alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2702. Definitions

As used in this chapter, the term—

(1) "advanced automobile propulsion system" means an energy conversion system, including engine and drive train, which utilizes advanced technology and is suitable for use in an advanced automobile;

(2) "developer" means any person engaged in whole or in part in research or other efforts directed toward the development of advanced automobile technology;

(3) "fuel" means any energy source capable of propelling an automobile;

(4) "fuel economy" refers to the average distance traveled in representative driving conditions by an automobile per unit of fuel consumed, as determined by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with test procedures which shall be established by rule and shall require that fuel economy tests be conducted in conjunction with the exhaust emissions tests mandated by section 7525 of title 42;

(5) "intermodal adaptability" refers to any characteristics of an automobile which enable it to be operated or carried, or which facilitate its operation or carriage, by or on an alternative mode or other system of transportation;

(6) "reliability" refers to (A) the average time and distance over which normal automobile operation can be expected without significant repair or replacement of parts, and (B) the ease of diagnosis and repair of an automobile, its systems, and parts in the event of failure during use or damage from an accident;

(7) "safety" refers to the performance of an automobile propulsion system or equipment in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of accident and against unreasonable risk of death or bodily injury in case of accident;

(8) "State" means any State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

(Pub. L. 95–238, title III, §303, Feb. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 79.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 7525 of title 42, referred to in par. (4), was in the original "section 206 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857f–5)", meaning act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, §206, as added Dec. 31, 1970, Pub. L. 91–604, §8(a), 84 Stat. 1694, which was formerly classified to section 1857f–5 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, and which is classified to section 7525 of Title 42 pursuant to the general revision of the Clean Air Act by Pub. L. 95–95, Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 685.
#### STATE v. HAIRE

No. 555P89

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 209

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 February 1990.
### §4. Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure

The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of sections 1 to 7 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.

(July 2, 1890, ch. 647, §4, 26 Stat. 209; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §291, 36 Stat. 1167; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §1, 62 Stat. 909.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Act Mar. 3, 1911, vested jurisdiction in "district" courts, instead of "circuit" courts.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, substituted "United States attorneys" for "district attorneys of the United States". See section 541 et seq. of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
### §2228. CPR training

No funds shall be made available to a State or local government under section 2221 of this title unless such government has a policy to actively promote the training of its firefighters in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

(Pub. L. 93–498, §32, as added Pub. L. 103–254, §5, May 19, 1994, 108 Stat. 682.)
### Surface-Water Conditions in Georgia, Water Year 2005

By: Jaime A. Painter**Mark N. Landers**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds252

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
### §3711c. Advanced motor vehicle research award

#### (a) Establishment

There is established a National Award for the Advancement of Motor Vehicle Research and Development. The award shall consist of a medal, and a cash prize if funding is available for the prize under subsection (c). The medal shall be of such design and materials and bear inscriptions as is determined by the Secretary of Transportation.

#### (b) Making and presenting award

The Secretary of Transportation shall periodically make and present the award to domestic motor vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, or Federal laboratory personnel who, in the opinion of the Secretary of Transportation, have substantially improved domestic motor vehicle research and development in safety, energy savings, or environmental impact. No person may receive the award more than once every 5 years.

#### (c) Funding for award

The Secretary of Transportation may seek and accept gifts of money from private sources for the purpose of making cash prize awards under this section. Such money may be used only for that purpose, and only such money may be used for that purpose.

(Pub. L. 96–480, §19, as added Pub. L. 102–240, title VI, §6019, Dec. 18, 1991, 105 Stat. 2184.)
Protectim Report RX-PR 13 July 1999

Japanese Privet

Ligustrum jq~onicunz

Plant: A thicket-forming shrub

with a spreading canopy up to 6 m

(20 ft) tall. (Similar to Chinese

privet except larger.)

Stem: Round, bark light gray and

smooth with no fissures. Branches

brownish gray with raised light

dots (Zenticek), twigs pale green

(sometimes reddish) to gray, not

hairy.

Leaves: Evergreen. leathery,

opposite, ovate, 5-10 cm (24 in)

long and 254 cm (I-I 3/4 in)

wide. Tip sharp, black-green

above and light green below, often

with reddish margins. Petioles l-2

cm (W-3/4 in) long.

Flowers: April-June. Loosely

branching, conical clusters. termi

nal and upper axillary. White, 4-

petaled, fragrant.

Fruit and Seeds: SeptemberFebruary. A blue-black drape, 6

10 mm (I /4&3/X in) long and 5

mm (I/X in) wide.
### §6212. Authority to receive reimbursement

The Attorney General and the Commission are authorized to receive from a foreign antitrust authority, or from the foreign state or regional economic integration organization represented by such foreign antitrust authority, reimbursement for the costs incurred by the Attorney General or the Commission, respectively, in conducting an investigation under section 6202 of this title requested by such foreign antitrust authority, applying for an order under section 6203 of this title to assist such foreign antitrust authority, or providing antitrust evidence to such foreign antitrust authority under an antitrust mutual assistance agreement in effect under this chapter with respect to such foreign antitrust authority.

(Pub. L. 103–438, §13, Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4605.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      304,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                        27,000
<INVENTORY>                                        704,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,355,014
<PP&E>                                             210,808
<DEPRECIATION>                                     105,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,189,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,958,747
<BONDS>                                          1,361,004
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,725
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,145,697)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,189,276
<SALES>                                          2,844,046
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,844,046
<CGS>                                            1,247,378
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,247,378
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 273,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,134,230)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,134,230)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,134,230)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.07)



</TABLE>
# C_2011355EN.01001801.xml

| 3.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2011 — Intermark v OHIM — Natex International (NATY’S)

(Case T-72/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark NATY’S - Earlier Community figurative mark Naty - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial rejection of opposition)

2011/C 355/31

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Intermark Srl (Stei, Romania) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Mannucci, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Natex International Trade SpA (Pioltello, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2009 (Case R 953/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Intermark Srl and Natex International Trade SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Intermark Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Intermark Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
#### § 11.41 Reporting required of horse industry organizations or associations.

Each horse industry organization or association which sponsors, or which sanctions any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, shall furnish the Department[6] by March 1 of each year with all such organization or association rulebooks, and disciplinary procedures for the previous year pertaining to violations of the Horse Protection Act or regulations, applicable to such horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. Rulebooks and information relating to disciplinary procedures for violations of the Horse Protection Act or regulations should be readily available to all exhibitors, trainers, and owners of horses at such show, exhibition, sale, or auction. Each horse industry organization or association shall furnish the Department6 with a quarterly report of all disciplinary actions taken against the management or any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction, any exhibitor, or any licensed DQP, for violation of the Horse Protection Act or regulations, and the results thereof.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0056)

[44 FR 25179, Apr. 27, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 57471, Dec. 30, 1983]

###### Footnotes -
  11.41

[6] See footnote 6 to § 11.7.
<PAGE>
 
                                 Exhibit 99.1

    REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE


To the board of directors of Clarus Corporation and Subsidiaries

We have audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the 
financial statements of Clarus Corporation and subsidiaries included in this 
Form 10-K and have issued our report thereon dated January 29, 1999. Our audit 
was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on those statements taken as a 
whole. The schedule listed in Item 14 is the responsibility of the company's
management and is presented for purposes of complying with the Securities and
Exchange Commission's rules and is not part of the basic financial statements.
This schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit
of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, fairly states in all
material respects the financial data required to be set forth therein in
relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
January 29, 1999
### §2105. Rank of warrant officers

(a) Among warrant officer grades, warrant officers of a higher numerical designation are senior to warrant officer grades of a lower numerical designation.

(b) Warrant officers shall take precedence in the grade to which appointed in accordance with the dates of their commissions as commissioned officers in the Coast Guard in such grade. Precedence among warrant officers of the same grade who have the same date of commission shall be determined by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title V, §541(e)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2766, §215; renumbered §2105, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §112(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4216.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 215 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the first day of the fourth month beginning after Oct. 5, 1994, see section 541(h) of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as an Effective Date of 1994 Amendment note under section 571 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
#### § 319.702 Lard, leaf lard.

(a) Lard is the fat rendered from clean and sound edible tissues from swine. The tissues may be fresh, frozen, cooked, or prepared by other processes approved by the Administrator in specific cases, upon his determination that the use of such processes will not result in the adulteration or misbranding of the lard. The tissues shall be reasonably free from blood, and shall not include stomachs, livers, spleens, kidneys, and brains, or settlings and skimmings. “Leaf Lard” is lard prepared from fresh leaf (abdominal) fat.

(b) Lard (when properly labeled) may be hardened by the use of lard stearin or hydrogenated lard or both and may contain refined lard and deodorized lard, but the labels of such lard shall state such facts, as applicable.

(c) Products labeled “Lard” or “Leaf Lard” must have the following identity and quality characteristics to insure good color, odor, and taste of finished product:

| (1) Color | White when solid, Maximum 3.0 red units in a 51/4 inch cell on the Lovibond scale. |
| --- | --- |
| (2) Odor and taste | Characteristic and free from foreign odors and flavors. |
| (3) Free fatty acid | Maximum 0.5 percent (as oleic) or 1.0 acid value, as milligrams KOH per gram of sample. |
| (4) Peroxide value | Maximum 5.0 (as milliequivalents of peroxide per kilogram fat). |
| (5) Moisture and volatile matter | Maximum 0.2 percent. |
| (6) Insoluble impurities | By appearance of liquid, fat or maximum 0.05 percent. |

(d) Product found upon inspection not to have the characteristics specified in paragraph (c) of this section but found to be otherwise sound and in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section may be further processed for the purpose of achieving such characteristics.

[43 FR 25420, June 13, 1978]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5700]



[[Page 13436]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

[OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1546]


NIJ Request for Comments on Draft Vehicular Digital Multimedia 
Evidence Recording System Certification Program Requirements for Law 
Enforcement and Draft Law Enforcement Vehicular Digital Multimedia 
Evidence Recording System Selection and Application Guide

AGENCY: National Institute of Justice, DOJ.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In an effort to obtain comments from interested parties, the 
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 
Institute of Justice (NIJ) will make available to the general public 
two draft documents:
    <bullet> ``Vehicular Digital Multimedia Evidence Recording System 
Certification Program Requirements for Law Enforcement''
    <bullet> ``Law Enforcement Vehicular Digital Multimedia Evidence 
Recording System Selection and Application Guide''
    The opportunity to provide comments on these documents is open to 
industry technical representatives, law enforcement agencies and 
organizations, research, development and scientific communities, and 
all other stakeholders and interested parties. Those individuals 
wishing to obtain and provide comments on the draft documents under 
consideration are directed to the following Web site: http://www.justnet.org.

DATES: The comment period will be open until April 25, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Casandra Robinson, by telephone at 
202-305-2596 [Note: this is not a toll-free telephone number], or by e-
mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#177476647679736576396578757e7964787957626473787d39707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c3f3d2f3d32382e3d722e333e35322f33321c292f383336723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.

John H. Laub,
Director, National Institute of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2011-5700 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 1304.210 Grandfathering of preexisting shoreland uses and structures. In order to provide for a smooth transition to new standards, grandfathering provisions shall apply as follows to preexisting development and shoreland uses established prior to November 1, 1999, which are located along or adjoin TVA-owned access residential shoreland. ( a ) Existing shoreline structures (docks, retaining walls, etc.) previously permitted by TVA are grandfathered.
( b ) Grandfathered structures may continue to be maintained in accordance with previous permit requirements, and TVA does not require modification to conform to new standards.
( c ) If a permitted structure is destroyed by fire or storms, the permit shall be reissued if the replacement facility is rebuilt to specifications originally permitted by TVA.
( d ) Vegetation management at grandfathered developments shall be as follows: ( 1 ) Mowing of lawns established on TVA-owned residential access shoreland prior to November 1, 1999, may be continued without regard to whether the lawn uses are authorized by a TVA permit.
( 2 ) At sites where mowing of lawns established prior to November 1, 1999, is not specifically included as an authorized use in an existing permit, TVA will include mowing as a permitted use in the next permit action at that site.
( 3 ) The SMZ is not required where established lawns existed prior to November 1, 1999.
( 4 ) Any additional removal of trees or other vegetation (except for mowing of lawns established prior to November 1, 1999) requires TVA's approval in accordance with § 1304.203. Removal of trees greater than three inches in diameter at ground level is not allowed.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

141343

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141343 COA: 290899 Wayne CC: 08-003225-FH COURTNEY SEEGARS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 11, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2010179EN.01004601.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/46

---

Action brought on 26 April 2010 — Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v Commission

(Case T-193/10)

(2010/C 179/80)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Nucara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission contained in the letter of 15 February 2010 by which the defendant rejected the applicant’s complaints. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission contained in the letter of 15 February 2010 by which the defendant rejected the applicant’s complaints.

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision contained in the letter of 15 February 2010 rejecting the applicant’s complaint.

That complaint concerns not only the exemption from the Imposta Comunale sugli Immobili (Communal Tax on Immovable Property), as in Case T-192/10 Pietro Ferracci v Commission, but also the partial exemption (at the rate of 50 %) from payment of the Imposta sul reddito delle persone giuridiche (tax on the income of legal persons) provided for under Italian tax law.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-192/10.

---