alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1


      AGGREGATE TOTALS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2004 TO DECEMBER 31, 2004



PRINCIPAL COLLECTIONS INFORMATION IN AUD (AND USD WHERE INDICATED) AGGREGATED
TO THE DATE OF THE LAST PAYMENT

Principal amount of each class of USD notes as at the first day after the
Payment date occurring during the collection period:
Class A2: USD 462,129,177
Class B1: USD 25,000,000

Aggregate coupon interest paid to noteholders of each class of notes
Class A2: USD 8,743,127
Class B1: USD 560,888

Aggregate of Principal payments made in respect to each class of notes:
Class A2: USD 125,056,192
Class B1: USD 0

Aggregate Mortgage Principal Repayments received for the period:
Scheduled       AUD 4,932,157
Unscheduled     AUD 299,593,299

Aggregate of all redraws on housing loans:
AUD 69,851,725

Aggregate of outstanding balance of housing loans at the end of the period:
AUD 881,693,577

Aggregate Income of the trust for the period:        AUD 76,746,347
Aggregate Expenses of the trust for the period:      AUD 65,782,124

Interest rates for the period:

Class A2 Notes(average):            2.0500%
Class B1: Notes (average)           2.5500%

Delinquency and loss statistics with respect to the housing loans:

Loss:                      Nil
Delinquency:               0-29 days        1.53%
                           30 -59 days      0.60%
                           60+ days         0.74%


                                  Page 1 of 1
### §2505. Special advisory committees; membership; reimbursement

The Commission may establish special advisory committees to consult with and make recommendations to it, from among the leading historians, political scientists, archivists, librarians, and other specialists of the Nation. Members of special advisory committees shall be reimbursed for transportation and other expenses on the same basis as members of the Commission.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1294.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §393(e) (June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title V, §503, as added Sept. 5, 1950, ch. 849, §6(d), 64 Stat. 583, and amended July 28, 1964, Pub. L. 88–383, 78 Stat. 335).

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

#### Termination of Advisory Committees

Advisory committees in existence on Jan. 5, 1973, to terminate not later than the expiration of the 2-year period following Jan. 5, 1973, unless, in the case of a committee established by the President or an officer of the Federal Government, such committee is renewed by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such 2-year period, or in the case of a committee established by the Congress, its duration is otherwise provided by law. See section 1013 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Advisory Committee on Founding Fathers Editorial Projects

Pub. L. 110–404, §5, Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4283, which authorized the Archivist of the United States to establish an Advisory Committee on Founding Fathers Editorial Projects to review the progress of Founding Fathers editorial projects and to develop, review, and report on appropriate completion goals for such projects, terminated on Oct. 13, 2016.
#### Universal Vending Service Company, appellee, v. Tony DeMeo, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,449.

Forcible detainer to recover possession of news stand and concession space in elevated railroad station. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

William J. Moore, for appellant. Schuyler, Ettelson & Weinfeld, for appellee.

Per Curiam.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

I, Richard V. Secord, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Computerized Thermal
Imaging, Inc. ("CTI");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
         disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared;

         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
         of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
         the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financing reporting; and;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
         or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting.

Date: February 13, 2004 /s/ Richard V. Secord
-------------------------------
Richard V. Secord
Chairman of the Board and Chief
  Executive Officer
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 4:44 PM

To: Vijay Tendulkar; Thomas Patzner; Gary Fernstrom; Tim Ballo; Jerry Schoen;

Andrew Delaski; Caskey, John; Michael Rivest; Brian Coffey; Chris Bolduc; Caitlin

Johnson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Wes Patterson

Subject: Data Center Transformer Definition

Colleagues,

Hope you all had a safe and en joyable Th anksgiving break. Attached for your

review is Mr. Tendulkar's first draft of a definition and technical specification

for Data Centers. He phoned to ask me to transmit it to the group as he is

experiencing email difficulties.

This is for discussion purposes. Mr. Tendulkar emphasized that he takes no pr ide

of auth orship in this, particularly inasmuch as English is not his first

language, and both substantive and editorial suggestions are welcome and

encouraged.

I will post the document to the Sharepoint site this evening. I realize people

are traveling soon, but hopefully we can have a brief discussion to identify any

major i ssu es prior to the meeting.

This document is being circulated to the people who on my notes expressed an

interest in this issue at our meeting, and I will circulate the draft as it

stands tomorrow evening to the larger group.

Best wishes,

Richard Parker

Facilitator
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsComparison of theoretical and flight-measured local flow aerodynamics for a low-aspect-ratio finFlight test and theoretical aerodynamic data were obtained for a flight test fixture mounted on the underside of an F-104G aircraft. The theoretical data were generated using two codes: a two-dimensional transonic code called code H, and a three-dimensional subsonic and supersonic code called wing-body. Pressure distributions generated by the codes for the flight test fixture, as well as compared with the flight-measured data. The two-dimensional code pressure distributions compared well except at the minimum pressure point and the trailing edge. Shock locations compared well except at high transonic speeds. However, the two-dimensional code did not adequately predict the displacement thickness of the flight test fixture. The three-dimensional code pressure distributions compared well except at the trailing edge of the flight test fixture.Document ID19870006508Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsJohnson, J. Blair*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Sandlin, Doral R.*(California Polytechnic State Univ. San Luis Obispo, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1986Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-86806NAS 1.15:86806H-1336Accession Number87N15941Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-60-21CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC4-1Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870006508.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
#### Lois Edelstein, Respondent, v Albert Edelstein, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 22, 1976, awarding plaintiff counsel fees in the sum of $4,000, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the counsel fees to $3,000, inclusive of services on the appeal, and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 21, 1976, granting respondent’s motion to (a) adjudge the appellant in contempt of court; (b) fine the appellant the sum of $1,800; (c) award respondent a *898counsel fee in the sum of $1,500; (d) direct the entry of a judgment in favor of respondent against appellant in the sum of $1,800; and (e) appoint respondent receiver in sequestration of the appellant’s real and personal property, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing the counsel fee to $1,000, including services rendered on appeal, extending for 30 days from the date of the order to be entered hereon the appellant’s time to pay arrears, and vacating the appointment of respondent as receiver in sequestration of appellant’s real and personal property, and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The award of counsel fees in the orders appealed from were excessive to the extent indicated. In view of the fact that respondent has recently filed the bond previously directed, and the other circumstances set forth in the record, it seems appropriate to extend to him an additional period of time in which to pay the arrears. The order of sequestration is wholly unsupported by the realities of the situation disclosed. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Fein, Lane, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.
From: Rahul Pendse [RPendse@trinityconsultants.com]

Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 10:26 AM

To: Land, Eva

Cc: Carlson, Sara; Kathryn Maness (Kathryn.Maness@anadarko.com)

Subject: Discoverer Spirit

- EGOM 2

- year PSD/Title V Permit Application (Anadarko)

Attachments: Summary of Main Engine Maintenance Schedule

- EPA Submittal 091313.xlsx

Hello Eva,

In response to your email on July 30, 2013 and follow

- up phone discussions, please find recommended

maintenance practices for the main engines on the Discover er Spirit drillship attached herewith. Please

confirm the receipt of this email and let me or Sara Carlson of Anadarko know if you have any questions

or need additional information. Thank you for cooperation.

................................................................................................................ Rahul Pendse

Managing Consultant

Trinity Consultants

– Baton Rouge

301 Main Street, Suite 900 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825

Office: 225

- 346

- 4003 | Mobile: 714

- 454

- 0518

Email: rpendse@trinityconsultan ts.com

_________________________________________________________________________

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to

which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged

material. Any review, retransm ission, dissemination or other use of, or

taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or

entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you

Received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material

from any computer.

_________________________________________________________________________
§ 594.17 General criteria for competitive selection. ( a ) *Criteria.* HUD will use the following general criteria for selecting and ranking applications for all competitions for John Heinz Neighborhood Development Program funds. The relative values for the criteria will be indicated in each NOFA: ( 1 ) The degree of economic distress and the benefit to low- and moderate-income residents of the neighborhood;
( 2 ) The past performance in carrying out eligible activities, and staff capability;
( 3 ) The quality of the Management/Business Plan;
( 4 ) The evidence of coordination and resident participation; and
( 5 ) The quality of the strategy to increase the capacity of the organization and the strategy developed for meeting long-term financial needs.
( b ) *Geographic diversity.* The Department also reserves the right to fund applicants in other than rank order, for the purpose of achieving geographic balance.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: November 21, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Region 7, EPA

SUBJECT: August 5, 2014, Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants

SUMMARY

A conference call was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 5, 

2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The majority of the 

discussion centered on how goals were established for the state of Nebraska. The Carbon Power 

Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

EPA Headquarters:

Erich Eschmann

Matt Clouse

Joe Bryson

Chris Sherry

David Soloman

Nate Topham

Jim Catencardwell

Lora Strine

Erica Wilson

Beth Murray

EPA Region 7:

Mark A. Smith

Ward Burns

Larry Gonzalez

Nebraska Department of Environmental 

Quality:

Shelly Schneider

Katie Gutierrez

Brian Kozisek
(No. 80-CC-0298

#### Hardy Lewis, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed July 3, 1986.*

Gerald C. Bender, for Claimant.

Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (John R. Buckley, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Montana, C.J.

This cause comes before the Court on the parties’ joint stipulation settlement which states:

This claim arises from personal injuries that occurred to the Claimant when he was a prisoner at a facility owned and operated by the State of Illinois Department of Corrections.

The parties have investigated this claim, and have knowledge of the facts and law applicable to the claim, and are desirous of settling this claim in the interest of peace and economy.

Both parties agree that an award of $10,000.00 is both fair and reasonable.

Claimant agrees to accept, and Respondent agrees to pay Claimant $10,000.00 in full and final satisfaction of this claim and any other claims against Respondent arising from the events which gave rise to this claim.

*33The parties hereby agree to waive hearing, the taking of evidence, and the submission of briefs.

This Court is not bound by such an agreement but it is also not desirous of creating or prolonging a controversy between parties who wish to settle and end their dispute. Where, as in the instant claim, the agreement appears to have been entered into with full knowledge of the facts and law and is for a just and reasonable amount, we have no reason to question or deny the suggested award.

It is hereby ordered that the Claimant be awarded $10,000.00, in full and final satisfaction of this claim.
### §3701. Advertisements for contracts in District of Columbia

Advertisements for contracts for the public service may not be published in any newspaper published and printed in the District of Columbia unless the supplies or labor covered by the advertisement are to be furnished or performed in the District of Columbia or in the adjoining counties of Maryland or Virginia.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1305.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §321 (R.S. §79; June 20, 1874, ch. 328, 18 Stat. 90; Feb. 18, 1875, ch. 80, §1, 18 Stat. 317; July 31, 1876, ch. 246, 19 Stat. 105; Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 744, §17(b), 60 Stat. 811; 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 20, §2(b), eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3178, 64 Stat. 1272).
### §317. Special policemen

The Director of the Government Publishing Office or a delegate of the Director may designate employees of the Government Publishing Office to serve as special policemen to protect persons and property in premises and adjacent areas occupied by or under the control of the Government Publishing Office. Under regulations to be prescribed by the Director of the Government Publishing Office, employees designated as special policemen are authorized to bear and use arms in the performance of their duties; make arrest for violations of laws of the United States, the several States, and the District of Columbia; and enforce the regulations of the Director of the Government Publishing Office, including the removal from Government Publishing Office premises of individuals who violate such regulations. The jurisdiction of special policemen in premises occupied by or under the control of the Government Publishing Office and adjacent areas shall be concurrent with the jurisdiction of the respective law enforcement agencies where the premises are located.

(Added Pub. L. 91–359, §1(a), July 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 668; amended Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(b), (c)(1), (i)(9), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537, 2539.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235, §1301(i)(9), substituted "a delegate of the Director" for "his delegate".

Pub. L. 113–235, §1301(c)(1), substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer" wherever appearing.

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

#### Change of Name

"Government Publishing Office" substituted for "Government Printing Office" in text on authority of section 1301(b) of Pub. L. 113–235, set out as a note preceding section 301 of this title.
#### Joseph F. McCarthy, Appellant-Respondent, v Patricia F. McCarthy, Respondent-Appellant. Patricia F. McCarthy, Respondent-Appellant, v Joseph F. McCarthy,

Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 8, 1977, unanimously modified, without costs or disbursements, in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of giving the wife the right to open and close and except as thus modified, affirmed. The same circumstances which compelled Special Term to place venue in Suffolk County should have been conclusive on the issue of the right to open and close. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Evans, Lane and Sullivan, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75383-75384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26131]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 25, 2020.

[[Page 75384]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 13, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add First-Class Package Service Contract 114 to 
Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2021-27, CP2021-27.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2020-26131 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Angelos Pappas, appellee, v. R. L. Langford, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,455.

Action for damages to automobile sustained by collision. Judg*622meat for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John F. O’Connell, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Reversed with finding of fact.

Opinion filed December 10, 1923.

Cassels, Potter & Gilbert, for appellant; Ralph F. Potter and John W. Fisher, of counsel. John J. Lupe, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.