alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAerodynamic Synthesis of a Centrifugal Impeller Using CFD and MeasurementsThe performance and flow structure in an unshrouded impeller of approximately 4:1 pressure ratio is synthesized on the basis of a detailed analysis of 3D viscous CFD results and aerodynamic measurements. A good data match was obtained between CFD and measurements using laser anemometry and pneumatic probes. This solidified the role of the CFD model as a reliable representation of the impeller internal flow structure and integrated performance. Results are presented showing the loss production and secondary flow structure in the impeller. The results indicate that while the overall impeller efficiency is high, the impeller shroud static pressure recovery potential is underdeveloped leading to a performance degradation in the downstream diffusing element. Thus, a case is made for a follow-on impeller parametric design study to improve the flow quality. A strategy for aerodynamic performance enhancement is outlined and an estimate of the gain in overall impeller efficiency that might be realized through improvements to the relative diffusion process is provided.Document ID19970025160Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsLarosiliere, L. M.*(Army Research Lab. Cleveland, OH United States)*Skoch, G. J.*(Army Research Lab. Cleveland, OH United States)*Prahst, P. S.*(NYMA, Inc. Brook Park, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1997Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107515AIAA Paper 97-2878E-10818ARL-TR-1461NASA-TM-107515Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint Propulsion Conference and ExhibitLocation: Seattle, WACountry: United StatesStart Date: July 6, 1997End Date: July 9, 1997Sponsors:American Society of Mechanical Engineers,American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,American Society for Electrical EngineersAccession Number97N24783Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 523-22-13Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970025160.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 18, 2011 

# Order

April 18, 2011

141154(66) 141181(49) 141513(21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 141154 v COA: 290218 Oakland CC: 2008-220669-FH SELESA ARROSIEUR LIKINE, Defendant-Appellant.

_____________ _______________ _____________ PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 141181 v COA: 291011 Ingham CC: 08-001225-FH MICHAEL JOSEPH PARKS, Defendant-Appellant.

_____________ _______________ _____________ PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 141513 v COA: 297182 Muskegon CC: 08-056761-FH SCOTT BENNETT HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

_____________ _______________ _____________

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by appellees for extension to April 5, 2011 of the time for filing their briefs is granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Bagley, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 457]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered November 15, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, waiving his right to appeal. He was thereafter sentenced as a second felony offender to the agreed-upon prison term of two years, with two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is precluded by the voluntary waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Alexander,*31 AD3d 885, 886 [2006]; *People v Feller,*25 AD3d 881 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 812 [2006]). In addition, his failure to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction renders the issue as to the voluntariness of his plea unpreserved for our review *(see People v Bennett,*30 AD3d 631, 631 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 809*993[2006]; *People v Jones,*30 AD3d 633, 633 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 849 [2006]) and the exception to the preservation rule is not applicable inasmuch as defendant made no statements inconsistent with his guilt *(see People v Campbell,*29 AD3d 1083, 1083-1084 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 786 [2006]; *People v Evans,*27 AD3d 905, 906-907 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 847 [2006]). In any event, defendant’s responses to County Court’s questions during the plea colloquy established the elements of the crime and it was not necessary for defendant to personally recite the underlying facts *(see People v Alexander, supra; People v Mahar,*12 AD3d 715, 716 [2004]).

We also find that, although defendant has some mental health difficulties for which he is receiving medication, the record as a whole reflects that he has demonstrated an ability to manage his mental health symptoms and he was capable of understanding the proceedings against him. As such, a competency hearing, which defense counsel did not request, was not required *(see People v Ferrer,*16 AD3d 913, 914 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 788 [2005]; *People v Kane,*6 AD3d 876, 877 [2004]). Finally, defendant’s claim that his sentence should be modified in the interest of justice is foreclosed given his valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]; *People v Alexander, supra*at 886).

Mercure, J.E, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY

Any use of this material without specific permission of McKinsey & Company 

is strictly prohibited

January 2020

Global Trends in 

Asset Management
McKinsey & Company 2

Global assets under management are at record highs

27 22 25 27 28 30 35 37 38 40 47 45 53

15

13

15 16 16 17

18 20 21 23

25 24

28

7

6

7 8 8

9

10

11 13

14

16 17

20

1

1

1

2 2

2

2

2 3

3

3 3

3

14

65

91

15 16 17 18

49

58

71 74

80

90

104

W. Europe

APAC

Other2

2007

52

08 09

50

N. America

42

53

10 11 12 13 2019E

6.3%

4.4%

8.8%

8.4%

6.2%

SOURCE: McKinsey Performance Lens Global Growth Cube (reflecting 41 country markets), McKinsey analysis

CAGR

Assets Under Management by major geographic region, $ trillions1

1 Third-party managed assets

2 Includes Latin America, Middle East, and Africa
McKinsey & Company 3

Asia Pacific has led global organic net flow growth since 2015

Net flows by major geographic region, $ billions

Global net 

flow growth

Source: McKinsey Performance Lens Global Growth Cube (reflecting 41 country markets), McKinsey analysis

0.8% 3.3% 1.7% 3.2% 2.6% 4.0% 6.1% 8.2% 5.6%

248

-74

86

167

65 57 58 52 60

-8

78 57

2008 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2019E

5.3% 4.6% 3.1%

1. Includes Latin America, Middle East, and Africa

72

362

-137

188 325

522 540 549

-58

637

271 327

-444

362 331 288 27 255

920 807 714 697 413 359

350 58 154 244 301 384 610

1,651 1,383

793

1,395

666

North 

America

Western 

Europe

Asia Pacific

Other1
McKinsey & Company 4

Global organic growth is expected to decline to ~2% p.a. for the next 

5 years

1. Includes 41 countries from North America, Western Europe, CEE, GCC, Asia-Pacific, LatAm and Africa

2. Numbers have been rounded

5-year annualized net flow effect by region1,2

52.5

4.5

1.9

Japan

Australia

1.8

Latin America 

North America

28.2

Western Europe

5.0

Rest of Asia

2.8% 1.7%

4.4% 2.9% 1.8% 2.0%

Middle East/ 

Africa

1.6

6.0% 6.1%

0.9% 1.0%

0.0% 1.3%

3.9% 2.7%

7.1

China

18.7%

5.8%

103.8

Global

2.9% 1.9%

Source: McKinsey Performance Lens Global Growth Cube

X 2015-19E net flows, % CAGR X 2020-24P net flows, % CAGR x 2019 AuM, USD trillions
#### § 40.14 Conditional certification.

If, in the judgment of the Attorney General, a grievance procedure that has been in existence less than one year is at the time of application in substantial compliance with the standards promulgated herein or is otherwise fair and effective, the Attorney General shall grant conditional certification for one year or until the applicant satisfies the requirements of § 40.15, whichever period is shorter.

[Order No. 1955-95, 60 FR 13903, Mar. 15, 1995]
### §4406. Amounts available to carry out this chapter

#### (a) Omitted

#### (b) Migratory bird fines, penalties, forfeitures

The sums received under section 707 of this title as penalties or fines, or from forfeitures of property are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior for purposes of allocation under section 4407 of this title. This subsection shall not be construed to require the sale of instrumentalities.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

In addition to the amounts made available under subsections (a) and (b) of this section, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Interior for purposes of allocation under section 4407 of this title not to exceed $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2025.

#### (d) Availability of funds

Sums made available under this section shall be available until expended.

(Pub. L. 101–233, §7, Dec. 13, 1989, 103 Stat. 1974; Pub. L. 103–375, §4, Oct. 19, 1994, 108 Stat. 3495; Pub. L. 105–312, title III, §302, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2958; Pub. L. 106–553, §1(a)(2) [title IX, §902(i)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–124; Pub. L. 107–308, §5, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2447; Pub. L. 109–322, §2, Oct. 11, 2006, 120 Stat. 1756; Pub. L. 116–188, title I, §106, Oct. 30, 2020, 134 Stat. 917.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 7 of Pub. L. 101–233. Subsec. (a) of section 7 of Pub. L. 101–233 amended sections 669b and 669c of this title and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 669b of this title.

#### Amendments

2020—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 116–188 substituted "not to exceed $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2025." for "not to exceed—" and pars. (1) to (5), authorizing appropriations for fiscal years 2003 through 2006 and fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

2006—Subsec. (c)(5). Pub. L. 109–322 substituted "each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012" for "fiscal year 2007".

2002—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 107–308 substituted "not to exceed—" and pars. (1) to (5) for "not to exceed $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003."

2000—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 106–553 substituted "$50,000,000" for "$30,000,000".

1998—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–312 substituted "not to exceed $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003." for "not to exceed $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 and 1998."

1994—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–375 substituted "$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 and 1998" for "$15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994".
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 10 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 10

Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 
                               15, 2019.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2019

 Mr. Udall (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Shaheen, and Ms. Murkowski) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 
                               15, 2019.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 
of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national 
emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 
2019, in Proclamation 9844 (84 Fed. Reg. 4949) is hereby terminated.
                                 <all>
```
§ 802.1 Introduction. ( a ) This part contains regulations of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (“CSOSA” or “Agency”) and the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency (“PSA” or “Agency”), which implement the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Privacy Act (PA), 5 U.S.C. 552a. The Agency provides for the disclosure and production of records in response to FOIA/PA requests, a demand from a court, or other non-congressional authority in connection with a proceeding to which the Agency is not a party. Due to CSOSA's nature as a federal agency with a local mission connected to the District of Columbia, exemption protections, including exclusions, are allowed under the FOIA and other safeguard requirements may be applied under the PA.
( b ) It is the policy of CSOSA that all employees of CSOSA and PSA (collectively the “Agency”) are to submit all FOIA/PA requests to the Office of General Counsel (“OGC”). The OGC shall make release determinations under either the FOIA/PA pursuant to the procedures set forth in sections §§ 802.6, 802.7, 802.8, 802.14, 802.15, and 802.16.
[82 FR 13556, Mar. 14, 2017]
§ 490.613 Calculation of Freight Reliability measure. ( a ) The performance for freight movement on the Interstate in § 490.607 (the Freight Reliability measure) shall be calculated in accordance with this section by State DOTs and MPOs to carry out the freight movement on the Interstate System related requirements of this part, and by FHWA to make the significant progress determinations specified in § 490.109 and to report on freight performance of the Interstate System.
( b ) The Freight Reliability measure shall be computed to the nearest hundredth as follows:
Where: *i* = An Interstate System reporting segment; maxTTTRi = The maximum TTTR of the five time periods in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v) of § 490.611, to the nearest hundredth, of Interstate System reporting segment “i”; SL*i* = Segment length, to the nearest thousandth of a mile, of Interstate System reporting segment “i”; and T= A total number of Interstate System reporting segments.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           5

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  Dec-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                      Jan-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                                       0
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             0
<PP&E>                                                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,500
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                 3,675
<OTHER-SE>                                              (1,500)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 0
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             0
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            3,571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (3,571)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (3,571)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0



</TABLE>
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews


### Document

Number: 

# 84 ) IV-E-7 8 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200811:58:00 AM

Sheet 84 of 117P. 2 IV-E-7 8 Meetin g Note s Date : January 17 , 200 0 Th e purpos e o f

th e meetin g wa s t o discus s detail s on th e curren t Administration s plan s fo r finalizin g provision s for

th e 199 6 NS RRefor

mpropose drule . N o handout s provided . Attende e lis t

attached . Attachmen tP. 3

'^.l u d^/<c_^__t

_En tf A/Oi5__CL.p^ 

## u€cre_± - ItiufCcs -tr

toy les < ? aap<*.c . com yvic cu.i \ oucaU.i__^_fit(a)j£p a»<*O v /* J -Cft)inw-t^^_p-r*«»t

M cUww^ , .Cor n
ov v 

### - We-vif ^ !0;cAn A «->A£G . L b
§ 260.111 Responsibilities of educational institutions. ( a ) The college or university chosen by the grant recipient shall enter into an appropriate agreement with the FHWA providing for the administration of the grant by the college or university.
( b ) The college or university chosen by the recipient shall designate a faculty advisor prior to the commitment of funds by the FHWA. The faculty advisor will be requested to submit reports of the recipient's study progress following completion of each study period. These reports are oriented toward total program evaluation. To assure the recipient's rights to privacy, the FHWA will obtain appropriate advance concurrences from the recipient.
§ 77.4 Guidance. ( a ) *Rules of the court before which a case is pending.* A government attorney shall, in all cases, comply with the rules of ethical conduct of the court before which a particular case is pending.
( b ) *Inconsistent rules where there is a pending case.* ( 1 ) If the rule of the attorney's state of licensure would prohibit an action that is permissible under the rules of the court before which a case is pending, the attorney should consider: ( i ) Whether the attorney's state of licensure would apply the rule of the court before which the case is pending, rather than the rule of the state of licensure;
( ii ) Whether the local federal court rule preempts contrary state rules; and
( iii ) Whether application of traditional choice-of-law principles directs the attorney to comply with a particular rule.
( 2 ) In the process of considering the factors described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the attorney is encouraged to consult with a supervisor or Professional Responsibility Officer to determine the best course of conduct.
( c ) *Choice of rules where there is no pending case.* ( 1 ) Where no case is pending, the attorney should generally comply with the ethical rules of the attorney's state of licensure, unless application of traditional choice-of-law principles directs the attorney to comply with the ethical rule of another jurisdiction or court, such as the ethical rule adopted by the court in which the case is likely to be brought.
( 2 ) In the process of considering the factors described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the attorney is encouraged to consult with a supervisor or Professional Responsibility Officer to determine the best course of conduct.
( d ) *Rules that impose an irreconcilable conflict.* If, after consideration of traditional choice-of-law principles, the attorney concludes that multiple rules may apply to particular conduct and that such rules impose irreconcilable obligations on the attorney, the attorney should consult with a supervisor or Professional Responsibility Officer to determine the best course of conduct.
( e ) *Supervisory attorneys.* Each attorney, including supervisory attorneys, must assess his or her ethical obligations with respect to particular conduct. Department attorneys shall not direct any attorney to engage in conduct that violates section 530B. A supervisor or other Department attorney who, in good faith, gives advice or guidance to another Department attorney about the other attorney's ethical obligations should not be deemed to violate these rules.
( f ) *Investigative Agents.* A Department attorney shall not direct an investigative agent acting under the attorney's supervision to engage in conduct under circumstances that would violate the attorney's obligations under section 530B. A Department attorney who in good faith provides legal advice or guidance upon request to an investigative agent should not be deemed to violate these rules.
Stewart D. Gregg, Senior Securities Counsel
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
5701 Golden Hills Drive
Minneapolis, MN  55416
(763) 765-2913 April 23, 2007

Board of Directors

Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
5701 Golden Hills Drive
Minneapolis, MN  55416

Re:    Opinion and Consent of Counsel
       Allianz Life Variable Account B

Dear Sir or Madam:

You have requested my Opinion of Counsel in connection with the filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, of Post-Effective Amendment No. 18 to the Registration Statement on
Form N-4 for the Individual Deferred Variable Annuity Contracts to be issued by
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America and its separate account,
Allianz Life Variable Account B File No. 333-82329.

I am of the following opinions:

1.  Allianz Life Variable Account B is a unit investment trust as that term is
    defined in Section 4(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the Act), and
    is currently registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
    pursuant to Section 8(a) of the Act.
2.  Upon the acceptance of purchase payments made by a Contract Owner pursuant
    to a Contract issued in accordance with the Prospectus contained in the
    Registration Statement and upon compliance with applicable law, such a
    Contract Owner will have a legally-issued, fully-paid, non-assessable
    contractual interest under such Contract.

You may use this opinion letter, or copy hereof, as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

I consent to the reference to me and to this opinion under the caption "Legal
Opinions" contained in the Statement of Additional Information which form a part
of the Registration Statement.

Sincerely,

ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

BY: /S/ STEWART D. GREGG
Stewart D. Gregg