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

Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- . . 20!5""-AJIII- ObO- ® 

Directorate Ide ntifier: -AD 

(f'.mu make clumge~ Lo tlte nducs i11 the table bel01r. yoummlell.\1/re the lola/.\ 11pdute acc;ordi11gly. (I' 

the•· t!o IIOt, c:lick (or Tuh) i11to u11d lhe11 oul of the du111ged cl'/1. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) OUI} Products 

Modify the cockpit 

9.0 $2,430 70 I I 

door frame 

(I •II 

~nA 'f'x u IP" or- ' (It ljj lo 'lfl 

,...l ..J ,4 r J01 [.,_((_ Ill I) .,, 

cc?~-- Ito ') I fJ IIi t 

(I' cU't t:.V'\e"\ \ J ~~ Ill f1_0 .W • II() 

~~ a n .n 

l ' 'I •( I 

{1. I (I HI 

'" I i (J HI 

,, I I ' II 

oil II 1f 

.,,,, f I II tl\ 

I II II I 'I I ''' 

!;,II ( II 1l' 

0 0! I) fill n ,q 

ll•H ,, ( n 11 

) 1(1 I ,, I ''II 

.., () '111 I (II) ~ I) ,,() 

' I) Ill! I liP n 111 

The known numbe r of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $223,650 

Costs covered under warranty (if/mown) $0 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

testing, and close- replacement) up) 

I '' I 

1 

\ ,,,., 

' .. , I 1 

Special considet·ations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Cosls table 

that was ass11med or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty cost:,) : 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the /\D be considered a "significant regulatory action''? G 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT .Regulato ry Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? --

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

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

e ither a Yes or No wer. ' 

YESO NO~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

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

a ircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES* D NO~ 

*Explanation:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Manuel Pena, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 749]

— Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated January 29, 2001 *(People v Pena,*279 AD2d 639 [2001]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered November 24, 1999.

*882Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]). Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
No. 10-496.

#### Robert White, Petitioner v. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

562 U.S. 1109, 131 S. Ct. 829,

178 L. Ed. 2d 558,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9633.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
#### FMRR Development v. Birdsboro Mun. Authority; Birdsboro Mun. Authority, In re

05/11/2016

989 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 124 A.3d 425
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DRAVO
CORPORATION'S DECEMBER 31, 1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            1600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    24362
<ALLOWANCES>                                       176
<INVENTORY>                                      16481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 43018
<PP&E>                                          238025
<DEPRECIATION>                                  112026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  225409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            34541
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         15097
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            20000
<PREFERRED>                                         20
<OTHER-SE>                                       78798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    225409
<SALES>                                         158133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                158133
<CGS>                                           118165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   118165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  14128
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              14128
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     14128
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

<ARTICLE>                                 5 
<MULTIPLIER>1000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      586
<SECURITIES>                               1135
<RECEIVABLES>                               101
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           2039
<PP&E>                                    17198
<DEPRECIATION>                             5043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            14401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       278
<BONDS>                                     167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                     84
<OTHER-SE>                                 4180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              14401
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            798
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           82
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (538)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (159)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (379)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             371
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (8)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .00
        








</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16313]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Procedures 
Advisory Committee (ATPAC) will be held to review present air traffic 
control procedures and practices for standardization, clarification, 
and upgrading of terminology and procedures.

DATES: The meeting will be held from July 13-16, 1998, from 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m. each day.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Tower Building, Minneapolis 
Airport, 6311 34th Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota, from July 13-14, and 
the Fort Snelling Officers Club, Highway 5 and Post Road, building 395, 
from July 15-16.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Thomas Lintner, Executive Director, ATPAC, Strategic Operations/
Procedures Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591, telephone (202) 267-3725.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the ATPAC to be held at the Tower 
Building, Minneapolis Airport, 6311 34th Avenue, Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, from July 13-14, 1998, and the Fort Snelling Officers Club, 
Highway 5 and Post Road, building 395, from July 15-16, 1998.

    The agenda for this meeting will cover: a continuation of the 
Committee's review of present air traffic control procedures and 
practices for standardization, clarification, and upgrading of 
terminology and procedures. It will also include:
    1. Approval of Minutes.
    2. Submission and Discussion of Areas of Concern.
    3. Discussion of Potential Safety Items.
    4. Report from Executive Director.
    5. Items of Interest.
    6. Discussion and agreement of location and dates for subsequent 
meetings.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the 
space available. With the approval of the Chairperson, members of the 
public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons desiring to 
attend and persons desiring to present oral statements should notify 
the person listed above not later than July 9, 1998. The next quarterly 
meeting of the FAA ATPAC is planned to be held from October 5-8, 1998, 
in Washington, DC.
    Any member of the public may present a written statement to the 
Committee at any time at the address given above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 12, 1998.
Thomas Lintner,
Executive Director, Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 98-16313 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
# C_2013336EN.01002501.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/25

---

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Bouillez v Council

(Case T-31/13 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2007 promotion year - Decision not to promote the appellant to Grade AST 7 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 266 TFEU - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Contradictory reasons - Comparative examination of the merits - Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

2013/C 336/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Vincent Bouillez (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

Other party:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the decision of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2012 in Case F-75/11 Bouillez v Council (not yet published in the ECR), and seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Bouillez

Council

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is rejected.

| 2. | Mr Vincent Bouillez is to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Vincent Bouillez is to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union in these proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

1

---
No. 10-394.

#### Geoffrey Willard Atwell, Petitioner v. Jerome W. Walsh, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al.

562 U.S. 1063, 131 S. Ct. 653,

178 L. Ed. 2d 481,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9386,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 393.
No. 10-6564.

#### Bill A. Corbin, Petitioner v. Florida, et al.

562 U.S. 1027, 131 S. Ct. 575,

178 L. Ed. 2d 412,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8703.

November 8, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 38 So. 3d 772.
#### Marie A. Isula, Appellant, v Joyce E. Lineman, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 427]

— Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Dillon, J.), entered December 20, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme Court, Erie County, Dillon, J. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40496 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
RICARDO PADILLA

- CARDONA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CR

- 159

- 1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricardo Padilla

Cardona has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Padilla

- Cardona h a s not file d 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

* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 1 5 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40496 Document: 00513308484 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015No. 15

- 40496

2 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-40496 Document: 00513308484 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30391

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILBERT WEST,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:11-CR-99-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Wilbert West has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). West has

filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of

the record reflected therein, as well as West’s response. We concur with

counsel’s assessmentthat the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 19, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-30391 Document: 00512146599 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2013
No. 12-30391

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. West’s motion for the appointment of

substitute counsel is DENIED.

2

 Case: 12-30391 Document: 00512146599 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2013
No. 10-5767.

#### Edna Gorham Bey, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1092, 131 S. Ct. 794,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9521,

178 L. Ed. 2d 533,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 373 Fed. Appx. 394.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne Aquart, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 634]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), rendered June 24, 2015, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 *768US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and we have also reviewed the defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see id. Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bryan Payero, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 818]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harrington, J.), rendered September 22, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, attempted assault in the second degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see *People v Mateo, 2*NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see *People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633, 645 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by improper remarks made by the prosecutor during her summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Dunning,*148 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2017]; *People v Choi,*137 AD3d 808, 810 [2016]). In any event, this contention is without merit, since the comments alleged to be prejudicial were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable infer*654ences to be drawn therefrom, fair response to the defendant’s attack on the credibility of the People’s complaining witnesses, or permissible rhetorical comment *(see People v Beer,*146 AD3d 895, 897 [2017]; *People v Thomas,*143 AD3d 1006, 1007 [2016]; *People v Ramrattan,*126 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2015]).

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Duffy, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

134733 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 134733 COA: 274148 St. Clair CC: 03-000881-FH JAMES EUGENE GRISSOM, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the ap plication for leave to appeal the July 2, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, purs uant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we RE MAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. On remand, the Court of Appe als is to consider whether defendant has a reasonably likely chance of acquittal in light of the newly discovered evidence and in light of the evidence presented against defenda nt that did not invo lve the complainant’s credibility.

s0319 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 26, 2008

Clerk
To: Ref:

Cc:

Samples

Sample preparations and NMR measurement

Results 

## Highly Confidential
# Employee Spotlight: Christopher Petrie

/ Published May 19, 2023
RICHMOND, Va., 
*Employee spotlight regularly features outstanding non-supervisory personnel from throughout the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and other DLA employees on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may submit names of employees they wish to feature in this column to DLA Aviation Public Affairs.*

**Name:** Christopher Petrie

**Organization:** DLA Aviation at Warner Robins, Georgia

**Years of service:** 15 years

**What is your job title and what do you do specifically?** I’m a general supply specialist, responsible for performing monthly inventories of the materials stored in the shop service center on Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. I also assist the inventory team lead with resolving discrepancies discovered during inspections.

**What do you like most about your job and why?**The best thing about my job is interacting with all personnel in DLA and our mission partners on Warner Robins every day.  Were all out here working at our jobs, but we gain a work family as well.

**What is your fondest memory of working for DLA Aviation**?  My fondest memories are of the teams I led and the projects we’ve accomplished over the past six years. While different teams have been involved on different projects, they have all stepped up and worked together to make big improvements to the shop service center at minimal or no cost. I feel good about the impact we’ve all made.

**What do you see as your biggest challenge right now?**Over the past two years, I have led a team responsible for working a warehouse improvement project that will increase the parts and inventory space from 7,673 to 13,926 locations, as well as provide additional space to support future workloads. This involves a lot of coordination with key players and subject matter experts.

**What do you see as your biggest challenge right now?**I’ve been engaged with a project during the past two years to increase parts and inventory space, as well as providing additional locations to support future workloads. This involves a lot of planning and coordination. **Professionally, where do you see yourself five years from now?**I see myself promoting into a GS-11 or GS-12 position and working with my inventory team and on special projects while continuing to improve the SSC areas and supporting our maintenance customers.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?**My family is my passion. They keep me on my toes and keep me going. It doesn’t matter if we’re outside playing sports or exploring and learning something different. I even share the little bit of cooking skills I have with my kids. They are what it’s all about to me because it’s important that they grow up to be confident and independent.

**What is your favorite military aircraft?  Why?**If I had to choose one aircraft, it would probably be the Air Force’s C-5 Galaxy. It’s extremely impressive how something so big and heavy can fly, especially when loaded with cargo.