alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §26103. Safety regulations and evaluation

The Secretary—

(1) shall promulgate such safety regulations as may be necessary for high-speed rail services;

(2) shall, before promulgating such regulations, consult with developers of new high-speed rail technologies to develop a method for evaluating safety performance; and

(3) may solicit feedback from relevant safety experts or representatives of rail employees who perform work on similar technology or who may be expected to perform work on new technology, as appropriate.

(Added Pub. L. 103–440, title I, §103(a)(2), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4618; amended Pub. L. 117–58, div. B, title II, §22419(a), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 749.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 117–58 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The Secretary shall promulgate such safety regulations as may be necessary for high-speed rail services."
#### Mary Johnson et al., defendants in error, v. Henri Pype et al., plaintiffs in error.

Gen. No. 29,447.

Action under the Dramshop Act to recover for the death of plaintiffs’ decedent alleged to have been caused by intoxicating liquors sold to him by the defendants. Judgment for plaintiffs. Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Francis S. Wilson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

Freeman, Mason & Igoe, for plaintiffs in error.

Winters, Stevens, Risk & Griffith, for defendants in error; George M. Stevens, Julian Clay Risk and Melvin L. Griffith, of counsel

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
file:///F|/...0Woodstock%20Soapstone...%20excellent%20values%20that%20support%20NSPS%20Step%202%20for%20cord%20wood!.txt[6/26/2014 12:40:51 PM]

From: Wood, Gil

Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 3:57 PM

To: Cole, David; Jill Mozier; Green, Gregory; Koerber, Mike; Aldridge, 

Amanda; Stackhouse, Debbie; Toney, Mike; Mckelvey, Laura; 

Benromdhane, Souad; Sorrels, Larry; Edwards, Chebryll; Davis, Alison

Subject: Cordwood vs Crib data for Woodstock Soapstone... excellent values 

that support NSPS Step 2 for cord wood!

Attachments: Model 210 Summary Results.xlsx; Woodstock Soapstone E.P.A. P.1 to 

13.pdf

Plus it is not CBI...

From: Tom Morrissey [mailto:tomm@woodstove.com] 

Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:15 PM 

To: Wood, Gil 

Subject: Data is attached

Hi GilAttached is the data you asked for yesterday. The pdf is the fist dozen pages of the Polytests test report, 

and the spreadsheet is summary data from my files. If there are any discrepancies, it would be because 

I prepared my data in a rush before the November Woodstove Challenge in DC. 

Our goal with this stove was to produce a relatively flat emissions line, which I think we did pretty 

well. On the 3 cordwood tests performed by the lab, emissions were lower on high than on low, but all 

three tests were below 1 gm/hr using method 5G3. We have had similar results in our lab, but these 

three tests were conducted independently. You can see them on the second tab of my spreadsheet. 

The hybrid combustion design is capable of performing very well across a wide range of outputs, with 

consistently low emissions. We think we are only a couple of iterations away from a “zero emissions” 

woodstove (well, not zero, but pretty close). 

Let me know if you need anything else. You don’t need to treat this as CBI. 

Tom
## Application to Amend Section 333 Exemption No. 12738

**Regulatory Docket No. FAA -**  **2015 -**  **1666** October 12, 2015 Petitioner: Michael C. Carlini 274 Orchard View Terrace Medford, OR 97504 Cell: 541.326.1745 Email: michael.carlini@gmail.com Greetings, By letter from the FAA dated September 3, 2015, an exemption was granted to Michael C. Carlini for relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 12738 Regulatory

Docket No. FAA
- 2015
- 1666. Michael C. Carlini hereby requests that the exemption so granted be amended to include DJ I Phantom 3 models. Relevant facts and reasoning are:  DJIhas announced they will d iscontinue the Phantom 2 Vision + model which was approved in Hawk Arial’s Exemption No. 12738.  Size, weight and performance specification of the DJIPhantom 3 (“P3”) are substantially similar to those of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ (“P2”) in all relevant respects: o Gross weight: P3=1280g; P2=1242g. o Diagonal Size (including propellers): P3=590mm; P2=579mm. o Maximum Ascent Speed: P3=5m/sec; P2=6m/sec. o Maximum Descent Speed: P3=3m/sec; P2=2m/sec. o Vertical Hover Accuracy: P3=+/
- 10cm; P2=+/
- 80cm. o Horizontal Hover Accuracy : P3=+/
- 1m; P2=+/
- 2 .5m. o Maximum Speed: P3=16m/sec; P2=15m/sec.  The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the FAA’s Exemption No. 12738 apply without modification to this application to include the DJ I Phantom 3 model in Exemption No. 12738. The following information manuals and support documents are available for viewing online , but were too large to upload to regulations.gov: o Phantom 3 Release Notes: http://download.dji
innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_Release_Note_en_ 9.9.pdf o Phantom 3 Quick Start Guide: http://download.dji
innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_Quick_Start_Guide _en_v1.2.pdfo Phantom 3 User Manual: http://download.dji
innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_Manual_v1.4 _en_0915.pdf o Phantom 3 Safety

Guidelines Disclaimer: http://download.dji
innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Safet y_Guidelines_Disclaimer_en_201509.pd f Thank you for y our consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any additional information that is required. Sincerel y, Michael C. Carlini Airman Certificate #3571047
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,737
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,739)
<INVENTORY>                                     34,268
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,360
<PP&E>                                          92,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                (61,680)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,304
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,756
<SALES>                                         42,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,553
<CGS>                                           30,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,441
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,935
<INCOME-TAX>                                       362
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (414)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,007
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jorge Modesto, Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 220]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered July 5, 2006, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that he did not have the assistance of an interpreter is belied by the record, which reflects the presence of a Spanish interpreter who participated in the plea proceedings. The defendant’s further claim that he was deprived of due process by the interpreter’s alleged failure to file an oath of public office is based on matter dehors the record and cannot be reviewed on direct appeal *(see People v Rivera,*33 AD3d 942 [2006]). To the extent that the defendant complains that the interpreter did not swear to translate truthfully and accurately, his contention is without merit *(see People v Rivera, supra; People v Bicet,*180 AD2d 692, 693 [1992]; *People v Torres,*96 AD2d 604 [1983]).

The defendant’s contention that his post-plea statement appearing in the presentence investigation report required the court to conduct a further inquiry before accepting his plea is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636 [1983]; *People v Cooper,*34 AD3d 827 [2006]). In any event, his post-plea assertions do not warrant vacatur of his plea of guilty *(see People v Tinsley,*32 AD3d 447 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention has been rendered academic. Rivera, J.E, Spolzino, Fisher, Lifson and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
#### § 222.1 Purpose.

This part implements policy established in DoD Instruction 5200.01. It assigns responsibilities and provides procedures for members of the public to request a declassification review of information classified under the provisions of Executive Order 13526, or predecessor orders.
#### Benjamin Moritt, Respondent, v. Joseph D. Barouch, Appellant.

In an action for an accounting and for other relief, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered June 14, 1962 after trial before an Official Referee, upon his oral decision, in favor of plaintiff for $6,469.25. Judgment reversed on the law and a new hearing ordered, with costs to abide the event. In our opinion the superseding account, dated May 23, 1962, rendered by defendant, was in compliance with the requirements of rule 174 of the Rules of Civil Practice (of. *Adelson*v. *Dreymcm,*274 App. Div. 605; *Borenstein*v. *Borenstein,*258 App. Div. 55). It was, therefore, error for the learned Official Referee to have dismissed such account. Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to file specific objections thereto, as provided in the rule; and he should be permitted to examine all books and records of original entry and such other documentary evidence as he may deem necessary to enable him properly to file his objections and to examine the defendant with reference thereto. With respect to the issue of whether the $5,000 allegedly advanced by the plaintiff was a loan (as he claims) or a capital investment (as defendant claims), in our opinion such issue is to be decided by the trier of the facts. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### SAVAGE, Appellant, v. BURNHAM et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 16, 1903.)

Action by Emma J. Savage, as administratrix, against Sigourney Burnham and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.
#### § 1802.11 Prerequisites.

Prior to reliance on this part, authorized holders are required to first exhaust such established administrative procedures for the review of classified information. Further information on these procedures is available from the point of contact, § 1802.3.
### **CHAPTER 43—PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec.
4301.
Definitions.
4302.
Establishment of performance appraisal systems.
[4302a.
Repealed.]
4303.
Actions based on unacceptable performance.
4304.
Responsibilities of  1 Office of Personnel Management.

4305.
Regulations.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE

4311.
Definitions.
4312.
Senior Executive Service performance appraisal systems.
4313.
Criteria for performance appraisals.
4314.
Ratings for performance appraisals.
4315.
Regulations.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1993**—Pub. L. 103–89, §3(b)(1)(B)(ii), Sept. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 981, struck out item 4302a "Establishment of performance appraisal systems for performance management and recognition system employees".

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–615, title II, §202(b), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3216, added item 4302a.

**1978**—Pub. L. 95–454, title II, §203(a), title IV, §405(b), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1131, 1170, in chapter heading substituted "APPRAISAL" for "RATING", added heading for subchapter I, in item 4302 substituted "Establishment of performance appraisal systems" for "Performance-rating plans; establishment of", in item 4303 substituted "Actions based on unacceptable performance" for "Performance-rating plans; requirements for", in item 4304 substituted "Responsibilities of Office of Personnel Management" for "Ratings for performance", in item 4305 substituted "Regulations" for "Review of ratings", struck out items 4306 to 4308 "Performance-rating plans; inspection of", "Other rating procedures prohibited", and "Regulations", respectively, and added item for subchapter II and items 4311 to 4315.

1  So in original. Does not conform to section catchline.
Exhibit 32.1








The following certification accompanies Dynamics Research Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 and is not filed as provided in Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K of the Securities and Exchange Commission.





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 on Form 10-Q of Dynamics Research Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his knowledge:





(1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and





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





Date:  August 4, 2010
/s/ James P. ReganChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                            79,847
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     24,317
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2,703
<INVENTORY>                                       169,103
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  276,307
<PP&E>                                            94,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                    21,822
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    362,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             111,497
<BONDS>                                           140,213
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          122
<OTHER-SE>                                        89,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      362,605
<SALES>                                           1,074,828
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,074,828
<CGS>                                             873,095
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     873,095
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                17,175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (2,281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (2,281)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (2,281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 12 CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED
FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
(In thousands, except ratios)
(Unaudited)  (a)
    Computation of ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
(including CMO debt): Year Ended December 312004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2000Fixed charges
    
    $
    49,179
    
    
    $
    62,859
    
    
    $
    169,148
    
    
    $
    362,327
    
    
    $
    540,605Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    20,259
    
    
    
    20,273
    
    
    
    20,362
    
    
    
    20,446
    
    
    
    24,260Combined fixed charges and
preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    69,438
    
    
    $
    83,132
    
    
    $
    189,510
    
    
    $
    382,773
    
    
    $
    564,865Fixed charges
    
    $
    49,179
    
    
    $
    62,859
    
    
    $
    169,148
    
    
    $
    362,327
    
    
    $
    540,605Net income (loss)
    
    
    41,805
    
    
    
    60,659
    
    
    
    96,123
    
    
    
    106,276
    
    
    
    (51,486
    )$
    90,984
    
    
    $
    123,518
    
    
    $
    265,271
    
    
    $
    468,603
    
    
    $
    489,119Ratio of earnings to combined
fixed charges and preferred
stock dividends
    
    
    1:31:1
    
    
    
    1.49:1
    
    
    
    1.40:1
    
    
    
    1.22:1
    
    
    
    0.87:1
  (b)
    Computation of ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
(excluding CMO debt): Year Ended December 312004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2000Fixed charges
    
    $
    43,167
    
    
    $
    28,933
    
    
    $
    53,079
    
    
    $
    164,422
    
    
    $
    303,126Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    20,259
    
    
    
    20,273
    
    
    
    20,362
    
    
    
    20,446
    
    
    
    24,260Combined fixed charges and
preferred stock dividends
    
    $
    63,426
    
    
    $
    49,206
    
    
    $
    73,441
    
    
    $
    184,868
    
    
    $
    327,386Fixed charges
    
    $
    43,167
    
    
    $
    28,933
    
    
    $
    53,079
    
    
    $
    164,422
    
    
    $
    303,126Net income (loss)
    
    
    41,805
    
    
    
    60,659
    
    
    
    96,123
    
    
    
    106,276
    
    
    
    (51,486
    )$
    84,972
    
    
    $
    89,592
    
    
    $
    149,202
    
    
    $
    270,698
    
    
    $
    251,640Ratio of earnings to combined
fixed charges and preferred
stock dividends
    
    
    1:34:1
    
    
    
    1.82:1
    
    
    
    2.03:1
    
    
    
    1.46:1
    
    
    
    0.77:1
### §302103. Criteria and regulations relating to National Register, National Historic Landmarks, and World Heritage List

The Secretary, in consultation with national historical and archeological associations, shall—

(1) establish criteria for properties to be included on the National Register and criteria for National Historic Landmarks; and

(2) promulgate regulations for—

(A) nominating properties for inclusion on, and removal from, the National Register and the recommendation of properties by certified local governments;

(B) designating properties as National Historic Landmarks and removing that designation;

(C) considering appeals from recommendations, nominations, removals, and designations (or any failure or refusal by a nominating authority to nominate or designate);

(D) nominating historic property for inclusion in the World Heritage List in accordance with the World Heritage Convention;

(E) making determinations of eligibility of properties for inclusion on the National Register; and

(F) notifying the owner of a property, any appropriate local governments, and the general public, when the property is being considered for inclusion on the National Register, for designation as a National Historic Landmark, or for nomination to the World Heritage List.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3192.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 302103 | 16 U.S.C. 470a(a)(2). | Pub. L. 89–665, title I, §101(a)(2), Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 915; Pub. L. 91–383, §11, as added Pub. L. 94–458, §2, Oct. 7, 1976, 90 Stat. 1942; Pub. L. 93–54, §1(d), July 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 139; Pub. L. 96–205, title VI, §608(a)(1), (2), Mar. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 92; Pub. L. 96–515, title II, §201(a), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2988. |

Section

The words "or revise" are omitted as being included in "establish" and "promulgate".
2 F EBRUARY 2014

Twelfth Court of Appeals

1517 W Front St Ste 354

Tyler TX 75702

- 7854

Re: Richard Dykes v. State



### 12

- 14

- 00351

- CR

To The Honorable Clerk of the Court:

Please find enclosed a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Salazar regarding his right to file a PDR

along with a copy of the certified return receipt showing the mailing of the same.

Sincerely,

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson ACCEPTED

12-14-00351-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

2/2/2015 9:33:43 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK19 J ANUARY 2014

Richard Dykes

Inmate 01898245

Bradshaw Unit

PO Box 9000

Henderson, TX 75653

By Certified Mail

Re: Appeal

Mr. Dykes:

Please find enclosed a copy of the opinion issued by the Twelfth Court of Appeals in your case

. Because you did not timely file a notice of appeal the Court of Appeals has dismissed your

appeal.

You do have the right to file a pro se Petition for Discretionary Review in the Court of Criminal

Appeals should you desire to do so. If you decide to pursue that option you must file your

petition prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of the court’s opinion.

As always, should you have any questions I will be happy to assist in any way that I can.

Sincerely,

Austin Reeve Jackson
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Section 1350 Certificationof the**

**Chief Financial Officer**

 

I, Michael Smith, the chief financial officer of Cobra ElectronicsCorporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofCobra Electronics Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010(the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofCobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.

 

 
|   | /s/  Michael Smith    |
|--------|-----------------------|
|   | Michael  Smith        |
|   | August 12,  2010 |

 

----
### [§50133. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–10, title IV, §416(c), Mar. 21, 2017, 131 Stat. 35]

Section, Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3400, related to shuttle privatization.