alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 572
Editorial Notes: 1. For compliance provisions relating to a vehicle's conformance with the performance requirements of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) relating to the part 572 test dummy, see the “Effective Date Note” at subpart E of this part. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 572 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 572.18 Thorax. ( a ) The thorax consists of the part of the torso shown in assembly drawing SA 103C 001 by number SA 103C 030 and conforms to each of the applicable drawings listed under this number on drawing SA 103C 002, sheets 10 and 11.
( b ) When impacted by a test probe conforming to § 572.21(a) at 13 fps in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the peak resultant accelerations at the location of the accelerometers mounted in the chest cavity in accordance with § 572.21(c) shall be not less than 50g and not more than 70g. The acceleration-time curve for the test shall be unimodal at or above the 30g level and shall lie at or above the 30g level for an interval not less than 2.5 milliseconds and not more than 4.0 milliseconds. The lateral acceleration shall not exceed 5g.
( c ) *Test procedure.* ( 1 ) With the dummy seated without back support on a surface as specified in § 572.21(h) and oriented as specified in § 572.21(h), adjust the dummy arms and legs until they are extended horizontally forward parallel to the midsagittal plane. The joints of the limbs are adjusted at any setting between 1g and 2g, which just supports the limbs' weight when the limbs are extended horizontally forward.
( 2 ) Establish the impact point at the chest midsagittal plane so that it is 1.5 inches below the longitudinal centerline of the bolt that attaches the top of the ribcage sternum to the thoracic spine box.
( 3 ) Adjust the dummy so that the tangent plane at the surface on the thorax immediately adjacent to the designated impact point is vertical and parallel to the face of the test probe.
( 4 ) Place the longitudinal centerline of the test probe to coincide with the designated impact point and align the test probe so that at impact its longitudinal centerline coincides within 2 degrees with the line formed by intersection of the horizontal and midsagittal planes passing through the designated impact point.
( 5 ) Impact the thorax with the test probe so that at the moment of impact the probe's longitudinal centerline falls within 2 degrees of a horizontal line in the dummy midsagittal plane.
( 6 ) Guide the probe during impact so that it moves with no significant lateral, vertical or rotational movement.
( 7 ) Allow a time period of at least 20 minutes between successive tests of the chest.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1082

SYSTEM GENERAL CORP.,

Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee,

and

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Intervenor.

J. Michael Jakes , Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of

Washington, D.C., argued for appe llant. On the brief was Elizabeth A. Niemeyer.

Michelle Walters , Attorney, Office of the G eneral Counsel, United States

International Trade Commission, of Washingt on, DC, argued for appell ee. With her on

the brief were James M. Lyons , General Counsel, and Wayne W. Herrington , Assistant

General Counsel.

Howard G. Pollack , Fish & Richardson P.C. , of Redwood City, California, argued

for intervenor. With him on the brief were Michael R. Headley , and Frank E.

Scherkenbach , of Boston, Massachusetts. Of counsel were Tamara Fraizer , of

Redwood City, California, and William E. Sekyi , of Washington, DC.

Appealed from: United States International Trade CommissionNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1082

SYSTEM GENERAL CORP.,

Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee,

and

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,

Intervenor.



## JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL from the United States International Trade Commission

In CASE NO(S). 337-TA-541

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36

Per Curiam (NEWMAN, Circuit Judge , CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge , and DYK,

Circuit Judge ).

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: November 19, 2007 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
#### § 585.33 Applicability.

This part applies to manufacturers of passenger cars, and of trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 3,856 kg (8,500 lb) or less.
§ 585.45 Reporting requirements. ( a ) *General reporting requirements.* Within 60 days after the end of the production years ending August 31, 2007, August 31, 2008 and August 31, 2009, each manufacturer shall submit a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning its compliance with S6.2(b) of Standard No. 301 for its passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of less than 4,536 kg produced in that year. Each report shall provide the information specified in paragraph (b) of this section and in section 585.2 of this part.
( b ) *Report content.* ( 1 ) Basis for statement of compliance. Each manufacturer shall provide the number of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less manufactured for sale in the United States for each of the three previous production years, or, at the manufacturer's option, for the previous production year. A new manufacturer that has not previously manufactured these vehicles for sale in the United States must report the number of such vehicles manufactured during the current production year.
( 2 ) Production. Each manufacturer shall report for the production year for which the report is filed the number of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less that meet S6.2(b) or S6.3(b) of Standard No. 301.
#### Philadelphia *v.*Bogan.

February 24, 1915:

Opinion by

Rice, P. J.,

This case is like the Edmonds case, in which we herewith file an opinion, except there is no counterclaim set up by the defendant here. For the reasons there given, the appeal is dismissed at the costs of the appellant, without prejudice, etc.
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

No. 51620

- 9

- II STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

JONATHAN LEVI DUNN, UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appellant.

W ORSWICK , J.

— Jonathan Dunn appeals the sentencing court’s imposition of a

discretionary legal financial obligation (LFO)

. The State concedes error. We accept the State’s

concession and remand to the sentencing court to strike the jury demand fee

.

FACTS

In 2013, Dunn was convicted of two counts of possession of a controlled substance with

intent to deliver with a firearm enhancement , two counts of pos session of a controlled substance,

one count of unlawful possession of marijuana

, and one count of first degree unlawful possession

of a firearm. We granted Dunn’s perso nal restraint petition in part in 2017 and remanded for

re sentencing. As part of Dunn’s sentence, t he sentencing court imposed a jury demand fee

,
criminal filing fee , and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) collection fee

. The court entered an order

of indigency for Dunn

. Dunn appealed the imposition of the jury demand fee

.

ANALYSIS

Dunn argues , and the State concedes, that the sentencing court erred by ordering Dunn

,

who is indigent, to pay the jury demand fee

. W e accept the State’s concession and remand to the

sentencing court to strike the jury demand fee. Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two

April 16, 2019No. 51620

- 9

- II

2

Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill ( ESHB ) 1783 modified Washington’s system of

LFOs and a mended RCW 10.01.160(3) to prohibit trial courts from imposing discretionary LFOs

on indigent defendants. L AWS OF 2018 , ch. 269, § 6

. ESHB 1783 also amended RCW 10.46.190

to prohibit trial courts from imposing the jury demand fee on indigent defendant s

. L AWS OF

2018, ch. 269, § 9; see RCW 10.46.190. The amendments to the LFO statute s appl y

prospectively to cases on direct appeal. State v. Ramirez , 191 Wn.2d 732, 747 , 426 P.3d 714

(2018).

Here, the sentencing court entered an order of indigency for Dunn. Because the trial

court is prohibited from imposing a jury demand fee on indigent defendants, the jury demand fee

imposed on Dunn is no longer authorized. Thus, we remand to the sentencing court to strike the

jury demand fee. 1

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2.06.040, it is so ordered

.

Worswick, J. We concur:

Maxa, C.J.

Sutton, J.

1 The brief

s in this case were filed before Ramirez

, 191 Wn.2d at 732

, was decided

. I n light of Ramirez

, the sentencing court on remand should also determine whether it must strike the criminal filing f

ee and the DNA collection fee. Ramirez , 191 Wn.2d at 747, 748, 750.
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert C. Shreve, Jr., certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Avatar
          Systems, Inc.;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
          information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
          material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
          cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
          this quarterly report;

     4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
          and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and 15 (e)) for
          the registrant and I have:

               a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
                    that material information relating to the registrant is made
                    known to me by others within those entities, particularly
                    during the period in which this quarterly report was
                    prepared;

               b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
                    controls and procedures as of September 30, 2006 and in this
                    quarterly period presented in this report ("Evaluation
                    Date"); and

               c)   presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
                    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
                    based on the required evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
          registrant's independent registered public accounting firm and the
          audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
          performing the equivalent function):

               a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
                    design or operation of internal controls which could
                    adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
                    process, summarize and report financial information; and

               b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
                    or other employees who have a significant role in the
                    registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 18, 2006

                                    /s/ Robert C. Shreve, Jr.
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    and Chief Financial Officer
                                    (principal executive and accounting officer)
#### § 511.22 Prehearing briefs.

Not later ten (10) days prior to the hearing, the parties shall, except when ordered otherwise by the Presiding Officer in unusual circumstances, simultaneously serve and file prehearing briefs, which shall set forth (a) a statement of the facts expected to be proved, and of the anticipated order of proof; (b) a statement of the issues and the legal argument in support of the party's contentions with respect to each issue; and (c) a table of authorities with a designation by asterisk of the principal authorities relied upon.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 947

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individual retirement

accounts to exclude income with respect to certain debt-financed real

property from the tax on unrelated business taxable income.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 2001

Mr. DUNCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individual retirement accounts to exclude income with respect

to certain debt-financed real property from the tax on

unrelated business taxable income.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 947 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION BY INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT AC2 COUNTS OF CERTAIN INCOME WITH RESPECT

3 TO CERTAIN DEBT-FINANCED REAL PROP4 ERTY FROM TAX ON UNRELATED BUSINESS

5 TAXABLE INCOME.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (ii) of section 514(c)(9)(C)

7 is amended by inserting before the semicolon the following:

8 ‘‘or any trust which constitutes an individual retirement

9 account under section 408’’.

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

12 December 31, 2001.

Æ
From: Lenny Paul [mailto:lenny1944@verizon.net] 

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 7:55 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

I absolutely support a regulation that Financial Advisors be required to act under a “Fiduciary Standard” 

vs “ a Suitability Standard”.

This is especially true when giving “Retirement advice”.

If a Broker Dealer’s business is mostly selling products vs meting out advice then the regulation is less 

necessary. If however the “Advisor” business includes giving advice that people use to make 

Long term plans and decisions it is imperative that advice be given under Fiduciary Standards
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed December 5, 2017 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01098-CR No. 05-17-01099-CR No. 05-17-01103-CR SALBADOR AMARO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Crimin al District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F15-60526-J, F16-75004-J, F16-75005-J 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Myers, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Bridges Before the Court is Salbador Am aro’s November 21, 2017 motion to abandon the appeals. In the motion, appellant states that he no longer desires to pursu e the appeals. Counsel has signed the motion and affixed an exhibit si gned by appellant showing his consent to allow counsel to abandon the appeals. We GRANT appellant’s motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). We dismiss the appeals.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47 171098F.U05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
SALBADOR AMARO, Appellant

No. 05-17-01098-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15-60526-J. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Myers and Sc henck participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
Judgment entered December 5, 2017.–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
SALBADOR AMARO, Appellant
No. 05-17-01099-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-75004-J. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Myers and Sc henck participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
Judgment entered December 5, 2017.–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
SALBADOR AMARO, Appellant
No. 05-17-01103-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-75005-J. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Justices Myers and Sc henck participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
Judgment entered December 5, 2017.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>                 THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                         EXTRACTED FROM THE COASTAL CORPORATION FORM 10-K ANNUAL
                         REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS
                         QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                         FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000,000
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              58
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        781
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,250
<PP&E>                                          10,018
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,659
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,207
<BONDS>                                          3,662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                1
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,659
<SALES>                                         10,448
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,499
<CGS>                                            7,554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    65
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    322
<INCOME-TAX>                                        52
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                270
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       270
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.39
        

</TABLE>
#### § 831.15 Civil penalties.

The NTSB is required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, sec. 701, 129 Stat. 584 (codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note) to adjust the maximum amount of each civil monetary penalty within its jurisdiction by the rate of inflation. Accordingly, for violations of 49 U.S.C. 1132, 1134(b), 1134(f)(1), or 1136(g), the NTSB may assess a civil penalty pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1155(a) no greater than $2,058 against any person, except a member of the armed forces of the United States or an employee of the Department of Defense subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, when the member or employee is performing official duties.

[82 FR 47402, Oct. 12, 2017, as amended at 84 FR 45687, Aug. 30, 2019; 85 FR 2320, Jan. 15, 2020; 86 FR 1810, Jan. 11, 2020; 87 FR 2353, Jan. 14, 2022; 88 FR 2859, Jan. 18, 2023; 89 FR 1036, Jan. 9, 2024]
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 33-49176, 33-70326 and 333-81436 and Form S-4/A No. 333-36375) of
Artesyn Technologies, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, and in the
Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-42516, 33-63501, 33-63503, 33-63499,
333-03937, 333-08475, 333-45691, 333-58771, 333-85225, 333-59382 and 333-102854)
pertaining to the Artesyn Technologies, Inc. 1990 and 2000 Performance Equity
Plans, 1986 and 1990 Outside Director Stock Option Plans, Employees' Tax-Favored
Thrift and Savings Plan, and certain other options, of our report dated January
21, 2003 (except for Note 20, as to which the date is February 4, 2003), with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Artesyn
Technologies, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal
year ended December 27, 2002.

                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


West Palm Beach, Florida
March 20, 2003
###### Editorial Note on Part 576

#### Editorial Note:

For an interpretation document regarding part 576, see 40 FR 3296, Jan. 21, 1975.

#### § 576.4 Definitions.

All terms in this part that are defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102 and part 579 of this chapter are used as defined therein.

[67 FR 45873, July 10, 2002]
# !VIDE**MARYLA~D** 

## DEPARTMENT-OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard • Baltimore MD 21230 410-537-3000. 1-800-633-6101 Martin 0 'Malley Governor Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. Anthony G. Brown Lieutenant Governor
March 22,2013
Mr. Shawn M. Garvin Regional Administrator (3RAOO) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III 1650 Arch Street PhUadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Dear Mr. Garvin: d'1\, iWUiOiJ lll**~** ·:OF i:**~~:'._~i·~)l** ,IF\LAL11'.tl! NJ.(;**l'~** :1
_,..

The purpose of this letter is to withdraw a portion ofMaryland's State Implementation Plan- (SIP) Revision #11-05- submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency on June 22,2011. The specific regulation being withdrawn is COMAR 26.11.34.02B(17), which incorporated by reference§ 2030 Liquefied Petroleum Gas or Natural Gas Retrofit Systems from Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 5 ofTitle 13 of the California Code of Regulations. If you have any questions regarding the withdrawal of this portion of SIP Revision 11-05, please feel free to call me at (410) 537-3084 or Mr. George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, at (410) 537-3255.
Sincerely

# ~~**rs,** Ph
.....D

--

. ----- Secretary Secretary**~** Recycled Paper www.mde.state.md.us TIY Users l-800-735-2258 Via Maryland Relay Service