alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsWind-tunnel investigation of a flush airdata system at Mach numbers from 0.7 to 1.4Flush pressure orifices installed on the nose section of a 1/7-scale model of the F-14 airplane were evaluated for use as a flush airdata system (FADS). Wing-tunnel tests were conducted in the 11- by 11-ft Unitary Wind Tunnel at NASA Ames Research Center. A full-scale FADS of the same configuration was previously tested using an F-14 aircraft at the Dryden Flight Research Facility of NASA Ames Research Center (Ames-Dryden). These tests, which were published, are part of a NASA program to assess accuracies of FADS for use on aircraft. The test program also provides data to validate algorithms for the shuttle entry airdata system developed at the NASA Langley Research Center. The wind-tunnel test Mach numbers were 0.73, 0.90, 1.05, 1.20, and 1.39. Angles of attack were varied in 2 deg increments from -4 deg to 20 deg. Sideslip angles were varied in 4 deg increments from -8 deg to 8 deg. Airdata parameters were evaluated for determination of free-stream values of stagnation pressure, static pressure, angle of attack, angle of sideslip, and Mach number. These parameters are, in most cases, the same as the parameters investigated in the flight test program. The basic FADS wind-tunnel data are presented in tabular form. A discussion of the more accurate parameters is included.Document ID19900009079Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsLarson, Terry J.*(Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc., Hampton VA., United States)*Moes, Timothy R.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA., United States)*Siemers, Paul M., III*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1990Subject CategoryAircraft InstrumentationReport/Patent NumberH-1544NASA-TM-101697NAS 1.15:101697Accession Number90N18395Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-60-21Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900009079.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
Segment 2

Older generations often complain about the slow pace at which young people are moving into 

adulthood today, but what scientific evidence shows, strong scientific evidence is that a slower path into 

adulthood today is often beneficial. And that it's a fast path that can be very risky when it comes to 

relationships, education, work and living situations. So why is a slower path beneficial? Taking time to 

figure out what young people want, need in a relationship before they marry and parent. And to have 

time together as a couple before children arrive. Those things are associated with much stronger 

marriages and more resourceful parenting. Taking time to pursue education or training after high school 

brings stable and stronger attachment to the labor force. Similarly, taking time to explore jobs and build 

skills creates stronger labor force attachment and greater satisfaction at work. Living at home too can be 

a smart decision. If it allows young people to be in school when they otherwise wouldn't be able to 

afford it or if it allows them to take low pay or no pay internships that will help them on the job market. 

Or if it allows them to save money for a stronger launch when they do go. I wanna emphasize that a 

slower course into adulthood is not the same as a slacker course, quite the contrary. It means doing 

everything you can to gain credentials and experience that will help carry you over the long haul and 

help manage uncertainty. A slower course also doesn't mean that young adults shouldn't have 

responsibility, of course they must and they must also come to know failure. Learning and recuperating 

from failure is an extraordinarily important growth experience and helps build both resilience and 

maturity. In contract, why is a fast path so risky? Well, in many ways we should be much more 

concerned about young people who are going too fast than we are with young people who are going too 

slow. Quick marriages are much more likely to result in divorce and to involve kids. Quick parenting 

makes it difficult to attain education and full-time work. And a quick departure from home before young 

people are ready leaves them with fewer resources for getting by, let alone for investing in their future. 

In addition, staying at home keeps many young people out of poverty. And the reality is that if one 

bypasses education or some sort of training beyond high school, it's harder to go back when there are 

other responsibilities such as caring for young children.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28164]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Time and Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2010; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Closed to the Public.

Matter to be Considered: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: November 2, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28164 Filed 11-3-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
#### Leonard Martin, Appellant, v Glenzan Associates, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 11, 1979 in Albany County, which granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a lease agreement in December, 1975. Based on allegations that defendant failed to perform certain conditions of the lease, plaintiff commenced an action in Supreme Court seeking money damages. A proceeding was also commenced in the Town of Colonie Justice Court by defendant seeking to recover allegedly past due rent owed by plaintiff to defendant and to recover possession of the leased premises. Following the consolidation of this proceeding with plaintiff’s action for damages, defendant moved for partial summary judgment in the amount of the past due rent. Special Term granted defendant’s motion, ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the past due rent and to continue to make payment to defendant of rent which may become due under the terms of the lease during pendency of this action. This appeal ensued. The lease in question provides that the rent is payable "without any set off or deduction whatsoever”. Plaintiff contends that the failure to delete this provision was a mere oversight. As a general rule, where the language of the lease is clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be deduced only from the terms of the written agreement *(Nichols v Nichols,*306 NY 490; *Prudential Westchester Corp. v Tomasino,*5 AD2d 489). The court is required to give all the words and phrases used in the lease their plain meaning in order to determine the rights of the parties *(R. I. Realty Co. v Terrell,*254 NY 121; *Benderson Dev. Co. v Schwab Bros. Trucking,*64 AD2d 447). In our view, the terms of the lease are clear and unambiguous and Special Term properly granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment with respect to past due rent. We do not agree, however, with so much of the court’s order as directed plaintiff to continue to make payments to defendant for the amount of rent which may become due during the pendency of the action. There is no acceleration clause in the lease entitling defendant to future rents upon a breach thereof. Consequently, defendant’s right to future rent has not yet ripened and recovery may only be had for past due rent *(Maño Holding Corp. v S. J. Blume, Inc.,*308 NY 570; *John Malasky, Inc. v Mayone,*54 AD2d 1059). The order, therefore, must be modified so as to reverse so much thereof as directed the payment of future rent. Plaintiff’s remaining arguments have been considered and are unpersuasive. Order modified, on the law, by reversing so much thereof as ordered plaintiff, during pendency of this action, to continue to make payment to defendant for the amount of the rent which may become due to defendant under the terms of the lease and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Casey, JJ., concur.
#### § 1223.16 Person.

*Person* means any individual, group of individuals, partnership, corporation, association, cooperative, or any other legal entity.
M. P. No. 79-303.

#### Jeffrey R. Hughes *v.*Eugene Petit, Registrar.

Mr. Justice Doris did not participate.

*David C. Moretti,*for petitioner. *Louis M. Cioci,*Assistant Special Counsel, for respondent.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
**EXHIBIT 31(i)**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael R. McElwrath, Chief Executive Officer,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Far East EnergyCorporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of thesmall business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;
Date: July 19, 2004
/s/ Michael R. McElwrathMichael R. McElwrathChief Executive Officer
36
#### Anna Forman et al., Respondents, v Inwood Heights, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 15, 1979, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered on the issue of damages only, without costs or disbursements, unless plaintiffs, within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order herein, with notice of entry, serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court written stipulations consenting to reduce the verdict in favor of plaintiff Anna Forman to $175,000 and the verdict in favor of plaintiff Samuel Forman to $25,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If plaintiffs so stipulate, the judgment, as so amended and reduced, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The damages proven by plaintiffs warranted verdicts no greater than the sums of $175,-. 000 and $25,000, respectively, to which the recoveries should be limited. The court finds no substantial merit to appellant’s other contentions. Concur— Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Silverman and Ross, JJ.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

HOLIFIELD, ATTANASIO, and HACKEL

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Julian MARTINEZ

Private (E-1), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202200121

_________________________

Decided: 28 September 2022

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: 

Nicholas S. Henry

Sentence adjudged 5 April 2022 by a special court-martial convened at 

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: confinement for ten months, forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for ten

months, and a bad-conduct discharge.1

For Appellant: 

Commander C. Eric Roper, JAGC, USN

 

1 Appellant was credited with having served 76 days of pretrial confinement.
United States v. Martinez, NMCCA No. 202200121

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.2

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON

Clerk of Court

 

2 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
#### Sidney Brown et al., appellants, v. Frank Kienstra et al., appellees.

Opinion filed July 26, 1929.

Robert Ferdinand Tunnell, for appellants. Francis J. Manning and S. A. Bleisch, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Wolfe

delivered the opinion of the court.
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1416.306 Payment calculation. ( a ) Under this subpart, separate payment rates for eligible livestock owners and eligible livestock contract growers are specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, respectively. Payments for death losses are calculated by multiplying the national payment rate for each livestock category by the number of eligible livestock in excess of normal mortality in each category that died as a result of an eligible loss condition. Normal mortality for each livestock category will be determined by FSA on a State-by-State basis using local data sources including, but not limited to, State livestock organizations and the Cooperative Extension Service for the State. Adjustments will be applied as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) The LIP national payment rate for eligible livestock owners is based on 75 percent of the average fair market value of the applicable livestock as computed using nationwide prices for the previous calendar year unless some other price is approved by the Deputy Administrator.
( c ) The LIP national payment rate for eligible livestock contract growers is based on 75 percent of the average income loss sustained by the contract grower with respect to the dead livestock. The rate that applies is based on the type, class, and weight of the animal at the time of the eligible loss condition and death.
( d ) The LIP payment calculated for eligible livestock contract growers will be reduced by the amount the participant received from the party who contracted with the producer to raise the livestock for the loss of income from the dead livestock.
( e ) Payments to livestock owners for losses due to sale of livestock at a reduced price because of injury from an eligible loss condition are calculated by multiplying the national payment rate for each livestock category by the number of eligible livestock sold at a reduced price as a result of an eligible loss condition, minus the gross amount the eligible livestock owner received for the livestock up to the applicable national payment rate. In the event livestock sells for a reduced price that is in excess of the national payment rate, the national payment rate will be subtracted resulting in no payment for that livestock.
[79 FR 21097, Apr. 14, 2014, as amended at 83 FR 49471, Oct. 2, 2018]
EX 10.37 Amend D Lehmann Employment Agreement






Exhibit 10.37








December 27, 2012












Via Hand Delivery
Donna Lehmann
c/o Affinity Gaming
3775 Breakthrough Way, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89135






Dear Donna:


This  letter,  when  counter-signed   by  you,  shall  serve  as  the  third  amendment  (the  "Third Amendment")  to the Letter Agreement dated as of January 11, 2011, and amended as of May 6, 2011, and October 31, 2011, by and between you and Herbst Gaming, LLC and governing the terms and conditions of your employment with the Company (the "Letter Agreement"). All capitalized  terms set forth in this Third Amendment, unless otherwise hereinafter defined, shall have the same meaning as in the Letter Agreement.


		
	1.
	The opening  paragraph  of the Letter Agreement  is amended to provide that the Company   is  now  known   as  Affinity   Gaming,  formerly  known   as  Affinity Gaming, LLC and, before that, Herbst Gaming, LLC.




		
	2.
	Paragraph  1(a)  of  the  Letter  Agreement  is  amended  to provide  that,  effective January 1, 2013, you are employed by the Company in the position of Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.




		
	3.
	Paragraph  1(d)  of  the  Letter  Agreement  is  amended  to provide  that,  effective January  1, 2013,  you  report  to the directly  to the Company's  Chief  Executive Officer,  but  this  reporting  relationship   may  change  in  accordance  with  the business needs of the Company.




		
	4.
	Paragraph  3(a)  of  the  Letter  Agreement  is  amended  to  provide  that,  effective January 1, 2013, your base salary will be paid at the rate of three hundred nine thousand five hundred fifty-six dollars ($309,556.00) per annum.




		
	5.
	With respect to paragraph  3(c) of the Letter Agreement,  your 2013 equity award under the Herbst Gaming, LLC 2011 Long Term Incentive Plan shall be made at a value commensurate  with the awards granted to other Senior Vice Presidents  of the Company, and otherwise shall be in accordance with the terms of the Plan and an agreement entered into in connection therewith.











Donna Lehmann
December 27, 2012
Page 2 of 2


		
	6.
	The references in the Letter Agreement to the Executive Severance Agreement and  Duty  of  Loyalty  Agreement,  respectively,  shall  mean  the  Executive Severance Agreement and the Duty of Loyalty Agreement, respectively, between you and the Company dated as of January 11, 2011, and amended as of October 31, 2011 and this date.




		
	7.
	Except  as  specifically  set  forth  in  paragraphs  1  through  6  of  this  Third Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Letter Agreement shall remain unchanged.




Sincerely,


/s/ David D. Ross


David D. Ross
Chief Executive Officer




ACCEPTED and AGREED TO this 27th day of December, 2012:


/s/ Donna Lehmann


Donna Lehmann
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eastern Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Bruce M. Eckert, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: June 12, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Bruce M. Eckert    
|                    |  |  |  | Bruce M. Eckert        
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### § 1223.2 American Pecan Council.

*American Pecan Council* or *APC* means that governing body of the Federal Marketing Order established pursuant to 7 CFR part 986 unless otherwise noted.
§ 1486.203 Application review and formation of agreements. ( a ) *General.* Proposals received in accordance with the announcement and this part will undergo a multi-phase review by CCC to determine eligibility for the program, the qualifications, quality, and appropriateness of proposed projects, and the reasonableness of proposed project budgets.
( b ) *Evaluation criteria.* CCC will review all proposals for eligibility and completeness. CCC will evaluate and score each proposal against the factors described in the NOFO. All proposals that meet the eligibility and completeness criteria described in the NOFO and receive a passing score will be recommended for funding to the FAS Administrator. The purpose of this review is to identify meritorious proposals, recommend an appropriate funding level for each proposal, and submit the proposals and funding recommendations to appropriate officials for decision. CCC may, when appropriate to the subject matter of the proposal, request the assistance of other U.S. Government experts in evaluating the merits of a proposal. Demonstration of substantial U.S. industry participation in or financial or other support of a proposal will be a positive factor in the consideration of proposals. The degree of commitment to a proposed project, represented by the amount and type of cost share, is used in determining which proposals will be approved. Proposals in which the private sector is willing to commit funds, rather than in-kind items such as staff resources, and those with higher amounts of cost share will be given priority consideration. All reviewers will be required to sign a conflict of interest form, and when conflicts of interests are identified the reviewer will be recused from the objective review process.
( c ) *Approval decision.* CCC will approve those applications that it determines best satisfy the criteria and factors specified in the announcement and this part. All decisions regarding the disposition of an application are final.
## Other Youth Topics

## Breadcrumb

            -  Youth Topics 
            -  Violence Prevention 
            -           National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention Communities: New Orleans      

# National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention Communities: New Orleans

The NOLA FOR LIFE PLAYbook: Promoting Life for all Youth is a strategic plan for action to prevent youth violence. Nested within the existing framework of NOLA FOR LIFE, Mayor Mitch Landrieu's comprehensive murder reduction strategy, the PLAYbook's aim is to improve youth safety by addressing risk and protective factors for youth violence.

###### Point of Contact

**Chris Gunther**Program LeadNew Orleans Health Department504-658-2590cjgunther@nola.gov

## Resources

                        - The NOLA FOR LIFE PLAYbook: Promoting Life for All Youth

## Main navigation

- Baltimore
- Cleveland
- Long Beach
- Louisville
- Boston
- Camden
- Chicago
- Detroit
- Memphis
- Minneapolis
- New Orleans
- Philadelphia
- Salinas
- San Jose
- Seattle
#### § 1520.4 Agency FOIA Officer.

Requests for records shall be made to the Freedom of Information Officer, Public Affairs Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, Ag Box 1004, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1004. Tel.: 202-720-3448, Fax: 202-720-1727.