alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sampling, Certification and 

Enforcement for Commercial 

HVAC Equipment 

Furnaces 

Boilers 

Hot Water Heaters 

Air Conditioners 

Heat Pumps 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD
Certification Procedures 

Compliance statement- one-time submittal 

Certification report for each basic model 

Based on testing or calculation (AEDM) 

Directly or via VICP 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD
Testing Basic Models 

Apply to rating and model validation 

Must use DOE test procedures 

Representative, random sample 

Industry standards for accuracy 

Sufficient number of units 

Rating based on mean efficiency 

Statistically valid and accurate (VICP) 

DOE sampling plan (non-VICP) 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD
VICP 

Voluntary Industry Certification Program 

Must be approved by DOE 

Must meet published requirements 

Participants have less stringent 

requirements for sampling and AEDM 

approval 

* Verification testing 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD
VICP Approval Requirements 

published procedures 

participants must report for all covered 

models 

published ratings 

independent, random verification testing 

industry standards for accuracy 

appropriate standards for rating verification 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD
VICP cont. 

procedures for re-rating or delisting 

penaltieslincentives to promote accurate 

ratings 

written records to manufacturers 

verification testing results to DOE 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD
Non-VICP Participants 

Must use DOE sampling plan and 

confidence limit procedure 

Testing only atlby independent laboratories 

or personnel 

No verification testing 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD
Designated DOE Sampling Plan 

for energy efficiency- lesser of the sample 

mean or the lower 95% confidence limit 

divided by 0.95 

for energy usage- greater of the sample 

mean or the upper 95% confidence limit 

divided by 1.05 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD
AEDM 

Alternative Efficiency Detemination 

Method 

Validated using measured data (min. 3 for 

non-VICP, 1 for VICP) 

Maintain written documentation 

DOE approval required for non-VICP 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD
AEDM AccuracylValidation 

Compare to measured results using DOE 

test procedure 

Within 5% for each basic model 

Within 1 % for average of all basic models 

i.e. AEDM must not consistently over- or 

under-predict 

If only one validation point, must be within 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD
Initial sample size of two units 

Maximum sample size of four units if 

manufacturer requests 

Exceptions possible for very large units by 

request to DOE 

Mean energy efficiency of the sample must 

meet 95% of the standard 

 EE-RM-TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD

EE-RM/TP-99-450 COMMENT 02DD
<PAGE>
                                 EXHIBIT 10.15

         CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENTS IN EFFECT AS OF JANUARY 28, 2003

1 YEAR AGREEMENTS
Eric Q. Broderson
John Chamberlain
Lisa A. Clarke
Dave Fox
Randall Hollis
Lynn Jacobs
Mark W. Matson
Jonathan E. Otis
Scott A. Roza
Paul G. Rutherford
Richard S. Sato
F. James Vaughan
Christopher S. Willis
William Yaman

2 YEAR AGREEMENTS
William C. Britts
Jon W. Gacek
John W. Powell III
Said Rahmani-Khezri
Linda A. Schoemaker

3 YEAR AGREEMENTS
Charles H. Stonecipher
Peter H. van Oppen
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

MULTIMEDIA GAMES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
LETTER REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:  Multimedia Games, Inc.
     Registration on Forms S-3 and S-8

We are aware that our report dated February 12, 1999 on our review of the 
interim financial information of Multimedia Games, Inc. for the periods ended 
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and included in this Form 10-Q is incorporated by 
reference in the Company's registration statements on Forms S-3 (File No. 
333-16729, 333-28367 and 333-36319) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-23123). Pursuant 
to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be 
considered a part of the registration statements prepared or certified by us 
within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Tulsa, Oklahoma
February 15, 1999
#### James Hallas, Appellant-Respondent, *v.*North River Insurance Company of New York, Respondent-Appellant. James Hallas, Appellant-Respondent, *v.*Cosmopolitan Mutual Fire Insurance Company of New York, Respondent-Appellant.

First Department,

October 16, 1951.

*16
      *Leo B. Mittelman*of counsel *(Frederick W. Scholem,*attorney), for appellant-respondent.

*Samuel A. Berger*of counsel *(Irwin Leibowitz*with him on the brief; *Powers, Kaplan & Berger,*attorneys), for respondents-appellants.

*Per Curiam.*

The evidence compels the conclusion that the loss sued on had its origin in an explosion and that any fire covered by the policies in suit was a fire which followed the explosion. Plaintiff, therefore, had the burden under the policies of showing the extent of any covered loss occasioned by fire as distinguished from any excluded loss caused by the explosion *(Nasello*v. *Home Ins. Co.,*277 N. Y. 632). Plaintiff failed to do this and quite clearly would not be able to do it on another trial. For failure and inability to sustain his burden of proof, the complaint should be dismissed.

We think a further ground requiring dismissal of the complaint was plaintiff’s willful refusal to answer relevant questions on his examination by defendants. That refusal was a breach of one of the substantial conditions of the policies.

The order, so far as appealed from by defendants, should be reversed and their motions to dismiss the complaint granted, with costs.

Callahan, J.

(dissenting). I dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that there is a question for the jury with regard to the extent and proximate cause of the damage. Nor in my opinion can it be said as a matter of law on this record that plaintiff was guilty of willful refusal to answer relevant questions on his examination by defendants. It is, therefore, improper to dismiss the present complaint. However, the trial court was justified in its discretion in setting aside the verdict of the jury on the ground that it was contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur in *Per Curiam*opinion; Callahan, J., dissents in opinion.

Order, so far as appealed from by the defendants, reversed and their motions to dismiss the complaint granted, with costs. Settle order on notice.
### §87. Statements in application; patents

Any applicant for lands mentioned in section 86 of this title shall state in his application that the same is made in accordance with and subject to the provisions and reservations of sections 86 to 89 of this title, and upon submission of satisfactory proof of full compliance with the provisions of law under which application or entry is made and of sections 86 to 89 of this title shall be entitled to a patent to the lands applied for and entered by him, which patent shall contain a reservation to the United States of all the coal deposits in the lands so patented, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the same.

(Feb. 27, 1917, ch. 133, §2, 39 Stat. 945.)
Merrimack,

June, 1898.

#### State *v.*Powell.

A trader who has a permanent business within this state, a part of which is carried on temporarily in a place other than its usual location, is not an itinerant vendor within the meaning of c. 46, Laws 1897.

Indictment, for selling merchandise as an itinerant vendor, without a license. Plea, not guilty. Facts agreed.

The respondent is a member of the firm of Kimball, Corser & Powell, doing business and taxed in Concord, where all the partners reside. In September, 1897, the respondent, acting for the firm, carried a portion of the partnership goods to Warner, and sold some of them during the two days of the Grange fair.

If upon these facts the prosecution cannot be sustained, the respondent is to be discharged.

*George M. Fletcher,*solicitor, for the state.

*Streeter, Walker Hollis,*for the defendant.

Peaslee, J.

The words “itinerant vendor,” as defined in *s.*1, *e.*46, Laws 1897, include only those persons who “ engage in a temporary or transient business in this state.” They do not include those whose business in the state is permanent, even when such persons carry on a part of their business temporarily in a place apart from their usual location. Section 12 of the act provides that the deposit with the secretary of state shall be held subject to claims growing out of the licensee’s business in this state. This shows that the law was intended to apply to the nonresident dealer, who does business here temporarily and then leaves without paying his creditors.

The firm of which the respondent is a member has a permanent place of business in Concord, and is taxable there each year upon the average value of its stock in trade during the year. P. S., *c.*55, *s.*7, *par.*VI. It has not heretofore been the policy of the state to make this class of laws applicable to such persons. Laws 1878, *c.*27; G. L., *c.*119; Laws 1887, *c.*68. Their location is of such a character and permanency that special protection for persons dealing with them is not required, and by ordinary taxation they bear their just share of the expense of local government.

*Respondent discharged.*

All concurred.
#### § 2635.1001 Overview.

This subpart contains standards for an employee's acceptance of payments for legal expenses through a legal expense fund and an employee's acceptance of *pro bono* legal services. Legal expenses covered by this subpart are those for a matter arising in connection with the employee's past or current official position, the employee's prior position on a campaign of a candidate for President or Vice President, or the employee's prior position on a Presidential Transition Team.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corp., Respondent, against William W. Mills et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Appellants. [402 Sixth Ave., Borough of Manhattan.]

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the assessment of the Tax Commission of the City of New York reinstated and confirmed on the ground that the evidence supports the values fixed by the Tax Commission for the years involved. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 13—MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION**

Sec.
641.
Creation of Mississippi River Commission.
642.
Appointment of commissioners; vacancies; chairman; tenure of office.
642a.
Rank, pay, and allowances of Corps of Engineers officers serving as President of Mississippi River Commission.
643.
Omitted.
644.
Secretary of commission.
645.
Repealed.
646.
Headquarters and meetings of commission.
647.
Mississippi River survey.
648.
Arkansas River; levee and bank protection.
649.
Vicksburg Harbor and Ohio River below Cache River.
650.
Mississippi River below Rock Island; levee and bank protection.
651.
Tributaries of Mississippi River below Cairo; levee and bank protection.
652.
Upper Mississippi River Management.
653.
Extension of jurisdiction of Mississippi River Commission.
653a.
Extension of jurisdiction of Mississippi River Commission.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.  The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors.  Comments must be received not later than November 9, 2004.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis**                     (Jacqueline G. Nicholas, Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:                

*1.  Bradley E. Bakken*, St. Louis Park, Minnesota; to acquire voting shares of Bakken Securities, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Citizens Independent Bank, St. Louis Park, Minnesota.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 20, 2004.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 04-23890  Filed 10-25-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 04-167 December 30, 2004

NRC RESTORES DOCUMENTS ON LES, USEC AND NEW REACTORS

TO PUBLIC AVAILABILITY 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has re-established public availability of documents

regarding the proposed LES and USEC Inc. uranium enrichment facilities and new reactors. 

The NRC suspended public access to major portions of its web site on Oct. 25 to conduct a

security review and remove any documents that could reasonably be expected to aid a potential

terrorist. Public access to the NRC’s on-line document library, ADAMS, was also suspended. The

agency has been restoring access to appropriate documents, after reviewing them for security

sensitivity.

LES and USEC Inc. documents deemed non-sensitive have been restored to ADAMS. Portions

of other LES and USEC, Inc. documents that were found to be sensitive have now been excised, or

redacted, and the remaining portions of the documents restored to ADAMS.

The new reactors category of restored documents relates to early site permits, standard design

certifications and combined licenses for nuclear power plants. 

Members of the public may obtain these documents from ADAMS by using the CITRIX access

to the NRC electronic reading room site, available at http: //www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.

Help in using ADAMS through CITRIX is available by contacting the NRC Public Document Room

by phone at 800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov.

###
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1596

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2318 Woodson Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ‘‘Timothy Michael 

Gaffney Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2003

Mr. CLAY (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr. SKELTON, Ms. 

MCCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. BLUNT, Mrs. EMERSON, and 

Mr. HULSHOF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2318 Woodson Road in St. Louis, Missouri, 

as the ‘‘Timothy Michael Gaffney Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. TIMOTHY MICHAEL GAFFNEY POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 2318 Woodson Road in St. 

7 Louis, Missouri, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Timothy Michael Gaffney Post Office Building’’. 
2

•HR 1596 IH 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Timothy Michael 

5 Gaffney Post Office Building.

Æ
Exhibit 8.1

Subsidiaries



|                                                    |  |                        |  |                          |  |              |  
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | ------------ | -
|Legal Name                                          |  | Place of Incorporation |  | Doing Business As        |  | Ownership %1 |  
|Lan Argentina S.A.                                  |  | Argentina              |  | Lan Argentina            |  | 90           | %
|Aircraft International Leasing Limited              |  | Bahamas                |  | AILL                     |  | 99.98        | %
|Lan Cargo Overseas Services Limited                 |  | Bahamas                |  | Lan Cargo Overseas       |  | 100          | %
|Aerolinhas Brasileras S.A.                          |  | Brazil                 |  | ABSA                     |  | 73.3         | %
|Perdiz Leasing Ltd.                                 |  | Cayman Islands         |  | Perdiz                   |  | 100          | %
|Inmobiliaria Aeronáutica S.A.                       |  | Chile                  |  | Inmobiliaria Aeronáutica |  | 99.01        | %
|Inversiones Lan S.A.                                |  | Chile                  |  | Inverlan                 |  | 99.7         | %
|Lan Cargo S.A.                                      |  | Chile                  |  | Lan Chile Cargo          |  | 99.85        | %
|Lan Pax Group S.A.                                  |  | Chile                  |  | Lan Pax Group            |  | 99.83        | %
|Transporte Aéreo S.A.                               |  | Chile                  |  | LanExpress               |  | 99.99        | %
|Lan Logistics Corp.                                 |  | Delaware, USA          |  | Lanlogistics             |  | 100          | %
|Aerolane, Líneas Aéreas Nacionales del Ecuador S.A. |  | Ecuador                |  | Lan Ecuador              |  | 71.95        | %
|South Florida Air Cargo                             |  | Florida, USA           |  | Southflorida             |  | 100          | %
|Aerotransporte Mas de Carga S.A.                    |  | Mexico                 |  | Mas Air                  |  | 39.51        | %
|Lan Perú S.A.                                       |  | Peru                   |  | Lan Perú                 |  | 70           | %



|1 | Percentage of equity owned by Lan Airlines S.A. directly or indirectly through subsidiaries or affiliates
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                   CONTROLLED EQUITY OFFERING SALES AGREEMENT

         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTROLLED EQUITY OFFERING SALES AGREEMENT (the
"Amendment") is made as of January 10, 2003, by and between Anworth Mortgage
Asset Corporation, a Maryland corporation (the "Company") and Cantor Fitzgerald
& Co. ("CF&Co").

         WHEREAS, the Company and CF&Co entered into that certain Controlled
Equity Offering Sales Agreement dated December 30, 2002 (the "Agreement").

         WHEREAS, due to a typographical error, the Company and CF&Co wish to
amend the Agreement as set forth herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as
follows:

         1. Amendment to Section 1. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended
to insert the words "up to" immediately before "4,800,000 shares" in the first
sentence thereof.

         2. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed
Amendment by one party to the other may be made by facsimile transmission.

         3. Continuing Agreement. Except as specifically amended hereby, all of
the terms of the Agreement shall remain and continue in full force and effect
and are hereby confirmed in all respects.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
executed by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized, as of the date
firs above written.

                                    ANWORTH MORTGAGE ASSET CORPORATION

                                    By: /s/ Lloyd McAdams
                                       ------------------------------
                                       Lloyd McAdams
                                       Chief Executive Officer


                                    CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO.


                                    By: /s/ Stephen Merkel
                                       ------------------------------
                                       Stephen Merkel
                                       Executive Managing Director


                                    By: /s/ Marc J. Blazer
                                       ------------------------------
                                       Marc J. Blazer
                                       Managing Director
#### Ivan H. Morris et al., Respondents, v. Valdia B. Moore, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of $360 in favor of the plaintiffs, as treble damages for cutting and removing timber from lands of the plaintiffs, entered upon the verdict of a jury after a trial in the Supreme Court, Tioga County. A fair question of fact was presented as to plaintiffs’ title to the disputed property, and there was substantial evidence to sustain the jury’s finding that plaintiffs owned such property. The evidence, however, was not sufficient to sustain a finding that defendant cut the timber involved without probable cause to believe that he had a right to do so. A judgment for treble damages was therefore improper. Plaintiffs stipulated that the jury’s finding as to the value of the timber cut and removed be reduced from $265 to $120. Judgment modified on the law and facts by reducing the verdict from $360 to $120, and as so modified affirmed, with costs. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster, Russell and Deyo, JJ., concur.