alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsGround-simulation investigations of VTOL airworthiness criteria for terminal-area operationsSeveral ground-based simulation experiments undertaken to investigate concerns related to tilt-rotor aircraft airworthiness were conducted. The experiments were conducted on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center's Vertical Motion Simulator, which permits simulation of a wide variety of aircraft with a high degree of fidelity of motion cueing. Variations in conversion/deceleration profile, type of augmentation or automation, level of display assistance, and meteorological conditions were considered in the course of the experiments. Certification pilots from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) participated, in addition to NASA research pilots. The setup of these experiments on the simulator is summarized, and some of the results highlighted.Document ID19900015825Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsLebacqz, J. V.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA., United States)*Decker, W. A.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA., United States)*Alderete, T. S.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA., United States)*Scott, B. C.*(Federal Aviation Administration Moffett Field, CA., United States)*Harper, P. J. G.*(Civil Aviation Authority Moffett Field, CA., United States)*Chung, W. W.*(SYRE Corp. Moffett Field, CA., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1990Subject CategoryAircraft Stability And ControlReport/Patent NumberA-90129NAS 1.15:102810NASA-TM-102810Meeting InformationMeeting: Royal Aeronautical Society Meeting: Progress in Helicopter and V/STOL Aircraft SimulationLocation: LondonStart Date: May 1, 1990End Date: May 2, 1990Accession Number90N25141Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-61-51Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900015825.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
Notes from Follow-Up Correspondence with We Energies Regarding Data Submittal

This summary documents EPA’s follow-up correspondence with We Energies regarding the data that 

We Energies submitted to EPA on September 20, 2013 in their comments on the proposed Effluent 

Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Category (EPA-HQOW-2009-0819-4475-A2 and EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-4475-A3) and on February 10, 2014 (DCN 

SE04666) in response to EPA’s January 17, 2014 data request to We Energies (DCN SE04659). All data 

submitted by We Energies relate to the FGD wastewater data from the Pleasant Prairie Power Plant 

(herein referred to as Pleasant Prairie).

On May 28, 2014, EPA provided We Energies with a list of 17 follow-up questions related to the Pleasant 

Prairie FGD data (DCN SE04328A1). EPA, ERG, and Westat participated in a call with We Energies on June 

4, 2014 to discuss these questions. 

The following people participated in the call:

EPA Personnel We Energies Personnel ERG Personnel Westat Personnel

Ron Jordan Dave Lee TJ Finseth Yan Zhuang

Phillip Flanders Kevin Howard Dan-Tam Nguyen

Cuc Schroeder Alison Castronovo

Prior to the call, We Energies had prepared written responses to EPA’s list of questions. We Energies 

discussed their written responses during the call and noted that they would be sending the written 

responses to EPA following the call. On June 11, 2014, EPA received these responses from We Energies. 

EPA followed up via email with We Energies on one of their written responses on June 16, 2014. We 

Energies responded via email. The following is a list of We Energies’ correspondence with EPA (with 

associated DCNs):

 Email to Ron Jordan from Alison Castronovo after follow-up discussion (DCN SE04328A2);

 We Energies written responses to EPA’s follow-up questions (DCN SE04328A3); 

 Email to Ron Jordan from Alison Castronovo responding to additional follow-up question (DCN 

SE04328A4).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 16, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60970 Summary Calendar

MARTHA LA TORRE; FHARID JHAFAR LADINEZ, Petitioners,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA Nos. A72 820 849 A72 820 169

-------------------- Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * Martha La Torre petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying her motion for a continuance; denying her application for asylum as untimely and, alternatively, on the merits; and denying her application for withholding of removal. La Torre argues that the IJ erred by denying her application for asylum, her application for withholding of removal, and her motion for a continuance.No. 04-60970 -2- The BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of asylum relied on the IJ’s determination that La Torre’s application was untimely. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of asylum. Cf. Zhu v. Ashcroft , 382 U.S. 521, 526 (5th Cir. 2004) (BIA did not indicate whether it was affirming timeliness decision, merits decision, or both). La Torre has not shown that the evidence presented in her case compels the conclusion that the IJ erroneously denied her application for withholding of removal. See Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). Because there is substantial evidence to support the IJ’s determination, La Torre is not entitled to relief. See Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002). La Torre requested a continuance on the morning of the hearing due to the fact that one of her witnesses was not present. La Torre was previously granted a continuance based on the lack of availability of the same witness. Rather than issue a subpoena to secure his attendance, La Torre relied on his assertion that he would be present. Given these facts, La Torre has failed to show that the IJ abused his discretion by denying her motion. See Witter v. INS , 113 F.3d 549, 555-56 (5th Cir. 1997). In light of the foregoing, La Torre’s petition for review is DENIED.
§ 4.1186 Waiver of the 30-day decision requirement. ( a ) Any person qualified to receive a 30-day decision may waive that right— ( 1 ) By filing an application pursuant to § 4.1160-71;
( 2 ) By failing to comply with all the requirements of § 4.1184(a); or
( 3 ) In accordance with § 4.1187(j).
( b ) Any person qualified to receive a 30-day decision shall waive that right— ( 1 ) By obtaining temporary relief pursuant to section 525(c) or section 526(c) of the act;
( 2 ) By failing to perfect an application pursuant to § 4.1184(b); or
( 3 ) In accordance with § 4.1187(i).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5    
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S
QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY  PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                     8
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       3,450
<PP&E>                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        38,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                704,997
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              17,708
<OTHER-SE>                                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          38,450
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     1,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (119,069)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (119,069)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.08)
        


</TABLE>
MP-12-035

Media Contacts: 

Reclamation: Pete Lucero, 916-978-5100, plucero@usbr.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Scott Flaherty, 916-978-6156, Scott_Flaherty@fws.gov

For Release On: March 5, 2012

Public Meeting Scheduled on Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act Annual Work Plans for Fiscal Year 2012

The Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will hold a public meeting on 

Thursday, March 15, 2012, to present the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) Annual Work Plans 

for fiscal year (FY) 2012. The meeting will be held: 

Sacramento

Thursday, March 15, 2012, 1–4 p.m. 

2800 Cottage Way, Cafeteria Conference Room, C-1001 

At the meeting, presentations will be made on the following CVPIA Annual Work Plans for FY 2012: 

• Introductions and Opening Remarks: 1:00–1:20 p.m.

• Red Bluff Diversion Dam – Section 3406(b)(10) 1:20–1:45 p.m.

• Anadromous Fish Restoration Program – Section 3406(b)(1) 1:45–2:25 p.m.

• Trinity River Restoration Program – Section 3406(b)(23) 2:25–2:55 p.m.

• Habitat Restoration Program – Section 3406(b)(1) “other” 2:55–3:15 p.m.

• CVP Spawning Gravel Program – Section 3406(b)(13) 3:15–3:35 p.m.

• Refuge Water Supply, Conveyance, and Construction Program 3:35–4:00 p.m.

Sections 3406(b)(3) and (d)(1, 2, & 5) 

The CVPIA Annual Work Plans for FY 2012 will be available in hard copy at the meeting and online after 

Wednesday, March 7, 2012, at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpia/docs_reports/index.html. Under the heading, “Draft 

CVPIA Annual Work Plans,” please click on “FY 2012.” 

For additional information, please contact Shana Kaplan, Reclamation, Division of Resources Management, at 

916-978-5190 or skaplan@mp.usbr.gov, or Dr. Cesar Blanco, USFWS, CVPIA Implementation Division, at 

916-978-6190 or cesar_blanco@fws.gov. 

# # # 

Reclamation is the largest wholesale water supplier and the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United 

States, with operations and facilities in the 17 Western States. Its facilities also provide substantial flood control, recreation, 

and fish and wildlife benefits. Visit our website at http://www.usbr.gov. 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, 

plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Visit our website at http://www.fws.gov.
§ 3863.1-3 Data to be filed in support of application. ( a ) In placer applications, in addition to the recitals necessary in and to both vein or lode and placer applications, the placer application should contain, in detail, such data as will support the claim that the land applied for is placer ground containing valuable mineral deposits not in vein or lode formation and that title is sought not to control water courses or to obtain valuable timber but in good faith because of the mineral therein. This statement, of course, must depend upon the character of the deposit and the natural features of the ground, but the following details should be covered as fully as possible: If the claim be for a deposit of placer gold, there must be stated the yield per pan, or cubic yard, as shown by prospecting and development work, distance to bedrock, formation and extent of the deposit, and all other facts upon which he bases his allegation that the claim is valuable for its deposits of placer gold. If it be a building stone or other deposit than gold claimed under the placer laws, he must describe fully the kind, nature, and extent of the deposit, stating the reasons why same is by him regarded as a valuable mineral claim. He will also be required to describe fully the natural features of the claim; streams, if any, must be fully described as to their course, amount of water carried, fall within the claim; and he must state kind and amount of timber and other vegetation thereon and adaptability to mining or other uses.
( b ) If the claim be all placer ground, that fact must be stated in the application and corroborated by accompanying proofs; if of mixed placers and lodes, it should be so set out, with a description of all known lodes situated within the boundaries of the claim. A specific declaration, such as is required by R.S. 2333 (30 U.S.C. 37) must be furnished as to each lode intended to be claimed. All other known lodes are, by the silence of the applicant, excluded by law from all claim by him, of whatsoever nature, possessory or otherwise.
( c ) While these data are required as a part of the mineral surveyor's report in case of placers taken by special survey, it is proper that the application for patent incorporate these facts.
( d ) Inasmuch as in case of claims taken by legal subdivisions, no report by a mineral surveyor is required, the claimant, in his application in addition to the data above required, should describe in detail the shafts, cuts, tunnels, or other workings claimed as improvements, giving their dimensions, value, and the course and distance thereof to the nearest corner of the public surveys.
( e ) The statement as to the description and value of the improvements must be corroborated by the statements of two disinterested witnesses. The proof showing must be made in duplicate. See 51 L.D. 265 and 52 L.D. 190.
( f ) Applications awaiting entry, whether published or not, must be made to conform to this part, with respect to proof as to the character of the land. Entries already made will be suspended for such additional proofs as may be deemed necessary in each case.
CONTRACT FACILITY NAME TYPE SUB TYPE RATE TRANSFER RATE DELIVERIES A/F TRANSFER IN TRANSFER OUT CHARGE A/F UNUSED A/F UNUSED $ WATER 

14-06-200-1290R LAKE BERRYESSA NAPA CO FLOOD CONTROL & WCD MI B1 $18.28 $0.00 84 0 0 84 0 0 14-06-200-1290R LAKE BERRYESSA NAPA CO FLOOD CONTROL & WCD MI B1 $15.00 $0.00 261 0 0 261 0 0 

TOTALS 345 0 0 345 0 0 

5-07-20-W128A CACHUMA DAM CENTRAL COAST WA AG B8 $15.00 $0.00 3,593 0 0 3,593 0 0 

TOTALS 3,593 0 0 3,593 0 0 

I75R-1802R CACHUMA DAM SANTA BARBARA CO WATER AGENCY MI J1 $71.11 $0.00 18,207 0 0 18,207 0 0 I75R-1802R CACHUMA DAM SANTA BARBARA CO WATER AGENCY MI J2 $45.05 $0.00 590 0 0 590 0 0 I75R-1802R CACHUMA DAM SANTA BARBARA CO WATER AGENCY MI S1 $0.00 $0.00 6,445 0 0 6,445 0 0 I75R-1802R CACHUMA DAM SANTA BARBARA CO WATER AGENCY MI S2 $0.00 $0.00 7 0 0 7 0 0 

TOTALS 25,249 0 0 25,249 0 0 

I75R-1802R CACHUMA DAM SANTA BARBARA CO WATER AGENCY AG J1 $71.94 $0.00 4,856 0 0 4,856 0 0 I75R-1802R CACHUMA DAM SANTA BARBARA CO WATER AGENCY AG J2 $71.32 $0.00 2,061 0 0 2,061 0 0 I75R-1802R CACHUMA DAM SANTA BARBARA CO WATER AGENCY AG S1 $0.00 $0.00 12,803 0 0 12,803 0 0 I75R-1802R CACHUMA DAM SANTA BARBARA CO WATER AGENCY AG S2 $0.00 $0.00 144 0 0 144 0 0 

TOTALS 19,864 0 0 19,864 0 0 

14-06-200-4090R PUTAH SOUTH CANAL SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY AG B1 $2.65 $0.00 139,326 0 0 139,326 269 712.85 14-06-200-4090R PUTAH SOUTH CANAL SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY AG CL $2.65 $0.00 12,368 0 0 12,368 0 0 14-06-200-4090R PUTAH SOUTH CANAL SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY AG Z2 $18.63 $0.00 0 0 0 0 13 242.19 14-06-200-4090R PUTAH SOUTH CANAL SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY AG Z2 $19.45 $0.00 3,865 0 0 3,865 0 0 14-06-200-4090R PUTAH SOUTH CANAL SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY AG Z3 $24.28 $0.00 69 0 0 69 0 0 14-06-200-4090R PUTAH SOUTH CANAL SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY AG Z3 $25.10 $0.00 442 0 0 442 0 0 

TOTALS 156,070 0 0 156,070 282 955.04 

14-06-200-4090R PUTAH SOUTH CANAL SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY MI B1 $18.28 $0.00 15,693 0 0 15,693 0 0 14-06-200-4090R PUTAH SOUTH CANAL SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY MI B1 $15.00 $0.00 27,086 0 0 27,086 0 0 

TOTALS 42,779 0 0 42,779 0 0 

2-07-20-W2185 TULELAKE- P - CANAL INTER-COUNTY PROPERTIES CO AG K1 $2.00 $0.00 500 0 0 500 0 0 

TOTALS 500 0 0 500 0 0 

2-07-20-W2189 TULELAKE- P - CANAL WINEMA HUNT LODGE (HERMAN) AG K1 $2.00 $0.00 300 0 0 300 0 0 

TOTALS 300 0 0 300 0 0
(No. 36556

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, *vs.*Allen J. Clark, Plaintiff in Error.

*Opinion filed September 28, 1962.*

Paul L. Brady, of Chicago, appointed by the court, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O’Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and John T. Gallagher and William L. Carlin, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. Justice House

delivered the opinion of the court:

At a bench trial in the criminal court of Cook County, Allen J. Clark was convicted of the unlawful sale of narcotics and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for a term of 10 years to 10 years and 1 day. Defendant asserts *332that the conviction should be set aside because the evidence shows that he was guilty of unlawful possession but not the unlawful sale of narcotics and because he was entrapped by the police.

The undisputed evidence reveals that officer Thomas Kearns and Jack Bailey, an informer, went to defendant’s apartment and told him they wanted to purchase narcotics. The defendant agreed to sell them some and accepted $20. Officer Kearns and the informer waited at the apartment while defendant went to secure the narcotics. Defendant purchased 5 packages of heroin and returned. There is a dispute as to what happened when defendant returned to the apartment. Officer Kearns and Bailey testified that defendant gave the packages to Kearns, that Kearns went into the kitchenette and performed a field test on the contents of one package and that defendant was then arrested. Defendant testified that when he entered the apartment officer Kearns drew his pistol, arrested him and took the five packages from his pockets.

Defendant argues here, as he did in the trial court, that he is not guilty of unlawfully selling narcotics because he did not deliver or hand the narcotics to officer Kearns or Bailey. The trial judge chose, however, to believe the testimony that defendant voluntarily handed the packages to Kearns before he was arrested. We will not set aside a conviction which depends upon the credibility of the witnesses and weight to be accorded their testimony unless it is necessary to prevent apparent injustice. *(People*v. *Saisi,*24 Ill.2d 274.) This record shows that the trial court was justified in finding defendant guilty of unlawfully selling narcotics.

There is no evidence in the record to support defendant’s assertion that he was entrapped by the police. All the testimony, including that of the defendant, shows that officer Kearns and Bailey merely told defendant they wanted to purchase narcotics and defendant agreed to sell *333some to them. Defendant was not induced by the police to perpetrate a crime which he would not otherwise have committed. See *People*v. *Outten,*13 Ill.2d 21.

The judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 3171.3 Scope.

This subpart applies to all onshore leases of Federal and Indian oil and gas (other than those of the Osage Tribe). It also applies to Indian Mineral Development Act agreements. For proposed operations on a committed State or fee tract in a federally supervised unit or communitized tract, the operator must furnish a copy of the approved State permit to the authorized officer of the BLM which will be accepted for record purposes.
#### Ulster County Savings Institution *v.*Decker.

(Argued May 29, 1878;

decided June 4, 1878.)

Agree to grant motion to correct remittitur so far as that costs abide event, without costs of motion.

No opinion.
#### State of Nebraska, ex rel. Knut B. Holm, v. M. L. Ellsworth, Justice of the Peace.

Filed June 30, 1904.

No. 13,577.

1. Review: New Trial. Where no motion, for a new trial is filed in the district court, errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial will not be examined by this court.

2. Transcript. An offer to confess judgment in a suit before a justice of the peace need not be included in the transcript of sueh proceeding; it is sufficient if such offer be filed and certified to the district court with other papers in the case.

Error to the district court for Saunders county: Samuel H. Sornborger, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*John H. Barry,*for plaintiff in error.

*V. L. Hawthorne, contra.*

Oldham, C.

This is a proceeding in error to review the action of the district court for Saunders county, denying a writ of mandamus. There is no motion for a new trial in the record nor are there any suggestions therein that one was filed in the court below. A motion for a new trial is a *278prerequisite to a review of alleged error, occurring during the progress of the trial in the district court, by this tribunal. It may be incidentally mentioned, however, that on the statements of the petition, the writ was properly denied. The object of the writ as shown by the petition was to compel a justice of the peace to incorporate in his transcript an offer by the defendant in that court to allow judgment to be taken against him in a certain amount. This offer need not be included in the transcript; it is sufficient if in writing signed by the party and filed with the justice at any time before trial. On appeal it should be certified up. This is all that is necessary to have it considered by the district court on the question of costs. *Ossenkop v. Akeson,*15 Neb. 622.

We therefore recommend that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Ames and Letton, CC., concur.

By the Court:

For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.