alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No . FAA

- 20 16

- 5019 Directorate ID : 2015

- SW

- 079

- AD

Helicopter Model:

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 24 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent the failure of a sliding door to jettison,
which could prevent occupants from exiting the helicopter during an emergency

.

Costs : We estimate that visually inspecting the sliding doors for corrosion would require 1 work

- hour and no parts for a tota l cost of $85 per helicopter, and $2,040 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing corroded parts would require 8 work

- hours and parts would cost $500 for a total cost of $1,180 per helicopter. Replacing the door jettisoning system would require 16 work

- hours and part s would cost $4,500 for a total cost of $5,860 per helicopter.

Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) 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 ( ) No (  )

Project Engineer : David Hatfield
No. 11-1320.

#### Caldwell *v.*Ohio.

Ct. App. Ohio, Richland County. Certiorari denied.
#### Charles Alonzo TUNSTALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank L. PERRY; Beverly Stubbs, R.N.; Dr. Arthur Davis; Clinton Brockington; Dr. Sami Hussan; Jane Welch; Dr. Donald Micklos; Lynda Padgett; Lititia Owens; Lequecia Falcon; Paula Y. Smith; Ms. Carmen S. Hendricks; Dr. Keyser; Peter Woglam, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-7023

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 28, 2017

Charles Alonzo Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent.in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Alonzo Tunstall appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing TunstalTs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Tunstall v.*Perry, No. 1:16-cv-01434-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C, July 25, 2017). We dispense with oi’al 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*
#### IN RE: ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., ASUS Computer International, Acer Inc., Acer America Corporation, Petitioners

2017-131, 2017-132

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Filed 11/15/2017

Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq., Kevin Hardy, Aaron P. Maurer, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, Patrick Aubrey Fitch, Patrick M. Shields, Matthew Warren, Attorney, Warren Lex LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners

Michael P. Sandonato, John D. Carlin, Natalie Lieber, Fitzpatrick, Celia, Harper *&*Scinto, New York, .NY, for Respondents

*957Before Taranto, Chen, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION

ORDER

Taranto, Circuit Judge.

In these patent infringement suits, which have been consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings and consolidated for purposes of these mandamus petitions, ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International (collectively, ASUS-Tek), and Acer Inc. and Acer America Corp. (collectively, Acer), petition for a writ of mandamus that would direct the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to grant their joint motion to transfer these cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Specifically, ASUS-Tek and Acer argue that the district court clearly abused its discretion in determining that their venue defense had been waived and that the Supreme Court’s decision in *TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,*- U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1514, 197 L.Ed.2d 816 (2017), did not constitute an intervening change of law. Kon-inklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation oppose.

We recently held that the Supreme Court’s decision in *TC Heartland*effected a relevant change of law and, more particularly, that failure to present the venue objection earlier did not come within the waiver rule of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) and (h)(1)(A). *In re Micron,*No. 17-138 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017).1 In light of that decision, we deem it the proper course here for Acer and ASUSTek to first move the district court for reconsideration of its order denying their joint motion to transfer. We therefore deny the petitions for a writ of mandamus. Any new petitions, for mandamus from the district court’s ruling on reconsideration will be considered on their own merits.

Accordingly,

It Is Oedeeed That:

The petitions are denied.

1

. ASUSTek and Acer did in fact raise a venue objection at the time they filed their first motion to dismiss in March 2016, but they withdrew the objection in June 2016 after the issuance of *In re TC Heartland LLC,*821 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 977

AN ACT

To correct certain references in the Bankruptcy Code.

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

3 SECTION 1. REFERENCE.

4 Section 1228 of title 11, United States Code, is

5 amended by striking ‘‘section 1222(b)(10)’’ each place it

6 appears and inserting ‘‘section 1222(b)(9)’’.

Passed the Senate September 28 (legislative day,

September 25), 1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 977

AN ACT

To correct certain references in the Bankruptcy

Code.
EXHIBIT 4.5

                                 First Amendment
                                       to
                              Employment Agreement

     This First Amendment to Employment Agreement is made as of June 1, 2002,
and is by and between Vista Exploration Corporation., a Colorado corporation
("Employer"), and Charles A. Ross, Sr., a resident of the State of Kansas
("Employee"). For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally
bound, agree as follows:

     1. Section 2 of the Employment Agreement between Employer and Employee
dated as of April 1, 2002 (the "Agreement"), shall be amended and restated,
effective as of April 1, 2002, as follows:

     Professional Efforts. Employee shall devote such professional time and
     attention to the performance of his obligations under this Agreement as are
     reasonably required by Employer, and shall at all times perform all of his
     obligations hereunder to the best of his ability, experience and talent.

     2. Section 4 of the Agreement shall be amended and restated, effective as
of April 1, 2002, as follows:

     Compensation. In consideration for his services, Employer shall pay
     Employee a base salary at the rate of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) per
     annum. Employee's salary hereunder shall be payable in bi-monthly
     installments, or on such other payment schedule as is used to pay similarly
     situated employees of Employer. Employee shall be eligible for annual
     increases in base salary as determined by the Board of Directors of
     Employer in its sole discretion based upon Employee's performance and the
     financial performance of Employer. Employee agrees to defer the receipt of
     his salary for a period of (i) up to six (6) months; (ii) the Employer has
     received an additional Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) in debt or
     equity capital infusion; (iii) the Employer starts receiving revenue from
     operations; or (iv) there is a change of control requiring an 8-K filing,
     whichever first occurs.

     3. Except as expressly set forth in this First Amendment, the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect, enforceable in accordance with its terms.

EMPLOYEE:

/s/ Charles A. Ross, Sr.
------------------------

EMPLOYER:

Vista Exploration Corporation

By: /s/ Charles A. Ross, Sr.
----------------------------
Charles A. Ross, President
**Exhibit 32.2**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of LoralSpace & Communications Ltd. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Richard J. Townsend, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     (1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
     (2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ RICHARD J. TOWNSEND      Richard J. Townsend     *Executive Vice President* *and Chief Financial Officer*
August 14, 2003
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: APPOINTMENT TO ORPHANS’ COURT PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE : : : : : : : No. 720 SUPREME COURT RULES

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA M** 
AND NOW , this 1 4 th day of December, 2016, the Honorable Emil A. Giordano, Northampton County, is here by appointed as a m ember of the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee for a term of three years commencing January 1, 20 1 7

.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 8 -00 618 -CV
A-L Cre ekside Tow n Center , L.P.; and City of New Braun fels, T exas , Appellan ts
v. New Braun fels IH -35 Re tail Associates, L.P . , Appellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C2008 -08 05A , HO NORAB LE DIB WALDRIP , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellants, A-L Creekside Town C enter , L .P. and City of Ne w B raunf

els, Texas, and appellee , New B raunf

els I H-35 Retail Associates, L .P., have jointly filed with this Court an ag ree d motion to di smiss the appea l, inf orming the Court that they have se ttled their dispute. The pa rties state that Re ta il A sso c iate s, pla int if f i n th e tr ia l c ourt , ha s a g re e d to dis mis s the City fr om i ts l aws uit and has e ntere d into a settlement ag ree ment with Creekside
. The pa rties move that we dismiss the
a pp e a l and re mand to t he dis tr ic t c ourt

fo r f ur the r p ro c e e d i n g s to e ff

e c tuate the se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt. We gr ant the par

ties’ agree d motion, dis miss the appea l , an d re mand to the trial cour t for fur ther proce eding s consistent with the parties’ a g ree ment. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.1.2 __________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Dismissed and Remanded Filed: Jul y

7, 2009
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 28, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00358

- CR

Perla Judith PENA

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Fro m the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- CRS

- 440

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State ’ s Amended Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED.

T he State ’ s brief is due June 6, 2014.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 28th day of May, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07651

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

07651\07651_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

07651\07651_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 07651\07651_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 07651\07651_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07651\07651_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07651\07651_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07651\07651_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07651\07651_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

07651\Certification Statement_07651.pdf Plant certification statement

07651\Supporting Documents\07651_APC 2009 Form 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

07651\Supporting Documents\07651_Barry Section 2_3 Copy 5 C2-31 SCR.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07651\Supporting Documents\07651_Barry Water Balance - WB1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x

07651\Supporting Documents\07651_CBI_Cost Summary- Barry 3-5 Ash Transport 

System_CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certifications

I, Hamish N. J. Brewer, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to JDA Software Group, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                       |  |                     
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|Dated: December 21, 2011 |  |  |  | By:                                   |  | /s/ Hamish N. Brewer
|                         |  |  |  | Hamish N. Brewer                     
|                         |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                         |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>     
        THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
        ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 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-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         43,027
<SECURITIES>                                   10,323
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,894
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               55,985
<PP&E>                                         2,868
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 59,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,678
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       123
<OTHER-SE>                                     56,482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   59,283
<SALES>                                        2,413
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,413
<CGS>                                          667
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  667
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,220)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   15
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,235)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,235)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.19)
        


</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 82/2023

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 82 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6621 March 2023 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 82

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6621 March 2023

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/605 of 9 March 2023 concerning the authorisation of ethyl oleate, nona-2,6-dien-1-ol, pent-2-en-1-ol, trans-2,cis-6-nonadien-1-ol, 2-dodecenal, nona-2(trans),6(cis)-dienal, nona-2,4-dienal, trans-2-nonenal, 2,4-decadienal, hepta-2,4-dienal, deca-2(trans),4(trans)-dienal, dodec-2(trans)-enal, hept-2(trans)-enal, non-2-enal, nona-2(trans),6(trans)-dienal, undec-2(trans)-enal, trans-2-octenal, trans-2-decenal, tr-2, tr-4-nonadienal, tr-2, tr-4-undecadienal, hex-2(trans)-enyl acetate, hex-2-enyl butyrate, oct-1-en-3-one, isopulegol, 4-terpinenol, linalyl butyrate, linalyl formate, linalyl propionate, linalyl isobutyrate, 3-methyl-2-cyclopenten-1-one, methyl 3-oxo-2-pentyl-1-cyclopentylacetate, benzophenone, benzyl cinnamate, ethyl salicylate, 1,2-dimethoxy-4-(prop-1-enyl)-benzene, myrcene and β-ocimene as feed additives for all animal species (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/605 of 9 March 2023 concerning the authorisation of ethyl oleate, nona-2,6-dien-1-ol, pent-2-en-1-ol, trans-2,cis-6-nonadien-1-ol, 2-dodecenal, nona-2(trans),6(cis)-dienal, nona-2,4-dienal, trans-2-nonenal, 2,4-decadienal, hepta-2,4-dienal, deca-2(trans),4(trans)-dienal, dodec-2(trans)-enal, hept-2(trans)-enal, non-2-enal, nona-2(trans),6(trans)-dienal, undec-2(trans)-enal, trans-2-octenal, trans-2-decenal, tr-2, tr-4-nonadienal, tr-2, tr-4-undecadienal, hex-2(trans)-enyl acetate, hex-2-enyl butyrate, oct-1-en-3-one, isopulegol, 4-terpinenol, linalyl butyrate, linalyl formate, linalyl propionate, linalyl isobutyrate, 3-methyl-2-cyclopenten-1-one, methyl 3-oxo-2-pentyl-1-cyclopentylacetate, benzophenone, benzyl cinnamate, ethyl salicylate, 1,2-dimethoxy-4-(prop-1-enyl)-benzene, myrcene and β-ocimene as feed additives for all animal species (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# C_2008265EN.01S00301.xml

| 18.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 265/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
### Entire page is confidentia l
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11412 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JULIO CESAR HUMANA-HERON, also known as Julio Umana-Geron, also known as Jose Orellano-Calistro, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-104

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Following a jury trial, Julio Cesar Humana-Heron was convicted of one charge of illegal reentry into the United States after conviction of an aggravated felony and sentenced to serve 63 months in prison. Humana-Heron argues that the district court erred by admitting a warrant of deportation at trial because this document amounted to hearsay. As he concedes, this argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Valdez-Maltos , 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 265 (2006).No. 05-11412 -2- Humana-Heron’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Humana-Heron contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). HumanaHeron properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Humana-Heron’s challenge to his sentence, which was within the applicable guidelines range, is unavailing. His challenge to this court’s prior caselaw concerning the presumption of reasonableness attached to sentences that are within the pertinent guidelines range is unavailing. See United States v. Ruff , 984 F.2d 635, 640 (5th Cir. 1993). His disagreement with the Sentencing Commission’s assessment of the seriousness of his offense does not establish that his sentence is unreasonable.
See United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED.