alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEstimating the Effects of Sensor Spacing on Peak Wind Measurements at Launch Complex 39This paper presents results of an empirical study to estimate the measurement error in the peak wind speed at Shuttle Launch Complex 39 (LC-39) which results from the measurement being made by sensors 1,300 feet away. Quality controlled data taken at a height of 30 feet from an array of sensors at the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) were used to model differences of peak winds as a function of separation distance and time interval. The SLF data covered wind speeds from less than ten to more than 25 knots. Winds measured at the standard LC-39 site at the normal height of 60 feet were used to verify the applicability of the model to the LC-39 situation. The error in the peak wind speed resulting from separation of the sensor from the target site obeys a power law as a function of separation distance and varies linearly with mean wind speed. At large separation distances, the error becomes a constant fraction of the mean wind speed as the separation function reaches an asymptotic value. The asymptotic average of the mean of the absolute difference in the peak wind speed between the two locations is about twelve percent of the mean wind speed. The distribution of the normalized absolute differences is half-Gaussian.Document ID19990036777Acquisition SourceKennedy Space CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMerceret,  Francis J.*(NASA Kennedy Space Center Cocoa Beach, FL United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 31, 1999Subject CategoryMeteorology And ClimatologyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:208544NASA/TM-1999-208544Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19990036777.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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Henry Frederick KRIZANOVIC, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4354.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 30, 2005.

Decided March 1, 2006.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L. Hob-good, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Henry Frederick Krizanovic pled guilty to bank robbery and was sentenced to forty-six months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issues: whether (1) the district court erred by failing to grant a downward departure for diminished capacity under *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 5K2.13 (2004), p.s., and, (2) the sentence was reasonable under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738,160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

First, a district court’s failure to grant a downward departure is not reviewable unless a district court was under the mistaken impression that it lacked the authority to depart. *United States v. Matthews,*209 F.3d 338, 352 (4th Cir.2000). Here there is no indication in the record that the district court misunderstood its authority. Second, we find that Krizanovie’s forty-six month sentence, imposed at the bottom of his properly calculated Guideline range, and after the court considered the factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 *&*Supp.2005), was reasonable. *See United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005); *see also United States v.*
      *759
      *Shannon,*414 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir.2005) (stating that a “sentence imposed ... consistent with the now-advisory guidelines ... is generally indicative *of*reasonableness.”).

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of *Anders,*and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
### PART V—SHIPOWNERS' PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOCIATIONS

Sec.
526.
Shipowners' protection and indemnity associations.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1969**—Pub. L. 91–172, title I, §101(a), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 492, substituted "PART V" for "PART IV" as part designation.
### §601. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 9, 1946, ch. 933, §1, 60 Stat. 968, which related to preparation of a tribal membership roll, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
Exhibit 10.1(b)



Certification



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Kookmin Bank, a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



|Dated: June 17, 2003 |  | /S/ JONG KYOO YOON          
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                     |  |                             
|                     |  | Jong Kyoo Yoon              
|                     |  | Executive Vice President and
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer     







---



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Kookmin Bank and will be retained by Kookmin Bank and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-60885-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt

BRANDON THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FORT LAUDERDALE LAW GROUP 

SOUTH, PLLC,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER OF REFERRAL

The parties have filed a Motion to Approve FLSA Settlement Agreement and Dismissal with 

Prejudice (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 63]. This case involves an FLSA Settlement Agreement, which 

the Court must scrutinize to determine whether it is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide

dispute. See Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 679 F.2d 1350, 1354–55 (11th Cir. 

1982). To resolve this matter justly and efficiently, the Court hereby 

ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this matter is REFERRED to United States Magistrate 

Judge Patrick M. Hunt for a fairness hearing (if necessary) and a Report and Recommendation on 

any dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Magistrate Judge Rule 1.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 18th day of March 2021.

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-60885-RKA Document 64 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/18/2021 Page 1 of 1
|   | Certification of Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|------------------------------------------|

|   | I, Lorelle L. Fritsch, certify that: |
|--------|--------------------------------------|

| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. (this “Report”) for the period ended December 31, 2009; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BANK UNITED, FSB FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,095
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          69,323
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     78,098
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          47,706
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,049,661
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,329,044
<DEPOSITS>                                     506,106
<SHORT-TERM>                                   288,484
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,464
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         36
<COMMON>                                            79
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,040
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,329,044
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,616
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,875
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                19,491
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,882
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,387
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,104
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      250
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,621
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,621
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.88
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,558
<LOANS-PAST>                                        52
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,691
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,158
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      303
<RECOVERIES>                                        12
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,891
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 HIGH

 505

 510

 378

 367

 336

 356

 332

 348

 334

 352

 343

 447

 484

 510

 526

 542

 554

 556

 572

 588

 578

 582

 584

 589

 577

 579

 574

 395

 385

 365

 377

 490

 384

 342

 329

 315

 314

 302

 315

 305

 316

 305

 344

 452

 481

 509

 524

 536

 540

 555

 573

 569

 564

 576

 574

 568

 572

 404

 354

 344

 333

 336

 496

 466

 353

 352

 323

 340

 310

 337

 314

 338

 319

 395

 474

 495

 519

 530

 545

 546

 562

 582

 573

 573

 581

 582

 573

 576

 519

 364

 369

 345

 362

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 4, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 12,087

 12,264

 12,289

 12,315

 12,372

 12,441

 12,466

 12,520

 12,536

 12,591

 12,627

 12,689

 12,751

 12,817

 12,906

 12,997

 13,096

 13,203

 13,312

 13,431

 13,534

 13,637

 13,737

 13,839

 13,935

 14,028

 14,053

 13,923

 13,801

 13,651

 13,517

 403

 409

 410

 411

 412

 415

 416

 417

 418

 420

 421

 423

 425

 427

 430

 433

 437

 440

 444

 448

 451

 455

 458

 461

 465

 468

 468

 464

 460

 455

 451

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
§ 3137.92 When does a participating area terminate? ( a ) After contraction under § 3137.76 of this subpart, a participating area terminates 60 calendar days after BLM notifies you that there is insufficient production to meet the operating costs of that production, unless you show that within 60 calendar days after BLM's notification— ( 1 ) Your operations to restore or establish new production are in progress; and
( 2 ) You are diligently pursuing oil or gas production.
( b ) If you demonstrate to BLM that reasons beyond your control prevent you, despite reasonable diligence, from meeting the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section within 60 calendar days after BLM notifies you that there is insufficient production to meet the operating costs of that production, BLM will extend the period of time to start those operations.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant To**

**Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraLink Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,John H. Elms, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify tothe best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periodspresented therein.
| /s/   JOHN  H. ELMS     |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| John H. Elms                           |
| President and  Chief Executive Officer |
| November 9,  2006                 |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to SpectraLink Corporation and will beretained by SpectraLink Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompaniesthis report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, isnot deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of SpectraLink Corporation under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether madebefore or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.

----
Second Department,

February, 1949.

(February 2, 1949.)

#### Abraham Schultz et al., Respondents, v. Morris Simon, Appellant.

Present — Nolan, ■ P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. [See *post,*p. 669.]
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

 

 

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officerof Gladstone Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies on the datehereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofThe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended September 30, 2004 (“Form 10-K”), filed concurrently herewith by theCompany, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the informationcontained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: December 14, 2004

 
| /s/ Harry Brill         |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Harry Brill             |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

 

 

----
§ 3832.33 How do I locate a mill site? ( a ) You may locate a mill site in the same manner as a lode or placer mining claim, except that— ( 1 ) It must be on land that is not mineral-in-character; and
( 2 ) You must use or occupy each two and a half acre portion of a mill site in order for that portion of the mill site to be valid.
( b ) If the United States does not own the surface estate of a particular parcel of land, you may not locate a mill site on that land under the General Mining Law or the Stockraising Homestead Act (see part 3838 of this chapter).
#### § 4.1355 Burden of proof.

OSM shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case and the ultimate burden of persuasion as to the existence of a demonstrated pattern of willful violations of such nature and duration with such resulting irreparable damage to the environment as to indicate an intent not to comply with the Act, its implementing regulations, the regulatory program, or the permit.

[67 FR 61511, Oct. 1, 2002]
§ 4.606 What fees and expenses may be allowed? ( a ) If the criteria in §§ 4.603 through 4.605 are met, you may receive an award under this subpart only for the fees and expenses of your attorney(s) and expert witness(es).
( b ) The adjudicative officer must base an award on rates customarily charged by persons engaged in the business of acting as attorneys and expert witnesses, even if the services were made available to you without charge or at a reduced rate. ( 1 ) The maximum that can be awarded for the fee of an attorney is $125 per hour.
( 2 ) The maximum that can be awarded for the fee of an expert witness is the highest rate at which the Department or other agency pays expert witnesses with similar expertise.
( 3 ) An award may also include the reasonable expenses of the attorney or expert witness as a separate item, if the attorney or expert witness ordinarily charges clients separately for those expenses.
( c ) The adjudicative officer may award only reasonable fees and expenses under this subpart. In determining the reasonableness of the fee for an attorney or expert witness, the adjudicative officer must consider the following: ( 1 ) If the attorney or expert witness is in private practice, his or her customary fee for similar services;
( 2 ) If the attorney or expert witness is your employee, the fully allocated cost of the services;
( 3 ) The prevailing rate for similar services in the community in which the attorney or expert witness ordinarily performs services;
( 4 ) The time actually spent in representing you in the proceeding;
( 5 ) The time reasonably spent in light of the difficulty or complexity of the issues in the proceeding; and
( 6 ) Any other factors that bear on the value of the services provided.
( d ) The adjudicative officer may award the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, project, or similar matter prepared on your behalf to the extent that: ( 1 ) The charge for the service does not exceed the prevailing rate for similar services; and
( 2 ) The study or other matter was necessary for preparation of your case.
§ 404.50 What information will be included in the feasibility report prepared by Reclamation. The feasibility report prepared by Reclamation will include: ( a ) Reclamation's finding as to whether the proposed rural water supply project is feasible and the reasons supporting that determination;
( b ) A recommendation to Congress regarding whether or not the proposed rural water supply project should be authorized for construction, and the reasons supporting the recommendation. This recommendation will be based on Reclamation's review of the feasibility study and its application of the criteria set forth in § 404.49; and
( c ) If the rural water supply project is recommended for construction, the feasibility report will also include: ( 1 ) The appropriate Federal and non-Federal share of the capital construction costs for the project and for projects involving multiple project sponsors, the portion of those costs allocated to each project sponsor;
( 2 ) What amount of grants, loan guarantees, or combination of grants and loan guarantees should constitute the Federal share of the project;
( 3 ) The annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs, and the portion of those costs allocated to each project sponsor participating in the rural water supply project; and
( 4 ) An assessment of the financial capability of each project sponsor participating in the rural water supply project to pay the portion of the construction and operation, maintenance, and replacement costs allocated to it.
### **CHAPTER 14—SPECIAL VALUATION RULES**

Sec.
2701.
Special valuation rules in case of transfers of certain interests in corporations or partnerships.
2702.
Special valuation rules in case of transfers of interests in trusts.
2703.
Certain rights and restrictions disregarded.
2704.
Treatment of certain lapsing rights and restrictions.
### Subpart A—Contributions to a Partnership

Sec.
721.
Nonrecognition of gain or loss on contribution.
722.
Basis of contributing partner's interest.
723.
Basis of property contributed to partnership.
724.
Character of gain or loss on contributed unrealized receivables, inventory items, and capital loss property.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title I, §74(c), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 593, added item 724.