alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNASA flight electronics environmental stress screening surveyData compiled by the Institute of Environmental Sciences were used to establish guidelines for identifying defective, abnormal, or marginal parts as well as manufacturing defects. These data are augmented with other available sources of similar information in conjunction with NASA centers' data and presented in a form that may be useful to all NASA centers in planning and developing effective environmental stress screens. Information relative to thermal and vibration screens as the most effective methods for surfacing latent failures in electronic equipment at the component level is considered.Document ID19840013934Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMarian, E. J.*(Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst. of Tech. Pasadena, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1983Subject CategoryEnergy Production And ConversionReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-173472NAS 1.26:173472JPL-PUB-83-76Accession Number84N22002Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840013934.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
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-1206 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Cooperation 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and SWEDEN 

Signed at Stockholm and Washington 

November 23 and December 6, 2005 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
SWEDEN 

Defense: Cooperation 

Agreement signed at Stockholm and Washington 

 November 23 and December 6, 2005; 

 Entered into force December 6, 2005.
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 29, 2014

N o s . 04

- 13

- 00242

- CR & 04

- 13

- 00243

- CR

James Michael CHIN

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No s . 2012CR5328 & 2011CR7140

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The court has considered the Appellan t ’ s Motion for En Banc Reconsideration, and the

motion is DENIED.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 29th day of January, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 1203.735-404 Time and place of submission, and forms. ( a ) An employee or special Government employee shall submit a statement to the Counselor (in the case of a State employee, through the employee's Bureau) no later than: ( 1 ) Ninety days after the effective date of this part if the employee has entered on duty on or before that effective date; or
( 2 ) At least 10 days prior to entrance on duty, if the employee enters on duty after that effective date; except that an employee or special Government employee who enters on duty within 90 days of the effective date of this part may submit such statement within 90 days after entrance on duty.
( b ) Only the original of the statement or supplement thereto required by this part shall be submitted. The individual submitting a statement should retain a copy for the individual's own records.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2519

To require the Secretary of Education to revise regulations for student loan 

deferments with respect to borrowers who are medical or dental residents. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2005

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Education to revise regulations 

for student loan deferments with respect to borrowers 

who are medical or dental residents.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Healthcare Student 

5 Financial Assistance Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REGULATION REVISION REQUIRED. 

7 (a) ACTION REQUIRED.—Within 90 days after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education 

9 shall revise the Department of Education regulations 

10 under the Federal Family Education Loan, Federal Direct 
2 

•HR 2519 IH 

1 Student Loan, and Perkins Loan programs with respect 

2 to deferment of student loan repayment (34 CFR 674.34, 

3 682.210, 685.204) to comply with the requirements of 

4 subsection (b). 

5 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—The student loan repayment 

6 deferment regulations shall be revised to provide with re7 spect to borrowers who are in post-graduate medical and 

8 dental residency and fellowship programs the following: 

9 (1) If a borrower entering such a residency or 

10 fellowship program qualifies for deferment under the 

11 economic hardship provision, the deferment shall be 

12 available for up to 5 years, and the borrower shall 

13 not be required to apply annually. 

14 (2) If the borrower is in such a residency or fel15 lowship program and both is working full-time and 

16 has a Federal education debt burden that equals or 

17 exceeds 20 percent of the borrower’s adjusted gross 

18 income, the borrower shall be required, as a condi19 tion of the hardship deferment, to demonstrate that 

20 the difference between the borrower’s adjusted gross 

21 income minus the Federal education debt burden is 

22 less than 230 percent (not 220 percent) of the great23 er of— 

24 (A) the annual earnings of an individual 

25 earning minimum wage; or 
3 

•HR 2519 IH 

1 (B) the official poverty line applicable to a 

2 family of two. 

3 (3) If a borrower is entering a dental residency 

4 or fellowship program in an institution that is, or is 

5 affiliated with, an eligible institution for programs 

6 under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 

7 the in-school deferment shall be available for the du8 ration of the residency or fellowship program, but 

9 may not exceed 5 years. 

10 SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF STUDENT DEFERMENT. 

11 Clause (i) of section 428(b)(1)(M) of the Higher 

12 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)(M)(i)) is 

13 amended by inserting after ‘‘residency program’’ the fol14 lowing: ‘‘, and except that the preceding limitation shall 

15 not apply to a dental residency program’’. 

Æ
### §1973aa–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1973aa–2 was editorially reclassified as section 10504 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
#### § 19.11 Survivor benefits.
(February 16, 1978)

#### Paul A. Fino, Appellant, v NYM Corporation et al., Respondents.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on July 21, 1976, unanimously dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on September 15, 1976, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements (see *Rinaldi v Holt Rinehart & Winston,*42 NY2d 369, cert den 434 US 969). No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Silverman, Evans and Lane, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Kevin B., Appellant. Christina Steinberg, as Principal of Victor High School, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 358]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Ontario County Family Court for fur*937ther proceedings on the petition. Memorandum: Based upon respondent’s admissions to several of the allegations of the petition, Family Court adjudicated respondent a person in need of supervision. The order must be reversed, however, and the matter remitted to Ontario County Family Court, because the court failed to advise respondent of his right to remain silent before accepting his admissions (see, Family Ct Act § 741 [a]; *Matter of Patrick R.,*216 AD2d 964; *Matter of Kent H.*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1058; *Matter of Patricia Ann R.,*154 AD2d 933). (Appeal from Order of Ontario County Family Court, Harvey, J. — Person In Need of Supervision.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT


TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









May 23, 2011








/s/Richard R. Royall


Richard R. Royall


Chief Financial Officer
§ 224.46 Compromise or settlement. ( a ) Parties may make offers of compromise or settlement at any time.
( b ) The reviewing official has the exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part at any time after the date on which the reviewing official is permitted to issue a complaint and before the date on which the ALJ issues an initial decision.
( c ) The A.I.D. Administrator has exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part at any time after the date on which the ALJ issues an initial decision, except during pendency of any review under § 224.42 or during the pendency of any action to collect penalties and assessments under § 224.43.
( d ) The Attorney General has exclusive authority to compromise or settle a case under this part during the pendency of any review under § 224.42 or of any action to recover penalties and assessments under 31 U.S.C. 3806.
( e ) The investigating official may recommend settlement terms to the reviewing official, the A.I.D. Administrator, or the Attorney General, as appropriate. The reviewing official may recommend settlement terms to the A.I.D. Administrator, or the Attorney General, as appropriate.
( f ) Any compromise or settlement must be in writing.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32



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 of I-Sector Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
H. Long, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, President and
Chairman of the Board, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                 all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                 operations of the Company.


                                       I-Sector Corporation.

August 19, 2003                        By:        /s/ JAMES H. LONG
Date                                       ------------------------------------
                                       James H. Long, Chief Executive Officer,
                                       Chief Financial Officer,
                                       President and Chairman of the Board
## COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO S . 2

- 10

- 283

- CV 2

- 10

- 285

- CV 2

- 10

- 287

- CV

TWO HUNDRED FIFTY

- NINE APPELLANT THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED THIRTY

- SIX DOLLARS AND SEVEN/100

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 396 TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “A ppellant ’s Motion To Dismiss @ of appellants LeRoy

Blanks, Anita Blanks, Carpenter Land Investment Company, Fort Worth Bingo,

Inc., and Fort Worth Concessions. It is the court = s opinion that the motion should

be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal s

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1),

43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.Costs o f the appe al s shall be paid by appellants , for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: September 2, 2010
§ 504.3 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this part: ( a ) Demand means an order, subpoena, or other command of a court or other competent authority for the production, disclosure, or release of records or for the appearance and testimony of a BBG employee in a legal proceeding.
( b ) General Counsel means the General Counsel of the BBG or a person to whom the General Counsel has delegated authority under this part.
( c ) Legal proceeding means any matter before a court of law, administrative board or tribunal, commission, administrative law judge, hearing officer or other body that conducts a legal or administrative proceeding. Legal proceeding includes all phases of litigation.
( d ) BBG means the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
( e ) BBG employee means: ( 1 ) Any current or former employee of the BBG.
( 2 ) This definition does not include persons who are no longer employed by the BBG and who agree to testify about general matters, matters available to the public, or matters with which they had no specific involvement or responsibility during their employment with the BBG.
( f ) Records or official records and information means all information in the custody and control of the BBG, relating to information in the custody and control of the BBG, or acquired by a BBG employee in the performance of his or her official duties or because of his or her official status, while the individual was employed by the BBG.
( g ) Request means any informal request, by whatever method, for the production of records and information or for testimony which has not been ordered by a court or other competent authority.
( h ) Testimony means any written or oral statements, including depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, declarations, interviews, and statements made by an individual in connection with a legal proceeding.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27623]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1551-DR]


Florida; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida (FEMA-1551-DR), dated September 16, 2004, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Dates: December 9, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 16, 2004:

    The counties of Brevard, Clay, Duval, Flagler, Highlands, Indian 
River, Lake, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Okeechobee, Osceola, Orange, 
Palm Beach, Pasco, Polk, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, and Volusia 
for Individual Assistance.
    The counties of Citrus and Lee for Individual Assistance 
(already designated for emergency protective measures [Category B] 
under the Public Assistance Program.)

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs, 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 04-27623 Filed 12-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### F. I. DuPont, Glore Forgan & Co., Respondent, v William S. Chen et al., Appellants.

On remittitur from Court of Appeals, appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 13, 1975, granting plaintiffs motion to confirm Referee’s report, and denying defendants’ motion to set aside service. Per Curiam: On remittitur from the Court of Appeals (41 NY2d 794) “for a review of the facts”, defendants move for the first time to enlarge the transcript of the minutes of the hearing before the Special Referee, heretofore specifically waived below and at both appellate stages. While the application comes with poor grace at this belated stage, we believe it better, since we should review all the facts to deal with the matter appropriately, to grant the motion, which we do, without costs. That branch of the motion by defendants which seeks costs and disbursements is denied. We proceed to compare the transcript with the factual assumptions set out in the memoranda here and in the opinion of the Court of Appeals; the fact patterns in all three are identical, and we find the facts to be in accordance with the assumptions at both appellate levels. On these facts, our earlier, majority memorandum (53 AD2d 812) held service of process herein to have been invalid. The Court of Appeals, to the contrary, held that "if a process server is not permitted to proceed to the actual apartment by the doorman * * * the outer bounds of the actual dwelling place must be deemed to extend to the location at which the process server’s progress is arrested”, i.e. here the lobby, and that, in these circumstances the determination of the Referee “that this doorman came within the contemplation of CPLR 308(2) as 'a person of suitable age and discretion’ ” to receive process is appropriate. Applying the law as so stated to these facts, service of the process should be sustained. Accordingly, the order of Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 13, 1975, confirming the Special Referee’s report sustaining service should be affirmed, with costs. On remittitur from the Court of Appeals, order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 13, 1975, unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Motion, insofar as it seeks to enlarge record on appeal granted, without costs. Motion, insofar as it seeks costs and disbursements, denied. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Proving the Alleged Last Will and Testament of Hannah Marx, Deceased, as a Will of Personal Property. Clara Levy and Another, Appellants; Harry Levy and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J.,, Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
### §300ff–136. Selection of designated officers

#### (a) In general

For the purposes of receiving notifications and responses and making requests under this part on behalf of emergency response employees, the public health officer of each State shall designate 1 official or officer of each employer of emergency response employees in the State.

#### (b) Preference in making designations

In making the designations required in subsection (a), a public health officer shall give preference to individuals who are trained in the provision of health care or in the control of infectious diseases.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, §2695E, as added Pub. L. 111–87, §13, Oct. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 2901.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective as if enacted on Sept. 30, 2009, see section 2(a)(3)(B) of Pub. L. 111–87, set out as an Effective Date of 2009 Amendment; Revival of Section note under section 300ff–11 of this title.