alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn Interactive Software for Conceptual Wing Flutter Analysis and Parametric StudyAn interactive computer program was developed for wing flutter analysis in the conceptual design stage. The objective was to estimate the flutter instability boundary of a flexible cantilever wing, when well-defined structural and aerodynamic data are not available, and then study the effect of change in Mach number, dynamic pressure, torsional frequency, sweep, mass ratio, aspect ratio, taper ratio, center of gravity, and pitch inertia, to guide the development of the concept. The software was developed for Macintosh or IBM compatible personal computers, on MathCad application software with integrated documentation, graphics, data base and symbolic mathematics. The analysis method was based on non-dimensional parametric plots of two primary flutter parameters, namely Regier number and Flutter number, with normalization factors based on torsional stiffness, sweep, mass ratio, taper ratio, aspect ratio, center of gravity location and pitch inertia radius of gyration. The parametric plots were compiled in a Vought Corporation report from a vast data base of past experiments and wind-tunnel tests. The computer program was utilized for flutter analysis of the outer wing of a Blended-Wing-Body concept, proposed by McDonnell Douglas Corp. Using a set of assumed data, preliminary flutter boundary and flutter dynamic pressure variation with altitude, Mach number and torsional stiffness were determined.Document ID19970005613Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMukhopadhyay, Vivek*(National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1996Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:110276NASA-TM-110276Accession Number97N13414Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-69-59-04Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970005613.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
Office for Victims of Crime – Human Trafficking Capacity Building Center

THE PROCESS FOR

APPLYING FOR A FEDERAL GRANT

The federal government provides millions of dollars in grant funding to support victims of human 

trafficking. Solicitations—also known as requests for proposals (RFPs)—are announced by a federal 

agency and posted on grants.gov. Listed below are the high-level steps for applying for federal grant 

money. Every grant program solicitation describes in detail the process for applying for a federal grant 

and should be the primary reference when drafting a grant proposal. 

Steps for Applying for a Federal Grant 

Review the eligibility and requirements—including the deadline—thoroughly and determine if the 

organization is eligible and can fulfill the requirements.

Draft an action plan in a sharable format with everyone working on the application. Include 

subrecipients, contractors, and subject matter experts.

Draft a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for each partner identified to work on the application. 

Include in the MOU a description of each organization, the names and positions of the individuals 

supporting the work, a sentence describing the basic elements of the MOU, and how the collaboration 

will contribute to the project’s success. In addition, include any history about previous collaborations 

between the organizations, each organization’s roles and responsibilities, and what resources each 

organization will contribute. Submit copies of all MOUs with the grant application. 

Set up a schedule of tasks and timelines for the application period. Hold weekly calls to share ideas, 

answer questions, and remind all contributors of upcoming deadlines.

Draft text for each component of the solicitation, which typically includes—

• An abstract;

• A narrative describing the issues, project design, and implementation plan; the capabilities 

and competencies; and a data collection plan; 
THE PROCESS FOR APPLYING FOR A FEDERAL GRANT

Office for Victims of Crime – Human Trafficking Capacity Building Center

• Budget details;

• Time-task plan;

• Logic model; 

• Resumes and job descriptions of key staff; and

• MOUs. 

Fulfill the federal grant solicitation's requirement for attachments, which often includes—

• Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424); Note: This will be finalized once the budget is 

determined; 

• Indirect Cost Rate Agreement;

• Financial Management and System of Internal Controls Questionnaire;

• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL);

• Disclosure of Pending Applications;

• Research and Evaluation Independence and Integrity; and

• Organizational Chart.

Complete a draft of the organization's application. Include the requested budget and other relevant 

attachments one week prior to the submission deadline and distribute the draft for final review.

Meet with the team to review the draft, incorporate input and edits, and finalize the application.

Submit the application no later than the morning of the deadline date; should there be technical 

difficulties, assistance can be more easily obtained in the daytime.
#### The Sherwin-Williams Company, appellee, v. Dachel-Carter Shipbuilding Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,916.

Action on note. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. George B. Holmes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 17, 1923.

Haight, Adcock, Haight & Harris, for appellant; Edmund D. Adcock, of counsel. Edward L. England, for appellee.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
### PART A—RAIL
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1921 What qualifications must the ASP meet? ( a ) The ASP must meet or exceed the qualifications, competency, and training criteria contained in Section 3 and Sections 6 through 10 of *Qualification and Competence Requirements for Audit Teams and Auditors Performing Third-party SEMS Audits of Deepwater Operations,* COS-2-01, (incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198) or its equivalent;
( b ) The ASP must be accredited by a BSEE-approved AB; and
( c ) The ASP must perform an audit in accordance with 250.1920(a).
[78 FR 20442, Apr. 5, 2013]
### §56105. Forfeiture procedure

(a) In General.—A forfeiture under this chapter may be enforced in the same way as a forfeiture under the laws on the collection of duties. However, such a forfeiture may be remitted without seizure of the vessel.

(b) Prior Convictions.—In a proceeding under this chapter to enforce a forfeiture, a prior criminal conviction of a person for a violation of this chapter with respect to the subject matter of the forfeiture is prima facie evidence of the violation against the person convicted.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1654.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 56105(a) | 46 App.:836. | Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 451, §38, as added July 15, 1918, ch. 152, §4, 40 Stat. 902; Pub. L. 101–225, title III, §304(b), Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1924. |
| 56105(b) | 46 App.:837. | Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 451, §39, as added July 15, 1918, ch. 152, §4, 40 Stat. 902. |

Section
**Exhibit 12.2**

**Certification by the Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

I, Hannah Lee, Chief Financial Officer of The9 Limited (the “Company”), certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of the Company; 

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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, 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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

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

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the 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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

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

(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 Company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date:June 30, 2006 

By:   /s/ Hannah Lee                

Name: Hannah Lee 

Title: Chief Financial Officer
§ 1218.103 Payments to States. ( a ) Any amount that is payable by ONRR to a State but is not paid on the due date, as specified in § 1219.100 of this chapter, or that is held in a suspense account pending resolution of a dispute as specified in § 1219.101 of this chapter, shall accrue interest payable to the State.
( b ) Interest shall be computed at the underpayment rate established by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 6621(a)(2) (Supp. 1987).
( c ) Interest shall be computed only for the number of days the disbursement is late. In the case of suspended amounts subject to interest, it shall be computed beginning with the calendar day following the day that the monies normally would have been paid to the State had they not been in suspense.
[49 FR 37347, Sept. 21, 1984, as amended at 55 FR 37230, Sept. 10, 1990]
### §1703. Broadband DATA maps

#### (a) Definition

In this section, the term "Commission" means the Federal Communications Commission.

#### (b) Provision of information

A broadband provider shall provide the Commission with any information, in the format, type, or specification requested by the Commission, necessary to augment the collection of data by the Commission under—

(1) title VIII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 641 et seq.); or

(2) the Form 477 data collection program.

#### (c) Notice of initial broadband DATA collection filing deadline

The Commission—

(1) shall provide notice to broadband providers not later than 60 days before the initial deadline for submission of data under section 802(a)(1)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 642(a)(1)(A)); and

(2) notwithstanding any prior decision of the Commission to the contrary, shall not be required to provide notice not later than 6 months before the initial deadline described in paragraph (1).

(Pub. L. 117–58, div. F, title I, §60103, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1205.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Communications Act of 1934, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), is act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064. Title VIII of the Act is classified generally to subchapter VII (§641 et seq.) of chapter 5 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 60103 of Pub. L. 117–58. Subsecs. (d) and (e) of section 60103 of Pub. L. 117–58 amended section 642 of this title.
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF WISE METALS GROUP LLC*

(As of December 31, 2004)



|                                        |  |                             
|--------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                                        |  | Jurisdiction of Organization
|Wise Alloys LLC                         |  | Delaware                    
|Wise Alloys Finance Corporation         |  | Delaware                    
|Wise Recycling, LLC                     |  | Maryland                    
|Wise Recycling West, LLC                |  | Delaware                    
|Wise Recycling Texas, LLC               |  | Delaware                    
|Wise Warehousing, LLC                   |  | Delaware                    
|Listerhill Total Maintenance Center LLC |  | Delaware                    



|* | All of the subsidiaries in the above list are wholly owned, either directly or indirectly, by Wise Metals Group LLC.
|- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 990.245 Types of appeals. ( a ) *Streamlined appeal.* This appeal would demonstrate that the application of a specific Operating Fund formula component has a blatant and objective flaw.
( b ) *Appeal of formula income for economic hardship.* After a PHA's formula income has been frozen, the PHA can appeal to have its formula income adjusted to reflect a severe local economic hardship that is impacting the PHA's ability to maintain rental and other revenue.
( c ) *Appeal for specific local conditions.* This appeal would be based on demonstrations that the model's predictions are not reliable because of specific local conditions. To be eligible, the affected PHA must demonstrate a variance of ten percent or greater in its PEL.
( d ) *Appeal for changing market conditions.* A PHA may appeal to receive operating subsidy for vacant units due to changing market conditions, after a PHA has taken aggressive marketing and outreach measures to rent these units. For example, a PHA could appeal if it is located in an area experiencing population loss or economic dislocations that faces a lack of demand for housing in the foreseeable future.
( e ) *Appeal to substitute actual project cost data.* A PHA may appeal its PEL if it can produce actual project cost data derived from actual asset management, as outlined in subpart H of this part, for a period of at least two years.
================================================================================

                    EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications


The undersigned officer certifies that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NexxNow, Inc.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to NexxNow, Inc. and will be retained by NexxNow, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

September 18, 2009

                                     /s/ Gary Berthold
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Gary Berthold, Chief Executive Officer


                                     /s/ Sterling Shepperd
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Sterling Shepperd, Chief Financial Officer





================================================================================
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF IMPSAT FIBER NETWORKS, INC. AND ITS
CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         114,766
<SECURITIES>                                   305,963
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,130
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               543,337
<PP&E>                                         669,692
<DEPRECIATION>                                 289,996
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,336,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          200,963
<BONDS>                                        873,984
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           914
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,336,969
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               234,193
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  268,505
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,852
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              80,051
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (93,251)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (908)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (95,552)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.09)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7598

WINSTON LLOYD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety

and Correctional Services; RICHARD A. LANHAM,

SR., Commissioner of Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA95-943-PJM)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 23, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Winston Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber,

Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Lloyd v. Robinson, No. CA-95-943-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 18, 1995).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

**Chief Executive Officer Certification pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Ricardo A. Verdaguer, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of IMPSAT Fiber Networks, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch 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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theRegistrant and we have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controlsand 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 withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared, 

 

(b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8283 (June 5, 2003)], 

 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation, and 

 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s mostrecent 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 financial reporting; and

 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) all adversely significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to 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 controlsover financial reporting. 

 

 

August 15, 2005
#### In re EVANS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 15, 1905.)

In the matter of Charles C. Evans, an incompetent person. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondent; payable out of the fund of the said incompetent.