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

Docket No. FAA-2015-7532 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-069-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

SB modification 3.5 $ 297.50 $ 297.50 45 $13,387.50

$ 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:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $13,388

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $13388

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 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:
Opinion issued January 29, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 20
- 00091
- CV

——————————— IN RE ALPHAMAR GROUP , INC. , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Alphamar Group, Inc., has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court indicated at a hearing that it would be imposing “death penalty sanctions” against relator striking relator’s evidence and precluding relator
from intro ducing evidence at trial. 1 In conjunction with petition, relator has filed a

1 The underlying case is M&M Protection, LLC v. Alphamar Group. Inc., cause number 1093580, pending in the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable LaShawn Williams presiding.2

motion for an emergency stay of trial proceedings pending our decision on the petition. We deny the petition and dismiss the stay motion as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chi ef Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Hightower

.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40294 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HECTOR GOMEZ MARULANDA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:94-CR-44-2

- - - - - - - - - - March 1, 1996 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) allows the district court to grant a party who files an untimely notice of appeal an additional 30 days in which to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect. This court remanded the case to the district court for a determination whether Marulanda's untimely filing of the notice of appeal was due to excusable neglect. The district court determined that Marulanda's untimely filing of her noticeNo. 95-40294 -2- of appeal was not due to excusable neglect and that therefore her

time for filing a notice of appeal should not be extended. Without a finding of excusable neglect, Marulanda's notice of appeal is untimely and this court is without jurisdiction over her appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone: (919)484-0222  Fax: (919) 484-0122

MEMORANDUM

Date: August 12, 2010

To: Bruce Moore, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/CCG

From: Denise Grubert, EC/R Incorporated

Karen Marsh, EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown, EC/R Incorporated

Subject: Documentation of the August 6, 2010 EPA Site Visit to SHELL Western 

Exploration and Production in Pinedale, Wyoming

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this site visit was to examine the Shell Western Exploration and 

Production, Inc. (SWEPI) drilling site. 

II. LOCATION & DATE

The drill site was located in the town of Pinedale, Wyoming. The site visit took place on 

August 6, 2010

III. ATTENDEES

Industry Representatives

James Sewell, SHELL

Belinda From, UltraResources

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Rachel Agnew

Jodi Howard

Bruce Moore

Greg Nizich

Nick Parsons

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Jennifer Frazier

Cynthia Madison
EC/R Incorporated

Heather Brown

Denise Grubert

Karen Marsh

The site visit report for this facility contains confidential business information (CBI), and 

pending approval by the facility, a non-confidential report has not been issued.
a10a60.htm




Exhibit 10(a)60


DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RESTORATION PLAN


OF ENTERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009)







Certificate of Amendment







Amendment No. 1


 

 







THIS INSTRUMENT, executed this 15th day of December, 2010, but made effective  December 30, 2010, constitutes the First Amendment of the Defined Contribution Restoration Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) (the “Plan”).







All capitalized terms used in this Amendment No. 1 shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan unless otherwise herein defined.







Pursuant to Section 10.01 of the Plan and in accordance with the Resolutions of the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors adopted at its meeting of December 2, 2010, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:













	
  

	
1.

	
The Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end of the Plan preamble to read as follows:












The Plan is now hereby amended effective December 30, 2010, pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors of Entergy at its meeting held on December 2, 2010, authorizing amendments to the Plan in order to address certain market practices, external governance concerns, emerging trends and cost controls by increasing the change in ownership threshold now required in Subsection 1.05(a) to trigger one of the events constituting a Change in Control event.













	
2.  

	
Subsection 1.05(a) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:













	
(a)  

	
the purchase or other acquisition by any person, entity or group of persons, acting in concert within the meaning of Subsections 13(d) or 14(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Act"), or any comparable successor provisions, of beneficial ownership (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 promulgated under the Act) of thirty percent (30%) or more of either the shares of common stock outstanding immediately following such acquisition or the combined voting power of Entergy Corporation's voting securities entitled to vote generally and outstanding immediately following such acquisition, other than any such purchase or acquisition in connection with a Non-CIC Merger (defined in Subsection (b) below);


















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Personnel Committee has caused this First Amendment to the Defined Contribution Restoration Plan of Entergy Corporation and Subsidiaries (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) to be executed by its duly authorized representative on the day, month, and year above set forth, but effective December 30, 2010.












ENTERGY CORPORATION


PERSONNEL COMMITTEE


through the undersigned duly authorized representative







/s/ Terry R. Seamons


TERRY R. SEAMONS


Senior Vice-President,


        Human Resources and Administration
Exhibit 10.2

 

Summary Description of Severance Arrangement with David Butler

 

Mr. Butler shall be entitled to a severance payment equal to twelve months’ salary, as well as twelve months’ continued benefits, beginning April 1, 2006, provided that Mr. Butler remains employed by TCI, Solutions, Inc. (“TCI”) through April 1, 2006 or is terminated without cause (as defined in his employment agreement with TCI) prior to April 1, 2006 (in which case he will receive such severance amounts upon his termination).  If Mr. Butler resigns prior to April 1, 2006 or is terminated for cause, then Mr. Butler will not be entitled to the severance and benefits described above.  Mr. Butler shall be entitled to a bonus of $75,000 (if he remains employed through June 30, 2005 or is terminated without cause by TCI prior to June 30, 2005).  Mr. Butler shall also be entitled to a bonus of $37,500 for each quarter he remains employed with TCI after June 30, 2005, which bonus shall bepro-rated for partial periods.  Payments under the above-described severance arrangement are intended to be in lieu of, and not in addition to, payments and benefits Mr. Butler would otherwise be entitled to under his employment agreement.
Exhibit 10.22

 

EXHIBIT A

 

First Amendment to the

Deckers Outdoor Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan

 

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Deckers Outdoor Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), Deckers Outdoor Corporation (the “Company”) may make amendments to the Plan at any time, provided that no such amendment shall adversely affect any right accrued by a Participant.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, effective February 19, 2010, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.               Section 2.3 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 

Eligibility; Commencement of Participation.  Provided an Employee selected to participate in the Plan has met all enrollment requirements set forth in the Plan and required by the Board, including returning all required documents to the Board within thirty (30) days (or such shorter time as the Board may determine) after he or she is selected to participate in the Plan, that Employee shall commence participation in the Plan on the first day of the pay period following the date on which the Employee completes all enrollment requirements.  However, for the initial enrollment coinciding with the establishment of the Plan, an Employee shall commence participation in the Plan on the first day of the pay period coinciding with or next following the date on which the Employee completes all enrollment requirements.  If an Employee fails to meet all such requirements within the period required, that Employee shall not be eligible to participate in the Plan until the first day of the Plan Year following the delivery to and acceptance by the Board of the required documents.

 

2.               Section 3.1(b) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 

(b)         Amount of Deferral.  A Participant shall designate on the Deferral Election form the amount of Base Salary or Bonus that is to be deferred in accordance with this Article 3. The Deferral Amount, in whole percentages or a specific dollar amount, shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the Participant’s Base Salary and ninety-five percent (95%) of the Participant’s Bonus; provided that the total amount deferred by a Participant shall be limited in any calendar year, if necessary, to satisfy FICA, income tax, and employee benefit plan withholding requirements as determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the Board.

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed this 19th day of February, 2010.

 

	
 
    	
Deckers   Outdoor Corporation
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Tom George
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
CFO
No. 09-1013.

#### Felipe Soriano-Arellano, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

559 U.S. 1069, 130 S. Ct. 2111,

176 L. Ed. 2d 725,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3398.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**OFFICERCERTIFICATION**

 

I, Timothy J. Dodd, certify that:

 

1.         I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dakota Growers Pasta Company, Inc.;

 

2.         Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.         Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.         The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and have:

 

a)        Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)       Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)        Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.         The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)        All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)       Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 17, 2006

 

 
|   | /s/ Timothy J. Dodd                    |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Timothy J. Dodd                        |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10.28


 


Addendum B to Vendor exclusivity agreement
between Kalisthenics and Targeted Medical 


Pharma (TMP)


 


		1.	During the term of this Agreement, Kalisthenics shall purchase Products from TMP at the average wholesale price (the “AWP”)
as may be set from time to time by TMP, plus any applicable taxes and shipping (together, the “Gross Invoice Amount”).
TMP shall issue an invoice with respect to each Product sold to Kalisthenics upon shipment of Products to Kalisthenics. Kalisthenics
shall be entitled to a discount on the price of the Products on each invoice if such invoice is paid within certain timely pay
discount terms described herein and is consistent with discounts provided to other vendors. The discounts shall be applied
if payment is received by TMP within 45 days of Invoice Date. The “Net Invoice Amount” shall be the AWP minus
any applicable timely payment discount under such invoices plus taxes and shipping. Any invoice not paid within discount terms
shall be due and payable at Gross Invoice Amount three hundred and ninety (390) days from Invoice Date.



 


		2.	This agreement provides for exclusivity for distribution of products as the sole distributor to Skilled Nursing Facilities
and other Long Term Care Facilities in the state of California and non-exclusive rights for distribution outside California only
and should not be construed to provide exclusivity of distribution to other entities including but not limited to physician’s
offices, general pharmacies that do not supply Long Term Care facilities, and acute care hospitals.



 


		3.	This addendum will be added to the previously signed agreement between Kalisthenics and TMP signed August 19, 2011



 


	 	/s/ David Zeffren
	 	David Zeffren
	 	Senior Vice President, Kalisthenics, Inc.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	9/19/2011
	 	Date
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/ William Shell
	 	William Shell, MD
	 	CEO, Targeted Medical Pharma
	 	 
	 	 
	 	9/19/2011
	 	Date
Exhibit 10.25









Exhibit No. 10.25




Schedule of Participating Directors and Officers to Form Indemnification Agreement




Armstrong World Industries, Inc. entered into indemnification agreements with its directors,
Stanley A. Askren, David Bonderman, Kevin R. Burns, Matthew J. Espe, James J. Gaffney, Tao Huang,
Michael F. Johnston, Larry S. McWilliams, James J. O‘Connor, John J. Roberts, Richard E. Wenz and
Bettina M. Whyte and certain of its officers including Matthew J. Espe, Victor D. Grizzle, Thomas
M. Kane, Thomas B. Mangas, Stephen F. McNamara, Jeffrey D. Nickel, and Frank J. Ready.
No. 09-8874.

#### Fontelle Ricardo Groves, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1041, 130 S. Ct. 2070,

176 L. Ed. 2d 421,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2847.

March 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 332 Fed. Appx. 840.
16 July 2014 *********************** 

NSN: 8940-01-621-5514 (PHM) * MONOGRAPH M10F1 

 ***********************

Item: Pretzels, Nuggets, Honey mustard and onion (Type II, Style E, Flavor 2)

Document: A-A-20195, Snack Foods and PKG&QAP

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 120 Component Classification: Secondary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance: Golden brown exterior, creamy-white interior with a dusting of visible yellow spices.

Odor: Baked wheat flour, slightly sweet, mustard and onion.

Flavor: Baked wheat flour, slightly sweet, mustard and onion.

Texture: Hard surface with a dry center; crunchy.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Slight darkening of exterior and interior.

Odor: Stale, rancid.

Flavor: Stale, rancid.

Texture: Slightly soft to soft, extremely hard.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

NA

Special Notes

Some of the pretzels may be broken during handling over time. This should not be a deciding factor for 

usefulness. This product should contain an oxygen scavenger packet. If defects such as oxidized or 

rancid odors or flavors exist, they are likely due to package failure or the absence of an oxygen 

scavenger.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: June 11, 2012

SUBJECT: Note to file re elements of SJV equivalent alternative program 

FROM: Kara Christenson

TO: Andy Steckel

Lily Wong

The “program” includes, but is not limited to, the following: 

Rule 3170 as adopted on May 19, 2011. 

Vehicle Code 9250.17, which says that the DMV shall, if requested by an air district, collect 

fees established pursuant to Health & Safety Code 44223 and 44225 upon registration of any 

motor vehicle and distribute the revenues to the District. 

AB 2522, including: 

o Health & Safety Code section 40612(a)(1), which authorizes SJVUAPCD to increase 

motor vehicle fees by up to $30 per motor vehicle per year to establish and maintain 

incentive-based programs that are intended to address air pollution caused by motor 

vehicles and achieve and maintain state and federal air quality standards.

o Health & Safety Code section 40612(b), which specifies that at least ten million 

dollars of motor vehicle registration fees be used to mitigate air pollution impacts on 

disadvantaged communities. 

o Health & Safety Code section 40612(c), which requires the District and the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) to take certain steps to effectuate the supplemental 
motor vehicle fee: (1) the District must notify CARB that it has adopted the fee and 

provide an estimate of the amount of revenue that will be generated; (2) CARB must 

file with the California Secretary of State written findings that the District has 

performed the above requirements and that the District has undertaken all feasible 

measure to reduce nonattainment air pollutants from sources within the District’s 

jurisdiction and regulatory control.

Governing Board Resolution No. 10-10-14 dated October 21, 2010, which documents that 

the SJV governing board had exercised its authority to increase motor vehicle fees by $12 per 

year per motor vehicle and that it estimated the additional fee would generate approximately 

$34 million in additional funds. 

California Air Resources Board Executive Order G-10-126, dated December 10, 2010, which 

documents that CARB had made the findings required by Health & Safety Code 40612; 

documentation that the findings had been submitted to the California Secretary of State.
No. 09-8350.

#### Robert Martinez, Petitioner v. Unknown Bus Driver, et al.

559 U.S. 993, 130 S. Ct. 1740,

176 L. Ed. 2d 216,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2209.

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 344 Fed. Appx. 46.
No. 09-7361.

#### Henry Zelaya, Jose H. Cruz Diaz, and Omar Vazquez, Petitioners v. United States.

559 U.S. 1049, 130 S. Ct. 2341,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2993.

176 L. Ed. 2d 563,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 336 Fed. Appx. 355.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of IPC Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Lance Boxer, 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, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. By: /s/ Lance BoxerLance Boxer
     Chief Executive OfficerMay 13, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to IPC
Acquisition Corp. and will be retained by IPC Acquisition Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.