alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2554.32 How will the hearing be conducted and who has the burden of proof? ( a ) The ALJ conducts a hearing in order to determine whether a defendant is liable for a civil penalty, assessment, or both and, if so, the appropriate amount of the civil penalty and/or assessment. The hearing will be recorded and transcribed, and the transcript of testimony, exhibits admitted at the hearing, and all papers and requests filed in the proceeding constitute the record for a decision by the ALJ.
( b ) The Corporation must prove a defendant's liability and any aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence.
( c ) A defendant must prove any affirmative defenses and any mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence.
( d ) The hearing will be open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ for good cause shown.
DRAFT Alliance PHEV Test Procedure Talking points for Nov 18 2013 EPA/ARB meeting

1. Industry’s goals: A level playing field for all vehicles, including PHEVs (EREVs, all types of blended PHEVs) must be treated the same under TP reg ulation s 2. There is no time for large changes in Tier 3
– we recommend th at the PHEV test procedure changes be through g uidance or Dear Mfr letter since PHEV vehicle developments are outpacing regulations : a. The strengthening of the AECD language/mfr attestation should be handled this way b. “All Encompassing” emissions calculation for CD test
– use the CD phase s, transition phase s and then 1 st CS UDDS as defined by J1711 EOT criteria, to perform a summation of mass across all phases divided by total miles i. Can use development data so would not need to run both modes at cert time ii. As per SAE J1711 3.9, t he EOT should allow 1% of fuel energy or 2% of depleted battery energy as EOT criteria c. Fleet average credit for AER
–NMOG + NOx credit i. This is however not in Tier 3

- If CS is worst case, mfrs should get credit for fleet averaging for hybrids ii. If it is not worst case, then the results are already baked in and a mfr would not get credits d. For CS testing, EPA should allow (at OEM’s option) Appendix C

If OEM’s do use Appendix C which allows fuel consumption correction for net battery energy change, OEM’s should not be allowed to set SOC after the preconditioning cycle
. The following issue is separate from PHEV TPs 1. Inuse CREE and battery degradation should still be addressed in the Tier3 final rule: There are basic concerns with actually performing inuse testing on customer PHEVs (time constraints, wiring harness intervention, greatly increased lab test burden) and with s imply assigning a deterioration factor without an in depth analysis of actual inuse recharge data. Therefore, the Alliance recommends the following for Tier 3 final rule: a. PHEVs should not be required to do CD testing inuse (test burden on customer vehic les, wiring harness intervention, time constraints) b. Inuse CREE – It is too premature given the state of PHEV battery technology to assign a limit for PHEVs in inuse. We therefore request that EPA change the regulatory language from: i. “For vehicles that are capable of operating on multiple fuels, except plug

- in hybrid electric vehicles, a separate in

- use standard shall be determined for each fuel that the vehicle is capable of operating on.” toii. “For vehicles that are capable of operating on multiple fuels, and optionally for plug

- in hybrid electric vehicles, a separate in

- use standard shall be determined for each fuel that the vehicle is capable of operating on.” iii. EPA and mfrs should collect inuse recharge data to be able to inform a future durability provisi on. c. Battery degradation
– it is premature to set battery degradation requirements as this technology is in a rapid evolution phase and may be unnecessarily constricted via such requirements.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         NINE MONTHS        YEARS ENDED
                                            ENDED          DECEMBER 31,
                                         DECEMBER 31, ------------------------
                                             1994        1995         1996
                                         ------------ -----------  -----------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>          <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding....    3,585,578    3,592,009    6,575,576
Net dilutive effect of stock options--
 based on the treasury stock method
 using the initial public offering
 price of $9.00 per share..............      640,322          --           --
Effect of common and common equivalent
 shares issued by the Company during
 the twelve-month period immediately
 preceding the Company's registration
 for initial public offering, as if
 they were outstanding for all periods
 presented prior to the registration
 for initial public offering, using the
 treasury stock method, as described
 above.................................    1,858,875    1,858,875       42,532
                                          ----------  -----------  -----------
  Total shares.........................    6,084,775    5,450,884    6,618,108
                                          ==========  ===========  ===========
Net income (loss)......................   $  393,695  $(3,525,985) $(3,636,658)
                                          ==========  ===========  ===========
Net income (loss) per common and common
 share equivalent......................   $     0.06  $     (0.65) $     (0.55)
                                          ==========  ===========  ===========
</TABLE>
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
ALAN M. BARTLETT , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 16

- 0807 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2003

- 008581

- 001 The Honorable David O. Cunanan , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Alan M. Bartlett , Phoenix Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 10-10-2017STATE v. BARTLETT Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Alan M. Bartlett seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's first petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for po st

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court's order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, w e grant review and deny relief.
§ 142.210 Alternate arrangements or equipment. ( a ) Alternate arrangements or equipment to comply with this part may be approved in accordance with § 136.115 of this subchapter.
( b ) All owners or operators of towing vessels with a Towing Safety Management System (TSMS) may comply with the requirements of subpart B of this part by outfitting their vessels with appropriate alternate arrangements or equipment so long as these variations provide an equivalent level of safety and performance and are properly documented in the TSMS.
( c ) The cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) may require a towing vessel to carry specialized or additional fire protection, suppression, or detection equipment if: ( 1 ) He or she determines that the conditions of the voyage render the requirements of this part inadequate; or
( 2 ) The towing vessel is operated in globally remote areas or severe environments not covered under this part. These areas may include, but are not limited to, polar regions, remote islands, areas of extreme weather, and other remote areas where timely emergency assistance cannot be anticipated.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a 

Delaware corporation, and FORD 

GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a 

Delaware Limited Liability Company, 

 Plaintiff and 

 Counterclaim Defendants, 

v. 

AUTEL US INC., a New York 

corporation, and AUTEL 

INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., 

LTD., a Chinese corporation, 

 Defendants and 

 Counterclaimants, 

 Civil Action No. 

 4:14cv13760-TGB-MJH 

 Honorable Terrence G. Berg 

GREGORY D. PHILLIPS (P80801) 

JARED L. CHERRY (P80800) 

PHILLIPS RYTHER & 

WINCHESTER

124 South 600 East 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 

Tel: (801) 935-4935 

Fax: (801) 935-4936 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT WITH PREJUDICE 

 Pursuant to an agreement reached at the settlement conference held on April 

1, 2019, before the Honorable Judge Mona K. Majzoub, Ford withdraws its motion 

to enforce settlement agreement (Doc. No. 110) with prejudice. 

Case 4:14-cv-13760-TGB-MJH ECF No. 120 filed 04/05/19 PageID.3932 Page 1 of 3
2 

PHILLIPS, RYTHER & WINCHESTER

By: /s/ Jared L. Cherry

Gregory D. Phillips 

Jared L. Cherry 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ford Motor Co. 

and 

Ford Global Technologies LLC

Case 4:14-cv-13760-TGB-MJH ECF No. 120 filed 04/05/19 PageID.3933 Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 5, 2019, I electronically filed the foregoing paper 

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send notification of 

such filing to counsel of record. 

By: /s/ Jared L. Cherry

Case 4:14-cv-13760-TGB-MJH ECF No. 120 filed 04/05/19 PageID.3934 Page 3 of 3
#### § 75.429 Commencement and convocation costs.

For IHEs, costs incurred for commencements and convocations are unallowable, except as provided for in appendix III.B.9, as student activity costs.
# C_2011331EN.01000602.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Municipal Court lodged on 27 July 2011 — Jőrös Erika v Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

(Case C-397/11)

2011/C 331/09

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jőrös Erika

Applicant:

Defendant: Aegon Magyarország Hitel Zrt.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the procedures of the national court consistent with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) if, having found that one of the contract’s general terms relevant to the claim is unfair, the court examines its invalidity without the parties making a specific application in that regard? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the procedures of the national court consistent with Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) if, having found that one of the contract’s general terms relevant to the claim is unfair, the court examines its invalidity without the parties making a specific application in that regard?

1

| 2. | Must the national court also proceed in accordance with question 1 in a case brought by a consumer where the determination of the invalidity of a general contract term on the ground of unfairness would ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction not of the local court but of a higher court, if the injured party were to bring a claim on that basis? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the national court also proceed in accordance with question 1 in a case brought by a consumer where the determination of the invalidity of a general contract term on the ground of unfairness would ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction not of the local court but of a higher court, if the injured party were to bring a claim on that basis?

| 3. | In the event that question 2 is answered in the affirmative, may the national court also examine the unfairness of a general contract term in proceedings at second instance if the proceedings at first instance did not examine this and new facts and evidence cannot generally be taken into consideration in appeal proceedings under national law? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that question 2 is answered in the affirmative, may the national court also examine the unfairness of a general contract term in proceedings at second instance if the proceedings at first instance did not examine this and new facts and evidence cannot generally be taken into consideration in appeal proceedings under national law?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.350 Bilge and ballast systems in the cargo area. ( a ) Hold, interbarrier, and insulation spaces must have a means of sounding the space or other means of detecting liquid leakage specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG).
( b ) Each hold and insulation space must have a bilge drainage system.
( c ) Interbarrier spaces must have an eductor or pump for removing liquid cargo and returning it to the cargo tanks or to an emergency jettisoning system meeting § 154.356.
( d ) Spaces in the cargo containment portion of the vessel, except ballast spaces and gas-safe spaces, must not connect to pumps in the main machinery space.
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned  hereby certifies in her capacity as Chief Financial  Officer of
Belcrest Capital Fund LLC (the "Fund"), that:

(a)  the  Quarterly  Report  of the  Fund on Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended
     September 30, 2003 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of
     Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund
     for such period.



Date:  November 10, 2003




                                       /s/ Michelle A. Alexander
                                       -------------------------
                                       Michelle A. Alexander
                                       Chief Financial Officer
§ 13.501 Original application for tankerman-engineer endorsement. Each applicant for a tankerman-engineer endorsement must— ( a ) Be at least 18 years old;
( b ) Apply on a form provided by the Coast Guard;
( c ) Present evidence of— ( 1 ) Passing a physical and medical examination according to § 13.125 of this part;
( 2 ) Service on tankships and self-propelled tank vessels in accordance with § 13.503 of this subpart;
( 3 ) Completion of an approved firefighting course providing training in the subjects identified in Table 3 to § 13.121(e) completed within 5 years of the date of application for the endorsement, unless he or she has previously submitted such a certificate for a license, tankerman endorsement, or officer endorsement on an MMC; and
( 4 ) Completion of an approved Tankship course in dangerous liquids or liquefied gases, appropriate for the endorsement applied for within the previous 5 years. A course certificate used for original issuance or renewal of an endorsement cannot be used for a subsequent renewal of the same endorsement; and
( d ) Be capable of speaking and understanding, in English, all instructions needed to commence, conduct, and complete a transfer of cargo or fuel.
[USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77996, Dec. 24, 2013, as amended by USCG-2021-0348, 87 FR 3223, Jan. 21, 2022]
# C_2008279EN.01000101.xml

| 1.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 279/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 20.5.2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 192/08 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Region | País Vasco |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Programa de ayudas a producciones audiovisuales dobladas/subtituladas al euskera |
| Legal basis | Draft «Orden de XX de XXX de 2008, de la Consejera de Cultura, por la que se regula y se convoca la concesión de subvenciones para iniciativas destinadas a fomentar los estrenos de producciones audiovisuales dobladas y/o subtituladas al euskera» |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Sectoral development |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Annual budget: EUR 0,698 million
  Overall budget: EUR 0,698 million |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Duration | 2008 |
| Economic sectors | Recreational, cultural sporting activities |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Dirección de Promoción de la Cultura |
| Departamento de Cultura |
| Gobierno Vasco |
| c/ Donostia, 1 |
| E-01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz |

Date of adoption of the decision

20.5.2008

Reference number of the aid

N 192/08

Member State

Spain

Region

País Vasco

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Programa de ayudas a producciones audiovisuales dobladas/subtituladas al euskera

Legal basis

Draft «Orden de XX de XXX de 2008, de la Consejera de Cultura, por la que se regula y se convoca la concesión de subvenciones para iniciativas destinadas a fomentar los estrenos de producciones audiovisuales dobladas y/o subtituladas al euskera»

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Sectoral development

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Annual budget: EUR 0,698 million

Overall budget: EUR 0,698 million

Intensity

100 %

Duration

2008

Economic sectors

Recreational, cultural sporting activities

Name and address of the granting authority

Dirección de Promoción de la Cultura

Departamento de Cultura

Gobierno Vasco

c/ Donostia, 1

E-01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 2337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-181]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans; Notice of Availability 
of Report

    In compliance with section 13 of Public Law 92-463 (Federal 
Advisory Committee Act) notice is hereby given that the 2006 Annual 
Report of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Advisory Committee on 
Minority Veterans has been issued. The report summarizes activities and 
recommendations of the Committee on matters relative to VA programs and 
policies affecting minority veterans. It is available for public 
inspection at two locations:

Mr. Richard Yarnall, Federal Advisory Committee Desk, Library of 
Congress, Anglo-American Acquisition Division, Government Documents 
Section, Room LM-B42, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 
20540-4172.

     and

Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Minority Veterans, Suite 
435, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420.

    Dated: January 9, 2007.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-181 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
§ 131.565 Monthly tests and inspections. ( a ) Each lifesaving appliance, including lifeboat equipment, must be inspected monthly against the checklist required by § 131.545(a)(1) of this subpart to ensure that it is aboard and in good order. A report of the inspection, including a statement on the condition of the appliance, must be entered in the vessel's logbook.
( b ) Each Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) and each Search and Rescue Transponder (SART), other than an EPIRB or SART in an inflatable liferaft, must be tested monthly. The EPIRB must be tested using the integrated test circuit and the output indicator (test button) to determine that it works.
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.702 Refrigerated carriage. ( a ) Each refrigeration system must: ( 1 ) Have enough capacity to maintain the cargo vapor pressure in each cargo tank served by the system below the set pressure of the relief valves under ambient temperatures of 45 °C (113 °F) still air and 32 °C (89.6 °F) still water with the largest unit in the system inoperative; or
( 2 ) Have a standby unit with a capacity at least equal to the capacity of the largest refrigeration unit in the system.
( b ) For the purpose of this section, a “refrigeration unit” includes a compressor and its motors and controls.
( c ) Each refrigeration system must: ( 1 ) Have a heat exchanger with an excess capacity of 25 percent of the required capacity; or
( 2 ) A standby heat exchanger.
( d ) Where cooling water is used in a refrigeration system: ( 1 ) The cooling water pump or pumps must be used exclusively for the system;
( 2 ) Each pump must have suction lines from sea chests on the port and starboard sides of the vessel; and
( 3 ) There must be a standby pump, that may be used for: ( i ) Non-essential purposes on the vessel; or
( ii ) Essential purposes on the vessel, if the pump is sized to simultaneously provide for the capacity requirements for the essential purposes and the refrigeration cooling water.
( e ) Each refrigeration system must use refrigerants that are compatible with the cargo and, for cascade units, with each other.
( f ) The pressure of the heat transfer fluid in each cooling coil in a tank must be greater than the pressure of the cargo.
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael Gilligan, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Trust; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 29, 2013 |  | /s/ Michael Gilligan   
|                      |  | Michael Gilligan       
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer