alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA survey of gas-side fouling in industrial heat-transfer equipmentGas-side fouling and corrosion problems occur in all of the energy intensive industries including the chemical, petroleum, primary metals, pulp and paper, glass, cement, foodstuffs, and textile industries. Topics of major interest include: (1) heat exchanger design procedures for gas-side fouling service; (2) gas-side fouling factors which are presently available; (3) startup and shutdown procedures used to minimize the effects of gas-side fouling; (4) gas-side fouling prevention, mitigation, and accommodation techniques; (5) economic impact of gas-side fouling on capital costs, maintenance costs, loss of production, and energy losses; and (6) miscellaneous considerations related to gas-side fouling. The present state-of-the-art for industrial gas-side fouling is summarized by a list of recommendations for further work in this area.Document ID19840013935Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMarner, W. J.*(Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst. of Tech. Pasadena, CA, United States)*Suitor, J. W.*(Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst. of Tech. Pasadena, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1983Subject CategoryEnergy Production And ConversionReport/Patent NumberJPL-PUB-83-74NASA-CR-173469NAS 1.26:173469Accession Number84N22003Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS7-918Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840013935.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
#### § 23.2 Endorsing remittances for deposit in the Treasury.

The Office of Finance—Cashier Unit, the Authentication Office, the Passport Office or Passport Agency, American Embassy, American Legation, American consular office, or other office or unit of the Department of State authorized and required to deposit funds in the Treasury of the United States, is hereby authorized to endorse, or to have endorsed, to the order of the Treasurer of the United States by appropriate stamp, checks, drafts, money orders, or other forms of remittance, regardless of how drawn, which are for payment to the Department of State for deposit in the Treasury of the United States, including those payable to the Secretary of State.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4367 Received in Senate (RDS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4367

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 10, 2012

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit the fee disclosure 
   requirement for an automatic teller machine to the screen of that 
                                machine.

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

SECTION 1. FEE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.

    Section 904(d)(3)(B) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 
U.S.C. 1693b(d)(3)(B)) (commonly known as the ``Electronic Fund 
Transfer Act'') is amended--
            (1) by striking ``requirements.'' and all that follows 
        through ``The notice required under clauses (i) and (ii)'' and 
        inserting ``requirement.--The notice required under clauses (i) 
        and (ii)'' after ``Notice''; and
            (2) by striking ``, except that during the period 
        beginning'' and all that follows and inserting a period.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 9, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Helen Briskie, on Behalf of Herself and Minor Children, Respondent, against Island Dock, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision and award of'the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant’s husband was a ship fitter. On July 22, .1955 he suffered a heart attack while working on the job from which he died.a few days later. He was doing work which required some physical exertion, but it was not "arduous. His work was to lift a 15-pound ring into a place on a ship construction job and expand it manually by use of a turning device itself weighing 9 or 10 pounds. The day, however, was unusually hot and humid. The temperature was 82 at 8:00 a.m..and 96 at noon. The humidity was high through the.day and reached a maximum of 89%. Decedent was admitted to the hospital at 11:20 a.m. Cause of death was attributed to “ coronary thrombosis, nervous, physical and heat exhaustion ”. The work which decedent was doing was in the sun and in an environment closely related to the steel plates .and structural parts of the ship on which the work was being carried on.. A fellow workman testified that the steel walls and the floor of the “ compartment ” of the ship in which decedent was working were exposed to the sun. Although in parts of a hypothetical question asked of a medical witness there is some ’ inaccuracy as to just what work decedent was doing, the vital parts of the question are accurate. On this record, therefore, the board was able to find that the heart attack was precipitated by the environment and conditions of the work, the unusual heat and its accentuation by the sun and surrounding steel construction, coupled with the physical work being done. The .ease falls within the authority of *Matter of Gallo*v. *Town of Islip Highway Dept.*(1 A ,D 2d 706) and *Matter of Altieri*v. *Morris*(275 App. Div. 1009) . *874Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### Turnkey Proposals, Inc., Respondent, v Allan V. Rose et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 13, 1976, which is in favor of plaintiff and against them, after a nonjury trial. Judgment modified, on the law, by: (1) deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the sum "$427,610.50” and substituting therefor the sum "$425,663.40”; and (2) deleting the interest provision on the award on the first cause of action and the total award on such cause of action. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Trial Term for the recomputation of interest in accordance herewith and for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment. As in *Bradkin v Leverton*(26 NY2d 192, 197), "the defendant received a benefit from the plaintiff’s services under circumstances which, in justice, preclude him from denying an obligation to pay for them.” Moreover, it is clear that the companies involved in the various Turnkey projects had no clear-cut lines of demarcation between them and were used by the individual defendant as his alter ego. Thus, equity mandates that the corporate veil be pierced (see e.g., *Labor Relations Bd. v Deena Artware,*361 US 398, 402-404; *Berkey v Third Ave. Ry. Co.,*244 NY 84, 95; cf. *Port Chester Elec. Constr. Corp. v Atlas,*40 NY2d 652). The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the agreement provided for a fee in the sum of 5% of the selling prices of the Herkimer and Albany projects, as well as the findings that there was no oral partnership agreement, and that plaintiff-respondent did not breach its contract. Furthermore, even if recovery were to be based upon *quantum meruit,*since there was substantial performance on the part of plaintiff, the proper measure of damages would still be the contract price (see 50 N.Y. Jur., Restitution, § 109). Where it is possible to ascertain with precision the date on which the cause of action accrued, interest should be computed from that date (CPLR 5001, subd [b]). Accordingly, the interest on the payments from the Albany project should have been computed from the actual dates of the payments of moneys to the defendant, such dates being February 7, 1973, May 2, 1973, August 23, 1973, October 4, 1973, May 17, *9501974 and August 22, 1974. Trial Term erred in including the $47,000 not actually received by defendants in the amount upon which plaintiff’s fee was based. Accordingly, we have reduced the principal amount of the recovery upon the first cause of action to the sum of $425,663.40. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### Sell, constable, *v.*Turner.

Fish, C. J.

1. From the record in this case it appears that all the provisions of the Political Codé (1895), §§ 685-688, inclusive, were complied with for the purpose of obtaining a charter for the Town of Constitution in DeKalb county, and that at a special term of the superior court of that county, called for the purpose, a charter was granted incorporating the Town of Constitution on October 25, 1910. Subsequently, in the same month of that year, a mayor, recorder, and aldermen were elected for the town. It follows that the municipality became a de jure corporation.

2. The facts that the corporate authorities of such municipality passed only two ordinances, and that the mayor, recorder, and aldei'men voluntarily ceased to perform their official duties, did not operate to terminate the corporate existence of the town. Under the statute above referred to, for the incorporation of towns and villages, “the officers first elected in such town or village shall hold their offices until their *successors are*elected and qualified.” Political Code (1895), § 690.

3. According to the undisputed evidence in the record the grounds of the Chestnut Hill Cemetery Association were located within the corporate limits of the Town of Constitution.

*(a)*It follows that the provisions of the act of August 21, 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 200), relating to the establishment of cemeteries in the rural territory of certain counties therein specified, are not applicable to the establishment of a cemetery by such association in the Town of Constitution.

*107April 12, 1912.

Habeas corpus. Before Judge Boan. DeKalb superior court. December 9, 1911.

*George Westmoreland*and *Marie Bolding,*for plaintiff in error.

*Henry M. Patty*and *Lewis W. Thomas,*contra.

4. In view of the rulings above announced, which control the case, the judge of the superior court did not err in discharging from custody, upon habeas corpus, one who had been arrested and was held under a warrant charging him with a violation of the act of 1911, to which reference has been made.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Alexander R. Forcina et al., Respondents, v Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

In an action, *inter alia,*to declare that the defendant Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company is obligated to defend plaintiffs in a certain action brought against them, the said defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 23, 1976, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable to plaintiffs-respondents by appellant. On the record presented, an issue of fact exists as to whether ownership of the vehicle in issue was transferred from plaintiff June C. Forcina to her coplaintiff, Alexander R. Forcina. If plaintiffs can establish that ownership was not transferred, appellant would remain liable on its insurance policy. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.105 Supporting documents and fingerprinting. ( a ) *Supporting documents* — ( 1 ) *Authority to require documents.* The consular officer is authorized to require documents considered necessary to establish the alien's eligibility to receive a nonimmigrant visa. All documents and other evidence presented by the alien, including briefs submitted by attorneys or other representatives, shall be considered by the consular officer.
( 2 ) *Unobtainable documents.* If the consular officer is satisfied that a document or record required under the authority of this section is unobtainable, the consular officer may accept satisfactory alternative pertinent evidence. A document or other record shall be considered unobtainable if it cannot be procured without causing the applicant or a member of the applicant's family actual hardship as distinct from normal delay and inconvenience.
( 3 ) *Photographs required.* Every applicant for a nonimmigrant visa must furnish photographs of the number and specification prescribed by the Department. The applicant must either upload a digital photograph electronically as part of submitting an online visa application or submit a paper photograph at the direction of the Department or consular officer. The photograph shall be considered signed when the applicant signs the appropriate application form pursuant to § 41.103(b)(3).
( 4 ) *Police certificates.* A police certificate is a certification by the police or other appropriate authorities stating what, if anything, their records show concerning the alien. An applicant for a nonimmigrant visa is required to present a police certificate if the consular officer has reason to believe that a police or criminal record exists, except that no police certificate is required in the case of an alien who is within a class of nonimmigrants classifiable under visa symbols A-1, A-2, C-3, G-1 through G-4, NATO-1 through NATO-4 or NATO-6.
( b ) *Fingerprinting.* Every applicant for a nonimmigrant visa must furnish fingerprints, as required by the consular officer.
[52 FR 42597, Nov. 5, 1987; 53 FR 9112, 9172, Mar. 21, 1988, as amended at 61 FR 1522, Jan. 22, 1996; 61 FR 53058, Oct. 10, 1996; 64 FR 13510, Mar. 19, 1999; 67 FR 8478, Feb. 25, 2002; 72 FR 74175, Dec. 31, 2007; 73 FR 49092, Aug. 20, 2008; 88 FR 13696, Mar. 6, 2023]
#### Robert Maceda, Respondent, v. Ellis Chingos Construction Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

In an action by an employee of a subcontractor on a building under construction, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when he fell from a ladder which slipped or shifted, the defendant Ellis Chingos Construction Corp. appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 21, 1960, on a verdict of $18,500 in favor of plaintiff against it, after a jury trial. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed. No questions of fact were considered. The record does not disclose who owned or furnished the movable, makeshift ladder here involved. The proof adduced does not support a finding that said defendant, the Chingos Corporation, which was one of several prime contractors on the job, was the general contractor chargeable with the duty of providing a reasonably safe ladder as a common passageway. The ladder, which had been on the premises for a period of two days prior to the happening of the accident, may have been supplied by plaintiff’s employer, in which event said defendant would *802not be liable *(Zucchelli*v. *City Constr. Co.,*4 N Y 2d 52; *Iacono*v. *Frank & Frank Contr. Co.,*259 N. Y. 377). Upon this state of the record, plaintiff’s reliance on our decision in *Tiller*v. *Tishman Co.*(3 A D 2d 769), is misplaced. There, the record on appeal discloses that a stationary ladder, which was the only means of access to the roof, had been used for several weeks by employees of identified subcontractors of the defendant which was operating under a contract for the “ general construction ” of the building. In that factual situation the defendant there could be regarded as a general contractor with respect to the injured plaintiff. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur. [22 Misc 2d 269.]
### §1962a–1. Powers and duties

The Council shall—

(a) maintain a continuing study and prepare an assessment biennially, or at such less frequent intervals as the Council may determine, of the adequacy of supplies of water necessary to meet the water requirements in each water resource region in the United States and the national interest therein; and

(b) maintain a continuing study of the relation of regional or river basin plans and programs to the requirements of larger regions of the Nation and of the adequacy of administrative and statutory means for the coordination of the water and related land resources policies and programs of the several Federal agencies; it shall appraise the adequacy of existing and proposed policies and programs to meet such requirements; and it shall make recommendations to the President with respect to Federal policies and programs.

(Pub. L. 89–80, title I, §102, July 22, 1965, 79 Stat. 245.)
October 25, 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BRENETTA SHERMAN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 16

- 00738

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

___ _____________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion and this decision be ce rtified below for observance.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2432 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2432

 To reduce temporarily the duty on Crelan (self-blocked cycloaliphatic 
                            polyuretdione).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2005

  Mr. Murphy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reduce temporarily the duty on Crelan (self-blocked cycloaliphatic 
                            polyuretdione).

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

SECTION 1. CRELAN (SELF-BLOCKED CYCLOALIPHATIC POLYURETDIONE).

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.94      Self-blocked        6.3%         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         cycloaliphatic                                                     31/2009
                         polyuretdione
                         (CAS No. 189020-
                         69-7) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         3909.50.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

For the Quarter ended July 31, 2002, Imperial Petroleum Recovery Corporation
(the "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that
Henry H. Kartchner, Chief Financial Officer, 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 results of
        operations of the Company.


Date: September 24, 2002             By: /s/ Henry H. Kartchner
                                         Henry H. Kartchner
                                         Chairman, Director
                                         (Duly Authorized Officer &
                                         Principal Financial Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Robert R. Hyde, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an *943order of the County Court, Kings County, dated October 13,1961, which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered June 25, 1956, after a jury trial, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, while armed, and assault in the first degree, and imposing sentence. Said judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court (3 A D 2d 854); leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied June 7, 1957; and a petition for certiorari was denied (355 U. S. 916). Order affirmed. Although defendant’s previously retained attorney was not present at the arraignment when a plea of not guilty to the indictment was entered in defendant’s behalf, the vacatur of the conviction is not warranted; there is no showing that defendant was in any way prejudiced by the absence of counsel (cf. *People*v. *Spinney,*16 A D 2d 669; *People*v. *Dolac,*3 A D 2d 351, affd. 3 N Y 2d 945; *Canizio*v. *New York,*327 U. S. 82). The case *(Hamilton*v. *Alabama,*368 U. S. 52) on which defendant relies is not applicable. It does not overrule or impair the rule enunciated in *Spinney, Dolac*and *Canizio*in view of the marked difference between the laws of Alabama and Hew York; in view of the Supreme Court’s specific allusion (in *Hamilton)*to those differences when it referred to the *Canizio*case; and in view of the fact that this is a non-capital case. Nor, under the rule of *Mapp*v. *Ohio*(367 U. S. 643), does *coram nobis*lie to vacate a conviction obtained by proof which, at the time of the trial, was deemed to be constitutional evidence *(People*v. *Muller,*11 N Y 2d 154; *People*v. *Figueroa,*220 N. Y. S. 2d 131; *People*v. *Angelet,*221 N. Y. S. 2d 834; *People*v. *Oree,*220 N. Y. S. 2d 121). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Joseph Short, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County, imposed November 19, 1976. Sentence affirmed, No opinion. This case is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Damiani, J. P., Hawkins, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.