alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Stillwater Complex, Montana; rock succession, metamorphism and structure of the complex and adjacent rocks

By: Norman J. Page

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp999

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### RIOLA v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November, 1904.)

Action by Gaetano Rióla against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

The memorandum list of decisions made and filed by this court on the 15th day of November, 1904, is hereby corrected and amended by striking therefrom the, *1144memorandum oí decision purporting to deny a motion made in behalf of the plaintiff for a reargument of the appeal in the above-entitled action in this court; the same having been entered upon said list of decisions through inadvertence, and there having been no motion for such reargument before the court at the time said list of decisions was filed. See Riola v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 98 App. Div. 633, infra.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Wage and Hour Structure of the Furniture Manufacturing Industry, October 1937

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Wage and Hour Structure of the Furniture Manufacturing Industry, October 1937 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 669*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										1940,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4175,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Exhibit 10.254


                                 PROMISSORY NOTE
                                  (NO INTEREST)

$44,000.00                                                  Glendale, California
   June 29, 2000




     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Roger Jordan (Payor") promises to pay in lawful money
of the United States of America to Pollution Research and Control Corp., a
California corporation ("Payee"), or order, at Glendale, California, the sum of
$44,000.00 Dollars from the date hereof on the unpaid principal payable in
installments of principal only in the sum of $50.00 Dollars commencing on July
15, 2000 and payable on the same day of each month thereafter until paid in
full.

     The unpaid principal may be prepaid without penalty. Each payment hereunder
shall be credited to the principal amount.

     If each installment under this note is not paid when due, the undersigned
shall pay all costs of collection thereof, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
whether or not suit or action is commenced to enforce payment of this note, and
Payee may, at its option, declare the entire amount of the then unpaid principal
immediately due and payable if such default is not cured within 10 days after
Payee provides the undersigned written notice of such default. The undersigned
hereby waives presentment, notice of dishonor and protest.

     This note is secured by shares of Payee's common stock, no par value (the
"Shares"), pursuant to a certain Stock Pledge Agreement, dated as of June 29,
2000 (the "Pledge Agreement").

     Upon the termination of employment of Payor as an employee of Payee for any
reason, the unpaid balance of this note shall be cancelled, and the pro rata
portion of Shares which then not fully paid for, shall be returned to Payee
pursuant to the terms of the Pledge Agreement.

                                            Payor:



                                            By:  /s/  Roger Jordan
                                               --------------------------------
                                                      Roger Jordan
§ 62.110 Noise exposure assessment. ( a ) The mine operator must establish a system of monitoring that evaluates each miner's noise exposure sufficiently to determine continuing compliance with this part.
( b ) The mine operator must determine a miner's noise dose (D, in percent) by using a noise dosimeter or by computing the formula: D = 100(C1/T1 + C2/T2 + . . . . + Cn/Tn), where Cn is the total time the miner is exposed at a specified sound level, and Tn is the reference duration of exposure at that sound level shown in Table 62-1. ( 1 ) The mine operator must use Table 62-2 when converting from dose readings to equivalent TWA8 readings.
( 2 ) A miner's noise dose determination must: ( i ) Be made without adjustment for the use of any hearing protector;
( ii ) Integrate all sound levels over the appropriate range;
( iii ) Reflect the miner's full work shift;
( iv ) Use a 90-dB criterion level and a 5-dB exchange rate; and
( v ) Use the A-weighting and slow response instrument settings.
( c ) *Observation of monitoring.* The mine operator must provide affected miners and their representatives with an opportunity to observe noise exposure monitoring required by this section and must give prior notice of the date and time of intended exposure monitoring to affected miners and their representatives.
( d ) *Miner notification.* The mine operator must notify a miner of his or her exposure when the miner's exposure is determined to equal or exceed the action level, exceed the permissible exposure level, or exceed the dual hearing protection level, provided the mine operator has not notified the miner of an exposure at such level within the prior 12 months. The mine operator must base the notification on an exposure evaluation conducted either by the mine operator or by an authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor. The mine operator must notify the miner in writing within 15 calendar days of: ( 1 ) The exposure determination; and
( 2 ) the corrective action being taken.
( e ) The mine operator must maintain a copy of any such miner notification, or a list on which the relevant information about that miner's notice is recorded, for the duration of the affected miner's exposure at or above the action level and for at least 6 months thereafter.
#### LADD et al., Respondents, v. TURNER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 11, 1903.)

Action by Eugene H. Ladd and William E. Smallman against Charles H. Turner.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
### §2563. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–91, div. C, title XXXI, §3133(a)(1), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1896

Section, Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLIII, §4303, formerly Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXI, §3171], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–475; Pub. L. 107–314, div. C, title XXXI, §3153, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2738; renumbered Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLIII, §4303, and amended Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(f)(4), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1763, related to annual report on status of Nuclear Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program.
Exhibit 99.1  Certification of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Jeffrey C. Smith, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:  (1)           The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)           The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Jeffrey C. SmithJeffrey C. SmithChief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2002  This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
§ 823.14 Soil replacement. ( a ) Soil reconstruction specifications established by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service shall be based upon the standards of the National Cooperative Soil Survey and shall include, as a minimum, physical and chemical characteristics of reconstructed soils and soil descriptions containing soil-horizon depths, soil densities, soil pH, and other specifications such that reconstructed soils will have the capability of achieving levels of yield equal to, or higher than, those of nomined prime farmland in the surrounding area.
( b ) The minimum depth of soil and substitute soil material to be reconstructed shall be 48 inches, or a lesser depth equal to the depth to a subsurface horizon in the natural soil that inhibits or prevents root penetration, or a greater depth if determined necessary to restore the original soil productive capacity. Soil horizons shall be considered as inhibiting or preventing root penetration if their physical or chemical properties or water-supplying capacities cause them to restrict or prevent penetration by roots of plants common to the vicinity of the permit area and if these properties or capacities have little or no beneficial effect on soil productive capacity.
( c ) The operator shall replace and regrade the soil horizons or other root-zone material with proper compaction and uniform depth.
( d ) The operator shall replace the B horizon, C horizon, or other suitable material specified in § 823.12(c)(2) to the thickness needed to meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. In those areas where the B or C horizons were not removed but may have been compacted or otherwise damaged during the mining operation, the operator shall engage in deep tilling or other appropriate means to restore pre-mining capabilities.
( e ) The operator shall replace the topsoil or other suitable soil materials specified in § 823.12(c)(1) as the final surface soil layer. This surface soil layer shall equal or exceed the thickness of the original surface soil layer, as determined by the soil survey.
[48 FR 21463, May 12, 1983, as amended at 53 FR 40839, Oct. 18, 1988]
Guillermo	Ortiz	Vidal

PO	Box	1839	Guaynabo,	PR	00970-1839

Telephone	787-720-5020,	Fax	787-731-2021

Email:	guillermoo@eobpr.com

EDUCATION: Florida	International	University

Miami-	Florida

Bachelor	Degree	in	Architecture	2003

Florida	Atlantic	University

Boca	Ratón	-	Florida

Master	Degree	Architecture	2004

PROFESSIONAL	CARRIER:

2005	to	Present Vice	President	of	Sales	&	Administration

Empresas	Ortiz	Brunet,	Inc.	founded	1970,	Arenero	Estrella, Inc.	founded	

1977, Cantera	Hipódromo,	Inc.	founded	1986, A&C	Trucking,	Inc.

founded		1985, Gasolinera	Los	Picapiedras,	Inc.	founded	1990,	EOB	

Management,	Inc.	founded	1999,	Consorcio	Las	Lomas,	Inc.	founded	

2002,	,	Quarries	and	Aggregates	Expert	Group,	Inc.	founded	2008.

In	charge	of	the	sales	and	distribution	of	aggregate material	for	the	

construction	industry	in	Puerto	Rico	and	the	Caribbean Islands.

In	charge	of	supervising	the	administration	of	all	8	corporations	of	EOB	

Group.	

OTHER	ACTIVITIES:

President	of	Aggregate	Producers	Asociation	of	Puerto	Rico 2013

Member	of	the	National	Stone	and	Gravel	Association	of	America

Member	of	the	Associated	General	Contractor	of	America

Member	of	International	Society	of	Explosive	Engineers

Member	of	Puerto	Rico	Society	of	Architectures	

Aviation	Experience:	 In	2007	started	training	for	rotorcraft	private	pilot	certification.

Currently	over	100hrs	of	in-flight	experience	in	Robinson	R-22	and	R-44.
### §3902. Purpose

The purposes of this chapter are—

(1) to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national defense through protection extended by this chapter to servicemembers of the United States to enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation; and

(2) to provide for the temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings and transactions that may adversely affect the civil rights of servicemembers during their military service.

(Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, §2, as added Pub. L. 108–189, §1, Dec. 19, 2003, 117 Stat. 2836.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 502 of the former Appendix to this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to this section were contained in section 100 of act Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, art. I, 54 Stat. 1179, prior to the general amendment of this Act by Pub. L. 108–189.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to any case not final before Dec. 19, 2003, see section 3 of Pub. L. 108–189, set out as a note under section 3901 of this title.
POWER OF ATTORNEY


     We, the undersigned directors of Questar Pipeline Company, hereby 
severally constitute D. N. Rose and S. E. Parks, and each of them acting 
alone, our true and lawful attorneys, with full power to them and each 
of them to sign for us, and in our names in the capacities indicated 
below, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1996 and any and all 
amendments to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by 
Questar Pipeline Company, hereby ratifying and confirming our signatures 
as they may be signed by the attorneys appointed herein to the Annual 
Report on Form 10-K for 1996 and any and all amendments to such Report.  

     Witness our hands on the respective dates set forth below.  


     Signature                          Title              Date


 /s/ R. D. Cash                 Chairman of the Board     2-11-97  
R. D. Cash



 /s/ D. N. Rose                   President & Chief       2-11-97  
D. N. Rose                 



  /s/ U. E. Garrison                  Director            2-11-97  
U. E. Garrison



 /s/ A. J. Marushack                  Director            2-11-97  
A. J. Marushack



 /s/ Gary L. Nordloh                  Director            2-11-97  
Gary L. Nordloh
#### Belday Corporation v. Acme Air Appliance Co., Inc.

— Motion for a stay and for other relief denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.
#### § 57.19006 Automatic hoist braking devices.

Automatic hoists shall be provided with devices that automatically apply the brakes in the event of power failure.
§ 585.405 How do I designate an operator? ( a ) If you intend to designate an operator who is not the lessee or grant holder, you must identify the proposed operator in your SAP (under § 585.610(a)(3)), COP (under § 585.626(a)(2)), or GAP (under § 585.645(a)(2)), as applicable. If no operator is designated in a SAP, COP, or GAP, BOEM will deem the lessee or grant holder to be the operator.
( b ) An operator must be designated in any SAP, COP, or GAP if there is more than one lessee or grant holder for any individual lease or grant.
( c ) Once approved in your plan, the designated operator is authorized to act on your behalf and required to perform activities necessary to comply with the OCS Lands Act, the lease or grant, and the regulations in this part.
( d ) You, or your designated operator, must immediately provide BOEM with a written notification of change of address of the lessee or operator.
( e ) If there is a change in the designated operator, you must provide written notice to BOEM and identify the new designated operator within 72 hours on a form approved by BOEM. The lessee(s) or grantee(s) is the operator and responsible for compliance until BOEM approves designation of the new operator.
( f ) Designation of an operator under any lease or grant issued under this part does not relieve the lessee or grant holder of its obligations under this part or its lease or grant.
( g ) A designated operator performing activities on the lease must comply with all regulations governing those activities and may be held liable or penalized for any noncompliance during the time it was the operator, notwithstanding its subsequent resignation.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHeater Validation for the NEXT-C Hollow CathodesSwaged cathode heaters whose design was successfully demonstrated under a prior flight project are to be provided by the NASA Glenn Research Center for the NEXT-C ion thruster being fabricated by Aerojet Rocketdyne. Extensive requalification activities were performed to validate process controls that had to be re-established or revised because systemic changes prevented reuse of the past approaches. A development batch of heaters was successfully fabricated based on the new process controls. Acceptance and cyclic life testing of multiple discharge and neutralizer sized heaters extracted from the development batch was initiated in August, 2016, with the last heater completing testing in April, 2017. Cyclic life testing results substantially exceeded the NEXT-C thruster requirement as well as all past experience for GRC-fabricated units. The heaters demonstrated ultimate cyclic life capability of 19050 to 33500 cycles. A qualification batch of heaters is now being fabricated using the finalized process controls. A set of six heaters will be acceptance and cyclic tested to verify conformance to the behavior observed with the development heaters. The heaters for flight use will be then be provided to the contractor from the remainder of the qualification batch. This paper summarizes the fabrication process control activities and the acceptance and life testing of the development heater units.Document ID20180001943Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsVerhey, Timothy R.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Soulas, George C.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Mackey, Jonathan A.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredMarch 19, 2018Publication DateFebruary 1, 2018Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceSpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN48802E-19457IEPC-2017-397NASA/TM-2018-219730Meeting InformationMeeting: International Electric Propulsion ConferenceLocation: Atlanta, GACountry: United StatesStart Date: October 8, 2017End Date: October 12, 2017Sponsors:Electric Rocket Propulsion SocietyFunding Number(s)WBS: WBS 729200.06.03.05.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180001943.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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1387

SS&LC GROUP, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE RYLAND GROUP, INCORPORATED; RYLAND TRADING

COMPANY; RYLAND TRADING RUSSIA; AO DUBRAVY

PROPERTIES OF RUSSIA JOINT STOCK COMPANY;

RYLAND-ST. PETERSBURG,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.

(CA-95-2168-HAR)

Argued: October 29, 1996 Decided: November 21, 1996

Before HALL and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BULLOCK, Chief United

States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina,

sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Christopher Bowmar Mead, LONDON & MEAD, Washington, D.C.,

for Appellant. Charles Preston Scheeler, PIPER & MARBURY,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Mark S. London,

LONDON & MEAD, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Glen K. Allen,

PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

SS&LC Group, Inc., appeals an order of the district court

dismissing, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), its action against The

Ryland Group, Inc., and several of Ryland's subsidiaries. SS&LC's

suit alleged breach of contract and various equitable claims

arising from a proposed, but never consummated, purchase by SS&LC

of Ryland's interests in a town house development in St. Petersburg, Russia. We have considered the briefs and heard the arguments of the parties, and we affirm the judgment of the district

court for the reasons stated by that court in its memorandum opinion. SS&LC Group, Inc. v. The Ryland Group, Inc., No. 95-2168-HAR

(D.Md. Feb. 23, 1996).

AFFIRMED