alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 884.4910 Specialized surgical instrumentation for use with urogynecologic surgical mesh. ( a ) *Identification.* Specialized surgical instrumentation for use with urogynecologic surgical mesh is a prescription device specifically intended for use as an aid in the insertion, placement, fixation, or anchoring of surgical mesh during urogynecologic procedures. These procedures include transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair, sacrocolpopexy (transabdominal pelvic organ prolapse repair), and treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Examples of specialized surgical instrumentation include needle passers and trocars, needle guides, fixation tools, and tissue anchors. This device is not a manual gastroenterology-urology surgical instrument and accessories (§ 876.4730) or a manual surgical instrument for general use (§ 878.4800).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for specialized surgical instrumentation for use with urogynecologic surgical mesh are: ( 1 ) The device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible;
( 2 ) The device must be demonstrated to be sterile and, if reusable, it must be demonstrated that the device can be adequately reprocessed;
( 3 ) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating package integrity and device functionality over the requested shelf life;
( 4 ) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device meets all design specifications and performance requirements, and that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use; and
( 5 ) Labeling must include: ( i ) Information regarding the mesh design that may be used with the device;
( ii ) Detailed summary of the clinical evaluations pertinent to use of the device;
( iii ) Expiration date; and
( iv ) Where components are intended to be sterilized by the user prior to initial use and/or are reusable, validated methods and instructions for sterilization and/or reprocessing of any reusable components.
[82 FR 1603, Jan. 6, 2017]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[Docket: EPA-R10-0AR-2010-04331 

Determination of Attainment for PM10: Eagle River PMlO Nonattainment Area, Alaslm 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposed to determined that the Eagle River nonattaimnent area in Alaska 

attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter ofless than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PMIO) as of December 31,1994. 

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days from the date of 

pUblication in the Federal Register I. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-0AR-2010-0433, 

by any of the following methods: 

• www.regu1ations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov 

• Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, u.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101 
2 

• Hand Delivery / Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10,1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle 

WA,98101. Attention: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 

AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed infonnation. 

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section ofthis Federal Register for 

detailed instructions on how to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone 

number: (206) 553-6121, e-mail address: vaupe1.c1audia@epa.gov,ortheaboveEPA,Region 10 

address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

For further information, please see the direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the 

Rules section of this Federal Register. EPA is approving the attainment detennination as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the 

preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA wi11not take 

further action on this proposed rule. 
3 

If EP A receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not 

take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if we receive 

adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 

be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule 

that are not the subject of an adverse comment. 

DATED: ( 0 {-t /2--0 (0 ~J.=n¥#- Dennis J. MeL rran 

Regional Administrator 

EPA Region 10.
Order filed February 25 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 14
- 00 127
- C V

____________ IN RE ROBERT M. SPRAGUE , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 257 th D istrict Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2005
- 48988



### ABATEMENT ORDER
On February 11, 2014 , relator, Robert M. Sprague , filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov = t Code Ann. ' 22.221. In the petition,

r elator complained of a number of pretrial evidentiary rulings issued by The Honorable Judy Warne , Judge of the 257 th District Court, Harris Cou nty, Texas , in trial court cause number 2005

- 48999 , styled In the Matter of the Marriage of R

. M.2 Sprague and D.L. Sprague

. This c ourt requested a response to the petition from real party in interest to be filed on or before February 18, 2014. On February 18, 2014, the parties in the underlying case filed a joint motion to suspend th is c ourt’s de adline for filing a response to the petition because they are attem pting to settle the case. The joint motion to suspend is GRANTED

. The relator and the real party in interest did not suggest a new deadline for filing the response in the event a settleme nt is not reached. Accordingly, we issue the following order.
T he original proceeding is abated for a period of thirty d ays from the date of this order, at which time the relator and the real party in interest are directed to advise the court of the stat us of the settlement. Th e original proceeding is treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The original proceeding will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the parties file a motion to dismiss the original procee din g or other dispositive motion. This c ourt also will consider an appropriate motion to reinstate th e original proceeding, or the court may reinstate the original proceeding on its own motion

. It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Wise.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,057,068
<SECURITIES>                                17,990,899
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,399,717
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,696,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,970,630
<PP&E>                                       9,603,687
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,931,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,102,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,338,288
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      8,750
<COMMON>                                       288,510
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,917,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,102,852
<SALES>                                      3,494,112
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,494,112
<CGS>                                        5,247,015
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,247,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,588,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (17,103,675)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (17,103,675)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (17,103,675)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 34.1**

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Board of Directors 

Mechanics Bank 

Walnut Creek, California 

We have examined management’s assertion, included inthe accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Mechanics Bank (the “Bank”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Bank acts as servicer of automotive retail installment sales contractsincluded in private and public securitizations sponsored by the Bank (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(2)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(ii)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ix)-(xiii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), for which the Bank hasdetermined are not applicable to the activities performed with respect to the Platform. Appendix B to management’s report identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform.Management is responsible for the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, includedexamining, on a test basis, evidence about the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selectedasset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Bank processed those selected transactions and performed those servicing activities incompliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Bank during the period covered by the report. Our procedures were not designed to detectnoncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examinationprovides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Bank’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Bank complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,2018 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Crowe LLP 

Sacramento, California 

March 26, 2019
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William F. Young, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,370.

First District, Fourth Division.

February 5, 1969.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.

John J. Stamos, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane, Joel M. Flaum, and James B. Haddad, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE DRUCKER

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendant appeals from a judgment and sentence of two to three years in the penitentiary after a plea of guilty to the offense of bail jumping. Defendant urges that the sentence was unduly harsh in light of the circumstances. The following facts were stipulated. On March 22, 1966, defendant walked out of a courtroom while on bail pending a trial for attempt robbery; a bond forfeiture was entered and a warrant for arrest issued. It was also stipulated that Detectives Panepenta and Rizzi would testify that on July 13, 1966, defendant forc*398ibly resisted arrest causing a crowd of two hundred people to gather and that he damaged the clothing of both detectives in the struggle. In the hearing on aggravation the following criminal record was presented:

> In 1952 he was sentenced one to three years for larceny of auto and motor vehicle.

> 1955, six months in the House of Correction for tampering with auto.

> 1957, three years in Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute for assault, larceny and wrongful appropriation.

> 1959, one year House of Correction for larceny.

> 1961, two to five years in the Illinois State Penitentiary for assault to rob.

> 1965, three months House of Correction for a reduced burglary.

In mitigation defendant pleaded (1) that he was acquitted of the charge for which he had posted bond, (2) that his difficulty in obtaining employment would be increased, (3) that his wife was sick and (4) that he had learned his lesson. The trial judge in passing sentence stated:

> Mr. Young, we have had a legislative change in this bond situation. The policy of the legislature has been not to hold defendants in custody merely because they lack the funds for a bond premium, but, instead, to substitute for that, under the statutes, the possibility of a prison sentence.

> Now, this Court is very anxious to carry out the purposes of that new statute, and has attempted to comply with the spirit of it by releasing defendants on low bonds and releasing a man on his own recognizance. But also it requires the Court, when it comes to a case in which it is clear, a bond forfeiting *399charge, to impose a sentence in the penitentiary, Mr. Young, and that’s what I intend to do.

Since defendant has not presented any substantial reason why the sentence should be reduced, the judgment and sentence of the Circuit Court are affirmed. People v. Plodzien, 104 Ill App2d 336, 244 NE2d 343.

Affirmed.

ENGLISH and McNAMARA, JJ., concur.
Legal sponsor: City of Klamath Falls, OR
DUNS: 01-074-3300

Tax ID: 93-6002195

Congressional
District: OR 02

Contact: John Longley City of Klamath Falls, OR Airport Director
6775 Arnold Avenue Klamath Falls, OR 97603 Phone: (541) 883-5372 Email: jlongley@flykfalls.com

Docket #: DOT-OST-2011-0119

Date: August 2, 2011 

# Proposal Under
the Small Community Air
Service Development Program
|   |  1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |  2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. |
|--------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  |  May 17, 2010 |   | By:    |  /s/ Edward P. Smolyansky                                                                       |   |
|--------|--------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |               |   |   |  Edward P. Smolyansky Chief Financial  and Accounting Officer and Treasurer |   |

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-82,096-01, WR-82,096-02 & WR-82,096-03

EX PARTE KENTRAIL RAY MCCUIN, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. F-12-51308-L, F-12-51309-L, & F-12-51310-L

IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 5

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KEASLER, and HERVEY, JJ.,

joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

Adhering to the views expressed in my concurring opinion in Ex parte Pointer, ___

S.W.3d ___, Nos. WR-84,786-01 & WR-84,786-02 (Tex. Crim. App. del. June 8, 2016), I

join in the Court’s disposition of these cases.

FILED: JUNE 22, 2016

PUBLISH
#### Zetterower *v.*Floyd.

No. 8427.

March 5, 1932.

*Anderson & J ones,*for plaintiff in error.

*Deal & Renfroe, Howell Gone,*and *Fred T. Lanier,*contra.

Per Curiam.

This case being for decision by the entire bench composed of six Justices, who are evenly divided in opinion, Russell, C. J., Beck, P. J., and Atkinson, J., being of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, and Hill, Gilbert, and Hines, JJ., being of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, the judgment stands affirmed by operation of law.
#### § 1.167(a)-5T Application of section 1060 to section 167 (temporary).

In the case of an acquisition of a combination of depreciable and nondepreciable property for a lump sum in an applicable asset acquisition to which section 1060 applies, the basis for depreciation of the depreciable property cannot exceed the amount of consideration allocated to that property under section 1060 and § 1.1060-1T.

[T.D. 8215, 53 FR 27043, July 18, 1988]
39352.

#### OCEAN ACCIDENT & GUARANTY COMPANY *et al.*v. HULSEY.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

1. While it has been held that the disability for which compensation is payable under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is the economic disability which the employee suffers as the result of an injury, this economic disability is to be measured solely by the difference in the *earning*capacity of the employee before and after the injury. Accordingly, income received by the employee from outside sources and in no way attributable to his earning capacity is not to be taken into account by the board in fixing the amount of compensation for the period of disability which the employee suffers. *Georgia Marble Co. v. McBee,*90 Ga. App. 406 (1) (83 SE2d 253); *Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pioda,*90 Ga. App. 593 (2) (83 SE2d 627); *Butler v. Lee,*97 Ga. App. 184 (1) (102 SE2d 498). See also Anno. 119 ALR 920, et seq.

2. Under the foregoing authorities, the fact that the employee after receiving an injury returned to school under the so-called G. I. Bill, and received compensation thereunder in aid of his living expenses and out of which he was to pay his tuition and buy books, etc., had no bearing on whether he was in fact economically disabled. Accordingly, to the extent that the deputy director’s award in this case may be interpreted as denying compensation because of the employee’s receipt of such benefits it was illegal and the superior court properly reversed it.

3. However, the evidence did not demand a finding that the *480employee was in fact disabled and it was, therefore, not proper for the superior court, after reversing the award, to direct the entry of an award of compensation to the employee. Unless the evidence demands a finding that compensation in a particular amount is due, jurisdiction to find the amount due and enter an award in accordance with such findings is exclusively with the board. The case should have been remanded to the board with directions that it determine whether or not the employee was disabled in fact, without regard to the receipt of outside payments, and to make an award based on that determination. Since the judgment of reversal was correct, it is affirmed on condition that it be modified so as to strike therefrom the provision directing the entry of an award of compensation. Otherwise, the judgment is reversed.

Decided March 7, 1962.

*Smith, Field, Ring el, Martin*cfc *Carr, Richard D. Carr, W. Dent Aeree,*for plaintiffs in error.

*James I. Parker,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed on condition.*

*Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.*
• I 

I 

I 

j 

' 

Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Mr. Scott, 

Mary Ann Gardis <magardis@hotmail.com> 

Sunday, December 01, 2013 8:38 PM 

Faulk, Scott (OST) 

Makani Kai Air 

I have been a frequent visitor and worker in Kalaupapa since 1999. My husband spent several years renovating 

the Molokai lighthouse for the US Coast Guard. Makani Kai has offered the most efficient, on ti.me and 

courteous service since they were were awarded their contract the last few years. I have admired their 

friendly, and caring treatment of the patients that travel to and from Kalaupapa. They have surely gone out of 

their way to make every aspect of travel comfortable for all of us. Their schedules are efficient and meet 

everyone's needs. 

I look forward to your award once again to Makani Kai Air for service to Kalaupapa. 

Sincerely, 

Mary Ann Gardis 

International Flight Attendant 

American Airlines 

DFW International Airport 

1