alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 393

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 393 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 393.209 Steering wheel systems.

(a) The steering wheel shall be secured and must not have any spokes cracked through or missing.

(b) *Steering wheel lash.*

(1) The steering wheel lash shall not exceed the following parameters:

| Steering wheel diameter | Manual steering system | Power steering system |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 406 mm or less (16 inches or less) | 51 mm (2 inches) | 108 mm (41/4 inches). |
| 457 mm (18 inches) | 57 mm (21/4 inches) | 121 mm (43/4 inches). |
| 483 mm (19 inches) | 60 mm (23/8 inches) | 127 mm (5 inches). |
| 508 mm (20 inches) | 64 mm (21/2 inches) | 133 mm (51/4 inches). |
| 533 mm (21 inches) | 67 mm (25/8 inches) | 140 mm (51/2 inches). |
| 559 mm (22 inches) | 70 mm (23/4 inches) | 146 mm (53/4 inches). |

(2) For steering wheel diameters not listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section the steering wheel lash shall not exceed 14 degrees angular rotation for manual steering systems, and 30 degrees angular rotation for power steering systems.

(c) *Steering column.* The steering column must be securely fastened.

(d) *Steering system.* Universal joints and ball-and-socket joints shall not be worn, faulty or repaired by welding. The steering gear box shall not have loose or missing mounting bolts or cracks in the gear box or mounting brackets. The pitman arm on the steering gear output shaft shall not be loose. Steering wheels shall turn freely through the limit of travel in both directions.

(e) *Power steering systems.* All components of the power system must be in operating condition. No parts shall be loose or broken. Belts shall not be frayed, cracked or slipping. The system shall not leak. The power steering system shall have sufficient fluid in the reservoir.

[53 FR 49402, Dec. 7, 1988, as amended at 70 FR 48055, Aug. 15, 2005]
Strafford,

Dec., 1894.

#### Jewell *v.*Rochester.

Petition, for the assessment of damages for the taking of certain water rights. Pacts found by the court. The defendants purchased of the Rochester Aqueduct and Water Company, under the authority of c. 253, Laws 1891, the flowage and drainage rights in question, after the appropriation of the same by the Aqueduct company. In 1885 that company filed a bill in equity against the plaintiff and other landowners for an assessment of the damages occasioned by the taking of said water rights. Subsequently, on motion of the Aqueduct company, the bill was dismissed as to the plaintiff. The assessment of damages was then referred to the county commissioners, who awarded to the plaintiff $82.33. She declined to accept the award, on the ground that she was not a party to the proceedings before the commissioners.

*604
      *Felker £ Pearl,*for the plaintiff

*George F. Cochrane,*for the defendants.

*Per Curiam.*
      ***

As the plaintiff was not a party to' the proceedings before the commissioners, she is not bound by the award, and is entitled to maintain the present petition.

*Case discharged.*

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

See foot-note on page 22.
From: killeenm@verizon.net [mailto:killeenm@verizon.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:14 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

NO!

13. Should some form of lifetime income distribution option be required for defined 

contribution plans (in addition to money purchase pension plans)? If so, should that 

option be the default distribution option, and should it apply to the entire account 

balance? To what extent would such a requirement encourage or discourage plan 

sponsorship?

NO!

If you move toward passing this, I will remove my IRA money and 410k money and 

prevent you from using it to support others who did not save, who used credit to excess 

and who wasted their own assets. 

Mike Killeen 

A Texas voter
Editorial Note on Part 385
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 385.308 What may cause an expedited action? ( a ) A new entrant that commits any of the following actions, identified through roadside inspections or by any other means, may be subjected to an expedited safety audit or a compliance review or may be required to submit a written response demonstrating corrective action: ( 1 ) Using a driver not possessing a valid commercial driver's license to operate a commercial motor vehicle as defined under § 383.5 of this chapter. An invalid commercial driver's license includes one that is falsified, revoked, expired, or missing a required endorsement.
( 2 ) Operating a vehicle placed out of service for violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations or compatible State laws and regulations without taking necessary corrective action.
( 3 ) Being involved in, through action or omission, a hazardous materials reportable incident, as described under 49 CFR 171.15 or 171.16, involving— ( i ) A highway route controlled quantity of certain radioactive materials (Class 7).
( ii ) Any quantity of certain explosives (Class 1, Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3).
( iii ) Any quantity of certain poison inhalation hazard materials (Zone A or B).
( 4 ) Being involved in, through action or omission, two or more hazardous materials reportable incidents as described under 49 CFR 171.15 or 171.16, involving hazardous materials other than those listed above.
( 5 ) Using a driver who tests positive for controlled substances or alcohol or who refuses to submit to required controlled substances or alcohol tests.
( 6 ) Operating a commercial motor vehicle without the levels of financial responsibility required under part 387 of this subchapter.
( 7 ) Having a driver or vehicle out-of-service rate of 50 percent or more based upon at least three inspections occurring within a consecutive 90-day period.
( b ) If a new entrant that commits any of the actions listed in paragraph (a) of this section: ( 1 ) Has not had a safety audit or compliance review, FMCSA will schedule the new entrant for a safety audit as soon as practicable.
( 2 ) Has had a safety audit or compliance review, FMCSA will send the new entrant a notice advising it to submit evidence of corrective action within 30 days of the service date of the notice.
( c ) FMCSA may schedule a compliance review of a new entrant that commits any of the actions listed in paragraph (a) of this section at any time if it determines the violation warrants a thorough review of the new entrant's operation.
( d ) Failure to respond within 30 days of the notice to an Agency demand for a written response demonstrating corrective action will result in the revocation of the new entrant's registration.
[73 FR 76488, Dec. 16, 2008, as amended at 80 FR 59457, Oct. 2, 2015]
#### § 553.21 Contents of written comments.

All written comments shall be in English. Unless otherwise specified in a notice requesting comments, comments may not exceed 15 pages in length, but necessary attachments may be appended to the submission without regard to the 15-page limit. Any interested person shall submit as a part of his written comments all material that he considers relevant to any statement of fact made by him. Incorporation by reference should be avoided. However, if incorporation by reference is necessary, the incorporated material shall be identified with respect to document and page. It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies and attachments, if any, be submitted.
§ 33.61 Rating authorizations. ( a ) A Rating Authorization is an official action granting specific priority rating authority that: ( 1 ) Permits a person to place a priority rating on an order for an item or service not normally ratable under this part; or
( 2 ) Authorizes a person to modify a priority rating on a specific order or series of contracts or orders.
( b ) To request priority rating authority, see § 33.41.
Editorial Note on Part 385
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 385.705 Expedited action. ( a ) A non-North America-domiciled motor carrier committing any of the following actions identified through roadside inspections, or by any other means, may be subjected to an expedited compliance review, or may be required to submit a written response demonstrating corrective action: ( 1 ) Using a driver not possessing, or operating without, a valid CDL, Canadian Commercial Driver's License, or Mexican Licencia Federal de Conductor. An invalid commercial driver's license includes one that is falsified, revoked, expired, or missing a required endorsement.
( 2 ) Operating a vehicle placed out of service for violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations without taking the necessary corrective action.
( 3 ) Being involved in, through action or omission, a hazardous materials reportable incident, as described under 49 CFR 171.15 or 171.16, within the United States involving— ( i ) A highway route controlled quantity of certain radioactive materials (Class 7).
( ii ) Any quantity of certain explosives (Class 1, Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3).
( iii ) Any quantity of certain poison inhalation hazard materials (Zone A or B).
( 4 ) Being involved in, through action or omission, two or more hazardous materials reportable incidents, as described under 49 CFR 171.15 or 171.16, occurring within the United States and involving any hazardous material not listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
( 5 ) Using a driver who tests positive for controlled substances or alcohol or who refuses to submit to required controlled substances or alcohol tests.
( 6 ) Operating within the United States a commercial motor vehicle without the levels of financial responsibility required under part 387 of this subchapter.
( 7 ) Having a driver or vehicle out-of-service rate of 50 percent or more based upon at least three inspections occurring within a consecutive 90-day period.
( b ) Failure to respond to an Agency demand for a written response demonstrating corrective action within 30 days will result in the suspension of the carrier's new entrant registration until the required showing of corrective action is submitted to the FMCSA.
( c ) A satisfactory response to a written demand for corrective action does not excuse a carrier from the requirement that it undergo a compliance review during the new entrant registration period.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Case No. DA 21-0276

Twin Creeks Farm & Ranch LLC, 

 Claimant and Appellant

vs.

Petrolia Irrigation District; Twin Creeks 

Farm & Ranch LLC; Daniel W. Iverson 

 Objectors and Appellees

Daniel W. Iverson; Wilks Ranch 

Montana LTD 

 Notice of Intent to Appear

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is 

given an extension of time until August 30, 2021, to prepare, file, and serve the 

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

July 23 2021

07/23/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0276
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

#### § 40.26 What form must an employer use to report Management Information System (MIS) data to a DOT agency?

As an employer, when you are required to report MIS data to a DOT agency, you must use the U.S. Department of Transportation Drug and Alcohol Testing MIS Data Collection Form to report that data. You must use the form and instructions referenced at appendix J to part 40. You must submit the MIS report in accordance with rule requirements (*e.g.,* dates for submission; selection of companies required to submit, and method of reporting) established by the DOT agency regulating your operation.

[84 FR 16773, Apr. 23, 2019, as amended at 88 FR 27638, May 2, 2023]
I just wanted to add my plea for you to re-consider this harmful proposed change.

I was a securities representative and securities principal for 16 years. I gave up my licenses is
disgust at what that industry had become.

I now proudly serve my insureds with safe, predictable products for their retirement needs
without the need to charge them fees or have them exposed to undue risk.

My insurance license and training is better suited to the ‘do no harm’ idea than it ever has been.
The training, back office review, suitability checks at the carriers, and the policy delivery
procedures INSURE that my clients are in a product that suits their needs, they understand and
like, and that they have someone to turn to (me!) when they have any issues or concerns now or
in the future.

I would disagree strongly that there is any need for this proposed regulation which would
drastically reduce the number of insurance professionals who would be available to assist our
clients in reaching retirement or working with those in retirement planning scenarios.
#### § 605.34 Remedy where there has been a violation of the agreement.

If the Administrator determines, pursuant to this subpart, that there has been a violation of the terms of the agreement, he may bar a grantee or operator from the receipt of further financial assistance for mass transportation facilities and equipment.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2015

d0420 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2015

149337(38)

ERIC LAMARR MACON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 149337

COA: 319387

Saginaw CC: 00

- 019048

- FC

SAGINAW CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 28,

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 861

To make technical amendments to section 10 of title 9, United States Code.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 2001

Mr. GEKAS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To make technical amendments to section 10 of title 9,

United States Code.

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

3 SECTION 1. VACATION OF AWARDS.

4 Section 10 of title 9, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) by indenting the margin of paragraphs (1)

7 through (4) of subsection (a) 2 ems;

8 (2) by striking ‘‘Where’’ in such paragraphs

9 and inserting ‘‘where’’;

10 (3) by striking the period at the end of para11 graphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) and insert-
2

•HR 861 IH

1 ing a semicolon and by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of

2 paragraph (3);

3 (4) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub4 section (c); and

5 (5) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘Where an

6 award’’ and inserting ‘‘If an award’’, by inserting a

7 comma after ‘‘expired’’, and by redesignating the

8 paragraph as subsection (b).

Æ
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of CompuDyne Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 accompanying this certification
and filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Geoffrey F. Feidelberg,  Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of my knowledge,  pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, that:

         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 operations of the
Company.


Date:  March 27, 2006

                                      /s/ Geoffrey F. Feidelberg
                                      --------------------------
                                      Geoffrey F. Feidelberg
                                      Chief Financial Officer


                                       72
-----Original Message----- 

From: Diana Hsieh [mailto:diana@dianahsieh.com] 

Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:55 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 

I'm completely opposed to any government takeover or management of 

retirement accounts like 401(k)s. 

The government has shown itself wholly incapable of managing its own 

finances. Any government interference with 401(k)s would just be yet 

another way to steal the hard-earned money of responsible Americans, so 

that politicians could spend it it on pork and welfare. That would be 

morally grotesque -- and grind the economy to a halt. 

Respect property rights: hands off our retirement savings! 

Diana Hsieh, Ph.D 

6586 Rainbow Creek Rd 

Sedalia, CO 80135 

-- DMH 

Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy, CU Boulder) 

E-mail: diana@dianahsieh.com 

NoodleFood: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog

NoodleCast: http://www.dianahsieh.com/cast
#### Peck v. Childers, *et al., Appellants.*

Practice in the Supreme Court. Where there is no bill of exceptions, this court can consider only whether the petition states a cause of action, and whether the court below had jurisdiction. 1.

-: costs. Where the recovery is in excess of that prayed for in the petition, so that a *remittitur*is entered by the respondent in order to correct the error, the costs of the appeal will be taxed against him. 2.

*Appeal from Clark Circuit Court.*

Aeitrmed.

*Geo. F. Collins*for appellants.

*llagerman, McCrary*$■ *Hagerman*for respondent.

Norton, J.

This is an action of ejectment to recover the possession of the one undivided sixth part of certain lands in Clark county. Defendants filed answer denying plaintiff’s right to the possession, and, as a second defense, set up substantially that plaintiff claimed the undivided sixth of said lands by virtue of a judgment and sale, by the sheriff, of one William Buskirk’s interest in said lands ; that said lands were owned by one Lawrence Buskirk, of whom said William was a son ; that said Lawrence, previous to his death, had made advancements to said William more than equal to his interest in the lands sued for. The answer, though undertaking to set up an equitable defense, contained no prayer for relief or adjustment of the equities. To this answer a demurrer was filed, which the record shows was not passed upon by the court, and the parties having waived the demurrer by submitting the cause to the court for final hearing on the pleadings, the court found for plaintiff' and rendered judgment for the possession of the lands mentioned in the petition.

There being no bill of exceptions in the case, we can only consider, under the authority of the ease of *Sweet v.*
      *485Maupin, 65 Mo. 72, whether the petition states a cause of action, and whether the court had jurisdiction of the ease. That the petition stated a cause of action, and that the court had jurisdiction both of the subject matter and persons of the defendants are indisputable.

The recovery was in excess of that prayed for in the petition, the recovery being for all the land, while the petition sought a recovery for only an undivided sixth part. The plaintiff has admitted this error by filing a *remittitur*for the excess. The judgment of the circuit court, less the excess of the recovery remitted, will be affirmed, and the costs of the appeal will be adjudged against plaintiff. *Miller v.*Hardin, 64 Mo. 545; *Clark v. Bullock,*65. Mo. 535; *Exchange National Bank v. Allen,*68 Mo. 475.
From: Mike Schwake [mailto:hitmeimopen@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 2:39 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Annuities in 401(k)

 

 

I have read that you are soliciting comments on the concept of requiring annuities to 

be offered in 401(k) platforms. 

 

I just read one story that indicated we have a choice (when we retire) of leaving the 

funds in the employer plan or rolling them over to an IRA. Obviuosly most plans 

allow any combination of those options, plus purchasing an annuity. 

 

I am skeptical of DOL's plan to "require" providers to offer an annuity, when 

employees already have that option at retirement. I am even more skeptical of 

considerations to require annuities funded by government securities. 

 

I think a better option is to require education (perhaps DOL approved) as to the 

"availability" of annuities, and possibly require participants to sign a waiver that they 

understand the benefits of annuities - but are choosing another option, such as 

leaving their money invested, or rolling it over. 

 

Always glad to discuss. 

 

Mike Schwake 

1838 9th St. Place 

Nevada, IA 50201 

515-382-6856
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION


I, Geoffrey F. Feidelberg, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
     CompuDyne Corporation;

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;

3.   Intentionally Omitted;

4.   Intentionally Omitted;

5.   Intentionally Omitted.

     Date:  August 1, 2007

                                        /s/ Geoffrey F. Feidelberg
                                        --------------------------

                                        Geoffrey F. Feidelberg

                                        Chief Financial Officer