alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Fiscal Year 2022 Agency Report

1. Please provide a summary of your agency’s activities undertaken to carry out the provisions of 

OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus 

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities” and the National Technology Transfer and 

Advance Act (NTTAA). The summary should contain a link to the agency’s standards-specific 

website(s) where information about your agency’s standards and conformity assessment related 

activities are available. 

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is an independent agency of the United States 

Government charged with enforcing competition and consumer protection laws. The Commission’s 

primary contact with voluntary consensus standards and the organizations that produce them is in 

connection with the enforcement of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair methods 

of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices in or affecting commerce. Consistent with its 

statutory authority, the Commission occasionally has promulgated consumer protection regulations that 

incorporate voluntary consensus standards. See, e.g., 16 C.F.R. § 306.5 (provision of FTC’s “Fuel Rating 

Rule”); 16 C.F.R. § 460.5 (provision of FTC’s “R-Value Rule”). FTC staff monitors complaints about 

products and may conduct investigations, including testing, to ensure accurate labeling or advertising. 

The Commission does not participate in the standards development activities of voluntary consensus 

standards bodies.

To carry out the provisions of OMB Circular A-119, the FTC has designated the Deputy General Counsel 

for Legal Counsel as its Agency Standards Executive. The FTC’s Office of the General Counsel, under the 

direction of the Agency Standards Executive, provides advice to FTC staff regarding implementation of 

revised OMB Circular A-119.

2. Please list the government-unique standards (GUS) your agency began using in lieu of voluntary 

consensus standards during FY 2022. Please note that GUS which are still in effect from previous years 

should continue to be listed, thus the total number in your agency's report will include all GUS 

currently in use (previous years and new as of this FY):

Current total GUS: 0
TM: 606386 / 20310008 / 11/3/21 -1- 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND ) 

SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND; ) 

and CHARLES A. WHOBREY, as Trustee, ) 

 ) Case No. 20 cv 4618 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

v. ) Judge John F. Kness 

 ) 

FCA US LLC, ) Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

a Delaware limited liability company, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

NOW COME Plaintiffs and Defendant and each stipulate and agree pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that this case be dismissed (a) with 

prejudice with respect to the claims for unpaid contributions for the period of January 1, 2012 

through September 29, 2018, along with related interest, statutory damages, attorney’s fees and 

costs, and audit fees and costs, and (b) without prejudice with respect to the claims for unpaid 

contributions for the period of September 30, 2018 through July 3, 2021, along with related 

interest, statutory damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and audit fees and costs, in accordance with 

the Settlement Agreement and Release entered into and executed by the parties.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lois J. Yu 

Lois J. Yu (ARDC #6321772) 

Central States Law Department 

8647 W. Higgins Road, 8th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60631 

(847) 939-2116 

lyu@centralstatesfunds.org 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

/s/ Michael L. DeMarino (with consent) 

Michael L. DeMarino, IL No. 6298337 

(mdemarino@seyfarth.com) 

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

233 South Wacker, Suite 8000 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Phone: 312-460-5000 

Fax: 312-460-7000 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Case: 1:20-cv-04618 Document #: 26 Filed: 11/03/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:64
TM: 606386 / 20310008 / 11/3/21 -2- 

November 3, 2021 

/s/ Reagan M. Brown (with consent) 

Reagan M. Brown (Texas 03162200) 

Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP 

1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 

Houston, TX 77010 

(713) 651-5469 

reagan.brown@nortonrosefulbright.com 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

Case: 1:20-cv-04618 Document #: 26 Filed: 11/03/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:65
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 2357

_____________________________
J ONATHAN L EE T HOMAS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Coleman Lee Robinson , Judge

. July 22, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OWE , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Futures Investments L.P. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), I, Fabio
P. Savoldelli, Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer-Alternative
Strategies and Quantitative Advisers Divisions of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1. This 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: August 12, 2005
-----------------------

By /s/ FABIO P. SAVOLDELLI
   ------------------------
Fabio P. Savoldelli
Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer
-  Alternative Strategies and Advisers Division
(Principal Executive Officer)
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 14, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL TERRELL WHEELER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JAMES FALK; JOHN SUTHERS, THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF COLORADO,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 14-1062

(D. Colorado)

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-02006-LTB) 

ORDER*

Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

In this habeas action, the district court denied relief on the ground that the

action was time-barred. The Petitioner appeals, but does not challenge the district

court’s conclusion that the petition was late. Instead, he argues that the State

waived a timeliness defense.

The Petitioner can pursue the appeal only if a judge grants a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We can issue this certificate only if the

* This order does not constitute precedent except under the doctrines of law

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
Petitioner’s appeal on the timeliness ruling is at least reasonably debatable. 

Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230, passim (10th Cir. 2007). We conclude the

ruling is not reasonably debatable; thus, we decline to issue a certificate of

appealability.

The State did not waive a limitations defense. Instead, it failed to file a

timely response. The district court pointed out the failure to timely respond and

again ordered a response. This time, the State complied with the order and argued

that the habeas action was untimely.

The State’s lapse was not commendable, but did not constitute a waiver. A

limitations defense is waived when it is intentionally relinquished by the State. 

Wood v. Milyard, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1826, 1835 (2012). That is not what took

place here. The State was slow to respond; but when it did, it raised the

limitations defense.

Mr. Wheeler relies on Scott v. Collins, 286 F.3d 923 (6th Cir. 2002), for the

proposition that the “[f]ailure to raise an affirmative defense in a responsive

pleading constitutes a waiver.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 2. Scott was abrogated

in Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 205 (2006). There the Supreme Court held

“that district courts are permitted, but not obliged, to consider, sua sponte, the

timeliness of a state prisoner’s habeas petition.” Day, 547 U.S. at 209. Under

Day, the district court could address timeliness sua sponte.

2
In these circumstances, no reasonable jurist could conclude that the State

waived a limitations defense. Cf. Stines v. Martin, 849 F.2d 1323, 1324-25 (10th

Cir. 1988) (reversing a grant of habeas relief based on the government’s threeweek delay in responding to the habeas petition). Thus, we decline to issue a

certificate of appealability. And without the certificate, we must dismiss the

appeal.

The Petitioner has also asked for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He

lacks the money to pay the filing fee. Thus, we grant his request for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach

Circuit Judge

3
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3915 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3915

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
   Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 
             through April 2, 2004, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAMS 
              UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 
              INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

    The authorization for any program, authority, or provision, 
including any pilot program, that was extended through March 15, 2004, 
by section 1(a) of Public Law 108-172 is further extended through April 
2, 2004, under the same terms and conditions.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN FEE AUTHORIZATIONS.

    Section 503(f) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 
U.S.C. 697(f)) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2003'' and inserting 
``May 21, 2004''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3915

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
   Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 
             through April 2, 2004, and for other purposes.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**MICHAEL ALPHONSE POTTER,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 929 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 23rd day of March, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
Exhibit 3 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 334-3 Filed: 07/19/21 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:7971
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC Corporation I et al, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

DECLARATION OF XIE RONGQING 

I, Xie Rongqing, declare as follows: 

1. I am over eighteen (18) years of age. I make this affidavit based on my own knowledge. 

2. I am the owner of Dongguan Saibotan Nengyuan Keji (Energy Tech) Co. Ltd. (“Dongguan Saibotan”), 

which owns and operates the Amazon storefront Gyroor-US. 

3. I have been in the business of manufacturing and marketing hoverboards for over 7 years. 

4. I am very familiar with the exterior design of different types of hoverboards. 

5. The accused product in this case is designed based on the D808,857 patent, which Dongguan Saibotan 

is authorized to use. 

6. The accused product is different from the design in D737,723, D738,256, D785,112, D784,195 patents. 

The pattens on the standing pads, the wheels, the fenders, and other details are all different. 

7. I highlighted some of the differences between the accused product and the D737,723, D738,256, 

D785,112, D784,195 patents from different angles in the comparison below. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on: 07/19/2021 By: ______________________

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 334-3 Filed: 07/19/21 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:7972
2 

A. Top View Comparison 

Plaintiffs’ Patents-in-Suit 

 ’D723 Patent ’D256 Patent 

 ’D195 Patent ’D112 Patent 

 The Licensed D808,857 Patent

The Accused Product

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 334-3 Filed: 07/19/21 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:7973
3 

B. Bottom View Comparison 

Plaintiffs’ Patents-in-Suit 

 

 ’D723 Patent ’D256 Patent 

 

 ’D195 Patent ’D112 Patent 

 The Licensed D808,857 Patent

The Accused Product

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 334-3 Filed: 07/19/21 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:7974
4 

C. Side View Comparison (Wheels) 

Plaintiffs’ Patents-in-Suit 

’D723 Patent ’D256 Patent 

’D195 Patent ’D112 Patent 

The Licensed D808,857 Patent The Accused Product

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 334-3 Filed: 07/19/21 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:7975
5 

D. Front / Back View Comparison 

Plaintiffs’ Patents-in-Suit 

 ’D723 Patent ’D256 Patent 

 ’D195 Patent ’D112 Patent 

The Licensed D808,857 Patent 

The Accused Product

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 334-3 Filed: 07/19/21 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:7976
6 

E. Perspective View Comparison 

Plaintiffs’ Patents-in-Suit 

 ’D723 Patent ’D256 Patent 

 ’D195 Patent ’D112 Patent 

The Licensed D808,857 Patent The Accused Product

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 334-3 Filed: 07/19/21 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7977
NIST,

Thank you for providing a final opportunity to participate in this important work.

In the area of Description:

Naming the software provider entry should have the ability to maintain the history of the

product. Companies and products may change hands. It is important to know the basis of

the product. What company developed the software? Are they utilizing a generic email

account, [e.g., security@company.com], for the intake of questions or reports?

Naming the software identifiers should be complete. (Is this area intended to be the

SBoM?) Today it makes sense to maintain the history of the product, therefore this area of

the labeling should be updateable. Is the source code still available for updating? What

libraries were included?

Declaring a manufacturer or vendor (company) has a vulnerability reporting program or

mechanism suggests a binary response: yes or no. Judging the capability and maturity of a

vulnerability reporting program requires more information. Asking if the company is a CVE

Numbering Authority or has requested CVEs from MITRE to identify vulnerabilities in their

products provides much more information.

In the area of Critical Cyber Security:

Declaring a product is free from known vulnerabilities suggests a binary response: yes or

no. What would be useful is a date of last update, a CVE identification number, or a

software version number. This level of detail would provide a starting place for the

customer to begin researching what remediation or mitigations can be expected to be

already included in the product.

Authentication and authorization is often assumed to be the same. Please ensure the

multifactor authentication and use of strong cryptography don’t become the end result.

Knowing when and where to implement them is key. Device A is authenticated to Device B,

but is Device A authorized to make changes to Device B?

Please have a safe and happy holiday.

Best regards,

Laurie Tyzenhaus
Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 383-16 Filed: 08/24/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:9352
8/24/2021 ABOUT GYROOR | GYROOR

https://gyroorboard.com/pages/gyroorboard-hoverboard-brand 1/3

ABOUT GYROOR

Gyroor was founded in 2012 but has been involved in some way shape or form with the evolution of hoverboard technology. Coming onto its 6th year in manufacturing Gyroor a

employees work with a single uniting focus and that’s to deliver constant and never-ending improvement better know as a CANI to its products and procedure. Located in the e

capital of the world Shenzhen 45 mins from the worlds logistical success Hong Kong Gyroor ability to meet world demand grows daily. And Gyroor have branch and warehouse in

and the team from Gyroor welcome any suggestions that you may have for them.

we authorize HONGKONG CLIMBER TECHNOLOGY CO. ,LIMITED for supplier of Gyroor products.This authorization is valid until June 29th, 2022.

V I S I O N  

To create a world where travel, accessibility and fun connect through our love for the electronic travel boards flourish into the future of technology.

$ 4 0 O F F H O V E R B O A R D T 5 8 1 + K 1 , E N D I N : A U G 3 0 , 2 0 2 1

H O M E S H O P  AB O U T GY R O O R BLO G C O N TACT E M AI L S I G N I N

★ REVIEWS

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 383-16 Filed: 08/24/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:9353
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF KOGER EQUITY INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,403
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                       395
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         973,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 863,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        334,290
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           287
<OTHER-SE>                                     464,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   863,389
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,822
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,456
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   120
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,012
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,723
<INCOME-TAX>                                       173
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,874
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,874
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63


</TABLE>
---

---

EXHIBIT 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Syneron Medical
Ltd. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-120559) pertaining to the employees stock option plan of
our report dated February 6, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of Syneron Medical Ltd. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for
the year ended December 31, 2004.

| |  | /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer
Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererA member of Ernst & Young Global
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haifa, Israel, June 30,
2005



---

---
FILED

DEC 09 2021
TED SEAN D. SeINSTON Pe 39 QL
UNITED STATES SiSTRICT COURT 4 ~
HOA Lain D.Ghen Sn.

Mefiel Gad:
OEE LE: Hell Ve COME R0-CV-S 00k.

) ton pb aa — whe IM he Curl” pe?

he pedicel Jobb of ths Theil have dbtcaallauedd ly, Mita
thelr Symbrcorl == fave been on thts led eslion over do years
Gr else fe Tard ec ritTNs edicalion the reordered by
Dr. Meaning & falnenrolglsl, trom wercy one besp{bl ja Forde.
Since Hye feat has dlazpedl frevidlag the tia whdbealin =z
hae baer havtry afore € rhere diPldcally breathing and aor fresealiy
whuszig. Mecca! dlc? have selec His Guilty 91 ple teage
fay or Sgunbicarts ‘Ti oo costly Ay i

“Zo am Wak suseepTt ble ie calehing Covey d? as
howe Chrante Aitheta, ud hesignaled a pladiead Care lal’



Qe Ashore. Ark a5 ths Oud 7s ardore 2 rave. theaths
liss Hua yesr) soled rly release From prttor. Zo Milt ef
fae felirs, = ask His Curt tb eihar ocke- iby ths.
=z tw (we by fpsall, oe order Hd He Bo te-frseribe He
“Syobteect” for He dnihowce. oF of, Mihal ndilor.

doraver ae ask ys Cust? Be ale or te fPoding
BML lilies é stalls th Ashede Mi been becanlay fopesively
Werse Since belay Sprayed wih Ges Wik th Chelas Fr our &
jar Ms Cot hes Rared « lad te B He abars of Ais teal.

Fredy, MAb nal. 145 Calica by « SHEE ae

ox aly baht (te testy of assell above by fel) HAL) wc
NER het dave a fetords vequeit” on fy behal? celelive fo re
belas pled i itints, on phuty oad, ond shut fet. ask
dis Cat Te orker warken oll! Maz To alld the destruction.


of ay e te video fecordings relative Jb whal was dre
jo Me on tose dys. Te Pheees Manukehoed a tuib healer

h Place he in restainks, ad x an Cacerned they ni(l ity ys
b kre
deslfoy Hose. [npes. As the are unable ich sla?? Wether =

gave the number fe, Too Cal Gee Shape Fron MK on Wy behalt.

Jo zack Sr an Oder frevecling tke destralion of any video

relative lo Wher = Was Maced in Veiltainl -
we Hhink ha Gurl fer ds Consideral ion of His iter —

A. Yugple
Leimehicg
—- Dateline HU declwe urde- (vel oF Gm “OS3

furduig. Ha fergomy Lele we We ind Gree Ausf. Haralon.

RIUSC LH, rho. 80, oat

AS afennd dk 09 -~
Note: have lo Ed thd Scribe as they ose AGAN Sfeging
GAS drectly dhe me in thet Cell Herts 2G 7] t
BCWT ING o =z mut Ger mo, Moudle d poie. ila.)

po
N

fone ~
7.