alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.710 What instructions must be given to personnel engaged in well operations? Prior to engaging in well operations, personnel must be instructed in: ( a ) *Hazards and safety requirements.* You must instruct your personnel regarding the safety requirements for the operations to be performed, possible hazards to be encountered, and general safety considerations to protect personnel, equipment, and the environment as required by subpart S of this part. The date and time of safety meetings must be recorded and available at the facility for review by BSEE representatives.
( b ) *Well control.* You must prepare a well-control plan for each well. Each well-control plan must contain instructions for personnel about the use of each well-control component of your BOP, procedures that describe how personnel will seal the wellbore and shear pipe before maximum anticipated surface pressure (MASP) conditions are exceeded, assignments for each crew member, and a schedule for completion of each assignment. You must keep a copy of your well-control plan on the rig at all times, and make it available to BSEE upon request. You must post a copy of the well-control plan on the rig floor.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHypersonic lateral and directional stability characteristics of aeroassist flight experiment configuration in air and CF4Hypersonic lateral and directional stability characteristics measured on a 60 deg half-angle elliptical cone, which was raked at an angle of 73 deg from the cone centerline and with an ellipsoid nose (ellipticity equal to 2.0 in the symmetry plane), are presented for angles of attack from -10 to 10 deg. The high normal-shock density ratio of a real gas was simulated by tests at a Mach number of 6 in air and CF4 (density ratio equal to 5.25 and 12.0, respectively). Tests were conducted in air at Mach 6 and 10 and in CF4 at Mach 6 to examine the effects of Mach number, Reynolds number, and normal-shock density ratio. Changes in Mach number from 6 to 10 in air or in Reynolds number by a factor of 4 at Mach 6 had a negligible effect on lateral and directional stability characteristics. Variations in normal-shock density ratio had a measurable effect on lateral and directional aerodynamic coefficients, but no significant effect on lateral and directional stability characteristics. Tests in air and CF4 indicated that the configuration was laterally and directionally stable through the test range of angle of attack.Document ID19930019977Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMicol, John R.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Wells, William L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1993Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:4435L-17154NASA-TM-4435Accession Number93N29166Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-40-41-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930019977.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
#### E. Don Smith et al. *v.*Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Greenwich et al.

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14632.

*James W. Macauley,*assistant town attorney, in support of the petition.

*E. Don Smith,*pro se, and *Eileen Smith,*pro se, in opposition.

Decided October 30, 1992

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 29 Conn. App. 28 (AC 10431), is granted, limited to the following question:

“In acting on a subdivision proposal that conforms to applicable zoning regulations, may a planning and zoning commission take into account the fact that the property is located in a historic district and that the development of the property may be inconsistent with historic preservation of the district?”
#### § 18.69 Adequacy tests.

MSHA reserves the right to conduct appropriate test(s) to verify the adequacy of equipment for its intended service.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 2, 2014

No. 04-14-00061-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.S.O., a Child,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-01423

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant R.S.’s Second Motion for Extension of Timed to File Brief is GRANTED. 

The brief is due on April 7, 2014.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The Great Western Telegraph Company *v.*Rudolph Pfeiffer, Exr.

*Filed at Ottawa April 3, 1897.*

This case is governed hy the decision in the case of *Farwell*v. *Great Western Telegraph Co.*161 Ill. 522.

*Great Western Telegraph Co.*v. *Barker,*56 Ill. App. 402, affirmed.

Writ of Error to the Appellate Court for the Second District;—heard in that court on writ of error to the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. T. M. Shaw, Judge, presiding.

Thomas J. Sutherland, and Israel C. Pinkney, for plaintiff in error.

Stevens, Horton & Abbott, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam:

This was a suit brought by plaintiff in error, against Gardner T. Barker, since deceased, to recover an assessment made on a subscription by Barker to the capital stock of the appellant company. While the cause was pending in this court on appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the court below in favor of the defendant, the final decision was rendered by this court in the case of *Farwell*v. *Great Western Telegraph Co.*161 Ill. 522, which decision disposed also of all questions involved in this case. The judgment of the Appellate Court will therefore, in view of the decision of the *Farwell case,*be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7388
ERIC DAVID JETER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS MCFADDEN, Investigator; JUDGE WHITE, Magistrate, Florence, South Carolina; FLORENCE COUNTY SHERIFFS’ DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-1703-GRA) Submitted: December 16, 2005 Decided: January 20, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric David Jeter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Eric David Jeter appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jeter v. McFadden , No. CA-05-1703-GRA (D.S.C. Aug. 12, 2005). 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 10.1

                    AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EOMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement (this "Agreement") is made and
entered into effective as of Decmeber 31, 1996 by and between Primeco Inc., a
Texas corporation ("Employer"), and Gerald E. Lane ("Employee").

    WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement, dated
as of December 2, 1994 (the "Employment Agreement");

    WHEREAS, to induce Employee to stay in the employ of Employer, Employer and
Employee desire to amend certain terms and conditions of the Employment
Agreement;

    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and
agreements set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
hereby agree as follows:

    1. DEFINED TERMS. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the
meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.

    2. INCENTIVE COMPENSATION. Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby
amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

        "3.2 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION. In addition to the Base Salary provided for
    in Section 3.1 hereof, Employee's bonus for calendar year 1996 shall equal
    $70,130, to be paid by February 28, 1997."

    3. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT. Upon payment of the incentive
compensation as set forth in Section 2 hereof, the Employment Agreement,
including without limitation Section 7 and 8 thereof, shall terminate and be of
no further force and effect, except that Employer shall pay to Employee Base
Salary through the date of such termination.

    4. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT. Employer shall be free to continue to employ Employee
on an at-will basis without an employment contract upon such terms and
conditions as Employer and Employee agree.

    5. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Except as expressly amended or modified in
this Agreement, all terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect, until the Employment Agreement terminates
pursuant to Section 3 hereof.

                           [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

<PAGE>
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties to the Agreement has executed and
delivered this Agreement as of the date first written above.

                                        PRIMECO INC.

                                        By: /s/ THOMAS E. BENNETT
                                        Thomas E. Bennett
                                        President

                                        EMPLOYEE: 

                                        /s/ GERALD LANE
                                        Gerald Lance
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1158 How do I receive approval to downhole commingle hydrocarbons? ( a ) Before you perforate a well, you must request and receive approval from the Regional Supervisor to commingle hydrocarbons produced from multiple reservoirs within a common wellbore. The Regional Supervisor will determine whether your request maximizes ultimate recovery. You must include the service fee listed in § 250.125, according to the instructions in § 250.126, and the supporting information, as listed in the table in § 250.1167, with your request.
( b ) If one or more of the reservoirs proposed for commingling is a competitive reservoir, you must notify the operators of all leases that contain the reservoir that you intend to downhole commingle the reservoirs. Your request for approval of downhole commingling must include proof of the date of this notification. The notified operators have 30 days after notification to provide the Regional Supervisor with letters of acceptance or objection. If the notified operators do not respond within the specified period, the Regional Supervisor will assume the operators do not object and proceed with a decision.
## EMSI Source Testing Department Form

o Probe Calibration Procedure (Caliper) ST305-01

Probe ID Number 221034 Pitot ID Number 222030

NIST Master 421002 Technician Nate Traut

MN PA Out of Service Date 2010-02-02

D t 0.374

D n 0.500

a 1.284

Pa 0.491

Pb 0.491

b 1.001

c
d

e



### OR OR

c 4.622

f 2.162

EPA Method 2 Specifications

Pass Pass

NA Pass

Note: All measurements are in inches.

Historical Data F:\EEQP\Historical Data\Probe.ini 

### " 8 3 " 16 3 to Dt =



### " 4 3 ≥ a Save Next Find Clear



### " 4 3 ≥ e " 2 1
= Dn l l 

### D P D 50

. 1 05

. 1 < <

Pb Pa = 

### " 0 ≥ b " 3 ≥ c

" 3 ≥ d



### " 2 ≥ f NA

Pass Pass

Pass

Pass Calculate

D t

a

D n

e

c d

c f b P b P

a

Pass

## EMSI Source Testing Department Form

o Probe Calibration Procedure (Caliper) ST305-01

Probe ID Number 201019 Pitot ID Number 222019

NIST Master 421002 Technician Nathan Traut

MN PA Out of Service Date 2009-09-08

D t Na

D n 0.385

a Na

Pa 0.456

Pb 0.456

b Na

c 7.126

d 4.063

e 0.788



### OR OR

c
f

EPA Method 2 Specifications

Pass Fail

Pass Pass

Note: All measurements are in inches.

Historical Data F:\EEQP\Historical Data\Probe.ini 

### " 8 3 " 16 3 to Dt =



### " 4 3 ≥ a Save Next Find Clear



### " 4 3 ≥ e " 2 1
= Dn l l 

### D P D 50

. 1 05

. 1 < <

Pb Pa = 

### " 0 ≥ b " 3 ≥ c

" 3 ≥ d



### " 2 ≥ f Pass

NA Pass

Fail

Pass Calculate

D t

a

D n

e

c d

c f b P b P

a

Pass

## EMSI Source Testing Department Form

o Probe Calibration Procedure (Caliper) ST305-01

Probe ID Number 221033 Pitot ID Number 222029

NIST Master 421002 Technician Nate Traut

MN PA Out of Service Date 2010-02-02

D t
D n

a

Pa

Pb

b

c
d

e



### OR OR

c
f

EPA Method 2 Specifications

Pass Pass

NA Pass

Note: All measurements are in inches.

Historical Data F:\EEQP\Historical Data\Probe.ini 

### " 8 3 " 16 3 to Dt =



### " 4 3 ≥ a Save Next Find Clear



### " 4 3 ≥ e " 2 1
= Dn l l 

### D P D 50

. 1 05

. 1 < <

Pb Pa = 

### " 0 ≥ b " 3 ≥ c

" 3 ≥ d



### " 2 ≥ f NA

Pass Pass

Pass

Pass Calculate

D t

a

D n

e

c d

c f b P b P

a

Pass

## EMSI Source Testing Department Form

o Probe Calibration Procedure (Caliper) ST305-01

Probe ID Number 221035 Pitot ID Number 222031

NIST Master 421002 Technician Nate Traut

MN PA Out of Service Date 2010-02-02

D t 0.373

D n 0.500

a 1.091

Pa 0.415

Pb 0.415

b 1.294

c
d

e



### OR OR

c 3.702

f 2.024

EPA Method 2 Specifications

Pass Pass

NA Pass

Note: All measurements are in inches.

Historical Data F:\EEQP\Historical Data\Probe.ini 

### " 8 3 " 16 3 to Dt =



### " 4 3 ≥ a Save Next Find Clear



### " 4 3 ≥ e " 2 1
= Dn l l 

### D P D 50

. 1 05

. 1 < <

Pb Pa = 

### " 0 ≥ b " 3 ≥ c

" 3 ≥ d



### " 2 ≥ f NA

Pass Pass

Pass

Pass Calculate

D t

a

D n

e

c d

c f b P b P

a

Pass
#### In the Matter of Amber L. Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Debbie L., Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 251]

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), entered February 7, 2006, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that she had permanently neglected the subject child, *652terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the child to the Orange County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that, despite the petitioner’s diligent efforts, the mother failed to end her continuing relationship with a level three sex offender, which was the reason that the child was removed. On this basis, the Family Court correctly found that the mother had permanently neglected the child by failing to plan for her future, as she was required to do (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7]; *Matter of Nathaniel T.,*67 NY2d 838, 842 [1986]; *Matter of Leon RR.,*48 NY2d 117, 125 [1979]; *Matter of Pleasant Edward G.,*306 AD2d 409 [2003]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Skelos, JJ., concur.
§ 36.9 Conduct of investigations, tests, and demonstrations. ( a ) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of approval or a letter of certification, as the case may require, necessary Government personnel, representatives of the applicant, and such other persons as may be mutually agreed upon may observe the investigations or tests. MSHA shall hold as confidential and shall not disclose principles or patentable features prior to certification, nor shall it disclose any details of drawings, specifications, descriptions, or related materials. After the issuance of a certificate of approval, MSHA may conduct such public demonstrations and tests of the approved mobile diesel-powered transportation equipment as it deems appropriate. The conduct of all investigations, tests, and demonstrations shall be under the direction and control of MSHA, and any other persons shall be present only as observers, except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) When requested by MSHA, the applicant shall provide assistance in disassembling parts for inspection, preparing parts for testing, and operating equipment during the tests.
[Sched. 31, 26 FR 645, Jan. 24, 1961, as amended at 39 FR 24006, June 28, 1974; 61 FR 55526, Oct. 25, 1996]
#### Eaton Factors Co., Inc. v. Double Eagle Corp. et al.

Motion granted to the extent that the order of affirmance of this court entered on June 20, 1963 is modified to provide that the first decretal paragraph of the order appealed from is modified to direct that the individual defendants shall appear for examination before trial at Special Term, Part II of the court on a day to be fixed on the settlement of the order hereon with the order appealed from otherwise unanimously affirmed, without prejudice to the proceedings heretofore had and with the liens and injunctive provisions existing under and by virtue of the pending supplementary proceedings under the judgment to remain in full force and effect pending the determination of the action. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
BF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0700

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRENNAN ADRIAN JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and

including January 24, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

December 16 2020

12/16/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0700
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31       Rule 13a-14(d) Certification



                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas G.  Lehmann,  a First Vice  President of  Washington  Mutual  Mortgage
Securities Corp., 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 WaMu Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-AR9;

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 trustee by the servicer 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 servicer 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 servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that
agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the minimum servicing 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 third parties acting as servicers
and sub-servicers:




None


Dated: March 29, 2005

                                     /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Thomas G. Lehmann
                                     First Vice President
#### § 1229.4 Authority.

The Secretary of the DOI is authorized under provisions of 30 U.S.C. 1735 to delegate authority to States to conduct audits and related investigations with respect to all Federal lands within a State, and to those Indian lands to which a State has received permission from the respective Indian tribe(s) or allottee(s) to carry out audit activities under a delegation from the Secretary.
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### § 250.1462 How may I request a hearing on the record on a Notice of Noncompliance regarding violations without a period to correct?

You may request a hearing on the record of a Notice of Noncompliance regarding violations without a period to correct by filing a request within 30 days after you receive the Notice of Noncompliance with the Hearings Division (Departmental), Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 801 North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22203. You may do this regardless of whether you correct the violations identified in the Notice of Noncompliance.
§ 18.62 Tests to determine explosion-proof characteristics. ( a ) In testing for explosion-proof characteristics of an enclosure, it shall be filled and surrounded with various explosive mixtures of natural gas and air. The explosive mixture within the enclosure will be ignited electrically and the explosion pressure developed therefrom recorded. The point of ignition within the enclosure will be varied. Motor armatures and/or rotors will be stationary in some tests and revolving in others. Coal dust having a minimum of 22 percent dry volatile matter and a minimum heat constant of 11,000 moist BTU (coal containing natural bed moisture but not visible surface water) ground to a fineness of minus 200 mesh U.S. Standard sieve series. At MSHA's discretion dummies may be substituted for internal electrical components during some of the tests. Not less than 16 explosion tests shall be conducted; however, the nature of the enclosure and the results obtained during the tests will determine whether additional tests shall be made.
( b ) Explosion tests of an enclosure shall not result in: ( 1 ) Discharge of flame.
( 2 ) Ignition of an explosive mixture surrounding the enclosure.
( 3 ) Development of afterburning.
( 4 ) Rupture of any part of the enclosure or any panel or divider within the enclosure.
( 5 ) Permanent distortion of the enclosure exceeding 0.040 inch per linear foot.
( c ) When a pressure exceeding 125 pounds per square inch (gage) is developed during explosion tests, MSHA reserves the right to reject an enclosure(s) unless ( 1 ) constructional changes are made that result in a reduction of pressure to 125 pounds per square inch (gage) or less, or
( 2 ) the enclosure withstands a dynamic pressure of twice the highest value recorded in the initial test.
[33 FR 4660, Mar. 19, 1968, as amended at 57 FR 61210, Dec. 23, 1992]