alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn Overview of Power, Energy Storage, and Conversion Efforts for 2014 SBIR Phases I and IITechnological innovation is the overall focus of NASA's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The program invests in the development of innovative concepts and technologies to help NASA's mission directorates address critical research and development needs for agency projects. NASA's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program focuses on technological innovation by investing in development of innovative concepts and technologies to help NASA mission directorates address critical research needs for Agency programs. This report highlights 15 of the innovative SBIR 2014 Phase I and II projects that focus on one of NASA Glenn Research Center's six core competencies-Power, Energy Storage and Conversion. The technologies cover a wide spectrum of applications such as high-radiation-tolerant ceramic voltage isolators, development of hermetic sealing glasses for solid oxide fuel cells, rechargeable lithium metal cells, high-efficiency direct methane solid oxide fuel cell systems, Li metal protection for high-energy space batteries, isolated bidirectional direct current converters for distributed battery energy applications, and high-efficiency rad-hard ultrathin Si photovoltaic cell technology for space. Each article describes an innovation and technical objective and highlights NASA commercial and industrial applications. This report provides an opportunity for NASA engineers, researchers, and program managers to learn how NASA SBIR technologies could help their programs and projects, and lead to collaborations and partnerships between the small SBIR companies and NASA that would benefit both.Document ID20160012464Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsNguyen, Hung D.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Steele, Gynelle C.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 19, 2016Publication DateOctober 1, 2016Subject CategoryEnergy Production And ConversionReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN31419NASA/TM-2016-219378E-19226Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 471296.01.03.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Keywordsflywheelsthermal energy conversion and heat rejectionradioisotopesfuel cellssolar power generationbatteriesregenerative fuel cellsAvailable DownloadsNameType20160012464.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
From: Thomas Andersen 

Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:34 PM 

To: Siefers, Andrea 

Cc: Becky Lopez 

Subject: RE: PVC Resin Formaldehyde Data (revised) - Shintech - 114 

Information Request 2009

Andrea,

Attached in the revised data for all three Shintech facilities in the 

format you requested. We updated 

columns P-S. Please review and let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Thomas S. Andersen

Environmental Manager

Shintech, Inc.

979 233 7861 ext 398

979 236 5641 (c)

From: Siefers, Andrea [mailto:Siefers.Andrea@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 2:51 PM 

To: Thomas Andersen 

Cc: Becky Longino 

Subject: RE: PVC Resin Formaldehyde Data (revised) - Shintech - 114 

Information Request 2009

Tom,

Attached is a spreadsheet that you can use to update Shintech’s reported 

formaldehyde data. The 

current data we have is in columns A-L and you can make any updates in 

columns N-S. Please do not 

make any changes to columns A-M.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Andrea Siefers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC

919-541-1185

From: Thomas Andersen [mailto:tandersen@shin-tech.com] 

Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:44 AM 

To: Siefers, Andrea 

Cc: Becky Longino 
Subject: PVC Resin Formaldehyde Data (revised) - Shintech - 114 

Information Request 2009

Andrea,

I am following up from our previous conversations regarding the fact 

that Shintech, Inc. has learned 

from Environmental Chemistry Inc. (ECI) that the resin results 

(Formaldehyde data for both TX and LA 

facilities) submitted to EPA are incorrect. This data was originally 

submitted by Shintech to EPA as part 

of our response to the US EPA Section 114 information request from 

August 2009. Having received 

the revised data from ECI, I would like to discuss with you the best 

method/format for Shintech to 

submit the corrected data to EPA. Please call me when you have a 

moment.

Regards, 

Thomas S. Andersen

Environmental Manager

Shintech, Inc.

979 233 7861 ext 398

979 236 5641 (c)
#### § 350.10 Liability of Federal Reserve Banks as Depositories.

The Federal Reserve Banks as Depositories may rely on the information provided in a Transfer Message, and are not required to verify the information. The Federal Reserve Banks as Depositories shall not be liable for any action taken in accordance with the information set out in a Transfer Message, or evidence submitted in support thereof.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134842-3 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 134842-3 

 COA: 269203; 272072 

Wayne CC: 05-010263-01;

05-010260-01 

RICARDO LAMONT RICHARD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.743 What are the well activity reporting requirements? ( a ) For operations in the BSEE Gulf of Mexico (GOM) OCS Region, you must submit Form BSEE-0133, Well Activity Report (WAR), to the District Manager on a weekly basis. The reporting week is defined as beginning on Sunday (12 a.m.) and ending on the following Saturday (11:59 p.m.). This reporting week corresponds to a week (Sunday through Saturday) on a standard calendar. Report any well operations that extend past the end of this weekly reporting period on the next weekly report. The reporting period for the weekly report is never longer than 7 days, but could be less than 7 days for the first reporting period and the last reporting period for a particular well operation. Submit each WAR and accompanying Form BSEE-0133S, Open Hole Data Report, to the BSEE GOM OCS Region no later than close of business on the Friday immediately after the closure of the reporting week. The District Manager may require more frequent submittal of the WAR on a case-by-case basis.
( b ) For operations in the Pacific or Alaska OCS Regions, you must submit Form BSEE-0133, WAR, to the District Manager on a daily basis.
( c ) The WAR must include a description of the operations conducted, any abnormal or significant events that affect the permitted operation each day within the report from the time you begin operations to the time you end operations, any verbal approval received, the well's as-built drawings, casing, fluid weights, shoe tests, test pressures at surface conditions, and any other information concerning well activities required by the District Manager. For casing cementing operations, indicate type of returns (*i.e.*, full, partial, or none). If partial or no returns are observed, you must indicate how you determined the top of cement. For each report, indicate the operation status for the well at the end of the reporting period. On the final WAR, indicate the status of the well (completed, temporarily abandoned, permanently abandoned, or drilling suspended) and the date you finished such operations.
#### Carl E. Becker, Respondent, v Jeanne M. Ball, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In a custody proceeding arising out of a dispute between divorced parents, the paramount concern of the court is and must be the welfare and best interests of the child. Further, whenever possible, custody of children should be established on a long-term basis. "Children should not be shuttled back and forth between divorced parents merely because of changes in marital status, economic circumstances or improvements in moral or psychological adjustment, at least so long as the custodial parent has not been shown to be unfit, or perhaps less fit, to continue as the proper custodian” (see *Obey v Degling,*37 NY2d 768, 770); especially where, as here, under a separation agreement incorporated into their divorce decree, the parties agreed that the custody of this child, then under eight months old, should be with the husband, under the care of his parents (see, *Papernik v Papernik,*55 AD2d 846). We find under the circumstances present in this case that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to modify the custodial arrangements contained in the judgment of divorce. We do note that the wife has made great progress since the divorce towards achieving emotional stability and maturity and the ability to provide a good home for her daughter, and we rule only, as did Family Court, that it would not be in the best interests of the child to modify the custody provisions at this time. (Appeal from order of Wyoming County Family Court—custody.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Cardamone, Denman and Witmer, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2
**Certification of Principal Financial Officer**
I, Patrick H. Dudasik, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Calamos Asset Management, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, 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 establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
March 30, 2005
/S/ Patrick H. Dudasik
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.1477 How may BSEE collect the penalty? ( a ) BSEE may use all available means to collect the penalty including, but not limited to: ( 1 ) Requiring the lease surety, for amounts owed by lessees, to pay the penalty;
( 2 ) Deducting the amount of the penalty from any sums the United States owes to you; and
( 3 ) Using judicial process to compel your payment under 30 U.S.C. 1719(k).
( b ) If the Department uses judicial process, or if you seek judicial review under § 250.1474 and the court upholds assessment of a penalty, the court shall have jurisdiction to award the amount assessed plus interest assessed from the date of the expiration of the 90-day period referred to in § 250.1474. The amount of any penalty, as finally determined, may be deducted from any sum owing to you by the United States.
Exhibit 4.57
    
 
 
   1.
    
    The Borrowers desire to establish Fortune (Beijing) Yingchuang Technology Co., Ltd.
(the Company) whose registered capital will be RMB1,000,000, and Borrower A and Borrower
B will respectively hold 55% and 45% of the equity interest in the Company.
 2.
    
    The Borrowers desire to borrow a loan (the Loan) from the Lender to invest in the
Company.
 3.
    
    The Lender agrees to provide the Loan to Borrowers.




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



#####
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

July 5, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00685

- CR

Robert Miles DUNCAN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas Trial Court No. CR

- 14

- 000 0076 Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he assert ed there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifie d he served copies of th e brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and provided appellant with a form motion for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet. ); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet. ). Appointed counsel fil e d the A nders brief on April 3, 2018, and thereafter, his motion to withdraw on April 11, 2018 . When appellant had not filed the record request form provided by appointed counsel by May 23, 2018, we ordered him to file his pro se brief, if any, on or before July 9, 2018. However, rather than filing his brief, on July 2, 2018, appellant filed the motion provided by counsel, requesting a copy of the appellate record.

Accordingly , we ORDER the clerk of this court to send a copy of the appellate record

— the clerk’s and reporter’s records

— to appellant . We further ORDER appellant to file his pro se brief in this court on or before August 20, 2018 . If appellan t files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant ’ s pro se brief is filed in this court. The motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel will continue to be held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

- 82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel ’ s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound);Schulman v. State , 252 S.W.3d 403, 410

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on a ppellant, his counsel, and the attorney for the State.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have h ereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of July, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6544

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. GARY ROBINSON, a/k/a Gary Robertson, a/k/a Paul Thomas , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. ( 1:02

- cr - 00253

- DKC

- 1 )

Submitted : September 29, 2020 Decided: October 6, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Gary Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gary Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion

. See Whiteside v. United States , 775 F.3d 180, 182

- 83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one

- y ear statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

an d legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### § 290.5 Can I obtain an extension for filing my Notice of Appeal?

You cannot obtain an extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal. See 43 CFR 4.411(c).
### §1613. Relations between courts of United States and courts of Virgin Islands; review by United States Court of Appeals for Third Circuit; reports to Congress; rules

The relations between the courts established by the Constitution or laws of the United States and the courts established by local law with respect to appeals, certiorari, removal of causes, the issuance of writs of habeas corpus, and other matters or proceedings shall be governed by the laws of the United States pertaining to the relations between the courts of the United States, including the Supreme Court of the United States, and the courts of the several States in such matters and proceedings.

(July 22, 1954, ch. 558, §23, 68 Stat. 506; Pub. L. 98–454, title VII, §704, Oct. 5, 1984, 98 Stat. 1739; Pub. L. 103–437, §17(a)(4), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4595; Pub. L. 112–226, §1, Dec. 28, 2012, 126 Stat. 1606.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2012—Pub. L. 112–226 substituted a period for ": Provided, That for the first fifteen years following the establishment of the appellate court authorized by section 1611(a) of this title, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit shall have jurisdiction to review by writ of certiorari all final decisions of the highest court of the Virgin Islands from which a decision could be had. The Judicial Council of the Third Circuit shall submit reports to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives at intervals of five years following the establishment of such appellate court as to whether it has developed sufficient institutional traditions to justify direct review by the Supreme Court of the United States from all such final decisions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit shall have jurisdiction to promulgate rules necessary to carry out the provisions of this section." at end.

1994—Pub. L. 103–437 substituted "Natural Resources" for "Interior and Insular Affairs" before "of the House".

1984—Pub. L. 98–454 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to the relations between local law courts and already established courts under the Constitution or laws of the United States with respect to appeals, certiorari, etc. and providing that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit shall have jurisdiction to review all final decisions from the highest court of the Virgin Islands for fifteen years after the appellate court is established for former provisions relating to the jurisdiction of inferior courts, transfer of actions, status as committing court, bail and rules.

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

#### Effective Date of 2012 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–226 applicable to cases commenced on or after Dec. 28, 2012, see section 3 of Pub. L. 112–226, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1260 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–454 effective on ninetieth day following Oct. 5, 1984, see section 1005 of Pub. L. 98–454, set out as a note under section 1424 of this title.
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2004-17CB
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-17CB


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                       Dated: March 29, 2005
------------------------


JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Mark Wong                                  Dated: March 29, 2005
-------------

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT