alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHigh Temperature Solid Lubricant Materials for Heavy Duty and Advanced Heat EnginesAdvanced engine designs incorporate higher mechanical and thermal loading to achieve efficiency improvements. This approach often leads to higher operating temperatures of critical sliding elements (e.g. piston ring/cylinder wall contacts and valve guides) which compromise the use of conventional and even advanced synthetic liquid lubricants. For these applications solid lubricants must be considered. Several novel solid lubricant composites and coatings designated PS/PM200 have been employed to dry and marginally oil lubricated contacts in advanced heat engines. These applications include cylinder kits of heavy duty diesels, and high temperature Stirling engines, sidewall seals of rotary engines, and various exhaust valve and exhaust component applications. This paper describes the tribological and thermophysical properties of these tribomaterials and reviews the results of applying them to engine applications. Other potential tribological materials and applications are also discussed with particular emphasis on heavy duty and advanced heat engines.Document ID19950006351Acquisition SourceHeadquartersDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsDellacorte, C.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Wood, J. C.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1994Subject CategoryChemistry And Materials (General)Report/Patent NumberDOE/NASA/50306-5NAS 1.15:106570E-8798NASA-TM-106570Meeting InformationMeeting: 1994 Fall Technical ConferenceLocation: LaFayette, INCountry: United StatesStart Date: October 2, 1994End Date: October 5, 1994Accession Number95N12764Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 778-34-2ACONTRACT_GRANT: DE-AI01-91CE-50306PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-5ADistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19950006351.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
#### § 15a.305 Preference in admission.

A recipient to which §§ 15a.300 through 15a.310 apply shall not give preference to applicants for admission, on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or other school or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preference has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ 15a.300 through 15a.310.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3264

MARIEO L. FOSTER,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent.

Richard L. Thompson, II , Law Firm of Nathaniel D. Johnson, LLC, of La Plata,

Maryland, argued for petitioner. With him on the brief was Nathaniel D. Johnson

.

Sean M. Dunn , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigat ion Branch, Civil Division, United

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued fo r respondent. With him on the

brief were Jeffrey S. Bucholtz , Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson

, Director; and Harold D. Lester, Jr. , Assistant Director.

Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3264

MARIEO L. FOSTER,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent.



# Judgment

ON APPEAL from the MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

in CASE NO(S). DC0752060765-I-1

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (SCHALL and PROST, Circuit Judges , and WARD, District Judge ∗

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.



### ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED June 6, 2008 /s/ Jan Horbaly



### Jan Horbaly, Clerk

∗ Honorable T. John Ward, District Judge, United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
#### § 301.75-11 [Reserved]
§ 201.4 Maintenance and accessibility. ( a ) Each person transporting or delivering for transportation in interstate commerce agricultural or vegetable seed subject to the Act shall keep for a period of 3 years a complete record of each lot of such seed so transported or delivered, including a sample representing each lot of such seed, except that any seed sample may be discarded 1 year after the entire lot represented by such sample has been disposed of by such person.
( b ) Each sample of agricultural seed retained shall be at least the weight required for a noxious-weed seed examination as set forth in § 201.46 and each sample of vegetable seed retained shall consist of at least 400 seeds. The record shall be kept in such manner as to permit comparison with the records required to be kept by other persons for the same lot of seed so that the origin, treatment (including, but not limited to, coating, film coating, encrusting, or pelleting), germination, and purity (including variety) of agricultural seed and the treatment (including, but not limited to, coating, film coating, encrusting, or pelleting), germination and variety of vegetable seed may be traced from the grower to the ultimate consumer and so that the lot of seed may be correctly labeled. The record shall be accessible for inspection by the authorized agents of the Secretary for purposes of the effective administration of the Act at any time during customary business hours.
[24 FR 3951, May 15, 1959, as amended at 32 FR 12778, Sept. 6, 1967; 85 FR 40579, July 7, 2020]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6697** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LAKENDRICK FOBBS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Di strict of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 5:03

- cr - 00310

- H

- 1; 5:07

- cv - 00115

- H )

Submitted : July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Lakendrick Fobbs, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lakendrick Fobbs s eeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a
par ty, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the ap peal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket

on February 2, 2010. The notice of appeal is considered to have been filed on April 19, 2010. *

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earli est date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Because Fobbs failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

LAWRENCE M. JIRON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

JARED POLIS, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 19-2187 

(D.C. No. 1:19-CV-00791-RB-CG) 

(D.N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges.**

_________________________________ 

Plaintiff-Appellant Lawrence Jiron, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from 

the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint without prejudice under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Jiron v. 

Polis, No. 1:19-cv-00791-RB-CG, Mem. Op. and Order of Dismissal for Lack of 

Jurisdiction (ECF No. 8) (D.N.M. Oct. 28, 2019). The district court dismissed the 

complaint pursuant to its screening function under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), reasoning 

 * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 16, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

that although lack of jurisdiction is an affirmative defense and does not appear as 

grounds for dismissal under § 1915A(b), dismissal is proper where the affirmative 

defense clearly appears on the face of the complaint and no further factual 

development is necessary 

Mr. Jiron’s complaint sought relief on various claims, including copyright and 

trademark infringement, false imprisonment and kidnapping, and ultimately asking 

the Colorado Secretary of State to release him. See Polis, No. 1:19-cv-00791-RB-CG 

(ECF No. 1). On appeal, he repeatedly urges that “an attorney follow the complaint.” 

We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction de novo. 

ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735, 763 (10th Cir. 2011). We find 

no substantive grounds for this appeal or any of Mr. Jiron’s outstanding motions. For 

the reasons it articulated, the district court was correct in ruling that Mr. Jiron has not 

established personal jurisdiction over the defendant. 

We DENY Mr. Jiron’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because his 

appeal is frivolous, DENY all other motions, and DISMISS the appeal. Mr. Jiron 

must pay the full filing fees immediately. 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge
#### § 33.1 Act.

*Act* and *Export Apple Act* are synonymous and mean “An act to promote the foreign trade of the United States in apples to protect the reputation of American-grown apples in foreign markets, to prevent deception or misrepresentation as to the quality of such products moving to foreign commerce, to provide for the commercial inspection of such products entering such commerce, and for other purposes,” approved June 10, 1933 (48 Stat. 123; 7 U.S.C. 581 *et seq.*), and amended November 12, 1999 (113 Stat. 1321; 7 U.S.C. 581 *et seq.*).
Page 1 of 2

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LUTHER ARTHUR HORN, III,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv3659/LAC/EMT

MARK S. INCH,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

December 8, 2020 (ECF No. 24). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

24) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-03659-LC-EMT Document 28 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED;

and the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED as

untimely.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of January, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv3659/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-03659-LC-EMT Document 28 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT  I, Stanley A. Galanski, Chief Executive Officer of

The Navigators Group, Inc., certify that:  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of The Navigators Group, Inc.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue

statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make

the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements

were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial

information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects

the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant

as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for

establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in

Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)Designed such disclosure controls and

procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed

under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the

registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by

others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this

report is being prepared;  (b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and

procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness

of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered

by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal

control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth

fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to

materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;

and  5.The registrants other certifying officers

and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control

over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee

of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent

functions):  (a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or

operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably

likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,

summarize and report financial information; and  (b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other

employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over

financial reporting.  Date: March 11, 2004

  By:  /s/ Stanley

  A. GalanskiName:

  Stanley A. GalanskiTitle:

  President and Chief

  Executive Officer

  (Principal Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:98cr47 LAC

ANDRE MOSES

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on December 31, 2009 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582 

Filed by DEFT on12/4/09 Doc.# 205

RESPONSES:

 on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 23 day of

rd

March, 2010, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) Although legislation has been introduced to Congress regarding the sentencing

disparity between crack-to-powder cocaine, this legislation has not been enacted

by Congress, and therefore does not provide the defendant a basis for relief.

The defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence is DENIED as premature.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Document No.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Notes: 1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018 3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020. 4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

§ 2.71 Director, Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis. ( a ) *Delegations.* Pursuant to § 2.29(a)(2), the following delegations of authority are by the Chief Economist to the Director, Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis: ( 1 ) Responsible for assessing the risks to human health, human safety, or the environment, and for preparing cost-benefit analyses, with respect to proposed major regulations, and for publishing such assessments and analyses in the Federal Register as required by section 304 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 2204e)
( 2 ) Provide direction to Department agencies in the appropriate methods of risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses and coordinate and review all risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses prepared by any agency of the Department.
( b ) *Reservation.* The following authority is reserved to the Chief Economist: Review all proposed decisions having substantial economic policy implications.
[60 FR 56393, Nov. 8, 1995, as amended at 63 FR 66979, Dec. 4, 1998; 78 FR 40938, July 9, 2013]
EXHIBIT 23.b.

                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


      We  hereby consent to the incorporation by refernce in  the
Registration  Statements Nos. 333-76616, 333-65013  and  333-6103
each on  Form  S-8 and to Registration Statement No. 333-45218 on
Form  S-3, and in  the  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB of Igene
Biotechnology, Inc. for the year ended December 31,  2001, of our
report  dated  February  20,  2002 (March 27, 2002 for  Note 20),
relating  to  the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  Igene
Biotechnology, Inc.




                                 Stegman & Company
                                 _________________
                                 Stegman & Company

Baltimore, Maryland
March 27, 2002
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3: 99cr29 LAC

RONALD GUERRIER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on MARCH 7, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on3/6/08 Doc.# 206

RESPONSES:

BY GOVERNMENT on3/12/08 Doc.# 207

DEFT’S TRAVERSE TO RESPONSE on4/7/08 Doc.# 210

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 20

th day of

May, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) At sentencing the defendant was held accountable for 163.36 kilograms of

cocaine base which resulted in a base offense level of 38. Pursuant to Amendment

706 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the Drug Quantity Table at §2D1.1 assigns a

base offense level of 38 for 4.5 kilograms or more of cocaine base. Since the

defendant’s base offense level is unchanged, he is not eligible for any reduction

in his sentence of imprisonment pursuant to Amendment 706. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:99-cr-00029-LC-CJK Document 213 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 1
Case 4:02-cv-00315-RH Document 15 Filed 09/20/02 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:02-cv-00315-RH Document 15 Filed 09/20/02 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**MORLEX,
      INC.**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned hereby certifies that, to my knowledge, the annual report of Morlex,
      Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31,
      2007 (the “Annual Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and
      that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Annual Report or
“filed” for any purpose whatsoever.





Date:
                October 24, 2008
            /s/
                Thomas BanksThomas
                BanksChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)
#### § 28.503 Color Grade No. 3.

Color grade No. 3 shall be American Pima cotton which in color is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Pima, Color Grade No. 3, effective July 1, 1986.”

[65 FR 36600, June 9, 2000]
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Consilium, Inc., on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-30381, 33-30382, 33-35363, 33-41312,
33-63346, 33-63512, 33-79474 and 33-79458) of our reports dated December 6,
1995, except for Note 10, for which the date is December 15, 1995, on our audits
of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
Consilium, Inc., as of October 31, 1995 and 1994 and for each of the three years
in the period ended October 31, 1995, which reports are included in this 
Form 10-K.



                                               s/s Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                               ----------------------------
                                               Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.



San Jose, California
January 25, 1996