alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-a..,.., .. 

## Department 

## ,f**Energ~** Washington.

-**~** 20585 

## r.::·

.· ...**~FF'"** 

# I 

# j// 13

James Mills, Attorney Division ofEnforcement Federal Trade Commission 6th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20580


### Dear Mr. Mills: 

# AUG l ' ·'

, i

### .~ 

## I 

# 7 1998


# 1998

The purpose ofthis letter 

### is to ask that the FTC C( 1sider elimir**.i;~g** loading style (front-loading or top-loading) as a product category for resident i,: : clothes**wa~** crs. Currently, FTC requires manufacturers to label cl .hes**washer~ -~:sed**  on loading orientation Thus, high efficiency, front-loading washers arc c ·npared**on!~** .\·ith other front-loaders on the "Energy Guide" label. 

### This has the unfortun;:te "**~ct** ofr**~ki** · 1 :1•e front-loading washers appear inefficient, even though they may use for l- s**energ~·** th ·**~op-loading** machine of comparable size. This may confuse consumers ;ir lead them < cl)' from high efficiency machines in favor oftop-loaders**ti~** -.1 

### use**1~'(1rc** ":' · gy. The "Energy Guide" label also app:ars to und ''T' e the 

### r**,,,~,** .STAR labeling program for appliances. Front-lo< :ng wa: 11er' label, indicating that they are more than twice**a~** 

### c 'lcient ;-is m efficiency standards. Therefore, 

### it is miskndin& t · a consumer machine that reads 'i.Jses Most Energy,''\\ hilc**a!~** carryi:1g ar A recent Department ofEnergy rukmaking estah: :ung n,· \ i' eliminates loading orientation as <l classification. -; hese tc: p1 several years but we believe that 

### it is in the consu1°1er's bes: inr classifications for labeling**pwposc~** as soc111 as po -ible. .... ofEnergy's Et-.:ERGY

,. ':ty for the ENERGY STAR ·'.s that meet minimum ) see a label on a front-loading ::\ERGY STAR designation.

·**·...:;:L~ures** for clothes washers .l.J:·c will not take effect for ·:st for FTC to adopt the newWe hope you 

### will seriously consider our recomm 

### "1datioi: toe' ninate loading style as 

### a product category. I have asked 

### my staffto follow-up with you to ensu that you have all the information you need to fully 

### consider this request. Ifyou w0 1 : 1d like to di _-uss this further, feel free to call Mark Ginsberg, Deputy Assistant Secretary for R Jding Tech; logics, at 202/ 586-1510.

Assistant St-**~retary** Energy Effieency and Rt .ewable Energy
# Official Journal C 359/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 359 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6024 October 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 359

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6024 October 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory Acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2017/C 359/01 | Position (EU) No 5/2017 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA in order to include new psychoactive substances in the definition of ‘drug’ and repealing Council Decision 2005/387/JHA Adopted by the Council on 25 September 2017 | 1 |
| 2017/C 359/02 | Statement of the Council's reasons: Position (EU) No 5/2017 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA in order to include new psychoactive substances in the definition of ‘drug’ and repealing Council Decision 2005/387/JHA | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory Acts

COUNCIL

2017/C 359/01

Position (EU) No 5/2017 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA in order to include new psychoactive substances in the definition of ‘drug’ and repealing Council Decision 2005/387/JHA Adopted by the Council on 25 September 2017

1

2017/C 359/02

Statement of the Council's reasons: Position (EU) No 5/2017 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA in order to include new psychoactive substances in the definition of ‘drug’ and repealing Council Decision 2005/387/JHA

8

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Summary of Interagency Comments Submitted during EO12866 Review Subject to Further Policy Review 1) We suggest that some clarification is needed with respect to statements in the rule regarding the date on which the Tailoring Rule will take effect. On page 11, the first sentence of the first full paragraph states: “The effect of EPA narrowing its approval in this mann er is that there will be no federally

- approved title V program that requires permits for sources due to emissions of GHG below the final Tailoring Rule threshold of 100,000 tpy CO2e (and 100 tpy mass basis), which takes effect on July 1, 2011.” The first phase of the Tailoring Rule, however, takes effect for both PSD and Title V on January 2, 2011 (although the second phase takes effect on July 1, 2011). See, e.g., 75 Fed. Reg. at 31,516/2, 31,523/2. EPA should clarify why July 1, 2011 is the a ppropri ate date. We also note that the July 1, 2011 date appears elsewhere in the Rule

-- for example on page 9, line 1. 2) Page 1: Throughout the text, consider replacing “limit” with “revise” (or “narrow”) because the word “limit” carries an unnecessary negativ e connotation and, in this context, may be interpreted to broadly mean more SIPs than EPA intended, which could potentially confuse readers. The rest of the sentence on page 1 in the summary does a good job of explaining this rule’s purpose. 3) Page 11: For clarity, suggest qualifying the statement “[s]tates affected by this rule will not be required to take any action as a result of this rule” by explaining that states need not take any further action under the federal Clean Air Act as a result of this rule . Also, suggest referring the reader to the passages in “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting

- Sources in State Implementation Plans” where EPA urges states to amend state law to ali gn with the Tailoring Rule. 4) Page 15: It might be helpful to add a citation to the first sentence of the first full paragraph to support the statement that CAA § 301(a) “incorporates the authority of an agency to reconsider its actions.” 5) Page 25: First sentence of the first full paragraph is redundant as a similar statement appears on the previous page, which could potentially confuse readers. Suggest deleting second instance on page 25. 6) Page 34: In the middle of the page, it might be helpful to provid e a citation for the statement “Reconsidering prior rulemakings, when necessary, is part of ‘[EPA’s] functions’ under the CAA .”
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Docket 52-2000] 

The comment period for the above case, submitted by the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission, requesting authority to expand its zone to include a site in Cranbury Township (65 FR 52984, August 31, 2000), is extended to December 29, 2000, to allow interested parties additional time in which to comment on the proposal. The period for rebuttal comments is extended to January 31, 2001. 

Submissions should include three (3) copies. Material submitted will be available at: Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4008, 14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-31110 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### REID v. RAMSEY.

No. 2250.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Oct. 10, 1940.

J. S. Simkins and Claude L. Milburn, both of Corsicana, for appellant.

J. C. Jacobs, of Corsicana, for appellee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

• This suit originated in the Justice Court. It is a suit on two promissory notes and to foreclose a chattel mortgage lien. Appellant raises the contention that the amount sued for was above the jurisdiction of the Justice Court and, as a result, the County Court, from which the appeal is prosecuted to this court, was without jurisdiction.

The petition set out the notes with the amounts and dates of payments that had been made thereon and prayed for judgment for balance of principal, interest and attorney’s fees. By calculating the interest that had accumulated on the notes to the date of the payments and applying the payments first to the discharge of the accumulated interest as we are required to do, in the absence of an intention to the contrary, J. I. Case Co. v. Laubhan, Tex.Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 1079, and the balance to the discharge of principal, and then adding ten per cent to the balance as attorney’s fees as prayed for by the plaintiff, the amount sued for exceeded $200. The amount sued for was therefore above the jurisdiction of the Justice Court and, as a consequence, the County Court from which the appeal was prosecuted was without jurisdiction. 26 Tex. Jur. 876; Childress Oil Co. v. Wood, 111 Tex. 165, 230 S.W. 143.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the suit dismissed.
#### GASS v. STATE.

No. 20816.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 7, 1940.

Leslie J. Bretz, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for aggravated assault, punishment being a fine of $35.00.

The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC16-899

____________

TROY MERCK, JR.,

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

[May 4, 2017]

PER CURIAM.

Troy Merck, Jr., a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit 

court’s order striking his motion to substitute Linda McDermott for the Capital 

Collateral Regional Counsel for the Middle Region (CCRC-MR) as his counsel, as 

well as the successive postconviction motion that Ms. McDermott simultaneously 

filed on his behalf pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. We have 

jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.

Ms. McDermott previously substituted for CCRC-MR as Merck’s counsel in 

federal court following the federal court’s determination that a conflict of interest 
- 2 -

precludes CCRC-MR’s continued representation. Merck v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152243, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2014). CCRC-MR 

conceded below that the same conflict of interest precludes its continued 

representation of Merck in state court. However, the circuit court struck the 

motions at issue as unauthorized after construing our decision in Suggs v. State, 

152 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 2014), to condition the termination of an attorney’s 

representation upon the filing of a motion to withdraw, which CCRC-MR has not 

filed. In so ruling, the circuit court erred. As we explained in Suggs, Florida Rule 

of Judicial Administration 2.505(f)(1)-(3) “outlin[es] modes by which an 

attorney’s appearance for a party terminates.” Suggs, 152 So. 3d at 472. Rule 

2.505(f)(2) authorizes the termination of an attorney’s appearance through 

substitution of counsel, which is the method that Ms. McDermott sought in this 

case after we specifically directed her to do so in Merck v. State, No. SC15-1439, 

2016 WL 104164, at *1 (Fla. Jan. 8, 2016) (dismissing a prior notice of appeal that 

Ms. McDermott filed on Merck’s behalf “without prejudice for [her] to seek 

substitution of counsel in the circuit court pursuant to Suggs”).

Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court’s order and remand with 

instructions for the circuit court to enter an order substituting Ms. McDermott as 

Merck’s counsel upon the filing of Merck’s written consent to the substitution with 

the circuit court. Once Ms. McDermott has been substituted as counsel, we further 
- 3 -

direct the circuit court to address the successive rule 3.851 motion that she filed on 

Merck’s behalf.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, 

and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 

IF FILED, DETERMINED.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, 

Cynthia Joan Newton, Judge - Case No. 521991CF016659XXXXNO

Linda McDermott of McClain & McDermott, P.A., Estero, Florida,

for Appellant

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida; and Stephen D. Ake, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, Florida,

for Appellee
Exhibit 24.5








Power of Attorney


(RadiSys Form 10-K)





The undersigned constitutes and appoints SCOTT GROUT and BRIAN BRONSON, and each of them, as the undersigned's true and lawful attorneys and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution for the undersigned and in the undersigned's name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the RadiSys Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do any and all acts and things necessary or advisable to be done, as fully and to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys and agents or either of them, or their or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney, in the capacity indicated, as of the date set forth below.





Dated:  March 1, 2011








/s/ CARL NEUNSignatureCarl NeunType or Print Name
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Alan B. Catherall, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this amended Annual Report on Form 10-K of Numerex Corp.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8283 (June 5, 2003)]
c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004    */s/* Alan B. Catherall   Alan B. Catherall Chief Financial Officer Executive Vice President, and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          26,604
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  639,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,514
<INVENTORY>                                    824,159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,486,913
<PP&E>                                       3,641,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                 792,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,325,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,236,406
<BONDS>                                      1,049,397
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,054,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,325,335
<SALES>                                      2,741,694
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,768,233
<CGS>                                        2,555,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,611,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                132,374
<INCOME-TAX>                                    48,978
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             83,396
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    83,396
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30893]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WO-310-1310-01-24 1A-PB]


OMB Approval Number 1004-0135; Information Collection Submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget for Review Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has submitted the proposed 
collection of information listed below to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). On August 18, 2000, the BLM 
published a notice in the Federal Register (65 FR 50558) requesting 
comments on the collection. The comment period ended October 17, 2000. 
No comments were received. Copies of the proposed collection of 
information and related forms and explanatory material may be obtained 
by contacting the BLM Clearance Officer at the telephone number listed 
below.
    OMB is required to respond to this request within 60 days but may 
respond after 30 days. For maximum consideration your comments and 
suggestions on the requirement should be made within 30 days directly 
to the Office of Management and Budget, Interior Department Desk 
Officer (1004-0135), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Washington, DC 20503. Please provide a copy of your comments to the 
Bureau Clearance Officer (WO-630), 1849 C St., NW., Mail Stop 401 LS, 
Washington, DC 20240.
    Nature of Comments: We specifically request your comments on the 
following:
    1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper functioning of the Bureau of Land Management, including whether 
the information will have practical utility;
    2. The accuracy of BLM's estimate of the burden of collecting the 
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions 
used;
    3. The quality, utility and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and
    4. How to minimize the burden of collecting the information of 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated 
electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
    Title: Sundry Notices and Reports on Wells (as required by 43 CFR 
3162).
    OMB Approval Number: 1004-0135.
    Abstract: Data submitted by oil and gas operators are used for 
agency approval of specific additional operations on a well and to 
report the completion of such additional work.
    Bureau Form Number: 3160-5.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Operators and operating rights owners 
of Federal and Indian (except Osage) oil and gas leases.
    Estimated Completion Time: 25 minutes.
    Annual Responses: 34,000.
    Annual Burden Hours: 14,166.
    Filing Fee per Response: 0.
    Bureau Clearance Officer: Michael Schwartz, (202) 452-5033.

    Dated: November 8, 2000.
Michael Schwartz,
BLM Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-30893 Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-M
#### H. S. GRAY et al. v. Myrta BLIGHT, Administratrix.

No. 2021.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 28, 1940.

Earl W. Wilson, of Denver, Colo., for appellants.

W. A. Alexander, of Denver, Colo., for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS and LEWIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, at costs of appellants, for the reason that the order appealed from is not a final appealable order.