alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAdvanced turboprop aircraft flyover noise: Annoyance to counter-rotating-propeller configurations with a different number of blades on each rotor: Preliminary resultsA laboratory experiment was conducted to quantify the annoyance of people to the flyover noise of advanced turboprop aircraft with counter-rotating propellers (CRP) having a different number of blades on each rotor (nxm, e.g., 10 x 8, 12 x 11). The objectives were: (1) compare annoyance to nxm CRP advanced turboprop aircraft with annoyance to conventional turboprop and jet aircraft; (2) determine the effects of tonal content on annoyance; and (3) determine the ability of aircraft noise measurement procedures and corrections to predict annoyance for this new class of aircraft. A computer synthesis system was used to generate 35 realistic, time-varying simulations of advanced turboprop takeoff noise in which the tonal content was systematically varied to represent combinations of 15 fundamental frequency (blade passage frequency) combinations and three tone-to-broadband noise ratios. The fundamental frequencies, which represented blade number combinations from 6 x 5 to 13 x 12 and 7 x 5 to 13 x 11, ranged from 112.5 to 292.5 Hz. The three tone-to-broadband noise ratios were 0, 15, and 30 dB. These advanced turboprop simulations along with recordings of five conventional turboprop takeoffs and five conventional jet takeoffs were presented at D-weighted sound pressure levels of 70, 80, and 90 dB to 64 subjects in an anechoic chamber. Analyses of the subjects' annoyance judgments compare the three categories of aircraft and examine the effects of the differences in tonal content among the advanced turboprop noises. The annoyance prediction ability of various noise measurement procedures and corrections is also examined.Document ID19890015517Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMccurdy, David A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1988Subject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:100638NASA-TM-100638Accession Number89N24888Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 535-03-11-03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19890015517.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
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the periodic report of Delta Financial Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Richard Blass, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
      for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
      that to the best of my knowledge:





1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
                as
                applicable, 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
                at the dates and for the periods
                indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.





Date:  August
      5,
      2005








/s/Richard
      Blass


Richard
      Blass


*Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer*
CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of FalconTarget,
Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

(a) the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

and

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

FalconTarget, Inc.

Date: Sepptember 30, 2008

By:   /s/   Serge Atlan

Serge Atlan

Chairman

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

* A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
1 3:09-cv-02015-EMC

STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

Navarette, et al. v. Rancho Grande, et al. 

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

ADAM WANG, Bar No. 201233

ADAM PEDERSEN, Bar No. 261901

LAW OFFICES OF ADAM WANG

12 South First Street, Suite 708

San Jose, CA 95113

Tel: (408) 292-1040

Fax: (408) 416-0248

waqw@sbcglobal.net

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAVARETTE, ET AL

Plaintiffs,

vs.

RANCHO GRANDE, ET AL

Defendants

Case No.: 3:09-cv-02015-EMC

STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH

PREJUDICE & [PROPOSED] ORDER

THEREON

Plaintiffs and Defendants, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. Parties have reached a settlement with respect to all claims of all Plaintiffs

against all Defendants in this case. 

2. As such, parties hereby stipulate to dismiss this action in its entirety with

prejudice. 

3. The Parties stipulate that this Court should retain its jurisdiction over this case for

the purpose of enforcing the settlement agreement. 

Case 3:09-cv-02015-EMC Document 23 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 2
 2 3:09-cv-02015-EMC

STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

Navarette, et al. v. Rancho Grande, et al. 

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

Dated: May 20, 2010 By: /s/ Adam Pedersen

ADAM PEDERSEN

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated: May 20, 2010

By: ___/s/Kerry Kennedy____

KERRY KENNEDY

 

Attorney for Defendants

 

______________________________________________________

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to party’s stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ____________, 2010 _________________________

Hon. Edward Chen 

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-02015-EMC Document 23 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 2
#### John Parrott, Appellant, *v.*Joseph Sawyer, Respondent.

(Argued October 24, 1881;

decided November 22, 1881.)

This case presented the same questions and was decided upon authority of *Parrott*v. *Colby*(6 Hun, 55; affirmed, 71 N. Y. 597). (See also *Jagger Iron Co.*v. Walker, 76 1ST. Y. 521.)

*Albert Stickney*for appellant.

*WilUam G. Wilson*for respondent.

*Per Curiam*

opinion for affirmance of order and for judg-

ment absolute on stipulation.

All concur.

Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.
### §373d. Grants and cooperative agreements with Indian tribes and organizations

In order to increase opportunities for Indian tribes to develop, manage, and protect their water resources, in fiscal year 2003 and thereafter, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, is authorized to enter into grants and cooperative agreements with any Indian tribe, institution of higher education, national Indian organization, or tribal organization pursuant to sections 6301 to 6308 of title 31. Nothing in this Act is intended to modify or limit the provisions of the Indian Self Determination Act [25 U.S.C. 5321 et seq.].

(Pub. L. 108–7, div. D, title II, §201, Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 144.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, means div. D of Pub. L. 108–7, Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 133, known as the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2003. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

The Indian Self-Determination Act, referred to in text, is title I of Pub. L. 93–638, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2206, which is classified principally to subchapter I (§5321 et seq.) of chapter 46 of Title 25, Indians. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of Title 25 and Tables.

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

#### Similar Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in the following appropriation act:

Pub. L. 107–66, title II, §201, Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 499.
Dear Ms. Malta:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−4515). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 12/29/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267–4549.

Sincerely,

/S/

Michael J. Cameron

Program Analyst
#### In the Matter of Leonard Gordon, Respondent, v. Philip Salli, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant: (a) from a judgment of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Children’s Court Division, County of Queens, rendered July 31, 1958, after a non jury trial, convicting him of violating section 494 of the Penal Law (contributing to the delinquency and offenses of children), and sentencing him to pay a fine of $50 or to be imprisoned for 30 days; and (2) from every intermediate order. The fine was paid. Jurisdiction of the trial court was based on subdivision 2 of section 61 of the Domestic Relations Court Act of the City of New York. Judgment reversed on the facts, complaint dismissed, and fine remitted. Defendant’s guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. No separate appeal lies from the intermediate orders, which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
### §571. Sale of unplatted portions of Government town sites; authorization

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his discretion, to appraise, and sell, at public auction, to the highest bidder, from time to time, under such terms as to time of payment as he may require, but in no event for any longer period than five years, any or all of the unplatted portions of Government town sites created under the Act of April 16, 1906 (34 Stat. 116), on any irrigation project constructed under the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), or Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto: Provided, That any land so offered for sale and not disposed of may afterwards be sold, at not less than the appraised value, at private sale, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. Patents made in pursuance of such sale shall convey all the right, title, and interest of the United States in or to the land so sold.

(Mar. 2, 1929, ch. 541, §1, 45 Stat. 1522; Feb. 14, 1931, ch. 176, 46 Stat. 1107.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of April 16, 1906, referred to in text, is act Apr. 16, 1906, ch. 1631, 34 Stat. 116, which enacted sections 522, 561, 562, 566, and 567 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Act of June 17, 1902, referred to in text, is act June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388, popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1931—Act Feb. 14, 1931, substituted "under such terms as to time of payment as he may require, but in no event for any longer period than five years" for "for cash".
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

RONALD L. WOLFE, JR., 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (ERVIN INDUSTRIES, INC.), 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 197 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 230 (Monday, November 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 76630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26413]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of 
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the 
Securities and Exchange Commission Asset Management Advisory Committee 
(``AMAC'') will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 
9:00 a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be conducted by remote means. Members of the 
public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's website 
at www.sec.gov.

STATUS: The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and will be open to the 
public by webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: On November 9, 2020, the Commission issued 
notice of the meeting (Release No. 34-90376), indicating that the 
meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written 
comments to AMAC. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a 
majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The meeting will include a discussion of matters in the asset 
management industry relating to (1) the Private Investments 
Subcommittee; (2) the ESG Subcommittee, including a discussion of 
potential recommendations from that Subcommittee; and (3) the Diversity 
and Inclusion Subcommittee, including a panel discussion on improving 
diversity and inclusion.
    The meeting will also include a discussion of AMAC's administrative 
matters during a portion of the meeting that will not be open to the 
public.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.

    Dated: November 24, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26413 Filed 11-25-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Brown, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 565]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki Scherer, J.), rendered July 13, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459; *People v Mattiace,*77 NY2d 269, 275-276; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292). Defendant’s three felony convictions were theft-related and thus were particularly relevant to credibility, and the court was under no obligation to preclude the People from referring to these convictions by name. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Ellerin and Buckley, JJ.
Second Department,

March, 1978

(March 3, 1978) 

#### In the Matter of Leo Donigan, an Attorney and Counselor at Law, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Motion by petitioner to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law on the ground that his conviction of a felony (violation of US Code, tit 18, § 201, subd [fj, offering unlawful gratuities) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, on July 6, 1976, automatically disbarred him. Motion granted. Respondent Leo Doni*1188gan, admitted to practice before the Bar by this court on February 21, 1939, was disbarred as of the date of said conviction. The Clerk of this court is directed to strike his name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law forthwith *(Matter of Chu,*42 NY2d 490). Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Rabin, Gulotta and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
June 13, 2011

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: Teleconference with Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO)

Attendees :

HECO: Tom Simmons, Vice President Power Supply Ron Cox, Vice President Generation & Fuels Darcy Endo-Omoto, Vice President G overnment & Community Affairs Brenner Munger, Manager Environmental Department Lisa Kikuta, Director Gove rnment & Public Affairs Susan Char, Director G overnment Relations Karin Kimura, Senior Environmental Scientist Stephen Ward, Senior Environmental Scientist Steve Oppenheimer, Associate General Counsel Kerstan Wong, Principal Environmental Scientist Tom Roberts, Van Ness Feldman, P.C.

EPA: Kevin Culligan, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD Robert Wayland, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/ESG William Maxwell, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/ESG Josh Lewis, EPA/OA/OCIR/IMD

Discussion :

A general discussion of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards was held.
#### Michele Feinstein et al., as Administrators of the Estate of Martin H. Wilensky, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v David C. Bergner, Appellant.

*1050In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, etc., defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 31, 1977, which, *inter alia,*denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed. The accident which is the basis of this action occurred on April 2, 1972. Defendant correctly gave his address at the scene of the accident as 76 Aster Court, Brooklyn, New York. In February, 1973 defendant moved to 2729 West 33rd Street, Brooklyn. He promptly obtained a telephone and had the number listed in the Brooklyn telephone directory. When defendant reregistered his car in May, 1973 he informed the Department of Motor Vehicles of his changed address. The plaintiffs’ process server attempted to make service upon defendant in August, 1974, more than two years after the date of the accident. The process server went to 76 Aster Court on three separate occasions, but found no one there. He finally affixed a copy of the summons and complaint to the door of 76 Aster Court and mailed a copy of those papers to the same address. Defendant’s father received the summons and complaint and forwarded them to defendant’s then current address. Upon receipt of process, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 8) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, the motion to dismiss should have been granted. Assuming that plaintiffs exercised due diligence in attempting to make service under CPLR 308 (subds 1, 2), they did not comply with the requirement of CPLR 308 (subd 4) that the summons be affixed to the door of the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode. While the summons may be mailed to defendant’s last known residence, only the actual dwelling place is sufficient for "mailing” purposes. Moreover defendant is not estopped from raising plaintiffs’ noncompliance with CPLR 308 (subd 4) since there was no fraud or misrepresentation on his part in giving the Aster Court address or in his subsequent move to 2729 West 33rd Street (cf. *Cohen v Arista Truck Renting Corp.,*70 Misc 2d 729). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### § 103.105 Cessation of action on referred complaints.

A referral under § 103.100 does not prohibit the Assistant Secretary from taking appropriate action to review or investigate matters in the complaint that raise issues cognizable under other civil rights authorities applicable to departmental programs (see § 103.5).

[54 FR 3292, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 61 FR 14379, Apr. 1, 1996]
7/28/15

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:09-cv-02161-EMC Document 158 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-02161-EMC Document 158 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-02161-EMC Document 158 Filed 07/28/15 Page 3 of 3
---

Exhibit 6


Consent of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-151417 on Form F-3 of our reports dated September 18, 2012, relating to (1) the June 30, 2012, and 2011 consolidated financial statements of Kimber Resources Inc. and subsidiaries (“Kimber”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an emphasis of matter paragraph relating to our consideration of going concern) and (2) the effectiveness of Kimber’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Kimber for the year ended June 30, 2012. /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP Independent Registered Chartered Accountants Vancouver, Canada September 18, 2012


---
### §81. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 632, 645, 646

Section, R.S. §2243; acts Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 115, §1, 42 Stat. 208; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1145, related to commencement of compensation of registers.