alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNumerical modeling of turbulent flow in a channelTwo-dimensional incompressible turbulent flow in a channel with a backward-facing step was studied numerically by Chorin's Random Vortex Method (RVM), an algorithm capable of tracing the action of elementary turbulent eddies and their cumulative effects without imposing any restrictions upon their motions. The step occurs in one side of a channel with otherwise flat, parallel walls; its height equals 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5 the width of the channel downstream. The main objective was to investigate the behavior of the large-scale turbulent eddies in a flow and the flow characteristics in the separated shear layer, the reattached zone, and the rebuilding boundary layer after reattachment. The unsteady vorticity field and the distribution of time-averaged turbulent statistics were obtained. The effects of expansion step height and initial boundary layer state were also studied. Comparisons were made with the available experimental results. The agreement is satisfactory in the velocity profiles and in the reattachment length, and fairly good in the turbulence profiles. Also a mechanism of the development of the reattaching turbulent flow was suggested by the numerical results.Document ID19840005121Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsDai, Y. W.*(California Univ. Berkeley, CA, United States)*Ghoniem, A. F.*(California Univ. Berkeley, CA, United States)*Sherman, F. S.*(California Univ. Berkeley, CA, United States)*Oppenheim, A. K.*(California Univ. Berkeley, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1983Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-168278NAS 1.26:168278DOE/NASA/0131-2Accession Number84N13189Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: W-7405-ENG-48CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-131CONTRACT_GRANT: NSF CPE-81-15163PROJECT: RTOP 505-31-42Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840005121.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
Exhibit 32.1



Section 1350 Certification of the

Chief Executive Officer



I, James R. Bazet, the chief executive officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the Form 10-Q)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.



/S/    JAMES R.
BAZETJames R. BazetMay 13, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,453
<SECURITIES>                                    21,356
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                       125
<INVENTORY>                                      3,768
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,243
<PP&E>                                           4,687
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,192
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,848
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,308
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,316
<SALES>                                         28,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,062
<CGS>                                           13,739
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     8
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,160
<INCOME-TAX>                                       980
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,180
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,180
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

MOISES GOMEZ, a.k.a. Santiago,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 10155

D.C. No. 1:95

- cr

- 00476

- HG

- 7

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019 **

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Moises Gomez appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his second

motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo whether the district court

had authority to reduce a defendant’s sentence under section 358 2, see United

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 10155

States v. Leniear , 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm

.

Gomez contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court correctly found

that Gomez is ineligible f or a reduction because

, given the drug quantity

attributable to Gomez

, Amendment 782 d id not have the effect of lowering the

g uideline range applicable to him

. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) ; Leniear , 574

F.3 d at 67 3

- 7 4

.

Gomez also argues that he is entitled to a reduction due to his conditions of

confinement and the district court’s alleged errors in imposing his original

sentence

. We do not reach these arguments because they are outside the scope of a

section 3582(c)(2) proceeding

. S ee Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 825

- 826,

831 (2010)

.

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

MONICA FRANCIS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 50301

D.C. No.

2:16

- cr

- 00713

- PSG

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 5, 2018 **

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH, *** District

J udge.

Monica Francis was convicted after a trial before a magistrate judge of

violating 36 C.F.R. § 261.58(a) by camping for a period longer than that allowed by

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

NOV 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

an order. The district court affirmed Francis’ conviction and the fine imposed by

the magis trate judge

. We have jurisdiction of Francis’ appeal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 and affirm

.

1. T he forest supervisor’s order prohib i ting camping for more than thirty

days a year was properly posted

. The order was placed in the offices of the forest

supervisor and district ranger

. See 36 C.F.R. § 261.51(a). The Forest Service

website and signs in the forest where Francis camped “ reasonably [brought] the

prohibition to the attention of the public

. ” 36 C.F.R. § 261.51(b )

.

2. The prohibition of extended camping was valid

. T he Secretary of

Agriculture was authorized to delegate the power to issue the order to the forest

supervisor

, s ee Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council v. Glickman , 88 F.3d 697, 702

(9th Cir. 1996) (“[D]eleg ation generally is permitted where it is not inconsistent with

the statute.”)

, and did so

. S ee 36 C.F.R. § 261.50(a) ( “ [E] ach Forest Supervisor may

issue orders which close or restrict the use of described areas within the area over

which he has jurisdiction. ”). And, because the order expressly stated that it applied

“until further notice

, ” there was no need for reissuance when a new forest supervisor

was appointed.

3. The $100 fine imposed by the magistrate judge was reasonable

,

particularly in light of the extended nature of Francis’ camping

. S ee United States

v. Orlando , 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting standard of review ).3

AFFIRMED.
### **CHAPTER 67—IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT, 1977**

Sec.
3601.
Definitions.
3602.
Implementation of Agreement.
3603.
Delegation of powers and duties.
3604.
Criminal offenses.
3605, 3606. Repealed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Paul M. Joeckel, the Secretary and Vice President Operations of Eagle Exploration Company, (the Company), certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 10, 2005



/s/ Paul M. JoeckelName: Paul M. JoeckelTitle: Secretary and Vice President of Operations
Amendment to Stockholder's Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT No. 1 
 TO THE STOCKHHOLDERS AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 1 to the Stockholders Agreement (“Stockholders Agreement”) dated December 13, 2002 by and among The First American Corporation, a
California corporation, Pequot Private Equity Fund II, L.P. A Delaware limited partnership (“Pequot”) and First Advantage Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) is hereby made effective on December 1, 2005.

 WHEREAS, the Stockholders Agreement stipulates in Section 5.1 that the size of the Board of Directors shall be no more than 10 directors;

 WHEREAS, Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company desires to expand the size of the Board to no more than 12 directors because it
is in the best interest of the Company; 
 WHEREAS, Pequot believes that it is in the Company’s best interest to expand the size of the Board to
no more than 12 directors; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the
Parties agree as follows: 
 Section 5.1 (a) which states in part: 
 “. . . ensure that the size of the board of directors of Parent, (the “Board”) shall be no more than 10 directors and . . .” 
 shall hereby be revised by replacing 10 with 12 and shall hereby state in the same part: 
 “. . ensure
that the size of the board of directors of Parent, (the “Board”) shall be no more than 12 directors and . . .” 
 Notwithstanding the
foregoing, all other provisions and terms of the Stockholders Agreement shall remain in force and effect to the extent of the original intent of the provisions and terms of the Stockholders Agreement. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Agreement on and as of the date herein. 
  

			
	The First American Corporation
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Kenneth D. Degiorgio

	 Name:
	 	 Kenneth D. Degiorgio

	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President and General Counsel

		
	 Date:
	 	 March 31, 2006

	
	Pequot Private Equity Fund II, L.P.
	 By: Pequot Capital Management, Inc.

	 Its: Investment Manager

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Carlos Rodrigues

	 Name:
	 	 Carlos Rodrigues

	 Title:
	 	 Chief Financial Officer/ Pequot Ventures

		
	 Date:
	 	 March 31, 2006

	
	First Advantage Corporation
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Julie Waters

	 Name:
	 	 Julie Waters

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President and General Counsel

		
	 Date:
	 	 March 31, 2006
#### § 37.1265 Cost sharing.

A portion of project costs that are borne by the recipient or non-Federal third parties on behalf of the recipient, rather than by the Federal Government.
AFS-10-139-E February, 23, 2010 Exemption No. 9703A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-0181

Mr. Harold Estes Solid Edge Aviation, LLC. 1225 Airport Road Sedona, AZ 86336

Dear Estes:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9703. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

On February 4, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Solid Edge Aviation, LLC. (Solid Edge), for an extension of Exemption No. 9703. That exemption from part 121, appendices I and J of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allowsSolid Edge, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safetysensitive employees under one testing program.

Although you requested relief from part 121, appendices I and J, the FAA recognizes that Solid Edge now requireS relief from part 120. On May 14, 2009, the FAA published the “Drug and Alcohol Testing Program” final rule in the Federal Register (74 FR 22649). A copy is enclosed for your information.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Solid Edge.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9703 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701 which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Solid Edge are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Solid Edge part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9703 to June 30, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9703 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9703.

Sincerely,

/s/ Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. Federal Air Surgeon
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 4 , 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00310

- CV

Angela Faye Seals , Appellant

v.

Virgil Lee Seals, III , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELL Y, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART

, AND

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the December 16, 2021 Agreed Ord er on Petition for Partition by Sale

(Agreed Order), the March 3, 2022 Order of Enfor cement by Contempt (Contempt Order), and

the May 4, 2022 Order on Motion for Court to Order Sale of Property ( Sale Order ). Having

reviewed th e record and the parties’ arg uments, the C ou rt holds that we do not have jurisdiction

over appellant ’ s first issue and havin g overruled h er second and thir d issue s , we dismiss her

attempte d appeal from the tr ial court ’ s December 1 6, 2 021 order , deny her pe tit ion for writ of

mandamus c hallenging the trial cour t ’ s March 3, 2022 order, and affirm the trial court ’ s May 4,

2022 order

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs

is made.
§ 1801.1 Authority and purpose. ( a ) *Authority.* This part is issued under the authority of and in order to implement the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 403).
( b ) *Purpose in general.* This part prescribes procedures for a requester, as defined herein: ( 1 ) To request notification of whether the National Counterintellingence Center (NACIC) maintains a record concerning them in any non-exempt portion of a system of records or any non-exempt system of records;
( 2 ) To request a copy of all non-exempt records or portions of records;
( 3 ) To request that any such record be amended or augmented; and
( 4 ) To file an administrative appeal to any initial adverse determination to deny access to or amend a record.
( c ) *Other purposes.* This part also sets forth detailed limitations on how and to whom NACIC may disclose personal information and gives notice that certain actions by officers or employees of the United States Government or members of the public could constitute criminal offenses.
EAGLE EXPLORATION COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Raymond N. Joeckel, the President and Chief Financial Officer of Eagle Exploration Company, (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13
(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 17, 2009



/s/ Raymond N. JoeckelName: Raymond N. JoeckelTitle: President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.4



Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 on Form 10-Q/A of
Duquesne Light Company (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Stevan R. Schott, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WITNESS the due execution hereof this 24th day of March, 2005.



/s/ Stevan R. SchottStevan R. SchottSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to Duquesne Light Company and will be retained by Duquesne Light Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6407

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EMJADIA PORTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-94-37, CA-97-690-7)

Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 22, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emjadia Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Emjadia Porter appeals the district court’s order denying his

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the time in which he may

file an appeal from the district court’s order granting in part and

denying in part his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion and

denying his application for a certificate of appealability. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. See United States v. Porter, No. CR-94-37,

CA-97-690-7 (W.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. 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.

DISMISSED