alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S T E VE N L E E S MI T H, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C IT Y O F S A N D IE G O , a m un i ci pal c o rp o r a tio n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 55393 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 2 2 5 4 - LA BBL M ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a rryA . B urns , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t2, 2011 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , IK U T A , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S t e ve n L e e S m i th appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt d i sm i ssi n g h i s 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 act i o n al l eg i n g th atci ty o ffi ci al s v i o l at ed h i s F i rst A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o pe t i t i on the gove rnm e ntbyr e f us i ng t o a c c e ptf

urthe ri n

# FI LED AU G 10 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 55393 2 pe r s on c om pl a i nt s c onc e rni ng purport e d z oni ng a nd m uni c i pa l c ode vi ol a t i ons a f t e rS m i th ha d l odge d num e r ous c om pl a i nt s on the s a m e m a tt e r . W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v i e w d e n o v o ad i s mi s s a l u n d e rFe d . R. C iv . P . 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) f

o rla c ko f

s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n , C orri e v . Cater pi l lar, Inc. , 5 0 3 F. 3 d9 7 4 , 9 7 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d S m i th’ s a c t i on be c aus e i ti s de voi d of m e r it g iv e n th a t S m ith h a ds u f f ic ie n t o p p o rtu n itie s to s u b m it c o m p la in ts to d e f e n d a n ts , a n dth e a c tio n ap p e a r s to b e a n a tte m p t to o b ta in f e d e r a l ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w p r io rs ta te a n dlo c a l p r o c e e d in g s c o n c e rn in g S m ith ’s c o m p la in ts . See Stee l C o. v. C i t i

ze ns f or a B et terE nv’t , 523 U . S . 83, 89 ( 1998) ( ac l a i m m a ybe di s m i s s e d f

orl a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on i f i tappe a r s t o be m a de f orthe p u rp o s e o f

o b ta in in g ju r is d ic tio n o ris w h o llyd e v o ido f m e r it) ; J

o n es v . N. C. P risoners ’ L ab or U

ni on , Inc. , 433 U . S . 119, 131 n. 6 ( 1977) ( the r e s tr i c t i on of so m e av en u es fo r p et i t i o n i n g th e g o v ern m en td o es n o tv i o l at e th e F i rst A m e n d m e n t) . S m ith ’s m o tio n to e x p e d ite th is ap p e a l is d e n ie da s m o o t. AF F I RME D.
```

[106th Congress Public Law 228]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ228.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 462]]

Public Law 106-228
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To make technical corrections to the status of certain land held in 
trust for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, to take certain land 
   into trust for that Band, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: June 29, 
                          2000 -  [S. 1967]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STATUS OF CERTAIN INDIAN LANDS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
            (1) all land taken in trust by the United States for the 
        benefit of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians on or after 
        December 23, 1944, shall be part of the Mississippi Choctaw 
        Indian Reservation;
            (2) all land held in fee by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
        Indians located within the boundaries of the State of 
        Mississippi, as shown in the report entitled ``Report of Fee 
        Lands owned by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians'', dated 
        September 28, 1999, on file in the Office of the Superintendent, 
        Choctaw Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the 
        Interior, is hereby declared to be held by the United States in 
        trust for the benefit of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw 
        Indians; and
            (3) land made part of the Mississippi Choctaw Indian 
        Reservation after December 23, 1944, shall not be considered to 
        be part of the ``initial reservation'' of the tribe for the 
        purposes of section 20(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Indian Gaming 
        Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)(ii)).

[[Page 114 STAT. 463]]

    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to alter the application or the requirements of the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) with respect to any lands 
held by or for the benefit of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 
regardless of when such lands were acquired.

    Approved June 29, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1967:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-307 (Comm. on Indian Affairs).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            June 14, considered and passed Senate.
            June 19, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
(April 16, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Harry W., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, entered March 26, 1980, which, *inter alia,*revoked appellant’s probation and ordered that he be placed in the custody of the Nassau County Department of Social Services for placement at Berkshire Farm Center and Services for Youth. Order reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, and it is directed that the appellant be restored to probation forthwith, in accordance with the order of disposition, dated January 11, 1980, and the matter is remanded to the Family Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith. After a hearing held on March 14,1980, which resulted in the order under review, new evidence was discovered which might have brought about a different determination. During oral argument before this court, the appellant’s Law Guardian and the County Attorney conceded that it would be in the best interest of the child to hold a dispositional hearing. We agree and remand for such a hearing at which time the newly discovered evidence can be considered. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Lazer and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SALTWATER SOL HOSPITALITY,

LLC d/b/a BUCCANEER INN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:19cv513-MW/MAF

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER REQUIRING EXPEDITED REPLY

On May 29, 2020, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss 

Without Prejudice. ECF No. 56. In its motion, Plaintiff moves to dismiss this lawsuit 

without prejudice. ECF No. 51. On the other hand, Defendant seeks dismissal with 

prejudice, or in the alternative, dismissal without prejudice with certain conditions. 

ECF No. 56. Plaintiff shall reply explaining why dismissal without prejudice with 

conditions proposed by Defendant would be inequitable. Plaintiff shall file a reply 

on or before June 3, 2020. 

SO ORDERED on June 1, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:19-cv-00513-MW-MAF Document 58 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 1
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEffects of Wing Sweep on Boundary-layer Transition for a Smooth F-14A Wing at Mach Numbers from 0.700 to 0.825The results are discussed of the variable sweep transition flight experiment (VSTFE). The VSTFE was a natural laminar flow experiment flown on the swing wing F-14A aircraft. The main objective of the VSTFE was to determine the effects of wing sweep on boundary layer transition at conditions representative of transport aircraft. The experiment included the flight testing of two laminar flow wing gloves. Glove 1 was a cleanup of the existing F-14A wing. Glove 2, not discussed herein, was designed to provide favorable pressure distributions for natural laminar flow at Mach number (M) 0.700. The transition locations presented for glove 1 were determined primarily by using hot film sensors. Boundary layer rake data was provided as a supplement. Transition data were obtained for leading edge wing sweeps of 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 degs, with Mach numbers ranging from 0.700 to 0.825, and altitudes ranging from 10,000 to 35,000 ft. Results show that a substantial amount of laminar flow was maintained at all the wing sweeps evaluated. The maximum transition Reynolds number of 13.7 x 10(exp 6) was obtained for the condition of 15 deg of sweep, M = 0.800, and an altitude of 20,000 ft.Document ID19910015243Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsAnderson, Bianca Trujillo*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, CA, United States)*Meyer, Robert R., Jr.*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1990Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-101712H-1531NAS 1.15:101712Accession Number91N24556Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-60-21Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910015243.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
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Brian A. Lutes, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TWC Holding LLC;

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

(a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

----

 

(a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)           Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: November 14, 2006
|        |   | By:    | /s/ Brian A. Lutes      |
|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |   | Brian A. Lutes          |
|   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

----
Subpart 3.6 - Contracts with Government Employees or Organizations Owned or Controlled by Them    **Parent topic:** Part 3 - Improper Business Practices and Personal Conflicts of Interest3.601 Policy.       (a)                    						            Except as specified in 3.602, a contracting officer shall not knowingly award a contract to a Government employee or to a business concern or other organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by one or more Government employees. This policy is intended to avoid any conflict of interest that might arise between the employees’ interests and their Government duties, and to avoid the appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment by the Government toward its employees.                                          (b)                    						            For purposes of this subpart, special Government employees (as defined in 18 U.S.C.202) performing services as experts, advisors, or consultants, or as members of advisory committees, are not considered Government employees unless-                                                         (1)                          								                The contract arises directly out of the individual’s activity as a special Government employee;                                                            (2)                          								                In the individual’s capacity as a special Government employee, the individual is in a position to influence the award of the contract; or                                                            (3)                          								                Another conflict of interest is determined to exist.3.602 Exceptions.       The agency head, or a designee not below the level of the head of the contracting activity, may authorize an exception to the policy in 3.601 only if there is a most compelling reason to do so, such as when the Government’s needs cannot reasonably be otherwise met.3.603 Responsibilities of the contracting officer.       (a)                    						            Before awarding a contract, the contracting officer shall obtain an authorization under 3.602 if-                                                         (1)                          								                The contracting officer knows, or has reason to believe, that a prospective contractor is one to which award is otherwise prohibited under 3.601; and                                                            (2)                          								                There is a most compelling reason to make an award to that prospective contractor.                                                                             (b)                    						            The contracting officer shall comply with the requirements and guidance in subpart  9.5 before awarding a contract to an organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by Government employees.
EXHIBIT 10 (k)

                      REVOLVING LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
                  CONVERTIBLE REVOLVING CREDIT PROMISSORY NOTE
                             DATED OCTOBER 26, 1987
                                 ADDENDUM NO. 16


      For consideration given and received,  Robert Howard and iCAD, Inc. hereby
agree to extend  the  repayment  date in  Paragraph  D of the  above  referenced
Convertible  Revolving  Credit  Promissory  Note, as amended,  (the "Note") from
January 4, 2005 to January 4, 2006.  Also the Note  hereafter  will be a maximum
principal sum of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000).

      Effective the 31st. day of December 2004.

Please note that I, Mr.  Robert  Howard,  do not intend to call in the principal
balance of the note within 366 days from the expiration date of this amendment.


ICAD, INC.



By:  /s/ Annette Heroux                             /s/ Robert Howard
  -------------------------------                   ----------------------------
  Title:  Chief Financial Officer                   Robert Howard
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: L.F., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.R., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 312 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: L.A.F., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.R., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 313 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00069

- CV

In the Interest of B.T., Jr. and S.T.,

minor children §

§

§

§ From the 78th District Court

of Wichita County (177,250

- B)

March 26, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that A ppellant shall bear the costs of this appeal, for

which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSome Observations on Transitory Stall in Conical DiffusersResults from an experimental investigation on the flow through conical diffusers are presented. The mean and fluctuating velocity fields are compared for three diffusers with total diffusion angles of 16, 20 and 24 degrees, in the throat Mach number (M sub t) range of 0.05 to 0.95. Each of the diffusers were 14 cm long and had a 5.08 cm inlet diameter, and the flow exited into the ambient. The boundary layer at the throat was thin with the throat diameter (D sub t) to momentum thickness (O) ratio being as high as 800 at M(sub t) = 0.4. While the 16 deg diffuser flow exited with a top-hat mean velocity profile, increasing losses due to increasing separation resulted in fuller profiles for the 20 and 24 degree cases. A detailed flow field study was conducted for the 16 deg. diffuser. The u'-spectrum, measured at the exit plane, exhibited a peak apparently due to the ensuing jet column instability throughout the M(sub t) range covered. In addition, a much lower frequency spectral peak also occurred in the M(sub t) range of 0.3 to 0.7. Both of the spectral peaks were due to axisymmetric flow fluctuations. A self-sustaining flow oscillation occurred in the M(sub t) range of 0.6 to 0.85, emitting a loud tone, when the jet column instability frequency matched the resonance frequency of the diffuser. Limited data showed that artificial acoustic excitation was effective in reducing the flow fluctuations, with a resultant increase in the pressure recovery, at low M(sub t).Document ID19900003245Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsZaman, K. B. M. Q.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Dahl, M. D.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1989Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberAIAA PAPER 90-0048E-5128NASA-TM-102387NAS 1.15:102387Meeting InformationMeeting: Aerospace Sciences MeetingLocation: Reno, NVCountry: United StatesStart Date: January 8, 1990End Date: January 11, 1990Sponsors:AIAAAccession Number90N12561Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-21Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900003245.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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Emilio Perez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered April 17, 1978, convicting him of driving while intoxicated, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant seeks a reversal of his conviction upon the ground that subdivision 2 of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law is constitutionally defective for vagueness. We find this subdivision to be *678constitutional (see *People v Cruz,*48 NY2d 419). The defendant’s remaining contentions likewise lack merit (see *People v Haitz,*65 AD2d 172). O’Connor, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Randolph Gress,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Innophos, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided Innophos, Inc. and will be retained by Innophos, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to
update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: August 7, 2008



/s/ RANDOLPH GRESSRandolph GressChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



51
§ 3560.501 General. This subpart contains Agency procedures and other policies related to the management and disposition of multi-family housing (MFH) projects in the Agency's inventory (Real Estate Owned (REO) property). Housing projects will not be accepted into the Agency's inventory unless one of the following has occurred: ( a ) The borrower has abandoned the housing project and the Agency has performed the required steps to take the housing project into custody.
( b ) The housing project title has been transferred to the Agency as a result of foreclosure, voluntary conveyance, redemption, or other action.