehed ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND CONSENT AGREEM'ENT AND FINAL ORDER in the mailerof EOG INC.; DOCKET NO.: CAA-08-2011-0023, theJOINT MOTION TO AMEND ADMINSTRATIVE COMPLAINT AND CONSENT AGREEMENT was filed with the Regional Hearing Clerkon June 15,2012; the FINAL ORDER waS filed on June 19,2012. Further, the undersigned certifies that a tfUC and correCl copy 

### ofthe docuJncnl was 

### delivered to David Rochlin, Senior EnforcementAnomey. U. S. EPA- Region 8,1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129. True and correct copies ofthe aforementioned documents were placed ill 

### the United States mail and e-mailedonJuneI9.2012.to: Edward Lewis Folbright and Jaworski, LLP 1301 McKinney. Soite5100 Hooston, TX 77010-3095 elewis@fulbright.com 

### E-mailcd to: cliZllbeth Whitsel U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

### Cincinnati Finance Center 26 W, Martin Luther King Drive(MS-0002) 

### Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

June 19,2012 

# 'ifnLtlev t2dRJ!1A>

. 'inaArtemis Paralegal/Regionaillearing Clerk
Department of Energy 

Carlsbad Field Office 

P. O. Box 3090 

~ Carlsbad, New Mexico 88221 

AT~~ JUL 1 5 2015 

Mr. Jonathan D. Edwards, Director 

Radiation Protection Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW - MC 6608T 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Subject: Response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Letters Dated February 27, 2015 and 

June 5, 2015 Regarding the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2014 Compliance Recertification Application 

completeness review letters dated February 27, 2015 and June 5, 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) is providing responses to 15 of EPA's completeness questions. The DOE will continue to submit 

phased responses to EPA to ensure questions are answered in a timely manner, although some items will 

require additional analysis. 

The DOE has previously provided responses to all of EPA's completeness questions from the December 17, 

2014 letter. Pending responses for the remaining questions in EPA's February 27, 2015 and June 5, 2015 

letters will be submitted at a later date, yet to be determined. This submittal includes four enclosures: 

• Enclosure 1 is a hard copy of 15 of the EPA's comments and DOE's responses; 

• Enclosure 2(on compact disc) provides the electronic version of the references as noted in each 

response. Copyrighted references, marked with an asterisk in "References" of Enclosure 1, are not 

provided in Enclosure 2. If there are specific copyrighted references EPA needs, DOE will work to 

obtain a copy; 

• Enclosure 3 is the "Status Report of DOE Responses to EPA Completeness Questions." The report 

is a table showing EPA comments received on December 17, 2014, February 27, 2015 and June 5, 

2015, and DOE responses in this submittal, responses previously submitted and responses still 

pending; 

• Enclosure 4 is the "CRA-2014 Errata Tracking." The table is a cumulative list of errata that have 

been identified and corrected up to this point. 

If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Russ Patterson at (575) 234-7457. 

Sincerely, 

Bryson, Acting Manager 

Carlsbad Field Office 

Enclosures 

cc: w/enclosures 

T. Peake, EPA/ORIA 

K. Economy, EPA/ORIA 

J. Walsh, EPA/ORIA 

S. Ghose, EPA/ORIA 

R. Lee, EPA/ORIA 

N. Stone, EPA Region 6 

F. Marcinowski, DOE/HQ 

D. Tonkay, DOE/HQ 

A. Harris, DOE/HQ 

W. Mouser, DOE/CBFO 

G. Basabilvazo, DOE/CBFO 

R. Patterson, DOE/CBFO 

CBFO M&RC 

'ED denotes electronic distribution 

CBFO:EPD:RP:MN:15-2208:UFC 5486.00
#### Mr. ROBINSON, aka Robinson, aka Fnu Robinson, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-70673

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner

Kimberly A. Burdge, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Respondent’s motion to lift the stay of proceedings (Docket Entry No. 41) is granted.

Robinson, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Robinson’s second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where he filed it over five years after the final order of removal, . *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where he failed to show prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008), (explaining the BIA can deny a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (even under disfavored group analysis, petitioner must present some evidence of individualized risk).

PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilbert MAURICIO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51250 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 6, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gilbert Mauricio, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gilbert Mauricio has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mauricio has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.