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

Docket No . FAA - 20 13 - 0603 Directorate ID : 20 09 - SW - 079 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Model 206L , 206L - 1, 206L - 3, 206L - 4 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 783 Helicopters in the US Regi stry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack in a tailboom attachment fitting . Costs : We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, inspecting the fitting will require about 1 work hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $66,555 per inspection cycle. We estimate the following costs to do any necessary

repairs or replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs or replacements . Repairing a damaged fitting would require about 8 work- hours and required parts would cost about $10, for a cost per hel icopter of $690. Replacing a fitting which is damaged beyond the allowable repair limits would require about 8 work- hours and required parts would cost about $793, for a cost per helicopter of $1,473. Replacing a loose rivet would require about 1 work- hour , and required parts would cost about $1, for a cost per helicopter of $86. 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 : Sharon Miles
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-5196 September Term, 2021

1:21-cv-01871-UNA

Filed On: January 25, 2022

Franklin C. Smith,

Appellant

v.

Tibbef, U.S. Deputy Marshal, and his

supervisor in collusion with Florida Marshals

and other officers,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Rogers and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit 

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 5, 2021,

dismissing the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) be affirmed. The

district court correctly concluded that the complaint failed to set out “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” with sufficient

factual information to meet the minimum pleading standards of Rule 8(a). The various

arguments raised in appellant’s brief do not cast doubt on this conclusion.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-5196 September Term, 2021

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2021

To clarify the statute of limitations for actions brought by the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Resolution Trust Corporation

as conservator or receiver.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 14 (legislative day, APRIL 11), 1994

Mr. RIEGLE (for himself, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. KERRY, and Mr. METZENBAUM)

(by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To clarify the statute of limitations for actions brought by

the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Resolution Trust Corporation as conservator or receiver.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bank and Thrift

5 Statute of Limitations Clarification Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

7 ACT.

8 Section 11(d)(14)(B)(i) of the Federal Deposit Insur9 ance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(14)(B)(i)) is amended by in-
2

•S 2021 IS

1 serting after ‘‘receiver’’ the following: ‘‘, regardless of

2 whether the claim may have been barred under any other3 wise applicable statute of limitation at the date of such

4 appointment, unless such claim was barred more than 5

5 years before the date of such appointment’’.

6 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

7 The provisions of this Act shall apply to all actions

8 pending or brought by the Corporation as conservator or

9 receiver on or after August 9, 1989.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            30,994
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  34,225
<CASH>                                           1,932  
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           2,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,034
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 10,830
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,034
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              1,844
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  24
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     239
<BENEFITS>                                         376
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                         76
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                               378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,277
<INCOME-TAX>                                       502
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                775 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        







</TABLE>
No. 12-8336.

#### Smith *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000065666
<NAME> MICHIGAN RIVET CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                         191,799
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,888,567
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,826,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,616,120
<PP&E>                                      24,637,730
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,556,489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,400,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,148,352
<BONDS>                                      2,742,794
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       638,525
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,323,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,400,827
<SALES>                                     21,486,756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,486,756
<CGS>                                       18,675,940
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,675,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,618,636
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             178,145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,014,035
<INCOME-TAX>                                   345,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            669,035
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   669,035
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            703,714
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     201,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                        7,000
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,126,641
<PP&E>                                         12,720,338
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,913,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  3,147,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             815,082
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           25,039
<OTHER-SE>                                        227,560
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    3,147,977
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,063,043
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,433,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 11,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (381,707)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (381,707)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (381,707)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.00
        



</TABLE>
Judge Hawkins was drawn to replace Judge Brunetti. He has read the *

briefs, reviewed the record and listed to the recording of oral argument.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARY C. ENGEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL BARRY; HAMMER, Deputy

Sheriff; SOWLES, Deputy Sheriff;

SCOTT SPARKS, Animal Control,

County of Sacramento; COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 06-16122

D.C. No. CV-03-02403-MCE/KJM

ORDER

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2008

San Francisco, California

Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS and FISHER, Circuit Judges. *

The stipulated motion to dismiss with prejudice, filed January 29, 2010, is

GRANTED. A certified copy of this order to the District Court shall constitute the

mandate of this Court.

FILED

FEB 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1





                   ERESEARCHTECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            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 eResearchTechnology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Joseph Esposito, President and Chief Executive 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, to my knowledge, that:

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

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





Dated:  March 10, 2006                                         Joseph Esposito
                                                             -------------------
                                                             Joseph Esposito,
                                                             President and Chief
                                                             Executive Officer


This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keane Curtis, Appellant.

[630 NYS2d 357]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), rendered September 23, 1993, convicting him of assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his audiotaped statement to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in failing to suppress his audiotaped statement to the police. Considering the strength of the evidence against the defendant, including the testimony of three eyewitnesses to the crime, and that the defendant’s testimony was more inculpatory than his audiotaped statement, any error in admitting the statement at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 237; *People v Carter,*197 AD2d 530, 531).

In view of the violent nature of the offense and the defendant’s lack of remorse, we cannot say that the sentencing court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status *(see, People v Vera,*206 AD2d 494; *People v Poe,*158 AD2d 558, 559). Thompson, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur. *[See,*160 Misc 2d 508.]
2017-0157.

#### State v. Newman.

Muskingum App. No. CT2016-0002, 2016-Ohio-7498. On review of an order certifying a conflict. It is determined that no conflict exists within the meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. 8.02. Cause dismissed.

O’Neill, J., dissents.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

GILBERT P. THOMPSON, LEIGH THOMPSON, JOY E. THOMPSON, GERALD W. THOMPSON, JOHN G. THOMPSON, BERNADETTE T. THOMPSON, AND STEVEN E. THOMPSON,

Petitioners

v.

CHARLES R. THOMPSON, MAUREEN D. THOMPSON, JAMES L. THOMPSON, MARY JO E. THOMPSON, STEPHEN E. THOMPSON, BERNADETTE T. THOMPSON, JOHN G. THOMPSON, DEBRA B. THOMPSON, AND GERALD W. THOMPSON,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 107 MM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4 th day of January , 202 2

, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.

Justice Brobson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
2017-0911.

#### State v. Wauer.

Trumbull App. No. 2016-T-0043, 2017-Ohio-1337. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
# DSCC certified as a Tree City USA

/ Published March 5, 2019
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
Defense Supply Center Columbus was certified as a Tree City USA Feb. 19. 

The Tree City USA program is a program sponsored by the National Arbor Day Foundation in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service and state forestry that provides the framework necessary for communities to manage and expand their urban forest. 

More than 3,400 communities have committed to become a Tree City USA, including DSCC and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. 

The Tree City USA initiative is an example of a strong partnership with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 

DSCC achieved Tree City USA status by meeting four core standards of sound urban forestry management: maintaining a tree board, having a tree ordinance, spending at least $2 per capita on urban forestry and celebrating Arbor Day. 

DSCC planted over 160 trees during 2018. 

The Environmental Division is implementing a tree permit system to prevent future planting of invasive species. 

“Studies have found trees can improve indoor and outdoor air quality, cool an entire area and improve morale.  Trees can also be used as wind breaks and screening,” said Nicole Goicochea, Defense Logistics Agency Installation Operations Columbus Lead Environmental Protection Specialist. 

Several studies over the last two decades have chronicled the benefits of trees. Additional feedback from the studies include:
      - Office workers with a view of trees report significantly less stress and more satisfaction.              - Chungbuk National University, South Korea, 2007 
      -     Trees remove pollution from the atmosphere, improving air quality and human health.             -         U.S. Forest Service, 2013 
      -     Roadside trees reduce nearby INDOOR air pollution by more than 50 percent.             -         Lancaster University, United Kingdom, 2013 
      -     Trees in urban parks and recreation areas are estimated to improve outdoor leisure and recreation experiences in the United States by $2 billion per year.             -         Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 
      -     Trees lower surface and air temperatures by providing shade. Shaded surfaces may be 20–45 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the peak temperatures of unshaded materials.             -         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
      -     Trees cool the city by up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by shading our homes and streets and releasing water vapor into the air through their leaves.  Evaporation of water from trees has a cooling influence.             -         Carnegie Institution, 2011 
      -     Hospital patients recovering from surgery who had a view of a grove of trees through their windows required fewer pain relievers, experienced fewer complications, and left the hospital sooner than similar patients who had a view of a brick wall.             -         Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

        For more information about DLA Land and Maritime Environmental Division, visit the division's webpage.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices 29711

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 98–33]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense

Security Assistance Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

publishing the unclassified text of a

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

This is published to fulfill the

requirements of section 155 of Public

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703)

604–6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to

the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, Transmittal 98–33,

with attached transmittal, policy

justification, sensitivity of technology,

and Section 620C(d) of the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961.

Dated: May 26, 1998.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaision

Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M
29712 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices 29713
29714 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices 29715
29716 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Notices

[FR Doc. 98–14382 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–C