alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBody-freedom flutter of a 1/2-scale forward-swept-wing model, an experimental and analytical studyThe aeroelastic phenomenon known as body-freedom flutter (BFF), a dynamic instability involving aircraft-pitch and wing-bending motions which, though rarely experienced on conventional vehicles, is characteristic of forward swept wing (FSW) aircraft was investigated. Testing was conducted in the Langley transonic dynamics tunnel on a flying, cable-mounted, 1/2-scale model of a FSW configuration with and without relaxed static stability (RSS). The BFF instability boundaries were found to occur at significantly lower airspeeds than those associated with aeroelastic wing divergence on the same model. For those cases with RSS, a canard-based stability augmentation system (SAS) was incorporated in the model. This SAS was designed using aerodynamic data measured during a preliminary tunnel test in which the model was attached to a force balance. Data from the subsequent flutter test indicated that BFF speed was not dependent on open-loop static margin but, rather, on the equivalent closed-loop dynamics provided by the SAS. Servo-aeroelastic stability analyses of the flying model were performed using a computer code known as SEAL and predicted the onset of BFF reasonably well.Document ID19840013485Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsChipman, R.*(Grumman Aerospace Corp. Bethpage, NY, United States)*Rauch, F.*(Grumman Aerospace Corp. Bethpage, NY, United States)*Rimer, M.*(Grumman Aerospace Corp. Bethpage, NY, United States)*Muniz, B.*(Grumman Aerospace Corp. Bethpage, NY, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1984Subject CategoryAircraft Stability And ControlReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-172324LD-10-901-164NAS 1.26:172324Accession Number84N21553Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-17102Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840013485.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
#### WISE et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK ELEVATÉD R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 6, 1903.)

Action by Adelia Wise and another against the New York Elevated Railroad Company. F. Allis, for appellant. A. B. Smith, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### R. E. Abbott and T. C. Irwin, trading as Abbott-Irwin Coal Company, appellees, v. O. H. Hanson, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,053.

Suit for balance due on account of coal sold and delivered. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Frank S. Righeimer, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 28, 1923.

Hill, Melaniphy & Pedderson, for appellant. Philip J. Maguire, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK MAHAR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BNSF RAILWAY CORP.,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-00357 CRB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a

settlement of this case,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be dismissed without prejudice; provided,

however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, within thirty days, with proof of service

of a copy thereon on opposing counsel, that the agreed consideration for said settlement has not been

delivered over, the foregoing Order shall stand vacated and this case shall forthwith be restored to

the calendar to be set for trial.

Dated: April 15, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00357-CRB Document 37 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
10.30

    


    Loan
Agreement

    


    (English
Translation)

     

    Lender (Party
A): Yongxin Liu

    Borrower
(Party B): Changchun Yongxin Dirui Medical Co., Ltd.

    


    This Loan
Agreement (the “Agreement”) is hereby entered into by and between the
above-mentioned parties.

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              1.

            	
              Party
      B agrees to borrow and Party A agrees to provide a loan in the principal
      amount of RMB 9,000,000 (the
“Loan”).

            


    

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              2.

            	
              The
      repayment period for the Loan is from January 25, 2008 to January 24,
      2011. No interest shall accrue on the
Loan.

            


    

      

    
      	
               
      

            	
              3.

            	
              Party
      B guarantees that Party B will repay the loan within the time period
      prescribed in the Agreement.

            


    

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              4.

            	
              If
      Party B fails to repay the loan within the time period prescribed in the
      Agreement, Party A shall have the right to seek repayment as permitted by
      law.

            


    

      

    
      	
               
      

            	
              5.

            	
              The
      parties may enter into a supplemental agreement for any unsettled
      matters.

            


    

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              6.

            	
              Any
      supplemental agreement entered into by and between the parties shall have
      the equal authority with this
Agreement.

            


    

      

    
      	
               
      

            	
              7.

            	
              This Agreement is executed into
      two duplicates. Each party shall hold one
  duplicate.

            


    

      

    Lender
(Party A): /s/ Yongxin Liu

    Borrower
(Party B): Changchun Yongxin Dirui Medical Co., Ltd. (corporate
seal)

    


    Date:
January 25, 2008
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN GIRAUDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 08-cv-04416-WHO 

ORDER SETTING SHOW CAUSE 

HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 139

Plaintiff requests that the Court reopen this case and set a hearing requiring defendant Bath 

Iron Works Corporation to show cause why it has failed to satisfy the parties’ October 31, 2014 

compromise agreement, and to order defendant to make full payment within five days of the 

hearing. Docket No. 139.

As of today’s date, defendant has not responded to plaintiff’s request. 

The Court GRANTS the request. This case is reopened, and an Order to Show Cause 

Hearing is set for Wednesday May 6, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, 450 Golden 

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. Defendant shall file a written response to 

plaintiff’s request on or before April 22, 2015, explaining why it has not satisfied the compromise 

agreement. Defendant shall also appear at the May 6, 2015 hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04416-WHO Document 140 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 1
Estate of Amaro, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al 

Case No. C09-01019 WHA

Stip and [Proposed] Order re June 24, 2010 Status Conf. 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

JOHN L. BURRIS (SBN #69888)

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120

Oakland, California 94621 

(510) 839-5200; FAX (510) 839-3882

Email: john.burris@johnburrislaw.com

JAMES B. CHANIN (SBN# 76043)

Law Offices of James B. Chanin

3050 Shattuck Avenue

Berkeley, California 94705

(510) 848-4752; FAX: (510) 848-5819

Email: jbcofc@aol.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE ESTATE OF JERRY A. AMARO III; 

GERALDINE MONTOYA; STEPHANIE

MONTOYA;

Plaintiffs, 

 

vs.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: C09-01019 WHA

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REQUESTING THAT THE 

COURT DROP THE JUNE 24, 2010 

STATUS CONFERENCE FROM THE 

CALENDAR 

Date: June 24, 2010

Time: 11:00 a.m.

The Hon. William H. Alsup

)

Case3:09-cv-01019-WHA Document110 Filed05/27/10 Page1 of 2

ORDER VACATING JUNE 24 

 CASE MANGEMENT MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CONFERENCE

Case 3:09-cv-01019-WHA Document 111 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 2
Estate of Amaro, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al 

Case No. C09-01019 WHA

Stip and [Proposed] Order re June 24, 2010 Status Conf. 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

WHEREAS, on May 20, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

granted Defendants’ petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); and 

WHEREAS, Defendants have now perfected their appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal in 

this Court, the parties, by and through their respective counsel of record, do hereby stipulate, 

agree and request that the Status Conference set for June 24, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. be dropped from 

the Court’s calendar pending the final resolution of Defendants’ appeal.

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

Dated: May 27, 2010 __________/S/_________________

 JAMES B. CHANIN

 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: May 27, 2010 __________/S/_________________

 STEPHEN Q. ROWELL

 Attorney for City of Oakland 

 Defendants

Dated: May 27, 2010 ___________/S/________________

 JOHN VERBER

 Attorney for Defendant

 Edward Poulson

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION,

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated:______________, 2010 _______________________________

 WILLIAM H. ALSUP

 Judge of the United States

 District Court

Case3:09-cv-01019-WHA Document110 Filed05/27/10 Page2 of 2

May 27

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPROVED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:09-cv-01019-WHA Document 111 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2
JAMES F. MARTENS*

KELLI H. TODD

LACY L. LEONARD

─────────────────

Attorneys at Law

─────────────────

MARTENS, TODD, LEONARD, TAYLOR & AHLRICH

A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP

───────────────────────────────

301 CONGRESS AVENUE, SUITE 1950

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701

(512) 542-9898

FAX (512) 542-9899

www.textaxlaw.com

AMANDA G. TAYLOR‡ 

DANIELLE V. AHLRICH

KATIE M. WOLTERS

─────────────────

Attorneys at Law

─────────────────

*Board Certified in Tax Law ‡Board Certified in Appellate Law

Texas Board of Legal Specialization Texas Board of Legal Specialization

June 20, 2016 

Via Electronic Filing

Court of Appeals, Third District of Texas 

Attn: Jeffrey Kyle, Clerk

Price Daniel Sr. Building

209 West 14th Street, Room 101 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Re: 03-16-00131-CV, Mary Louise Serafine, Appellant v. Alexander Blunt; 

Ashley Blunt; Scott Lockhart; Austin Drainage and Foundation, LLC 

d/b/a Austin Drainage and Landscape Development; Viking Fence 

Company, Ltd.; and Viking GP, LLC, Appellees 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

I will be out of the office beginning Monday, September 19, 2016 through Friday, 

October 7, 2016, for prepaid travel out of the country. Accordingly, I would appreciate it if you 

would not schedule anything relating to this case during the days that I am out of this office. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

ACCEPTED

03-16-00131-CV

11234617

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

6/20/2016 3:19:21 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 RECEIVED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/20/2016 3:19:21 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

MARTENS, TODD, LEONARD, TAYLOR & AHLRICH

By: /s/ Amanda G. Taylor 

Amanda G. Taylor

State Bar No. 24045921

301 Congress Ave., Suite 1950

Austin, Texas 78701

Telephone: (512) 542-9898

ataylor@textaxlaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES 

ALEXANDER AND ASHLEY BLUNT 

cc: Via E-service to:

Mary Louise Serafine (mlserafine@gmail.com) 

Ronald M. Raydon (ron@raydonlaw.com) 

Sara B. Churchin (schurchin@thompsoncoe.com)

Wade C. Crosnoe (wcrosnoe@thompsoncoe.com)
### §7572. Enforcement of standards

#### (a) Regulations to insure compliance with standards

The Secretary of Transportation, after consultation with the Administrator, shall prescribe regulations to insure compliance with all standards prescribed under section 7571 of this title by the Administrator. The regulations of the Secretary of Transportation shall include provisions making such standards applicable in the issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of any certificate authorized by part A of subtitle VII of title 49 or the Department of Transportation Act. Such Secretary shall insure that all necessary inspections are accomplished, and,1 may execute any power or duty vested in him by any other provision of law in the execution of all powers and duties vested in him under this section.

#### (b) Notice and appeal rights

In any action to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke a certificate in which violation of an emission standard prescribed under section 7571 of this title or of a regulation prescribed under subsection (a) is at issue, the certificate holder shall have the same notice and appeal rights as are prescribed for such holders in part A of subtitle VII of title 49 or the Department of Transportation Act, except that in any appeal to the National Transportation Safety Board, the Board may amend, modify, or revoke the order of the Secretary of Transportation only if it finds no violation of such standard or regulation and that such amendment, modification, or revocation is consistent with safety in air transportation.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title II, §232, as added Pub. L. 91–604, §11(a)(1), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1704.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Department of Transportation Act, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is Pub. L. 89–670, Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 931, which was classified principally to sections 1651 to 1660 of former Title 49, Transportation. The Act was repealed and the provisions thereof reenacted in Title 49, Transportation, by Pub. L. 97–449, Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2413, and Pub. L. 103–272, July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 745. The Act was also repealed by Pub. L. 104–287, §7(5), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3400. For disposition of sections of former Title 49, see Table at the beginning of Title 49.

#### Codification

In subsecs. (a) and (b), "part A of subtitle VII of title 49" substituted for "the Federal Aviation Act [49 App. U.S.C. 1301 et seq.]" and "the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 [49 App. U.S.C. 1301 et seq.]" on authority of Pub. L. 103–272, §6(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1378, the first section of which enacted subtitles II, III, and V to X of Title 49, Transportation.

Section was formerly classified to section 1857f–10 of this title.

1 So in original. The comma probably should not appear.
Exhibit 99.1





CERTIFICATION





The undersigned, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”) of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1 (the “Trust”) hereby makes the following certifications for inclusion as an exhibit to the Trust’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Annual Report”):





1.           The Trustee is the trustee under the Trust’s trust agreement.





2.           Based on my knowledge, for the period covered by the Annual Report, the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under the Trust’s trust agreement.








By:
/s/ David J. KolibachukName:
David J. KolibachukTitle:
Vice PresidentDated:
February 8, 2013
§ 14.310 Answer to application. ( a ) Within 30 days after service of an application, agency counsel may file an answer to the application. Agency counsel may request an extension of time for filing. If agency counsel fails to answer or otherwise fails to contest or settle the application, the adjudicative officer, upon a satisfactory showing of entitlement by the applicant, may make an award for the applicant's fees and other expenses under the Act.
( b ) If agency counsel and the applicant believe that the issues in the fee application can be settled, they may jointly file a statement of their intent to negotiate a settlement. The filing of this statement shall extend the time for filing an answer for an additional 30 days, and further extensions may be granted by the adjudicative officer upon request by agency counsel and the applicant.
( c ) The answer shall explain in detail any objections to the award requested and identify the facts relied on in support of agency counsel's position. If the answer is based on any alleged facts not already in the record of the proceeding, agency counsel shall include with the answer either supporting affidavits or a request for further proceedings under § 14.325.
### §5119. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5119 was editorially reclassified as section 40101 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2900

To enable the residents of the Bayshore Manor assisted living facility in 

Key West, Florida, to continue to receive supplemental security income 

benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2005

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To enable the residents of the Bayshore Manor assisted 

living facility in Key West, Florida, to continue to receive 

supplemental security income benefits under title XVI 

of the Social Security Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR THE BAYSHORE MANOR AS4 SISTED LIVING FACILITY IN KEY WEST, FLOR5 IDA. 

6 For purposes of the supplemental security income 

7 program under title XVI of the Social Security Act, the 

8 Bayshore Manor assisted living facility in Key West, Flor-
2

•HR 2900 IH 

1 ida, shall not be considered to be a public institution with2 in the meaning of section 1611(e)(1) of such Act.

Æ
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION







I, Chadwick S. Parson, certify that:





1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1;





2.           Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;





3.           Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;





4.           I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and the trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.





5.           The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trustee and the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, that is included in these reports.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank Trust National Association.








By:
/s/ Chadwick S. ParsonName:
Chadwick S. ParsonTitle:
Managing Director and PresidentStructured Obligations Corporation(senior officer in charge of securitization function of the Depositor)Dated:  March 6, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          23,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,539,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,600
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,768,745
<PP&E>                                       2,648,348
<DEPRECIATION>                                 821,066
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,640,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,355,231
<BONDS>                                        905,198
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,567
<OTHER-SE>                                     353,833
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,640,829
<SALES>                                      6,191,437
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,191,437
<CGS>                                        3,233,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,864,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               118,955
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                35,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             128,664
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                208,413
<INCOME-TAX>                                    83,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125,413
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,413
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        


</TABLE>