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

Docket No. FAA-2015-7533 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-080-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition 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

Inspection 12.0

$1,020.0

0

$1,020.00 55 $56,100.00

$ 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: $56,100

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Replacement 20.0 $1,700.00 90200 $91,900.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
<TABLE>
                                       EXHIBIT 11.1

                      STEVENS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATIONS OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                                     (UNAUDITED)
                      (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)



                                         Three months ended    Six months ended
                                               June 30,             June 30,
                                             2000     1999      2000      1999
                                           -------   ------   -------   -------
 <S>                                       <C>       <C>      <C>       <C>
 Basic and diluted:

 Weighted average shares
   outstanding- basic...............         9,502     9,492    9,502     9,492
 Assumed exercise of Series A and B
   stock options(Treasury stock method)        ---       ---      ---       ---
 Assumed exercise of warrants                  ---       ---      ---       ---
                                           -------   -------  -------   -------
 Total common share equivalents - diluted    9,502     9,492    9,502     9,492
                                           =======   =======  =======   =======

    Net income (loss)                      $(1,513)  $     5  $(3,654)  $    48
                                           =======   =======  =======   =======
 Earnings (loss) per share - basic
   (Note 8).........................       $ (0.16)  $  0.00  $ (0.38)  $  0.01
                                           =======   =======  =======   =======

 Earnings (loss) per share - diluted
   (Note 8).........................       $ (0.16)  $  0.00  $ (0.38)  $  0.01
                                           =======   =======  =======   =======

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



In connection with the
Annual Report of Odyssey Health, Inc. (the “Company”) for Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A for the year ended July 31,
2023 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, J. Michael Redmond, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



(2) The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this
written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



| | /s/ J. Michael Redmond                         
| | -----------------------------------------------
| | J. Michael Redmond                             
| | Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                  



Date: November 28, 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA) CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER
ended MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               287
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (177)
<INVENTORY>                                        4,321
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   6,509
<PP&E>                                             4,479
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (1,767)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     9,603
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              2,614
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             107
<OTHER-SE>                                         5,390
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       9,603
<SALES>                                            2,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   2,769
<CGS>                                              1,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1,640
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    47
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (218)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (218)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (218)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.00
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                               OF VCA ANTECH, INC.

      This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies this quarterly report on Form 10-Q
(the "Report") for the period ended September 30, 2004 of VCA Antech, Inc. (the
"Issuer").

      Each of the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, respectively, of VCA Antech, Inc., hereby certify that, to
the best of each such officer's knowledge:

      (i)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
            78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: November 5, 2004

                                        /s/ ROBERT L. ANTIN
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Robert L. Antin
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                        /s/ TOMAS W. FULLER
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Tomas W. Fuller
                                        Chief Financial Officer


                                       53
# Fact Sheet on WMD Threat Reduction Efforts with Ukraine, Russia and Other Former Soviet Union Countries

/ Published June 10, 2022

The U. S. Department of Defense has just released a new fact sheet on WMD Threat Reduction Efforts with Ukraine, Russia, and Other Former Soviet Union Countries. In the fact sheet below, the History and Accomplishments of U.S. Collaboration With the International Community to Reduce Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Threats in Ukraine, Russia, and Other Countries of the Former Soviet Union is set out.

Read the Full Release of the Fact Sheet
FILED

February 13, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

JOHN WATSON LITTLE and LESLIE )

EARL LITTLE, Executors for the Estate )

of LESLIE H. LITTLE, Deceased, )

)

Plaintiffs/Appellants, )

) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9707-CV-00291

VS. )

) Bedford Circuit

) No. 7212

MICHAEL HOGAN, JEFF PAYNE and )

MIKE WILHELM TRUCKING, )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in the disposition we have made of this case. My only concern

is that our opinion may be interpreted as an endorsement of the idea that a truck

driver who does not follow a designated “truck route” is guilty of negligence per se.

“In order to establish negligence per se, it must be shown that the statute violated was

designed to impose a duty or prohibit an act for the benefit of a person or the public

. . . . It must also be established that the injured party was within the class of persons

that the statute was meant to protect.” Cook v. Spinnaker’s of Rivergate, Inc., 878

S.W.2d 934 at 937 (Tenn. 1994).

I have searched the Tennessee Code for a statute that says truck

drivers must follow designated truck routes through or around cities and towns. With

the statute I might get from its legislative history some indication of the reasons for its

passage and the class of persons it was meant to benefit. I have found no such

statute and the appellant does not refer to one in its brief. So far as this record shows

the designation of certain streets as truck routes is for the sole benefit of the truckers

and not for the general public.
2

The appellant does refer to one statute that gives the department of

transportation sole jurisdiction to select streets through which traffic shall be routed.

See Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-5-205. But that section has been construed as a limited

grant of power to the commissioner to “route the traffic from state highways through

a municipality only over and through such streets and roads which are provided by the

municipality for traffic of the character brought to the city limits by the highways.”

Collier v. Baker, 27 S.W.2d 1085 at 1086 (Tenn. 1930). 

I would hold that there is nothing in this record to indicate that the failure

to follow truck routes is negligence per se.

I am authorized to state that Judge Koch joins in this concurring 

opinion.

_________________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 178 ) IV-C-14

5 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:21:00AM Sheet 178of 232P. 2

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY

.-*#.•.;:••?-. ••-••.'-• i:. •- •.•• •'^f>y- -:. • rv - • : •.: • \fcyj^c£*f 7 . \'V-KSfc •*•;?•' • X-.. .•'•.-te?::'. - £ 

### a* * 

# ,#^Q £ •v±M':%

.. #^^:.-;- ;

•v'« 0 -.<* • •v' VV\ V J Mr . Richar d E . Ayres , Chairma n Nationa l Clea nAi r Coalitio n 80 1 Pennsylvani a Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2000 3 Dea r Mr . Ayres : Than k yo u fo r you r Novembe r 16 , 198 8 lette r t o th e Administrato r expressin g th e Nationa l Clea nAi r Coalition' s suppor t o f EPA' s effort s t o reduc e ozon e level s throug h gasolin e volatilit ycontrols , onboar d refuelin g control s and contro l o f vehicl e runnin g losses . W e believ e tha t thes e measure s ac e indee d a ver ycos t effectiv e approac ht o ozon e control . EP Aremain s committe d t o completin g actio no nthes e issue s a s fas t a s possible . Than k yo u agai nfo r you r comment s o nou r proposals . W e wil l plac e you r lette r i n bot hth e onboar d refuelin g contro l an d gasolin e volatilit ycontro l dockets . Sincerely , [fSIGKSD ; *C=* * r-.-

v Do nR . Cla y 

### Actin g Assistan t

Administrato r fo r Ai r an dRadiatio n c c : Docke tA-87-1 1 Docke tA-85-2 1
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Brian Alleman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Simtek Corporation;

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.


Date: November 9, 2007



                                          /s/ Brian Alleman
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Brian Alleman
                                          Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                       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 Applied Imaging Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carl
Hull, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: August 4, 2003                  By:      /s/ Carl Hull
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Carl Hull
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer


      This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 

TO THE 
 CERTIFICATE OF
DESIGNATION OF 
 THE POWERS, PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE, PARTICIPATING, 

OPTIONAL, AND OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS AND 

QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS THEREOF 

OF 
 CLASS D CONVERTIBLE
PREFERRED UNITS 
 March 12, 2014 

ATLAS PIPELINE PARTNERS, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), pursuant to the provisions of the
Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act and its Limited Partnership Agreement, does hereby state and certify that, pursuant to the authority expressly vested in ATLAS PIPELINE PARTNERS GP, LLC, its general partner (the “General
Partner”), the General Partner duly adopted the following resolution, which remains in full force and effect as of the date hereof: 

RESOLVED, the Certificate of Designation of the Class D Convertible Preferred Units of the Partnership dated as of May 7, 2013
(the “Certificate of Designation”), be and hereby is amended as follows: 
 Section 1 of the Certificate of
Designation is amended to increase the number of units designated as the Class D Convertible Preferred Units from Thirteen Million, Four Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty-Eight (13,445,383) to Sixteen Million
(16,000,000). 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment has been duly executed as of the date
first above written. 
  

			
	ATLAS PIPELINE PARTNERS, L.P.
	
	 By: ATLAS PIPELINE PARTNERS GP, LLC,

       its general partner

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert W. Karlovich III

	Name:	 	Robert W. Karlovich, III
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer


 [Signature Page to Amendment No. 1 to APL Class D Certificate of Designation]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rown WASHINGTON, a/k/a Folly, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7183

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 2, 2018

Rown Washington, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*162PER CURIAM:

Rown Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Washington has not made the requisite showing. Accord- . ingly, we deny Washington’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss' the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
# 103C-/S* ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA # 03-13-00689-CR OFFENSE: 22.02 

### Preston Joe Sharpnackv. The State 

### STYLE: of Texas COUNTY: Travis COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 299th District Court DATE: 7/9/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: D-l-DC-13-900164



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Preston Joe Sharpnackv. The State 

### STYLE: ofTexas 

# (\?PELMUT*S> Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: CCA#: 

# JQ3Q.JS ^ewtfb 

# DATE: ////7/A?ZT JUDGE: fJ/\ CloUJ^- CCADisposition: DATE: 

### JUDGE: ; SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
#### Bernard F. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David J. SHULKIN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1803

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 29, 2017

Decided: February 6, 2018

Bernard F. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Patrick Shean, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*597PER CURIAM:

Bernard F. Campbell appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and dismissing Campbell’s complaint filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Campbell v. Shulkin,*No. 2:16-cv-00512-AWA-LRL, 2017 WL 4607469 (E.D. Va., May 12, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
No. 11-9951.

#### Reynolds *v.*Queens County Board of Elections et al.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certio-rari denied.