alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe modeling of piezoceramic patch interactions with shells, plates and beamsGeneral models describing the interactions between a pair of piezoceramic patches and elastic substructures consisting of a cylindrical shell, plate and beam are presented. In each case, the manner in which the patch loads enter both the strong and weak forms of the time-dependent structural equations of motion is described. Through force and moment balancing, these loads are then determined in terms of material properties of the patch and substructure (thickness, elastic properties, Poisson ratios), the geometry of the patch placement, and the voltages into the patches. In the case of the shell, the coupling between banding and inplane deformations, which is due to the curvature, is retained. These models are sufficiently general to allow for potentially different patch voltages which implies that they can be suitably employed when using piezoceramic patches for controlling system dynamics when both extensional and bending vibrations are present.Document ID19930007422Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsBanks, H. T.*(Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering Hampton, VA, United States)*Smith, R. C.*(Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1992Subject CategorySystems AnalysisReport/Patent NumberICASE-92-66NAS 1.26:189740AD-A260939NASA-CR-189740Accession Number93N16611Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-90-52-01CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-19480CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-18605Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930007422.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
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.554 Exclusion of textile or apparel goods for intentional circumvention. ( a ) *General.* If CITA finds that an enterprise of Singapore has knowingly or willfully engaged in circumvention, CBP will, if directed by CITA, exclude from the customs territory of the United States textile or apparel goods produced or exported by that enterprise for a period no longer than the applicable period described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Time periods.* An exclusion from entry imposed under paragraph (a) of this section will begin on the date a finding of knowing or willful circumvention is made by CITA and will remain in effect for the following applicable time period: ( 1 ) With respect to a first finding, the applicable period is six months;
( 2 ) With respect to a second finding, the applicable period is two years; or
( 3 ) With respect to a third or subsequent finding, the applicable period is two years. If, at the time of a third or subsequent finding, an exclusion of goods with respect to an enterprise is in effect as a result of a previous finding, the two-year period applicable to the third or subsequent finding will begin on the day after the day on which the previous exclusion period terminates.
#### § 182.121 General.

Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, all criminal, civil, or administrative penalties which may be imposed on U.S. importers, exporters, and producers for violations of the customs and related U.S. laws and regulations will also apply to U.S. importers, exporters, and producers for violations of the U.S. laws and regulations relating to the USMCA.
#### Victor LOPEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 01-70267.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*692Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 29, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Victor Manuel LopezAMendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a.1 Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence. *See Kazlauskas v. INS,*46 F.3d 902, 905 (9th Cir.1995). We deny the petition.

Lopez-Mendoza, a former member of the military, testified that he feared persecution from guerrillas, but that he left his home province before any guerrillas tried to recruit him. Because forced recruitment by guerrillas, without more, does not amount to persecution, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s order denying LopezAMendoza’s application for asylum. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481-82, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Because Lopez-Mendoza has not satisfied the standard required for a grant of asylum, he has failed to meet the higher standard for withholding of deportation. *See Aruta v. INS,*80 F.3d 1389, 1396 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Pursuant to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("HRIRA”), the transitional rules apply, *see Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1997), and we therefore have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), as amended by IIRIRA § 309(c), *see Avetova-Elisseva v. INS,*213 F.3d 1192, 1195 n. 4 (9th Cir.2000).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William L. HANDY, Jr., Appellant.

No. 02-3002.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 8, 2002.

Before HENDERSON, RANDOLPH, and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 20, 2001, be affirmed. The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Handy’s challenge to the denial of his motion to revoke the detention order because Handy filed his notice of appeal more than 10 days after the order denying that motion was entered. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1). Moreover, the district court properly denied Handy’s motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to revoke because the new evidence cited in the motion was insufficient to overcome the findings that Handy is a flight risk and poses a danger to the community. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). In particular, the district court was entitled to *2credit the government’s interpretation of the evidence as showing that Goodman failed to mention Handy in his post-arrest statement because the interview focused on the roles of unindicted co-conspirators; that Handy did not maintain electronic records of drug transactions because Handy consistently had guarded the secrecy of his alleged drug trafficking; that Handy’s attempt to recover his van after it was seized in Frederick, Maryland is attributable to convincing cover stories by the surveillance agent in California and the officer who arrested him in Frederick; and that Handy’s attempt to recover the van demonstrates that Handy’s purpose in traveling to Washington, D.C. was to distribute cocaine rather than to sightsee. The district court was not required to make findings of fact and state the reasons for denying Handy’s motion to reopen the detention proceeding. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).

Finally, regarding Handy’s claim that the duration of his detention offends due process, because he failed to raise this argument before the district court, the court will not consider it on appeal. *See District of Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc.,*750 F.2d 1077, 1078-79 (D.C.Cir.1984).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing *en banc. See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
§ 158.5 Deficiencies in contents of packages—general. An allowance shall be made in the assessment of duties for deficiencies in the contents of packages when, before the liquidation of the entry becomes final, the importer files: ( a ) In the case of a concealed shortage, a Customs Form 5931, in triplicate, executed by the importer alone, and the Center director is satisfied as to the validity of the claim; or,
( b ) In the case of an unconcealed shortage, a Customs Form 5931, in triplicate, executed by both the importer and the importing or bonded carrier, as appropriate.
[T.D. 72-258, 37 FR 20171, Sept. 27, 1972, as amended by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93023, Dec. 20, 2016
]
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131745 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131745 COA: 261557 Wayne CC: 04-008323-01 LABARON ALEXANDER DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 15, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23216-UU

CARLOS TOLEDO,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C4 PLANNING SOLUTIONS, LCC,

Defendant. 

 /

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of 

Deadlines Related to Initial Planning and Scheduling Conference, Settlement Conference (the 

“Motion”). D.E. 15. The Court having considered the Motion and the pertinent portions of the 

record and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion (D.E. 15) is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. The Initial Planning and Scheduling Conference is hereby RESET to Friday, 

October 30, 2020 at 10 a.m. In addition, the parties SHALL file a Joint Planning and Scheduling 

Report no later than Friday, October 16, 2020. The Motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks to 

enlarge the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim and to reschedule the 

settlement conference.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _22d_ day of September, 

2020.

__________________________________

URSULA UNGARO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-23216-UU Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 1 of 2
Copies furnished:

All counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-23216-UU Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 2 of 2
No. 13,015.

#### Williams, Administrator, *v.*Continental Oil Company.

(21 P. [2d] 1119)

Decided May 8, 1933.

Messrs. Webster, West & Death, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Hughes & Dorsey, Mr. W. Clayton Carpenter, Mr. Montgomery Dorsey, for defendant in erroi

Judgment affirmed in department without written opinion, Mr. Chief Justice Adams, Mr. Justice Butler and Mr. Justice Moore participating.
### §1611. Exempt organizations

An organization described in section 501(c)(4) of title 26 which engages in lobbying activities shall not be eligible for the receipt of Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.

(Pub. L. 104–65, §18, Dec. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 703; Pub. L. 104–99, title I, §129(a), Jan. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 34.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–99 substituted "award, grant, or loan" for "award, grant, contract, loan, or any other form".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–99, title I, §129(b), Jan. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 34, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect as if included in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 [Pub. L. 104–65] on the date of the enactment of such Act [Dec. 19, 1995]."

[For provision that notwithstanding section 106 of Pub. L. 104–99 [110 Stat. 27], section 129 of Pub. L. 104–99 [see above] to remain in effect as if enacted as part of Pub. L. 104–134, see section 21103 of Pub. L. 104–134, set out as a note following note captioned 501 First Street SE., District of Columbia; Disposal of Real Property, under section 2001 of this title].

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, see section 24 of Pub. L. 104–65, set out as a note under section 1601 of this title.
§ 19.21 Smelting and refining in separate establishments. ( a ) If the operations of smelting and refining are not carried on in the same establishment, the smelted and unrefined products obtained from the smelting of imported materials in a bonded smelting warehouse may be removed therefrom for shipment to a bonded refining warehouse located at the same or another port under the general procedure for transfer from one bonded warehouse to another.
( b ) When the transfer is to a bonded refining warehouse located at another port, the smelted and unrefined products or bullion obtained from the smelting of the imported material shall be weighed, sampled, and assayed before withdrawal, the sampling to be performed under Government supervision in accordance with § 19.4 and the commercial practice in effect at the plant. A report of sampling, weight, and assay of transferred material shall be maintained for 5 years after liquidation of the warehouse entry.
( c ) The withdrawal for transportation shall show the gross weight of the smelted and unrefined products withdrawn, the weight of the dutiable metal contained therein, the wastage applicable thereto and the duties properly chargeable on the withdrawn products as shown by the import entry.
( d ) The rewarehouse entry covering the smelted and unrefined products at the bonded refining warehouse to which they are transferred shall be made out in accordance with the weights and duties shown on the withdrawal for transportation.
( e ) Upon withdrawal of the metal from the bonded refining warehouse for export, the warehouse account of the refining warehouse shall be credited with the amount of metal so withdrawn, plus the refining wastage prescribed for said refining warehouse, plus the smelting wastage prescribed for the bonded smelting warehouse in which the smelted and unrefined products were produced, together with the amount of any dutiable metals entirely lost in the smelting or refining, or both. However, when the metal is withdrawn for consumption, duty shall be collected on an amount of metal-bearing materials in their condition as imported equivalent to that from which such metal would be producible. No allowance for either smelting or refining wastage shall be permitted, except where the metal is withdrawn from a Customs warehouse other than a bonded smelting and refining warehouse.
[28 FR 14763, Dec. 31, 1963, as amended by T.D. 82-204, 47 FR 49374, Nov. 1, 1982; T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41170, Oct. 19, 1984]
Exhibit 24.1


                            FREEPORT-McMoRan SULPHUR INC.

                               SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE

               I, Michael C. Kilanowski, Jr., Secretary of Freeport-McMoRan
          Sulphur Inc.  (the  "Corporation", a  Delaware  corporation,  do
          hereby certify that the following resolution was duly adopted  by
          the Board of Directors  of the Corporation at  a meeting held  on
          February 2, 1998, and that such resolution has not been  amended,
          modified or rescinded and is in full force and effect:

                    RESOLVED,  that   any  report,   registration
                    statement or other  form filed  on behalf  of
                    this corporation pursuant  to the  Securities
                    Exchange Act  of 1934,  or any  amendment  to
                    such report, registration statement or  other
                    form, may be signed on behalf of any director
                    or officer of this corporation pursuant to  a
                    power of attorney  executed by such  director
                    or officer.

               IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I have  hereunto  signed my  name  and
          affixed the seal  of the Company  on this the 24th day of  March,
          1998.


                                           /s/ Michael C. Kilanowski, Jr. 
                                           ------------------------------
                                              Michael C. Kilanowski, Jr.
                                                     Secretary
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Herbert E. Sayers, Deceased. John D. Harrington, as Executor of Herbert E. Sayers, Deceased, et al., Appellants; Jessie V. Bolger, Respondent.

Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [190 Misc. 976.]
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle, IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. III-01-055 November 30, 2001

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

 Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov

 NRC SEEKS COMMENTS ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL

STATEMENT ON DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES; MEETING DEC. 6

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comments on its draft Supplement

1 to the ìFinal Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,

NUREG-0586.î The agency will hold a public meeting in Chicago on December 6 to discuss the

document.

The meeting will be in The Drake Hotel, 140 East Walton Place, Chicago, from 7 to 10 p.m. 

Additionally, NRC staff will host informal discussions for one hour beginning at 6 p.m. prior to the

start of the formal comment session. The informal discussion will not be part of the formal comment

record. The Chicago meeting is one of a series of meetings being held throughout the United States to

discuss the draft supplement.

At the meeting, the contents of the draft supplement to the GEIS will be presented and

interested parties will be given an opportunity to provide comments.

Persons planning to attend or present oral comments at the meeting should contact Dino

Scaletti at 800-368-5642 (toll-free), extension 1104, or by e-mail at dgeis@nrc.gov. Members of the

public also may register to speak at the meeting prior to the start of the session. Individual oral

comments may be limited by the time available, depending upon the number of persons who register.

The supplement was prepared because of technological advances in decommissioning

operations, experience gained with shut down plants, and changes made to the NRC regulations since

the GEIS was first published. It is a stand-alone document to be used to evaluate environmental

impacts during decommissioning, which could lead to termination of the NRC license.

The draft report is available electronically through the NRCís Public Electronic Reading Room

at http:// www.nrc.gov as an Agencywide Document Access and Management Systems (ADAMS)

document. Use the online ìfindî function to search for accession number ML013090364. It is

available at the NRCís Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland. For help in accessing ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room staff

at 800-397-4209 (toll-free), 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

# # #
Memorandum to File 

Subject: Communications between EPA and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

(SRPMIC) and Phoenix Cement Company (PCC) on Reasonable Progress FIP 

From: Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, Air Division 

To: File 

Date: June 13, 2014 

Participants: 

SRPMIC: President Diane Enos 

PCC: Verle Martz 

EPA: Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, Air Division 

 

Summary: There was an exchange of emails, followed by a letter from President Enos, 

presenting SRPMIC and PCC’s views on the two compliance options (lb/ton and annual tonnage 

limit) and how the flexibility of those two options should be stated in the FIP, and implemented 

post 2018. 

Materials: May 22, 2014, Letter from President Diane Enos, SRPMIC, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Region 9 Administrator with 5/14/14, 5/12/14, 5/6/14, and 5/1/14 emails between Colleen 

McKaughan, EPA, and, Verle Martz, PCC attached 

Email from Colleen McKaughan, EPA, to Verle Martz, PCC, on 5/30/14
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

SHAWN LA VELLE ROLLINS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

-------------------------------------- 

THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 

FOR THE DISTRICTS OF COLORADO 

AND WYOMING, 

 Amicus Curiae. 

No. 15-1459 

(D.C. Nos. 1:15-CV-02489-REB and 

1:06-CR-00240-REB-1) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This matter comes on for consideration of the government’s Unopposed Motion 

for Summary Affirmance, in which the government moves for summary affirmance of the 

district court’s sentencing determination in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Beckles v. United States, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2017 WL 855781 (March 6, 2017). Defendant 

Shawn La Velle Rollins does not oppose the motion. 

 

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of 

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 27, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Upon consideration thereof, the motion is granted. The judgment of the district 

court is affirmed. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam
#### § 200.735-123 Effect of employees' and special Government employees' statements on other requirements.

The statements of employment and financial interests and supplementary statements required of employees and special Government employees are in addition to, and not in substitution for, or in derogation of, any similar requirement imposed by law, order, or regulation. The submission of a statement or supplementary statement by an employee or special Government employee does not permit him or any other person to participate in a matter which his or the other person's participation in is prohibited by law, order, or regulation.