alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDirect Optimal Control of Duffing DynamicsThe "direct control method" is a novel concept that is an attractive alternative and competitor to the differential-equation-based methods. The direct method is equally well applicable to nonlinear, linear, time-varying, and time-invariant systems. For all such systems, the method yields explicit closed-form control laws based on minimization of a quadratic control performance measure. We present an application of the direct method to the dynamics and optimal control of the Duffing system where the control performance measure is not restricted to a quadratic form and hence may include a quartic energy term. The results we present in this report also constitute further generalizations of our earlier work in "direct optimal control methodology." The approach is demonstrated for the optimal control of the Duffing equation with a softening nonlinear stiffness.Document ID20020082894Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsOz, Hayrani*(Ohio State Univ. Columbus, OH United States)*Ramsey, John K.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 2002Subject CategoryEngineering (General)Report/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:211582NASA/TM-2002-211582E-13366Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 297-10-00Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020082894.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
#### § 29.16 Division.

Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Exhibit
32.2





Certification of Principal
Financial Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of SRKP 3, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Anthony C. Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/ Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony
      C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
      Financial OfficerNovember
      10, 2010
#### Nassau Recycle Corporation, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Respondents, and I.S.P. Holding Corp., Appellant.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to restrain the New York City Environmental Protection Administration from issuing additional permits for the use of, or certifying the availability of, petitioner’s sewer system by third parties, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated March 30, 1978, which granted petitioner’s motion to strike the answer of the appellant and dismiss the counterclaim contained therein. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, dated July 6, 1978, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination. Appeal from the judgment dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. The judgment was superseded by the order dated July 6, 1978, granting reargument. Order reversed insofar as reviewed, *666without costs or disbursements, petitioner’s motion is denied and appellant is granted leave to serve an amended answer. Said answer is to be served within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. It is the law of the case that there are issues of fact requiring trial on the issue of laches (see *Matter of Nassau Recycle Corp. v City of New York,*59 AD2d 763). The appellant should be permitted to serve its proposed amended answer (see CPLR 3025, subd [b]), which contains factual allegations as to such issue. O’Connor, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
Unassociated Document


    
       

      Confidential – Execution Document 

      
        

      

    

    


    Addendum
V to

    SOW
8 to BDA No. N-A-1

    


    This
ADDENDUM amends and supplements the SOW 8 to BDA No. N-A-1, effective August 17,
1999 (“Agreement”) between [************]1 and Peerless
Systems Corporation, previously having its principal place of business at 2381
Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 400, El Segundo, CA 90245 (“Customer”).  The
parties acknowledge that Peerless’ principal place of business is presently 2361
Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 440, El Segundo, CA 90245.

    


    The
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, except that it shall be
modified as set forth in this Addendum.  Any capitalized terms which
are not defined in this Addendum shall have the meaning set forth in the
Agreement.  Should a conflict arise between this Addendum and the
Agreement, the provisions of this Addendum shall control.

    


    The
parties hereby agree that the Agreement shall be and hereby is modified as
follows:

    


    
      [************]1

    

    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of
the parties hereto has caused this Addendum to be executed by duly authorized
representatives of the parties.

    


    
      	
              SIGNATURE

            	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              

                [************]1

              

            	 
      	
              Peerless
      Systems Corporation

            
	 	 
      	 
      
	
               

            	 
      	
              Signature:
      /s/ Edward
      Gaughan

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
               

            	 
      	
              Name:
      Edward
    Gaughan

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
               

            	 
      	
              Title:
      President

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
               

            	 
      	
              Date:
      April 5,
    2009

            


    

    


    

      
        

      

    

    
      1 Material
omitted pursuant to Confidentiality Treatment Request with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2287 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and permanently 

extend the expensing of certain depreciable business assets for small 

businesses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2006 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

and permanently extend the expensing of certain depreciable business assets for small businesses. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE AND PERMANENT EXTENSION FOR 

4 EXPENSING FOR SMALL BUSINESS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dollar 

7 limitation) is amended by striking ‘‘$25,000 ($100,000 in 

8 the case of taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 

9 2008)’’ and inserting ‘‘$200,000’’. 
2 

•S 2287 IS

1 (b) INCREASE IN QUALIFYING INVESTMENT AT

2 WHICH PHASEOUT BEGINS.—Paragraph (2) of section 

3 179(b) of such Code (relating to reduction in limitation) 

4 is amended by striking ‘‘$200,000 ($400,000 in the case 

5 of taxable years beginning after 2002 and before 2008)’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘$800,000’’. 

7 (c) INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS.—Section 

8 179(b)(5)(A) of such Code (relating to inflation adjust9 ments) is amended— 

10 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i)— 

11 (A) by striking ‘‘after 2003 and before 

12 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘after 2007’’, and 

13 (B) by striking ‘‘the $100,000 and 

14 $400,000 amounts’’ and inserting ‘‘the 

15 $200,000 and $800,000 amounts’’, and 

16 (2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘calendar year 

17 2002’’ and inserting ‘‘calendar year 2006’’. 

18 (d) REVOCATION OF ELECTION.—Section 179(c)(2) 

19 of such Code (relating to election irrevocable) is amended 

20 to read as follows: 

21 ‘‘(2) REVOCABILITY OF ELECTION.—Any elec22 tion made under this section, and any specification 

23 contained in any such election, may be revoked by 

24 the taxpayer with respect to any property, and such 

25 revocation, once made, shall be irrevocable.’’. 
3 

•S 2287 IS

1 (e) OFF-THE-SHELF COMPUTER SOFTWARE.—Sec2 tion 179(d)(1)(A)(ii) of such Code (relating to section 179 

3 property) is amended by striking ‘‘and before 2008’’. 

4 (f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

6 December 31, 2006. 

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 54904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21945]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Ballona Wetlands 
Restoration Project at Ballona Creek Within the City and County of Los 
Angeles, California

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Intent--Extension of Comment Period for Scoping.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the California 
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) intend to jointly prepare a Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) 
for the proposed Ballona Wetlands Restoration Project. The proposed 
project is intended to return the daily ebb and flow of tidal waters, 
maintain freshwater circulation, and augment the physical and 
biological functions and services in the project area. Restoring the 
wetland functions and services would allow native wetland vegetation to 
be reestablished, providing important habitat for a variety of wildlife 
species. As a restored site, the Ballona Wetlands would play an 
important role to provide seasonal habitat for migratory birds. A 
restored, optimally functioning wetland would also benefit the adjacent 
marine environment and enhance the quality of tidal waters. The purpose 
of this notice is to inform the public the comment period for scoping 
has been extended to October 23, 2012.

DATES: Comment period for scoping has been extended from September 10 
to October 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Daniel P. Swenson at (213) 452-
3414 (daniel.p.swenson@usace.army.mil), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
Los Angeles District, P.O. Box 532711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325.

Mark D. Cohen,
Deputy Chief, Regulatory Division, Corps of Engineers.
[FR Doc. 2012-21945 Filed 9-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
```
# ©

U.S . Departmen t 80 0 independenc e Av e S.W . o f Transportatio n Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Decembe r

24,200 9 VI A REGULA RMAI L Lesli e A . Polizot i Esq . >^ ^ MORRIS , NICHOLS , ARSH T & TUNNELL , LL P^ 1201N . Marke t

Stree t , ^ P.O . Bo x 134 7 . : ;| 2 Wilmington , Delawar e 19899-134 7 ~ ; :| |

- a Josep hMichae l Lamonaca , Esq . ^ Ne w Castl e County Airport ~ § P.O . Bo x 1058 3 Wilmington , Delawar e 19850-058 3 RE : Aer o Way s v . Delawar e Rive r & Bay Authority ~ FA A Docke t No . 16-09-1 2 Secon dReques t

for Extensio n o f

Tim e Dea r Ms . Polizot i an dMr . Lamonaca : Vi aamotio n date dDecembe r 23,2009 , counse l for

th e Delawar e Rive r

& Bay Authority , requeste d a n extensio no f

tim e unti l February 3 , 201 0 t o fil e th e Authority' s Answe r i nth e above-reference d matter . I n th e motion , th e Authority' s counse l informe dFA A that th e partie s ar e engagin g i n settlemen t discussion s an dcounse l for Aer o Way s consente dt o th e extensio no f time . Accordingly , th e reques t

for an extensio ni s granted . Th e respondent' s Answe r i s no w du e o n February 3,2010 . Complainan t Aer o Way s ma y fil e aRepl y v^thi nte nday s o f th e dat e o f

servic e o f th e Answer . Sincerely , ElizabethNewma n Attorney , Airport s La w Branc h cc : Part 1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t ACO-lO O
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

OREN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Appellant

v.

PROPPANT EXPRESS INVESTMENTS LLC,

PROPPANT EXPRESS SOLUTIONS LLC,

Appellees

______________________

2022

- 1838

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018

-

00733

.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App.

P. 42 (b). Case: 22-1838 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 06/07/2022O REN T ECHNOLOGIES

, LLC V

. P ROPPANT E XPRESS

I NVESTMENTS LLC 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

June 7, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 7, 2022 Case: 22-1838 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 06/07/2022
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-16-00239-CR

RICHARD BROWN APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COUR T NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1250248D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- In June 2012, Appellant Richard Brown pled guilt y to indecency with a child by contact and true to a repeat offender allegati on in exchange for eleven years’ confinement, 2 and the trial court followed the plea bargain and sentenced

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11( a)(1), (d) (West 2011) (providing indecency by contact is second-degree felony), id. § 12.42(b) (West Supp.2 Appellant accordingly. 3 The trial court’s certificatio n states that this is a pleabargained case and that Appella nt has no right of appeal. 4 The certification also contains a boilerplate endnote, * . . . . In a plea bargain case—tha t is, a case in wh ich a defendant’s plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant—a defendant may appeal on ly (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial cour t’s permission to appeal. 5 On May 23, 2016, about forty-six months too late, 6 Appellant filed a notice of appeal based on the appa rent denial of his pretri al motion to quash. We informed Appellant by letter that his case was subject to dismissal based on the untimeliness of the notice of appeal unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal showed grounds fo r continuing it. His resp onse does not show such grounds. A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. 7 The Texas Court of Criminal
2015) (providing defendant convicted of second-degree felony is punished for first-degree felony when prior felo ny conviction is also shown).

3 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).

4 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

5 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

6 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a )(1) (providing notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of sentencing).

7 See id.3 Appeals has expressly held th at without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion for extension of time, we cannot exer cise jurisdiction over an appeal. 8 Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction. 9

PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: August 4, 2016

8 Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

9 See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13(a)-14(a)
(SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of India Globalization Capital, 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 India Globalization Capital, Inc., as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    India Globalization Capital, Inc.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 India Globalization Capital, Inc., 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 India Globalization Capital, Inc., 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 India Globalization Capital, Inc.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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any changes in India Globalization Capital, Inc.s internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during India Globalization Capital, Inc.s
most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, India Globalization Capital, Inc.s internal control over financial reporting.
 5
    
    India Globalization Capital, Inc.s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to India
Globalization Capital, Inc.s auditors and the audit committee of India Globalization Capital,
Inc.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
India Globalization Capital, Inc.s ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in India Globalization Capital, Inc.s internal controls over financial
reporting.
 Date: February 19, 2007
    
    /s/ Ram MukundaRam Mukunda, Chief Executive Officer / President
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2594 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2594

To provide that a former Member of Congress receiving compensation as a 
   highly-paid lobbyist shall be ineligible to concurrently receive 
                      Federal retirement benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2013

  Mr. Israel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that a former Member of Congress receiving compensation as a 
   highly-paid lobbyist shall be ineligible to concurrently receive 
                      Federal retirement benefits.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Revolving Door Pension Prevention 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON TAXPAYER-FUNDED PENSIONS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
              WHO BECOME HIGHLY-PAID LOBBYISTS.

    (a) In General.--Any former Member of Congress who is registered as 
a lobbyist, and whose annual income from lobbying activities exceeds 
$1,000,000, shall not be eligible to receive benefits under either the 
Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees Retirement 
System for the period of time during which such former Member is 
employed as such a lobbyist and receiving from lobbying activities an 
annual income that exceeds $1,000,000.
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``former 
Member of Congress'' means an individual who becomes a former Member of 
Congress after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Zoo Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the “Form
10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  November
23, 2009





/s/ Mark SeremetMark
      Seremet
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)





Date:  November
23, 2009





/s/ David FremedDavid
      FremedChief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial Officer)
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 1 of 12
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 2 of 12
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 3 of 12
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 4 of 12
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 5 of 12
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 6 of 12
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 7 of 12
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 8 of 12
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 9 of 12
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 10 of 12
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 11 of 12
Case 4:03-cv-00307-RH-WCS Document 1 Filed 09/24/03 Page 12 of 12