alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1980.455-1980.468 [Reserved]
#### § 1789.153 Borrower funding.

Borrowers shall use their general funds for the purposes of funding consultant services hereunder. Borrowers may not use the proceeds of loans made or guaranteed under the RE Act for costs incurred by Borrowers pursuant to the funding of consultant services for RUS.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lidia Chirino et al., Respondents, v Sanitary Controls, Inc., et al., Appellants, and State Insurance Fund, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 11, 1978, which held that the State Insurance Fund had properly canceled a workers’ compensation policy issued by it to the employer. On November 23, 1976, respondent State Insurance Fund (Fund) sent a cancellation notice of its policy of workers’ compensation insurance issued to the employer, Sanitary Controls, Inc. (Sanitary) and to the Workers’ Compensation Board (board) by certified mail, return receipt requested (Workers’ Compensation Law, § 54, subd 5). The notice was issued because of nonpayment of premium by Sanitary and its effective date was December 11, 1979. This notice was received and filed by the board on November 29, 1976, but it was not received by Sanitary until December 3, 1976, eight days prior to the intended effective cancellation date. Concurrently, and on November 26, 1976, Sanitary filed a petition for an arrangement under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, and an order emanating therefrom by the Bankruptcy Judge, dated December 10, 1976 and received by the Fund on December 16, 1976, stayed, among other things, the commencement or continuation of any act or proceeding against Sanitary. However, it did not expressly stay the cancellation of the policy in question prior to its termination date. The claims herein arose from compensable accidents occurring on April 1, 1977. The board has determined that the policy heretofore issued by the Fund was properly canceled effective December 11, 1976, and relieved it from any liability for the claims asserted herein. We agree. In providing for cancellation of insurance, the Workers’ Compensation Law mandates a limitation of at least 10 days after the notice of cancellation has been filed by the board, *and*served upon the employer by delivery to it *or*sending it by mail, certified or registered letter, return receipt requested (Workers’ Compensation Law, § 54, subd 5). We reject Sanitary’s argument that, upon mailing, the 10-day period must be measured from the time of its receipt by the employer (see *Matter of Capron v Lecceardone,*71 AD2d 753). Such an interpretation would effectively deprive a carrier of one of the two alternative methods of service provided by the statute. In construing this arm of the statute, we adhere to the basic rule that service is made at the time of mailing, not at the time of receipt *(Matter of Rosenberg v Wickham,*63 Mise 2d 880, affd 36 AD2d 881; cf. General Municipal Law, § 50-e, subd 3, par [b]; CPLR 2103, subd [b], par 2). Secondly, it seems clear that the filing of an arrangement under chapter 11 would not affect Sanitary’s obligation under its contract for workers’ compensation insurance *(Matter of Schokbeton Inds.*v *Schokbeton Prods. Corp.,*466 F2d 171). Decisions affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 129618(23) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129618 COA: 261013 St. Clair CC: 95-001361-FC LAWRENCE EUGENE DELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of December 27, 2005 is considered, and it is GRANTED. We VACA TE our order dated December 27, 2005. On reconsid eration, the application for l eave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questi ons presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0322 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 29, 2006

Clerk
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA comparison of time-optimal interception trajectories for the F-8 and F-15The simulation results of a real time control algorithm for onboard computation of time-optimal intercept trajectories for the F-8 and F-15 aircraft are given. Due to the inherent aerodynamic and propulsion differences in the aircraft, there are major differences in their optimal trajectories. The significant difference in the two aircrafts are their flight envelopes. The F-8's optimal cruise velocity is thrust limited, while the F-15's optimal cruise velocity is at the intersection of the Mach and dynamic pressure constraint boundaries. This inherent difference necessitated the development of a proportional thrust controller for use as the F-15 approaches it's optimal cruise energy. Documented here is the application of singular perturbation theory to the trajectory optimization problem, along with a summary of the control algorithms. Numerical results for the two aircraft are compared to illustrate the performance of the minimum time algorithm, and to compute the resulting flight paths.Document ID19900012437Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsCalise, Anthony J.*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Pettengill, James B.*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:186300NASA-CR-186300Accession Number90N21753Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC2-506Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900012437.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
Internal Memorandum

To:               Harold Simmons                        Date:    July 23, 2003

From:             Lanny Martin

Subject: Consulting Agreement


Harold:

The NL Finance  department  needs  something in writing to confirm my consulting
arrangement with NL Industries.

As agreed, I will provide consulting  services to you and NL Industries relating
to NL's  product  liability  (including  lead  paint  cases)  and  environmental
matters.  I will work with Rob Graham,  Dave  Garten,  outside  counsel,  Marcus
Martin and others in an effort to control the costs of the  overall  efforts and
to achieve the best results reasonably possible.

NL will compensate me at a rate of $600,000 [50,000 per month starting  8/15/03]
per annum  beginning on the  effective  date of my stepping down as CEO of NL on
July  2003.  NL will also  reimburse  me for  reasonable  business  expenses  in
connection with my consultation.

I will be given the normal  indemnity from NL acting as its agent in the matters
described above.

This  agreement is  terminable  at any time by either of us. Only the  indemnity
continues following termination.

My NL stock options will remain  outstanding until termination of this agreement
at which  time I will have 90 days to  exercise  any  vested  options  remaining
outstanding.

If you agree  with the  above  would you  please  sign and  return to me. I will
forward to NL's finance department.

Sincerely,



-------------------------------------------
/s/J. Landis Martin
Lanny Martin

Agreed and Accepted:



--------------------------------------------
/s/Harold C. Simmons
Harold C. Simmons
#### § 1970.17 Programmatic analyses and tiering.

In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.20 and to foster better decision making, the Agency may consider preparing programmatic-level NEPA analyses and tiering to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review.
Exhibit 32.1**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906**In connection with the quarterly report of Orchids Paper Products Company (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert A. Snyder, Chief Executive Officer and President ofthe Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Robert A. Snyder     Robert A. Snyder  Chief Executive Officer and President  November 5, 2007
Nicor Inc.


Form 10-Q


Exhibit 32.01





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nicor Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)           the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Dated:  August 3, 2011

/s/ RUSS M. STROBELRuss M. StrobelChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 1726.76 Substation and transmission line materials and equipment. ( a ) *Contract forms.* ( 1 ) The borrower shall use RUS Form 198, Equipment Contract, for purchases of equipment where the total cost of the contract is $1,000,000 or more.
( 2 ) The borrower may, in its discretion, use RUS Form 198, Equipment Contract, or a written purchase order for purchases of equipment of less than $1,000,000 and for all materials.
( b ) *Standards and specifications.* Substation and transmission line materials and equipment must meet the minimum requirements of RUS standards as determined in accordance with the provisions of part 1728 of this chapter, Electric Standards and Specifications for Materials and Construction. The borrower must obtain RUS approval prior to purchasing of any unlisted substation or transmission line material or equipment of the types listed in accordance with the provisions of part 1728 of this chapter.
( c ) *Procurement procedures.* It is the responsibility of each borrower to determine the procurement method that best meets its needs for purchase of material and equipment to be used in substation and transmission line construction.
( d ) *Contract approval.* Contracts for purchases of substation and transmission line materials and equipment are not subject to RUS approval and need not be submitted to RUS unless specifically requested by RUS on a case by case basis.
[60 FR 10155, Feb. 23, 1995, as amended at 69 FR 7109, Feb. 13, 2004; 77 FR 3072, Jan. 23, 2012]
#### § 1773.38 Scope of engagement.

The audit requirements set forth in this part should be met annually by the auditor during the audit of the RUS auditee's financial statements. The auditor must exercise professional judgment in determining whether any auditing procedures in addition to those mandated by GAGAS or this part should be performed on the auditee's financial records in order to afford a reasonable basis for rendering the auditor's opinion on the financial statements and the reports on internal control; compliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements; and instances of fraud; and schedule of findings and recommendations.

[88 FR 7565, Feb. 6, 2023]
Memorandum

us. Department of

Transportation

Office of fhe secretory

of Transportation

Subject:

From:

Notice of Communication in Docket:

DOT -OST-OST -2010-0124

2010 SCASDP Proceeding

David S. Kim, FHW A~ate Administrator for

Policy and Government Affairs (and farmer Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs)

Date: '1IrS-I!}

To: Chief, Dockets

In accordance with Department rules (14 CFR Part 300), I am reporting the following

communication.

On September 30, 2010, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah placed a telephone call to Secretary

LaHood, during which the Senator expressed support for the City of Pr~vo, Utah's

application for funds administered under the Small Community Air Service Development

Program (SCASDP). Senator Hatch briefly explained that obtaining SCASDP funds would

enable Provo Airport to secure a commitment from Frontier Airlines to provide service

between Provo and Denver.

Secretary LaHood listened, and explained that while he appreciated the Senator's interest in

the Department's SCASDP proceeding, he could not comment on the merits because the

matter was under active consideration by the Department. The Secretary also explained that

the Department would likely announce its grant selections by the end of October.

Please place this memorandum in the appropriate Docket. .

cc: Senator Orrin Hatch
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDigital-flutter-suppression-system investigations for the active flexible wing wind-tunnel modelActive flutter suppression control laws were designed, implemented, and tested on an aeroelastically-scaled wind tunnel model in the NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel. One of the control laws was successful in stabilizing the model while the dynamic pressure was increased to 24 percent greater than the measured open-loop flutter boundary. Other accomplishments included the design, implementation, and successful operation of a one-of-a-kind digital controller, the design and use of two simulation methods to support the project, and the development and successful use of a methodology for on-line controller performance evaluation.Document ID19900010777Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsPerry, Boyd, III*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Mukhopadhyay, Vivek*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Hoadley, Sherwood T.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Cole, Stanley R.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Buttrill, Carey S.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Houck, Jacob A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1990Subject CategoryAircraft Stability And ControlReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:102618NASA-TM-102618Meeting InformationMeeting: AIAA 31st Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials ConferenceLocation: Long Beach, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: April 2, 1990End Date: April 4, 1990Accession Number90N20093Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-21-04Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900010777.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
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

TERRANCE LEE KING, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0156 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2018-127326-001

The Honorable Geoffrey H. Fish, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Robert E. Prather

Counsel for Respondent

Terrance Lee King, San Luis

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig, Judge Michael S. Catlett, and Judge 

Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 11-02-2023
STATE v. KING

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Terrance Lee King seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is 

petitioner’s second successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
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 .*

§ 1465.6 AMA plan of operations. ( a ) All conservation practices in the APO must be approved by NRCS and developed and carried out in accordance with the applicable NRCS technical guidance.
( b ) The participant is responsible for implementing the APO.
( c ) The APO must include: ( 1 ) A description of the participant's specific conservation and environmental objectives to be achieved;
( 2 ) To the extent practicable, the quantitative or qualitative goals for achieving the participant's conservation and environmental objectives;
( 3 ) A description of one or more conservation practices in the conservation system, including conservation planning, design, or installation activities to be implemented to achieve the conservation and environmental objectives;
( 4 ) A description of the schedule for implementing the conservation practices, including timing, sequence, operation, and maintenance; and
( 5 ) Information that will enable evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan in achieving the environmental objectives.
( d ) An APO may be modified in accordance with § 1465.24.
#### PARELMAN v. PARELMAN.

No. 11732.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Nov. 18, 1953.

Decided Feb. 4, 1954.

Mr. J. E. Bindeman, Washington, D. C. , for appellant. Mr. Theodore Klig-man, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. Albert E. Brault, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Denver H. Graham, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZE-LON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this suit a mother charged her son with negligence which she alleged was the proximate cause of personal injuries sustained by her, for which she sought damages in the sum of $25,000. The mother complains on appeal that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendant at the close of her counsel’s opening statement to the jury.

We think the judge correctly concluded, from what the plaintiff’s counsel said he expected to prove, that a cause of action had not been stated.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Bradley Bertouille, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Standard Aero Holdings, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by the reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Dated:November 14, 2005     /s/ Bradley Bertouille     Bradley Bertouille  Chief Financial Officer