alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSupersonic through-flow fan engine and aircraft mission performanceA study was made to evaluate potential improvement to a commercial supersonic transport by powering it with supersonic through-flow fan turbofan engines. A Mach 3.2 mission was considered. The three supersonic fan engines considered were designed to operate at bypass ratios of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 at supersonic cruise. For comparison a turbine bypass turbojet was included in the study. The engines were evaluated on the basis of aircraft takeoff gross weight with a payload of 250 passengers for a fixed range of 5000 N.MI. The installed specific fuel consumption of the supersonic fan engines was 7 to 8 percent lower than that of the turbine bypass engine. The aircraft powered by the supersonic fan engines had takeoff gross weights 9 to 13 percent lower than aircraft powered by turbine bypass engines.Document ID19900011722Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsFranciscus, Leo C.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Maldonado, Jaime J.*(Puerto Rico Univ. Mayaguez., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1989Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:102304E-4991NASA-TM-102304AIAA PAPER 89-2139Meeting InformationMeeting: Aircraft Design, Systems, and Operations ConferenceLocation: Seattle, WACountry: United StatesStart Date: July 31, 1989End Date: August 2, 1989Sponsors:ASEE,AHS,AIAAAccession Number90N21038Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-69-61Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900011722.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
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-56 July 25, 2000

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING NEAR PEACH BOTTOM NUCLEAR PLANT

ON CHANGES IN REACTOR OVERSIGHT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a public meeting for Tuesday, August 1, in

Delta, Pa., to discuss the agency’s new reactor oversight process. PECO Energy’s Peach Bottom

Atomic Power Station is located in Delta, Pa.

The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. at the Peach Bottom Inn, 6085 Delta Road (at the corner of

Routes 74 and 851). Members of the public will have the opportunity to ask questions of NRC staff

during and after the meeting.

The new oversight process, which began at Peach Bottom in April, uses more objective, timely

and safety-significant criteria in assessing performance while seeking to more effectively and

efficiently regulate the industry. Under the new process, inspections by NRC resident inspectors and

regional office-based personnel are supplemented by statistical measures of plant activities called

performance indicators. These performance indicators measure important safety aspects of plant

operations, including the viability of redundant safety systems, emergency planning, radiation

protection and security measures.

Inspection findings and performance indicators for each nuclear power plant are posted on the

NRC’s web site every three months. The safety significance of each inspection finding or performance

indicator is characterized by a color -- green, white, yellow or red.

The NRC response to the inspection finding and performance indicators will be based on the

significance of the items. A green finding receives normal NRC oversight, while white, yellow or red

assessments receive increasing NRC involvement. Multiple red findings could result in a plant

shutdown.

A plain language summary of the reactor oversight process is available from the NRC Office of

Public Affairs or on the web site at: www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm . Detailed information regarding

the reactor oversight process is available on the web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html

#
|    |                                                                                                                |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   | /s/ Phillip W. Roe |
|   | Phillip W. Roe |
|   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer |
### §609. Employee training

#### (a) In general

The Director of the Congressional Budget Office may, by regulation, make applicable such provisions of chapter 41 of title 5 as the Director determines necessary to provide on and after November 12, 2001, for training of individuals employed by the Congressional Budget Office.

#### (b) Regulations

The implementing regulations shall provide for training that, in the determination of the Director, is consistent with the training provided by agencies subject to chapter 41 of title 5.

#### (c) Recovery of debt

Any recovery of debt owed to the Congressional Budget Office under this section and its implementing regulations shall be credited to the appropriations account available for salaries and expenses of the Office at the time of recovery.

#### (d) Applicability

This section shall apply to fiscal year 2002 and each fiscal year thereafter.

(Pub. L. 107–68, title I, §125, Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 577.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Congressional Operations Appropriations Act, 2002, which is title I of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002, and not as part of title II of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 789 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.789

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two

                                 An Act

 
          To repeal certain obsolete laws relating to Indians.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Repealing Existing Substandard 
Provisions Encouraging Conciliation with Tribes Act'' or the ``RESPECT 
Act''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE LAWS RELATING TO INDIANS.
        (1) Section 2080 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 72) is 
    repealed.
        (2) Section 2100 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 127) is 
    repealed.
        (3) Section 2 of the Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 449, 
    chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 128), is repealed.
        (4) The first section of the Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 
    424, chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 129), is amended under the heading 
    ``CHEYENNES AND ARAPAHOES.'' by striking ``; that the Secretary of 
    the Interior be authorized to withhold, from any tribe of Indians 
    who may hold any captives other than Indians, any moneys due them 
    from the United States until said captives shall be surrendered to 
    the lawful authorities of the United States''.
        (5) Section 2087 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 130) is 
    repealed.
        (6) Section 3 of the Act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 449, 
    chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 137), is repealed.
        (7) Section 2101 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 138) is 
    repealed.
        (8) Section 7 of the Act of June 23, 1879 (21 Stat. 35, chapter 
    35; 25 U.S.C. 273), is repealed.
        (9) The first section of the Act of March 3, 1893 (27 Stat. 
    612, chapter 209), is amended--
            (A) under the heading ``MISCELLANEOUS SUPPORTS.'' (27 Stat. 
        628; 25 U.S.C. 283), by striking the last 2 undesignated 
        paragraphs; and
            (B) under the heading ``FOR SUPPORT OF SCHOOLS.'' (27 Stat. 
        635; 25 U.S.C. 283), by striking the second undesignated 
        paragraph.
        (10) Section 18 of the Act of June 30, 1913 (38 Stat. 96, 
    chapter 4; 25 U.S.C. 285), is amended by striking the tenth 
    undesignated paragraph.
        (11) The Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 325, chapter 3504), is 
    amended under the heading ``commissioner.'' under the heading ``I. 
    GENERAL PROVISIONS.'' (34 Stat. 328; 25 U.S.C. 302) by striking the 
    fourth undesignated paragraph.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
### §61. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 61 was editorially reclassified as section 4574 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 142
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 142.16 Entry summary documentation. ( a ) *Entry summary not filed at time of entry.* When the entry documentation is filed in paper before the entry summary documentation, one copy of the entry document and the commercial invoice, or the documentation filed in place of a commercial invoice in the instances listed in § 141.83(d) of this chapter, will be returned to the importer after CBP authorizes release of the merchandise. Entry documentation may also be transmitted electronically to the CBP Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) or any other CBP-authorized electronic data interchange system. The importer may use these documents in preparing the entry summary, CBP Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, and must file them with the entry summary documentation within the time period stated in § 142.12(b). The entry summary documentation also must include any other documentation required for a particular shipment unless a bond for missing documentation is on file, as provided in § 141.66 of this chapter.
( b ) *Entry summary filed at time of entry.* When the entry summary documentation is filed or transmitted electronically at time of entry, the documentation listed in § 142.3 must be filed at the same time, except that CBP Form 3461 or 7533, or their electronic equivalents, will not be required. The importer also must file any additional invoice required for a particular shipment.
[CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61289, Oct. 13, 2015]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA prototype automatic phase compensation moduleThe growing demands for high gain and accurate satellite communication systems will necessitate the utilization of large reflector systems. One area of concern of reflector based satellite communication is large scale surface deformations due to thermal effects. These distortions, when present, can degrade the performance of the reflector system appreciable. This performance degradation is manifested by a decrease in peak gain, and increase in sidelobe level, and pointing errors. It is essential to compensate for these distortion effects and to maintain the required system performance in the operating space environment. For this reason the development of a technique to offset the degradation effects is highly desirable. Currently, most research is direct at developing better material for the reflector. These materials have a lower coefficient of linear expansion thereby reducing the surface errors. Alternatively, one can minimize the distortion effects of these large scale errors by adaptive phased array compensation. Adaptive phased array techniques have been studied extensively at NASA and elsewhere. Presented in this paper is a prototype automatic phase compensation module designed and built at NASA Lewis Research Center which is the first stage of development for an adaptive array compensation module.Document ID19930007427Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsTerry, John D.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1992Subject CategoryElectronics And Electrical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberE-7441NASA-TM-105930NAS 1.15:105930Accession Number93N16616Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 307-51-00Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930007427.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 DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-61360-BLOOM/Reid

ALAN KEITH HOUCHEN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFFS

OFFICE, et al,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER 

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiff is 

currently incarcerated and is proceeding pro se. As a result, this case was automatically referred 

to Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid pursuant to Administrative Order 2019-2. ECF No. [2].

Plaintiff filed a complaint on July 7, 2020 asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 

[1] (“Complaint”). Upon review, the Complaint contains allegations that are duplicative of the 

allegations at issue in Case No. 20-cv-61158-UU. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Court WITHDRAWS the reference, ECF No. [2].

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative of Case No. 20-cv-61158-UU.

Plaintiff may continue his litigation in that case.

3. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, 

all pending motions are DENIED as moot, and all deadlines are TERMINATED.

4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

Case 0:20-cv-61360-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2020 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 19-cv-62747-BLOOM/Reid

2

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 17, 2020.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Alan Keith Houchen

131901805

Paul Rein Detention Facility

Inmate Mail/Parcels

2421 NW 16 Street

Pompano Beach, FL 33069

Case 0:20-cv-61360-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2020 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2002 of Synagro Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
J. Paul Withrow, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company and that, except as set forth below, the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934:

                 During August 2002, the Company announced that it had dismissed
         Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") as the Company's independent
         accountants. The Company has appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as
         the Company's independent accountants to replace Andersen. Because of
         delays in receiving the predecessor accountant's work papers,
         PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has not yet completed its review of the
         Company's interim financial statements for the quarter ended June 30,
         2002 in accordance with the procedures set forth in Statement on
         Auditing Standards 71.


                                                          /s/ J. PAUL WITHROW
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        J. Paul Withrow
                                                        August 14, 2002
### SUBCHAPTER I—NATIONAL RECORDING REGISTRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-23257-CIV-CANNON/Otazo-Reyes

DALIA MIRANDA,

on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

FINAL JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Court’s Order Approving Class Settlement 

[ECF No. 45]. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order Approving Class Settlement, judgment is 

entered in accordance with the Order Approving Class Settlement in this case and 

Plaintiff’s released claims asserted against Defendant.

2. All released parties in this action are dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any party, 

except as otherwise provided in Order Approving Class Settlement in this case or in the 

settlement agreement.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 

4. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Pierce, Florida this 20th day of September 2021.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-23257-AMC Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2021 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23

Independent Auditors' Consent


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
Alliance Bancorp of New England, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-39645 and No. 333-89869) on Form S-8 of Alliance Bancorp of New England,
Inc. of our report dated January 28, 2003 on the consolidated balance sheets of
Alliance Bancorp of New England, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002
and 2001, and the related consolidated income statements, consolidated
statements of changes in shareholders' equity and consolidated statements of
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K
of Alliance Bancorp of New England, Inc.

/s/ KPMG
---------------------

Hartford, Connecticut
March 27, 2003
#### § 122.95 Other provisions.

Part 18 of this chapter (Transportation in Bond and Merchandise in Transit) applies to the transportation of merchandise under this subpart unless stated otherwise.
#### Benjamin J. ROTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and Arvin J. Klein, Defendant.

No. 01-55661.

D.C. No. CV-99-02269-JTM/JAH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 29, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Benjamin J. Roth appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging discrimination in the termination of his worker’s compensation benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), *Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.,*143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it had jurisdiction to review the Office of Worker’s Compensation Program’s decision to terminate Roth’s benefits under the Worker’s Compensation Act because jurisdiction exists where an agency is charged with violating a clear statutory mandate or prohibition. *See Sheehan v. United States,*896 F.2d 1168, 1174 (9th Cir.), *amended by*917 F.2d 424 (9th Cir.1990) (order).

The district court properly dismissed Roth’s Title VII claims against the United States Department of Labor because Roth was not an employee of that agency. *Cf. Ward v. EEOC,*719 F.2d 311, 313 (9th Cir.1983). Roth’s remaining discrimination contentions lack merit because Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employee discrimination claims. *See Vinieratos v. United States,*939 F.2d 762, 773 (9th Cir.1991).

Roth’s remaining contentions regarding 33 U.S.C. § 931(c), consent to magistrate jurisdiction, and oral argument in the district court lack merit.

*699The Clerk shall file Roth’s additional citations, received by this court on November 19, 2001.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.