alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

Concurring Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen 

In the Matter of Breathometer, Inc. 

Matter No. 1623057 

January 18, 2017 

Today the Federal Trade Commission authorizes staff to file a complaint and enter a consent 

agreement to settle a court action against Breathometer, Inc. The complaint alleges that 

Breathometer made false and unsubstantiated advertising claims that their breathalyzer devices 

had “undergone rigorous government lab grade testing” for ability to accurately detect 

consumers’ blood alcohol content (BAC) and were “law-enforcement grade product[s]” for the 

purpose of complying with impaired driving laws.1

 

I support this complaint and settlement. Companies must substantiate their advertising 

claims, and I have reason to believe that Breathometer failed to do so. The settlement requires 

that Breathometer’s future breathalyzer accuracy claims be substantiated using a subset of the 

Department of Transportation’s Model Specifications for Devices to Measure Breath Alcohol. 

Although it is somewhat unusual to include such a specific substantiation requirement in a 

settlement, it is appropriate fencing in for this settlement. 

However, it is important to note that this order’s specific requirements are limited to 

Breathometer, which claimed its products were as accurate as law-enforcement grade products. 

Truthfully marketed consumer breathalyzer devices could provide significant, possibly lifesaving, consumer benefits, even if such devices are not as precise as those used to criminally 

prosecute drunk drivers. Imposing on these devices a substantiation standard higher than needed 

to support their advertising claims could raise their cost or keep them off the market entirely. 

This would harm consumers by depriving them of access to useful devices and information.2

 

Fortunately, today’s order does not impose an industry-wide substantiation standard. 

Companies remain free to market their breathalyzer devices, provided their claims match their 

substantiation and do not mislead consumers. 

 

1

 The complaint also alleges that it was an unfair practice for Breathometer to wait more than a year after learning 

about the devices’ accuracy problems to notify consumers. 2 See, e.g., In re of POM Wonderful, 2013 FTC LEXIS 6 at note 36 (F.T.C. Jan. 10, 2013) (noting Commissioner 

Ohlhausen’s objection to the order requirement of two randomized controlled trials (“RCTs”) because “requiring 

two RCTs does so at the expense of limiting consumer access to potentially useful information.”), aff’d POM 

Wonderful v. FTC, 777 F.3d 478 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (overturning the two RCT requirement because “[r]equiring 

additional RCTs without adequate justification exacts considerable costs” in part because “consumers may be denied 

useful, truthful information about products...”).
|Exhibit 31(a)                                                                          
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification                                                 
|I, Lewis Hay III, Chief Executive Officer of FPL Group, Inc. (FPL Group), certify that:
|1.                                                                                     
|2.                                                                                     
|3.                                                                                     
|4.                                                                                     
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|5.                                                                                     
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Date:   November 11, 2003                                                              
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|
Dear Mr. Cottle:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−3390). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manuals.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 11/11/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4549.

Sincerely,

/S/

Michael J. Cameron

Program Analyst
Comment s o n th e I itl e VPermi t Fac tShee t

Backgroun d Section , Paragrap h 1 Titl e Vpermit s are require d fo ral ! incinerator s that are regulate d unde r Subpar t EE E notbecaus e th e facilit yemit s larg e amount s ofpollution . Als o th e permi tregulate s emission s specifie d b yregulatio n no t th e amoun t ofpollutio n th e facilityca n emit . Backgroun d Section , Paragrap h 2 Thi s paragrap h i s no trelevan tto thi s renewa l permi t s o wh yhav e thi s paragrap h i n th e Fac t Sheet . Burnin g Hazardou s Waste , Paragrap h 4 Modifysecon d sentenc e to rea d "Carbo n adsorptio n unit s are attache d t o eac h tan k

t o hel p contro l emissions. " Delet e "gase s occasionall yescap e fro m th e tanks. " Burnin g Hazardou s Waste , Paragrap h 5 Modifyt o stat e "i s maintaine d a tnegativ e pressur e to minimiz e emissions " instea d of"i s maintaine d a t negativ e pressur e s o emission s don' t escape. " Burnin g Hazardou s Waste , Paragrap h 5 Rewor d las t sentenc e t o rea d "Befor e som e containerize d wast e i s incinerate d i t i s package d int o mor e manageabl e containers. " Burnin g Hazardou s Waste , Paragrap h 7 Las tLine . Shoul d stat e "baghouses " no t a "baghouse " an d delet e "whic h hel p contro l ai rpollution. " Burnin g Hazardou s Waste , Paragrap h 8 Firs tsentence , delet e "t o furthe rhel p contro l ai rpollution. " Burnin g Hazardou s Waste , Paragrap h 9 Secon d sentence , delet e "a s lim e i s a n importan t materia l i n thi s ai r pollutio n contro l technology. "
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,852
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             559
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     49,194
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        411,929
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,902
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 494,003
<DEPOSITS>                                     347,116
<SHORT-TERM>                                    74,497
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,141
<LONG-TERM>                                     32,859
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 494,003
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 33,769
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,020
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   276
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                38,065
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,650
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,146
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,919
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      931
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 242
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,142
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,791
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,791
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.46
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       257
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,902
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      212
<RECOVERIES>                                        72
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,902
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6872

WILLIE J. HARRISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina; GARY D. MAYNARD, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-2806-9-25BG) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie J. Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Willie J. Harrison appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Harrison v. Condon , No. CA-01-2806-9-25BG (D.S.C. filed May 16, 2002; entered May 20, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Multi-Media Tutorial Services,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period
ending February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barry Reichman, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      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.


Dated: June 12, 2008                /s/ BARRY REICHMAN
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    BARRY REICHMAN
                                    Barry Reichman, Chief Executive Officer,
                                    Chief Financial Officer and Director
                                    (Principal Executive Officer,
                                    Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
UNITEDSTATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C.20549

FORM 10-QSB/A

AMENDMENT TOQUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIESEXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,2006

Commission File Number 000-03125

GENERAL DEVICES, INC. (Exact Name of SmallBusiness Issuer in Its Charter)

|                                                              |  |  |                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|----------------------------------------|
| Delaware                                                     |  |  | 21-0661726                             |
| (State or other Jurisdictionofincorporation or organization) |  |  | (I.R.S. EmployerIdentification Number) |
|                                                              |

3 Trowbridge DriveBethel, Connecticut 06801 (Address of Principal Executiveoffices)

(203) 798-1080 (Issuer'sTelephone Number)

153 Greenwood AvenueBethel,Connecticut 06801 (Formeraddress)

----

Thepurpose of this Form 10QSB/A amendment to Issuer's quarterlyreport for the quarter ended June  30, 2006 on Form 10QSB filedAugust 14, 2006 is to amend Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 thereto asfollows:

Item 6. Exhibits

|        |  |  |                                                                                                                                                           |
|--------|--|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| NUMBER |  |  | DESCRIPTIONOF EXHIBIT                                                                                                                                     |
| 31.1*  |  |  | Certificationby the Principal Executive Officer of Registrant pursuant to Section302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule15d-14(a)). |
| 31.2*  |  |  | Certification by thePrincipal Financial Officer of Registrant pursuant to Section 302 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule15d-14(a)). |
|        |

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

|   |              |
|---|--------------|
| * | Filedherein. |

SIGNATURES

In accordancewith the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused thisreport to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto dulyauthorized.

Registrant

GENERAL DEVICES,INC.

|                                 |  |  |                                             |
|---------------------------------|--|--|---------------------------------------------|
| Date:October 17,2006            |  |  | Date:October 17, 2006                       |
| By: /s/ Damien R.Tanaka         |  |  | By: /s/ Kevin T.Dunphy                      |
| Damien R. Tanaka,               |  |  | Kevin T.Dunphy                              |
| Chairman of the Board,President |  |  | Treasurer and                               |
| and Chief ExecutiveOfficer      |  |  | and Chief FinancialOfficer                  |
| (Principal ExecutiveOfficer)    |  |  | (Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer) |
|                                 |

----
Order filed, April 15, 2014.

 In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

____________

NO. 01-13-00896-CR

VICTOR CHARLES BANKETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No 8

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case 1866497

ABATEMENT ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due November 19, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. On November 26, 2013, this court ordered Sondra Humphrey, the court 

reporter, to file the record within 30 days. On December 06, 2013 Humphrey filed a 

motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record which was granted until 

January 31, 2014. The record has not been filed with the court. 
In cause number 01-13-00227-CR, Washington v. State, this Court ordered 

Humphrey to appear and show cause as to why she had not filed the reporter’s record in 

this court. On March 26, 2014, Humphrey failed to appear as noticed. Humphrey has 

also failed to file reporter records in cause numbers 01-13-00632-CR, Castillos v. State, 

01-13-00633-CR, Matamoros v. State, and 01-13-01048-CR, Acosta v. State.

The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate 

record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). Because the reporter’s record has 

not been filed timely as ordered in this cause and because Humphrey is delinquent on the 

matters listed above, we issue the following order.

We direct the judge of the County Criminal Court at Law No 8 to conduct a 

hearing at which Sondra Humphrey, a court reporter, appellant’s counsel, and 

appellee’s counsel shall participate (a) to determine the reason for failure to file the 

record; (b) to establish a date certain when the reporter’s record will be filed, and (c) to 

make findings as to whether Sondra Humphrey should be held in contempt of court for 

failing to file the reporter’s record timely as ordered. We order the court to prepare a 

record, in the form of a reporter’s record, of the hearing. The judge shall make findings 

of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward to this court a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusions. The hearing record 

and supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with the clerk of this court within 30 days 

of the date of this order. 

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active 

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the trial court’s 

findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate 

the appeal on its own motion. If Sondra Humphrey files the record prior to the date set 

for the hearing, the appeal will be reinstated and the trial court need not hold a hearing.
PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle
#### Mrs. Rosa C. HALL, wife of and Edgar W. Hall v. John W. DUFFY a/k/a John W. Duffy, Jr., et al.

No. 54277.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 25, 1974.

In re: Mrs. Rosa C. Hall, wife of and Edgar W. Hall applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 285 So.2d 550.

Writ denied. On the facts found, no error of law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                        (65,000)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,827,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   591,000
<INVENTORY>                                     78,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,000
<PP&E>                                       4,740,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,112,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,946,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,400,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,414,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,868,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,946,000
<SALES>                                        602,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               602,000
<CGS>                                          428,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  428,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               308,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (197,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (197,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (197,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

                                  June 30, 2004

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Frank's Nursery &
Crafts, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended May 16, 2004 (the "Report"),
as filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
undersigned, Alan Minker, Interim Chief Operating Officer of the Company, does
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of such
officer's knowledge:

      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 result of operations
            of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
            Report.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of
the date first above written.

                                            /s/ Alan Minker
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Alan Minker
                                            Interim Chief Operating Officer