alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30693

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IVORY GARNER WILSON, also known as Boo Boo Wilson,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana

(95-CR-60-3-B-M1)

June 9, 1998

Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:

Ivory Garner Wi lson appeals from his sentence following

resentencing for c onspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

cocaine base, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base,

and using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking

crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Wilson2

contends that he should have been sentenced under the “safety

valve” provision of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) as to

the charge of using and carrying a firearm during a drugtrafficking crime. Wilson contends, for the first time on appeal,

t hat an unwarranted sentencing disparity exists between his

sentence and that of a codefendant. Wilson also argues, for the

first time on appeal, that the district court erred in failing to

award him a downward departure from the guidelines.

Pursuant to section 5C1.2, for controlled substance offenses

under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 844, 846, 960, or 963, qualified defendants

shall be sentenced in accordance with the applicable guidelines

range, without regard to any statutory minimum sentences. Section

5C1.2; see United States v. Edwards , 65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir.

1995). Because using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drugtrafficking crime under secti on 924(c)(1) is not a qualified

controlled substance offense, the district court did not err in

refusing to apply that provision in sentencing Wilson for using and

carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. S ee §

5C1.2; § 3553(f).

Even assuming the disparate sentencing issue is within the

scope of this Court’s rema nd for resentencing, Wilson has not

demonstrated error, plain or otherwise, with respect to his

argument of disparate sentences. S ee United States v. Brown

, 29

F.3d 953, 959 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Sparks

, 2 F.3d 574,3

587 (5th Cir. 1993). The issue of a downward departure was beyond

the scope of the remand and, therefore, not proper for

reconsideration by the district court. U nited States v. Marmolejo

,

F.3d (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 1998, No. 97-20378), 1998 WL 188089

at *3. Wilson has not demonstrated error, plain or otherwise, in

the district court’s refusal to grant him a downward departure.

And, section 924(c)(1) prov ides for a mandatory five-year

nonconcurrent sentence. See Brown at 560.

AFFIRMED
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEvaluation of propellent tank insulation concepts for low-thrust chemical propulsion systems:  Executive summaryCryogenic propellant tank insulations or liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen low-thrust 2224N (500 lbf) propulsion systems (LTPS) were assessed. The insulation studied consisted of combinations of N2-purged foam and multilayer insulation (MLI) as well as He-purged MLI-only. Heat leak and payload performance predictions were made for three shuttle-launched LTPS designed for shuttle bay packaged payload densities of 56 kg cu/m (3.5 lbm/cu ft), 40 kg/cu m (2.5 lbm/cu ft) and 24 kg/cu m (1.5 lbm/cu ft). Foam/MLI insulations were found to increase LTPS payload delivery capability when compared with He-purged MLI-only. An additional benefit of foam/MLI was reduced operational complexity because orbiter cargo bay N2 purge gas could be used for MLI purging. Maximum payload mass benefit occurred when an enhanced convection, rather than natural convection, heat transfer was specified for the insulation purge enclosure. The enhanced convection environment allowed minimum insulation thickness to be used for the foam/MLI interface temperature selected to correspond to the moisture dew point in the N2 purge gas. Experimental verification of foam/MLI benefits was recommended. A conservative program cost estimate for testing a MLI-foam insulated tank was 2.1 million dollars. This cost could be reduced significantly without increasing program risk.Document ID19840012631Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsKramer, T.*(Boeing Aerospace Co. Seattle, WA, United States)*Brogren, E.*(Boeing Aerospace Co. Seattle, WA, United States)*Siegel, B.*(Boeing Aerospace Co. Seattle, WA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1984Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberBAC-D180-28274-1NASA-CR-168321NAS 1.26:168321Accession Number84N20699Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-22824Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840012631.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
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549



FORM 6-K

REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Dated January 27, 2006



Commission File Number: 001-14666



MITTAL STEEL COMPANY N.V.

(Translation of registrants name into English)



15th Floor, Hofplein 20

3032 AC Rotterdam

The Netherlands

(Address of principal executive offices)



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.



| | Form 20-FxForm 40-Fo |  | 
| | -------------------- |  | 



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): _____



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): _____



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



| | YesoNox | 
| | ------- | 



If Yes marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):  82-________







| |  | 
| |  | 





---







On January 27, 2006, Mittal Steel Company N.V. issued the press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 which is incorporated herein by reference.



Exhibit List



|Exhibit No.  | Description                                                                   
|------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Exhibit 99.1 | Mittal Steel Company N.V.'s press release announcing its offer for Arcelor SA.







| |  | 
| |  | 





---







SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.



Date: January 27, 2006





| | By:/s/ Hank Scheffer
| | --------------------
| | Name:               

| | Title: | Company Secretary
| | ------ | -----------------





| |  | 
| |  | 





---







Exhibit Index



|Exhibit No.  | Description                                                                   
|------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Exhibit 99.1 | Mittal Steel Company N.V.'s press release announcing its offer for Arcelor SA.









| |  | 
| |  |
The Honorable Barefoot Sanders, United States District Judge for the Northern 1

District of Texas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3354

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

David J. Gall, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: January 7, 1999

 Filed: January 13, 1999

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After David J. Gall pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the

1

Northern District of Texas to unauthorized use of an access device, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), the court sentenced him to 4 months’ imprisonment followed by

4 months’ confinement in a halfway house, and three years’ supervised release. Gall&s

period of supervised release commenced in December 1995.
The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States District

2

Court for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

Following transfer of jurisdiction of Gall&s supervised release, the district court2

revoked Gall&s supervised release based on Gall&s admissions that he had violated

several supervised release terms. Rejecting Gall&s alleged short-term drinking problem

brought on by his father&s death as a mitigating factor, the court sentenced him to 18

months’ imprisonment and 18 months’ supervised release. Gall now challenges his

prison term, and we affirm.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Gall

to 18 months’ imprisonment, which was above the 4-10 month sentencing range

recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3);

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (1998); United States v. Grimes, 54

F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); United States v. Carr, 66 F.3d 981,

983 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (Chapter 7 Guidelines are advisory and nonbinding;

district court may depart from revocation imprisonment range when, in its considered

discretion, such departure is warranted). We reject Gall&s argument that the district

court was required to provide him with notice before imposing a sentence above the

recommended sentencing range under Chapter 7. See United States v. Pelensky, 129

F.3d 63, 70-71 (2d Cir. 1997). We further reject Gall&s argument that, because the

district court considered his need for alcohol treatment in imposing sentence, the court

was required first to develop a detailed factual record concerning his alcohol problem.

See United States v. Jones, 973 F.2d 605, 607-08 (8th Cir. 1992).

The judgment is affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### SUBCHAPTER III—NONBASIC AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
§ 37.1105 What additional duties do I have as the administrator of a TIA with advance payments or payable milestones? Your additional post-award responsibilities as an administrative agreements officer for an expenditure-based TIA with advance payments or payable milestones are to ensure good cash management. To do so, you must: ( a ) For any expenditure-based TIA with advance payments or payable milestones, forward to the responsible payment office any interest that the recipient remits in accordance with § 37.820(b). The payment office will return the amounts to the Department of the Treasury's miscellaneous receipts account.
( b ) For any expenditure-based TIA with advance payments, consult with the program official and consider whether program progress reported in periodic reports, in relation to reported expenditures, is sufficient to justify your continued authorization of advance payments under § 37.805(b).
( c ) For any expenditure-based TIA using milestone payments, work with the program official at the completion of each payable milestone or upon receipt of the next business status report to: ( 1 ) Compare the total amount of project expenditures, as recorded in the payable milestone report or business status report, with the projected budget for completing the milestone; and
( 2 ) Adjust future payable milestones, as needed, if expenditures lag substantially behind what was originally projected and you judge that the recipient is receiving Federal funds sooner than necessary for program purposes. Before making adjustments, you should consider how large a deviation is acceptable at the time of the milestone. For example, suppose that the first milestone payment for a TIA you are administering is $50,000, and that the awarding official set the amount based on a projection that the recipient would have to expend $100,000 to reach the milestone (*i.e.,* the original plan was for the recipient's share at that milestone to be 50% of project expenditures). If the milestone payment report shows $90,000 in expenditures, the recipient's share at this point is 44% ($40,000 out of the total $90,000 expended, with the balance provided by the $50,000 milestone payment of Federal funds). For this example, you should adjust future milestones if you judge that a 6% difference in the recipient's share at the first milestone is too large, but not otherwise. Remember that milestone payment amounts are not meant to track expenditures precisely at each milestone and that a recipient's share will increase as it continues to perform research and expend funds, until it completes another milestone to trigger the next Federal payment.
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.220 Review on motion of the NDRB.

Reviews of Naval discharges may be initiated by the NDRB on its own motion (10 U.S.C. 1553) which includes reviews requested by the Veterans Administration under 38 U.S.C. 101, 3103 as amended by Pub. L. 95-126 of October 8, 1977 (See Pub. L. 98-209).
Filed 5/20/15 P. v. Sherman CA2/8 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION EIGHT 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

WILLIE C. SHERMAN, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B260007 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. NA048295) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. 

William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. 

Kathleen Caverly, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 No response by Respondent. 

_____________________ 
2 

 In 2002, defendant was convicted, by guilty plea, of one count of second-degree 

robbery. He was sentenced to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 

§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12), as he had suffered three prior robbery convictions. 

 On January 8, 2014, defendant filed a petition for recall of sentence and 

resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126. The court appointed counsel for 

defendant. Defendant stipulated that his petition could be heard by Judge Ryan. 

 Judge Ryan denied the petition with prejudice on the basis that defendant’s current 

offense – robbery – was a violent felony (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(9)), rendering 

defendant statutorily ineligible for resentencing. (Pen. Code, § 1170.126, subd. (e)(1).) 

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The denial of a resentencing petition on the 

basis that the defendant is ineligible for resentencing is an appealable order. (Teal v. 

Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595, 596.) 

 On March 17, 2015, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) in which no issues were raised. The brief 

included a declaration from counsel that she had reviewed the record and had sent 

defendant a letter advising him of her intention to file a Wende brief and that he could file 

a supplemental brief if he chose to do so. That same day, this court sent defendant a 

letter advising him that a Wende brief had been filed and that he had 30 days to submit a 

brief or letter raising any issues he wished this court to consider. Defendant did not file a 

supplemental brief. 

 We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has 

fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra, 

25 Cal.3d 436.) By the plain language of Penal Code section 1170.126, defendant was 

ineligible for resentencing, and his petition was properly denied. 
3 

DISPOSITION

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 RUBIN, ACTING P. J. 

WE CONCUR: 

 FLIER, J. 

 GRIMES, J.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

                        Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on                               ( print page 1526)                            the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.                    

# ACTION:

Notice of cancellation of open hearing.

# SUMMARY:

The following remote public hearing on proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has been canceled: Criminal Rules Hearing on January 25, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Telephone (202) 502-1820,                         *RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Announcements for this hearing were previously published in 85 FR 48562.

Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.

Dated: January 4, 2021.

Rebecca A. Womeldorf,

Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff.

[FR Doc. 2021-00103 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
11.404 Contract clauses. ( a ) *Supplies or services.* ( 1 ) The contracting officer may use a time of delivery clause to set forth a required delivery schedule and to allow an offeror to propose an alternative delivery schedule. The clauses and their alternates may be used in solicitations and contracts for other than construction and architect-engineering substantially as shown, or they may be changed or new clauses written.
( 2 ) The contracting officer may insert in solicitations and contracts other than those for construction and architect-engineering, a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.211-8, Time of Delivery, if the Government requires delivery by a particular time and the delivery schedule is to be based on the date of the contract. If the delivery schedule is expressed in terms of specific calendar dates or specific periods and is based on an assumed date of award, the contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate I. If the delivery schedule is expressed in terms of specific calendar dates or specific periods and is based on an assumed date the contractor will receive notice of award, the contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate II. If the delivery schedule is to be based on the actual date the contractor receives a written notice of award, the contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate III.
( 3 ) The contracting officer may insert in solicitations and contracts other than those for construction and architect-engineering, a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.211-9, Desired and Required Time of Delivery, if the Government desires delivery by a certain time but requires delivery by a specified later time, and the delivery schedule is to be based on the date of the contract. If the delivery schedule is expressed in terms of specific calendar dates or specific periods and is based on an assumed date of award, the contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate I. If the delivery schedule is expressed in terms of specific calendar dates or specific periods and is based on an assumed date the contractor will receive notice of award, the contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate II. If the delivery schedule is to be based on the actual date the contractor receives a written notice of award, the contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate III.
( b ) *Construction.* The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.211-10, Commencement, Prosecution, and Completion of Work, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price construction contract is contemplated. The clause may be changed to accommodate the issuance of orders under indefinite-delivery contracts. If the completion date is expressed as a specific calendar date, computed on the basis of the contractor receiving the notice to proceed by a certain day, the contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate I.
[48 FR 42159, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 56 FR 41732, Aug. 22, 1991. Redesignated and amended at 60 FR 48241, Sept. 18, 1995]
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 26, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I,
Robert D. George, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |     |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Dated: March 7, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert D. George                    
|                     |  |     |  | Robert D. George                        
|                     |  |     |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
|                     |  |     |  | Secretary and Treasurer
#### § 865.122 Summary of statistics for Discharge Review Board.

The Air Force Discharge Review Board shall prepare and provide to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel and Force Management) DASD(MP&FM), Office of the ASD(MRA&L), a semiannual report of discharge review actions in accordance with § 865.125.