alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsApplication of an efficient hybrid scheme for aeroelastic analysis of advanced propellersAn efficient 3-D hybrid scheme is applied for solving Euler equations to analyze advanced propellers. The scheme treats the spanwise direction semi-explicitly and the other two directions implicitly, without affecting the accuracy, as compared to a fully implicit scheme. This leads to a reduction in computer time and memory requirement. The calculated power coefficients for two advanced propellers, SR3 and SR7L, and various advanced ratios showed good correlation with experiment. Spanwise distribution of elemental power coefficient and steady pressure coefficient differences also showed good agreement with experiment. A study of the effect of structural flexibility on the performance of the advanced propellers showed that structural deformation due to centrifugal and aero loading should be included for better correlation.Document ID19900004039Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSrivastava, R.*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta., United States)*Sankar, N. L.*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta., United States)*Reddy, T. S. R.*(Toledo Univ. OH., United States)*Huff, D. L.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1989Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-102428NAS 1.15:102428E-5196AIAA PAPER 90-0028Meeting InformationMeeting: Aerospace Sciences MeetingLocation: Reno, NVCountry: United StatesStart Date: January 8, 1990End Date: January 11, 1990Sponsors:AIAAAccession Number90N13355Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-1BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900004039.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
#### Jearline Tyson, Respondent, v Aetna Life & Casualty Company, Casualty & Surety Division, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and second complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced two separate actions against defendant who moved to dismiss the second complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 4). Special Term denied the motion but consolidated the two actions. This was error. Both complaints have as their foundation the alleged breach by defendant of a contract of insurance entered into between the parties. The first complaint seeks performance of the contract and payment to plaintiff of damages pursuant to the terms of the contract. The second complaint, sounding in tort, seeks punitive damages because of "the failure of the defendant to fulfill its legal obligations under the contract.” "The general rule is that ‘a breach of contract does not give rise to a tort action * * * in the absence of special, additional allegations of wrongdoing’ *(Wegman v Dairylea Coop.,*50 AD2d 108, 112)” *(Charles v Onondaga Community Coll.,*69 AD2d 144, 146). Here, no special relation of trust or confidence arose out of the contract between plaintiff and defendant separable from the alleged breach of contract which imposed any duty on defendant upon which a tort action could lie. No wrongful conduct except breach of the contract is asserted. No unlawful purpose except failure to pay a claim under the contract is alleged. In the second complaint, plaintiff has failed to set forth a cause of action cognizable in law (see *Charles v Onondaga Community Coll., supra; Albemarle Theatre v Bayberry Realty Corp.,*27 AD2d 172; Prosser, Law of Torts [4th ed], § 92, pp 613-618). The motion to dismiss the second complaint should have been granted, therefore, not on the basis of CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 4), but for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd [a], par 7). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court—dismiss action.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 21, 2015

NO. 03-13-00403-CR

Joseph Timothy Shimko, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PEMBERTON, FIELD, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### Bartlett *vs.*Loudon.

Chancery.' Case X90.

Error to the Fayette Circuit; Hickey, Judge.

*Sale bonds. Injunction.*

November 2.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion *of*the Court.

The only question we shall consider in this case is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a perpetuation of his injunction, to an enforcement of his sale bond, in consequence of the fact that the defendant in the execution under which the land was *642sold (for which the bond was given) had no title to the land ?

Collection of it'sale bond given on the purchase, under execution,of a tract of land to which deft, in the execution had *no 'title,*will, if it appear that the sale was inade at the instance of the plaintiff in the execution, be enjoined.

*Gowan,*for plaintiff; Chinn, for defendant.

It sufficiently appears, that Daniel Colman (the defendant in the execution) had conveyed the land to Aaron Colman prior to the date of the execution; and there is no proof tending to shew that the conveyance was inoperative or fraudulent. The legal title must, therefore, he deemed to have been in Aaron Colman, and not in Daniel, at the time of the levy and sale.

It also sufficiently appears, that the levy and sale were made at the instance of the defendant in error, who was the plaintiff in the execution.

In such a case, the purchaser, acting in good faith, as the plaintiff seems to have done, has an equitable right to withhold the consideration. The defendant in error is not without his remedy against his original debtor.

Wherefore, it is decreed and ordered, that the decree of the circuit court, dissolving the plaintiff’s injunction and dismissing his bill, be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions’to perpetuate the injunction.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**AFFINITY GROUP HOLDING, INC.**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I,Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer of Affinity GroupHolding, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify asfollows:

 

1.               This statement is providedpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connection with the Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,2010 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.               The Periodic Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.               The information contained inthe Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of dates and for theperiods indicated therein.

 

 
| Date:  August 13, 2010 |                                   |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                        |                                   |
|                        |                                   |
|                        | /s/  Michael A. Schneider              |
|                        | Michael  A. Schneider                  |
|                        | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or such other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity GroupHolding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
#### § 1780.53 General.

This subpart is specifically designed for use by owners including the professional or technical consultants or agents who provide assistance and services such as engineering, environmental, inspection, financial, legal or other services related to planning, designing, bidding, contracting, and constructing water and waste disposal facilities. These procedures do not relieve the owner of the contractual obligations that arise from the procurement of these services. For this subpart, an owner is defined as an applicant, borrower, or grantee.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.4
                                                                     -----------
                           

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                           ------------------------

     Pursuant to Section 26 of the Rights Agreement dated as of September 4, 
1992 (the "Rights Agreement") between Candela Corporation (the "Company") and 
Bank Boston, N.A., as Rights Agent (the "Rights Agent"), the Company hereby 
certifies that the Second Amendment to the Rights Agreement, attached as Exhibit
1 hereto, is in compliance with said Section 26.

Dated as of October____, 1998.

                                             
                                             CANDELA CORPORATION
                    
                                             By: 
                                                 __________________________
                                                 Name:  Gerard E. Puorro 
                                                 Title: President and Chief 
                                                        Executive Officer
```

[109th Congress Public Law 212]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ212.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 321]]

Public Law 109-212
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
  1965, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Apr. 1, 2006 -  [H.R. 4911]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Higher Education Extension 
Act of 2006. 20 USC 1001 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Higher Education Extension Act of 
2006''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

    Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public 
Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking ``March 31, 
2006'' and inserting ``June 30, 2006''.

SEC. 3. <<NOTE: 20 USC 1001 note.>> RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension Act of 
2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise 
alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or the durations of, 
programs contained in the amendments made by the Higher Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) to the provisions of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 
2004.

    Approved April 1, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4911:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Mar. 14, considered and passed House.
            Mar. 28, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, Robert W. Hill, ChiefFinancial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of InterDent Service Corporation andInterDent, Inc. (together, the “Company”), certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 whichthis certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));and

 

(2) information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
|       | /s/ ROBERT W. HILL                                    |   |
|------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|       | Robert W. Hill                                        |
| ** ** | **Chief Financial  Officer, Treasurer and Secretary** |
| ** ** | **November 14,  2005**                                |

 

----
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*May 31, 2006*

[Cite as *05/31/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2624.]

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

2006-0357.

#### Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Woods.

On Objections to Order of the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 **

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODNEY BERNARD BARNO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STUART RYAN, Warden of Calipatria; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-55646

D.C. No. 3:07-CV-01373-WMC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William McCurine, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted September 13, 2010*** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Rodney Bernard Barno, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims for

FILED

OCT 12 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-55646

deliberate indifference to his safety and due process violations arising out of his

alleged classification as a sex offender. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001), and

we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Barno’s deliberate indifference claim

because Barno failed to allege that he suffered any injury or threat of harm other

than the allegedly erroneous classification itself, possible loss of a prison job, and

temporary restrictions on visitations with minors. See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539

U.S. 126, 136-37 (2003) (visitor restrictions on inmates charged with substance

abuse did not violate Eighth Amendment); Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 973

(9th Cir. 2004) (there is no Fourteenth Amendment liberty or property interest in

prison employment); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1256 (9th Cir. 1982)

(“[M]isclassification does not itself inflict pain within the meaning of the Eighth

Amendment.”). 

The district court also properly dismissed Barno’s due process claim because

the alleged classification error did not result in any deprivations or changes in the

conditions of confinement that constituted an “atypical and significant hardship . . .

in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” so as to give rise to a protected

liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Neal v. Shimoda, 131
3 09-55646

F.3d 818, 827-28 (9th Cir. 1997) (inmate’s sex offender classification implicated a

liberty interest only because applicable regulations required that sex offenders

participate in a mandatory treatment program before being eligible for parole).

Barno’s request to vacate his expedited motion for an order requiring prison

officials to return legal documents is granted. In response to his voluminous letters

requesting a copy of the docket report confirming receipt of his reply brief, we note

that Barno’s reply brief was filed and considered.

Barno’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
#### SCHEEL, Appellant, v. MUTUAL MILK & CREAM CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Action by John Scheel, an infant, by Henry Scheel, his guardian ad litem, against the Mutual Milk *&*Cream Company.

PEB CUBIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

WOODWABD and HOOKEB, JJ„ dissent.
EXHIBIT 10.32

               CONVERSION ELECTION LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2006
                             FROM MICHAEL A. BOWDEN









<PAGE>

                               Michael A. Bowden
                                2945 Yates Street
                             Denver, Colorado 80212




November 13, 2006


China Wireless Communications, Inc.
Attn:  Board of Directors
1746 Cole Boulevard, Suite 225
Golden, Colorado 80401

Subject:  Election to Convert Note to Michael Bowden

Dear Members of the Board:

At this  time,  I would  like  to  request  conversion  of my  Convertible  Note
Subscription  Agreement  (#1),  dated as of August  1,  2005,  in the  amount of
$12,698.16  plus  interest  due July 6, 2006 to common  stock of China  Wireless
Communications, Inc. according to the terms of the Note.

Sincerely,


/s/ MICHAEL A. BOWDEN
#### Hamilton *vs.*Adams.

Mill case. Case 72.

Error to the Oldham county court.

*Mills. Record. Error.*

Apnlioant leave to erect a mill dam own sil! e°l and on one side of ‘he stream own’fibbed of the si it, a m or (ho title t<> thTMCo\nmon wealth.TM1* n Record of the county court thafappiu cant for erection of a mill (Run has such title to the land on whirh the dam is proposed to be erected as the law requires him to have.

April 23.

Judge Underwood,

delivered (lie Opinion of the Court.

The Legislature have thought proper restrict the privilege of erecting mill dams and dams for other water *works, to those who*own the land on one or both sides of the stream where it is ProPosed to erect the dam. The applicant for leave to erect a mill datn, must likewise own the bed of the stream, where he owns the land on one side only, or to rmist be in the Commonwealth, The record of the county court must show that the applicant had such title as authorized the erection of t^ec^arn' anf' ^ it do not it is error. Hamilton was summoned to show cause against the erection of the dam. the inquest returned having stated that he would sustain a trifling injury. He appeared and objected to the erection of the dam, because Adams had no title. The court, notwithstanding his objections, gave leave to erect the dam, without requiring Adams to exhibit any title. In this the court erred. If Adams failed to exhibit a title in fee, as required by law, his application should have been rejected. It is stated in the order granting the writ-of *ad quod damnum,*that Adams was the owner of the lands on both sides of the run on which it was proposed to erect the dam. But as this order was *exparte,*and made before Hamilton was summoned to show cause, it could not include him. Upon his appearance he had a right *to call in question the*title of Adams. This he did, and it seeinsthe court, without investigating the *title, gave*leave to build the dam. For this cause the order and judgment of the county court, granting leave to erect the mill dam, is reversed and set aside, and the cause is remanded for new proceedings, upon the inquest already before the county court. If it shall appear that Adams hath title to the lands on both sides of the stream, the county court will then give leave to erect the dam Should this be the -conclusion of the court, they should state in the order granting leave to erect the dam, that it was proved, that Adams had title in fee to the lands on both sides of the *249stream. Tf their opinion is again excepted to, they *should*cause the title papers to be incorporated in the bill of exceptions, together with all other evi•dence given by either of the parties.

*Monroe,*for plaintiff; *Crittenden,*for defendant.

Hamilton must recover his costs in this court.
§ 1776.10 Grant agreement. ( a ) RUS and the grantee will enter into an agreement setting forth the terms and conditions governing a particular DWS grant award. RUS will furnish the form of grant agreement. No funds awarded under this part shall be disbursed to the grant recipient before the grant agreement is binding and RUS has received a fully executed counterpart of the grant agreement.
( b ) The grantee or RUS may initiate an amendment or modification to the grant agreement to provide for a loan limit up to $15,000. No change in the grant agreement requested by the grant recipient will be effective unless approved in writing by RUS.
[73 FR 68294, Nov. 18, 2008, as amended at 85 FR 23211, Apr. 27, 2020]
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Schirtzinger, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Schirtzinger*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 112.]

(No. 97-2404

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*W. Duncan Whitney,*Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Gregory D. Brunton,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of *State v. Rush*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 697 N.E.2d 634.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT PALMER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 457 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of March, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.