alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOn-Board Propulsion System Analysis of High Density PropellantsThe impact of the performance and density of on-board propellants on science payload mass of Discovery Program class missions is evaluated. A propulsion system dry mass model, anchored on flight-weight system data from the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous mission is used. This model is used to evaluate the performance of liquid oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxylammonium nitrate, and oxygen difluoride oxidizers with hydrocarbon and metal hydride fuels. Results for the propellants evaluated indicate that the state-of-art, Earth Storable propellants with high performance rhenium engine technology in both the axial and attitude control systems has performance capabilities that can only be exceeded by liquid oxygen/hydrazine, liquid oxygen/diborane and oxygen difluoride/diborane propellant combinations. Potentially lower ground operations costs is the incentive for working with nontoxic propellant combinations.Document ID19980237012Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeReprint (Version printed in journal)AuthorsSchneider, Steven J.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1998Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberE-11403NAS 1.15:208811AIAA Paper 98-3670NASA/TM-1998-208811Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint Propulsion ConferenceLocation: Cleveland, OHCountry: United StatesStart Date: July 13, 1998End Date: July 15, 1998Sponsors:American Society of Mechanical Engineers,Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,American Society for Electrical EngineersFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 632-1B-1BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980237012.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
Eddie Baza Calvo 

Governor of Guam 

/ ---.r BUREAU OF 

=< STATISTICS & PLANS 

Ray Tenorio 

Lieutenant Governor 

Mr. Eugene Bromley 

SAGAN PLANU SIHA VAN EMFOTMAS ION 

Government of Guam 

P.O. Box 2950 Hagatffa, Guam 96932 

Tel: (671) 472-4201/3 

Fax: (671) 477-1812 

JAN 1 0 2m4 

NPDES Permits Office, Water Division 

USEP A, Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

Hafa Adai Mr. Bromley: 

Lorilee T. Crisostomo 

Director 

The Bureau's Guam Coastal Management Program ( GCMP) has reviewed the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency's (USEPA) consistency determination for the proposed issuance of a Multi-Sector General Permit 

(MSGP) for storm water discharges from industrial facilities. We understand that when finalized, the 

proposed 2013 MSGP will replace the 2008 pennit that expired on September 29, 2013. 

The proposed permit will include technology-base effluent limitations based upon the Clean Water Act and 

new requirements by USEP A's guidelines to reduce the amount of sediment and other pollutants discharges 

from construction and development sites. It ensures that discharges will be in compliance with applicable 

Guam water quality standards subject tot he Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) certification 

and approval requirement. The General Construction Permit requires compliance with effluent limits and 

other permit requirements, such as the development of the Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan, necessary 

to implement the new Effluent Limitations Guidelines and new Source Performance Standards for 

Construction and Development. The USEP A has determined that the proposed permit is consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the GCMP. 

The Bureau defers the implementation of the new Construction General Permit decision to GEPA, cognizant 

of its responsibilities mandated under the CWA certification and approval requirements, on the basis of their 

expert and scientific knowledge of the issues and concerns in the approval of the MSGP/NPDES as proposed. 

Therefore, we concur with US EPA's determination that the permit is consistent with the policies of the 

GCMP, in accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-583), as amended (P.L. 93-

370). However, this GCMP Federal Consistency determination does not preclude the need to secure other 

Federal and Government of Guam permits, clearances, and approvals. Si Yu'os Ma 'ase'. 

cc: GEPA 

DOAg. 

DPR/HPO 

DLM 

Sincerely, 

Director 

. CRISOSTOMO 

~ 

Guam Coastal Management Program !.and l hc Planning Socio-l conomic Planning Planning lnlbnnation Business & Economic Statistics
#### Mark DELAFOSSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. STALDER; Burl Cain; Darryl Vannoy; Leslie Dupont; Dwayne McFatter; Cathy Fontenot; Roger Mitchell; Robert Toney; Yusuf Ab*923dullah; Assistant Warden David Bonnette; Jamie Felder; Donald Barr; Cathy Roberts; Joseph Hewes; Robert Rowe; James Douzat; Mark Miller, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-30173.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 13, 2006.

Mark Delafosse, Angola, LA, pro se.

Rose Polito Wooden, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mark Delafosse, Louisiana prisoner #354829, proceeding *pro se,*moves for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*(IFP) in an appeal of the district court’s final judgment that dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Delafosse’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. *Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Delafosse challenges the district court’s application of the physical-injury requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) to bar his First Amendment claim for compensatory damages due to denial of a religious diet. This court has rejected Delafosse’s argument. *See Geiger v. Jowers,*404 F.3d 371, 374-75 (5th Cir.2005).

The district court dismissed as moot Delafosse’s claim for injunctive relief based on the denial of a religious diet, because Delafosse had been moved to another prison facility. In his IFP motion and brief, Delafosse notes in his recitation of the procedural history of his case that he had filed a post-judgment motion contending that the magistrate judge’s recommendation that his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot was based on a mistake of fact.** He does not mention the mootness determination at any other point in his IFP motion or brief. Therefore, he has failed to brief this issue and thereby abandoned it. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Delafosse has not identified a non-frivolous issue for appeal, his motion for IFP status on appeal is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

**

 In his post-judgment motion, Delafosse asserted that prior to the magistrate judge's issuance of his report and recommendation, he had been returned to Angola, the prison at which he had been denied a religious diet.
#### Mavis M. Coleman, f/k/a Mavis M. Brown, Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*Wayne O. Brown, Defendant-Appellee.

(No. 72-210;

Second District —

August 7, 1973.

Pedderson, Menzimer, Conde, Stoner, Ferolie & Spelman, of Rockford, for appellant.

Yalden & Ridings, of Rockford, for appellee.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE SEIDENFELD.
### §6512. Transfer of functions to Secretary of State

There are transferred to the Secretary of State all functions of the Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and all functions of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and any office or component of such agency, under any statute, reorganization plan, Executive order, or other provision of law, as of the day before the effective date of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 105–277, div. G, subdiv. A, title XII, §1212, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–767.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

For the effective date of this subchapter, referred to in text, meaning the effective date of title XII of subdiv. A of div. G of Pub. L. 105–277, see section 1201 of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as a note under section 6511 of this title.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 798.22

 798.29

 798.37

 798.42

 798.50

 798.58

 798.68

 798.78

 798.85

 798.91

 799.00

 799.09

 799.18

 799.26

 799.33

 799.44

 799.52

 799.60

 799.67

 799.76

 799.83

 799.91

 800.00

 800.09

 800.16

 800.24

 800.32

 800.40

 800.46

 800.55

 800.64

 11.37

 11.41

 11.45

 11.48

 11.52

 11.57

 11.62

 11.68

 11.71

 11.75

 11.80

 11.85

 11.90

 11.94

 11.98

 12.04

 12.09

 12.13

 12.17

 12.22

 12.26

 12.31

 12.36

 12.41

 12.45

 12.50

 12.54

 12.59

 12.62

 12.68

 12.73

STORAGE

+0.03

+0.04

+0.04

+0.03

+0.04

+0.04

+0.06

+0.06

+0.04

+0.03

+0.05

+0.05

+0.05

+0.05

+0.04

+0.06

+0.04

+0.05

+0.04

+0.05

+0.04

+0.05

+0.05

+0.05

+0.04

+0.05

+0.05

+0.05

+0.03

+0.05

+0.05

CHANGE

29

33

34

25

35

35

41

41

31

29

37

38

37

35

32

44

33

34

32

40

32

35

38

38

36

36

36

33

28

39

41

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 11

 13

 11

 11

 13

 13

 13

 13

 12

 12

 12

 13

 12

 12

 12

 12

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 11

 14

 12

 12

 10

 10

 11

 14

OUTLET

 1

 1

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 3

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

 1

 1

 1

C.F.S.

 .04

 .03

 .03

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .03

 .15

 .08

 .04

 .06

 .04

 .08

 .06

 .05

 .02

 .07

 .06

 .04

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .10

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-ORLAND PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2013 RUN DATE: 01/30/2014

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +1.40 1,087 366 0 17 .92 .10

ACRE-FEET +1,400 2,156 726 0 34

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800 HOURS.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 726

 726

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .10

JULY 1, 2013 .74

 11.34

STONY GORGE RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ismael FLORES-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51098.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*662PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ismael Flores-Flores raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*528 U.S. 224, 285, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### §290g–8. Presidential instructions to United States Governor of the Fund to veto any use of funds to benefit a country pursuing a detrimental economic policy against United States interests; exceptions

The President shall instruct the United States Governor of the Fund to cause the Executive Director representing the United States in the Fund to cast the votes of the United States against any loan or other utilization of the funds of the Fund for the benefit of any country which has—

(1) nationalized or expropriated or seized ownership or control of property owned by any United States citizen or by any corporation, partnership, or association not less than 50 per centum of which is beneficially owned by United States citizens;

(2) taken steps to repudiate or nullify existing contracts or agreements with any United States citizen or any corporation, partnership, or association not less than 50 per centum of which is beneficially owned by United States citizens; or

(3) imposed or enforced discriminatory taxes or other exactions, or restrictive maintenance or operational conditions, or has taken other actions, which have the effect of nationalizing, expropriating, or otherwise seizing ownership or control of property so owned;

unless the President determines that (A) an arrangement for prompt, adequate, and effective compensation has been made, (B) the parties have submitted the dispute to arbitration under the rules of the Convention for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, or (C) good faith negotiations are in progress aimed at providing prompt, adequate, and effective compensation under the applicable principles of international law.

(Pub. L. 94–302, title II, §210, May 31, 1976, 90 Stat. 595.)
### §3966. Within-class salary increases

#### (a) Time period; limitation

Any member of the Service receiving a salary under the Foreign Service Schedule shall be advanced to the next higher salary step in the member's class at the beginning of the first applicable pay period following the completion by that member of a period of—

(1) 52 calendar weeks of service in each of salary steps 1 through 9, and

(2) 104 calendar weeks of service in each of salary steps 10 through 13,

unless the performance of the member during that period is found in a review by a selection board established under section 4002 of this title to fall below the standards of performance for his or her salary class.

#### (b) Additional increase for meritorious service

The Secretary may grant, on the basis of especially meritorious service, to any member of the Service receiving an increase in salary under subsection (a), an additional salary increase to any higher step in the salary class in which the member is serving.

(Pub. L. 96–465, title I, §406, Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2089.)
§ 656.41 Review of prevailing wage determinations. ( a ) *Review of NPC PWD.* Any employer desiring review of a PWD made by a CO must make a request for such review within 30 days of the date from when the PWD was issued. The request for review must be sent to the director of the NPC that issued the PWD within 30 days of the date of the PWD; clearly identify the PWD from which review is sought; set forth the particular grounds for the request; and include all the materials pertaining to the PWD submitted to the NPC up to the date of the PWD received from the NPC.
( b ) *Processing of request by NPC.* Upon the receipt of a request for review, the NPC will review the employer's request and accompanying documentation, and add any material that may have been omitted by the employer, including any material the NPC sent the employer up to the date of the PWD.
( c ) *Review on the record.* The director will review the PWD solely on the basis upon which the PWD was made and, upon the request for review, may either affirm or modify the PWD.
( d ) *Request for review by BALCA.* Any employer desiring review of the director's determination must make a request for review by the BALCA within 30 days of the date of the Director's decision. ( 1 ) The request for review, statements, briefs, and other submissions of the parties and amicus curiae must contain only legal arguments and only such evidence that was within the record upon which the director made his/her affirmation of the PWD.
( 2 ) The request for review must be in writing and addressed to the director of the NPC making the determination. Upon receipt of a request for a review, the director will assemble an indexed appeal file in reverse chronological order, with the index on top followed by the most recent document.
( 3 ) The director will send the Appeal File to the Office of Administrative Law Judges, BALCA. The BALCA handles the appeals in accordance with §§ 656.26 and 656.27.
[73 FR 78069, Dec. 19, 2008]
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                             LDM Technologies, Inc.
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                     (thousands of dollars, except ratios)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               1995        1996        1997       1998        1999
                                                               ----        ----        ----       ----        ----
<S>                                                         <C>          <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>
Earnings available for fixed charges:

Income from continuing operations before income
taxes, minority interest and extraordinary item               $ 11,537    $5,109     $  5,008    $ (7,884)  $  2,044

Interest, including amortization of debt issuance cost           3,340     4,060       11,388      19,999     21,067

Less, interest capitalized during the year                        (162)     (780)        (312)       (185)      (706)

Amortization of capitalized interest                                          16           84         103        174

Portion of operating lease rentals deemed to be interest           650       600          701       2,122      2,770
                                                              --------    ------     --------    --------   --------

Total earnings available for fixed charges:                   $ 15,365    $9,005     $ 16,869    $ 14,155   $ 25,349
                                                              ========    ======     ========    ========   ========
Fixed charges:

Interest, including amortization of debt issuance cost        $  3,340    $4,060     $ 11,388    $ 19,999  $  21,067

Portion of operating lease rentals deemed to be interest           650       600          701       2,122      2,770
                                                              --------    ------     --------    --------   --------

Total fixed charges                                           $  3,990    $4,660     $ 12,089    $ 22,121  $  23,837
                                                              ========    ======     ========    ========   ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                 3.9       1.9          1.4          .6        1.1
                                                              ========    ======     ========    ========   ========
</TABLE>

                                      F-27
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           7,528
<SECURITIES>                                    62,489
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,418
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,313
<PP&E>                                          31,173
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,842
<BONDS>                                          8,351
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           396
<OTHER-SE>                                     133,224
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   157,403
<SALES>                                         75,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                80,913
<CGS>                                           14,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,512
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,869
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,360
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,509
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        

</TABLE>