alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEstimator Based Controller for High Speed Flywheel Magnetic Bearing SystemA flywheel system and its operator interface are described. Measurements of magnetic bearing negative stiffness are performed. Two digital magnetic bearing control algorithms (PD and estimator based) are defined and their implementations are described. Tuning of each controller is discussed. Comparison of the two controllers' stability, damping noise, and operating current are described. Results describing the superiority of the estimator-based controller are presented and discussed.Document ID20020081279Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsDever, Timothy P.*(QSS Group, Inc. Cleveland, OH United States)*Brown, Gerald V.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Jansen, Ralph H.*(Ohio Aerospace Inst. Brook Park, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 2002Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:211795IECEC-2002-20161NASA/TM-2002-211795E-13490Meeting InformationMeeting: 37th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering ConferenceLocation: Washington, DCCountry: United StatesStart Date: July 28, 2002End Date: August 2, 2002Sponsors:Electron Devices Society,Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 755-1A-09Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020081279.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
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2687 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to stabilize the amount 

of the Medicare part B premium. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2006 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to stabilize 

the amount of the Medicare part B premium. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keep the Promise of 

5 Medicare Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STABILIZATION OF MEDICARE PART B PREMIUM. 

7 Section 1839(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 1395r(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following new sentence: ‘‘Notwithstanding the preceding 

10 sentences, the monthly premium rate determined under 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 2687 IS

1 this paragraph for each month in 2007 may not exceed 

2 an amount equal to the monthly premium rate determined 

3 under this paragraph for each month in 2006 adjusted 

4 by the percentage change in the average Consumer Price 

5 Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 

6 (CPI–W) for the third quarter of 2005 to the third quar7 ter of 2006.’’. 

Æ 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
52.203-6 Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales to the Government.       As prescribed in 3.503-2, insert the following clause:          Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales to the Government (Jun 2020)                                       (a) Except as provided in (b) of this clause, the Contractor shall not enter into any agreement with an actual or prospective subcontractor, nor otherwise act in any manner, which has or may have the effect of restricting sales by such subcontractors directly to the Government of any item or process (including computer software) made or furnished by the subcontractor under this contract or under any follow-on production contract.                                          (b) The prohibition in (a) of this clause does not preclude the Contractor from asserting rights that are otherwise authorized by law or regulation.                                          (c) The Contractor agrees to incorporate the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts under this contract which exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation 2.101 on the date of subcontract award.                                 (End of clause)          *Alternate I*                (Nov 2021). As prescribed in 3.503-2, substitute the following paragraph in place of paragraph (b) of the basic clause:             (b) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of this clause does not preclude the Contractor from asserting rights that are otherwise authorized by law or regulation. For acquisitions of commercial products or commercial services). the prohibition in paragraph (a) applies only to the extent that any agreement restricting sales by subcontractors results in the Federal Government being treated differently from any other prospective purchaser for the sale of the commercial product(s) and commercial service(s).    **Parent topic:** 52.203 [Reserved]
Amendment to Harte-Hanks, Inc. 2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 4.4 
 AMENDMENT TO HARTE-HANKS, INC. 
 2005 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Harte-Hanks, Inc. (the “Company”) 2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan, as amended and
restated (the “Plan”), is entered into and effective as of May 12, 2009. 
 WHEREAS, the Company adopted the Plan in
May 2005; 
 WHEREAS, effective January 1, 2008, the Company amended and restated the Plan to incorporate the requirements of Internal
Revenue Code Section 409A and related regulations, and effective February 13, 2009, the Company amended and restated the Plan to delete the references in Article XVII (Change in Capital Structure; Change of Control) to a “Potential
Change of Control,” including deleting the definition of a Potential Change of Control in former Section 17.5; 
 WHEREAS, on
January 29, 2009, the Company’s Board of Directors determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of Company common stock available under the Plan by an additional 4,600,000
shares and the Board recommended stockholder approval of an amendment to the Plan reflecting this change; 
 WHEREAS, 4,570,000 shares were
originally available under the Plan, which amount when added to the 4,600,000 additional shares in this Amendment will result in 9,170,000 total shares of Company common stock being available under the Plan (subject to adjustment, as provided by the
Plan); and 
 WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the stockholders of the Company approved this Amendment; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Each capitalized term or phrase used but not otherwise defined herein has the meaning given to it in the Plan. 

  

	 	2.	Existing Section 4.1 is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows, effective May 12, 2009: 

 “4.1. Number of Shares. The aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under this Plan shall be 9,170,000 (subject
to adjustment in connection with changes in capital structure in accordance with Article XVII). The authorization may be increased with the approval of the Board and the stockholders of the Company.” 
  

	 	3.	Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and provisions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed on its behalf by a duly authorized officer of the Company effective as of
the date first written above. 
  

			
	HARTE-HANKS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Bryan J. Pechersky

	Name:	 	 Bryan J. Pechersky

	Title:	 	 Senior Vice President
###### Editorial Note on Part 57

#### Editorial Note:

1. At 63 FR 69969, Dec. 17, 1998, part 57 was added by duplicating portions of part 59. At 63 FR 72353, Dec. 31, 1998, part 59 was redesignated as part 590 of 9 CFR.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 57 appear at 63 FR 69971, Dec. 17, 1998.

#### § 57.17 Nondiscrimination.

The conduct of all services and the licensing of inspectors under these regulations shall be accomplished without discrimination as to race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status.

[69 FR 57166, Sept. 24, 2004]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Export-Import Bank of the United States

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.

# TIME AND PLACE:

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. A break for lunch will be at the expense of the attendee. Security processing will be necessary for reentry into the building. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.

# AGENDA:

Agenda items include a briefing of the Advisory Committee members on challenges for 2011, their roles and responsibilities and an ethics briefing.

# PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

                        The meeting will be open to public participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance process into the building, and you may contact Susan Houser to be placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to December 6, 2010, Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.                         *Voice:*                         (202) 565-3232.                    

# FURTHER INFORMATION:

For further information, contact Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3232.

Jonathan Cordone,

Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2010-29919 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
22.809 Enforcement.       Upon written notification to the contracting officer, the Deputy Assistant Secretary may direct one or more of the following actions, as well as administrative sanctions and penalties, be taken against contractors found to be in violation of E.O. 11246, the regulations of the Secretary of Labor, or the applicable contract clauses:                                       (a) 						            Publication of the names of the contractor or its unions.                                          (b) 						            Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the contractor’s contracts or portion thereof.                                          (c) 						            Debarment from future Government contracts, or extensions or modifications of existing contracts, until the contractor has established and carried out personnel and employment policies in compliance with E.O.11246 and the regulations of the Secretary of Labor.                                          (d) 						            Referral by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of any matter arising under E.O.11246 to the Department of Justice or to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for the institution of appropriate civil or criminal proceedings.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 22.8 - Equal Employment Opportunity
10 

Case 4:20-cv-00425-AW-MAF Document 1-10 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 2
>t1'1F £(~ 

,i, .... ii! THE FLORIDA ST A TE UNIVERSITY 

~ if OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

~ 

August 4, 2020 

Tyson C. Langhofer 

Alliance Defending Freedom 

20116 Ashbrook Place, Suite 250 

Ashburn, VA 20147 

tlanghofer@ADFlegal.org 

Re: Jack Denton 

Dear Mr. Langhofer: 

Thank you for bringing Mr. Denton's concerns to our attention. While the University shares 

Mr. Denton's frustration at the failure of the Student Senate to debate and confirm those appointed 

to serve as Supreme Court Justices in order to hear his case, we acknowledge that no appeal process 

exists that would allow Mr. Denton's complaint to be brought directly to Dr. Hecht's office. Any 

appeal to Dr. Hecht and the Division of Student Affairs can only be entertained after the matter 

has first been heard by the Student Supreme Court, which cannot hear any cases brought before it 

unless all five seats of the Court are filled. 

Our office evaluated the possibility of appointing temporary summer justices to those seats, 

but even temporary summer appointments to the Student Supreme Court are subject to Student 

Senate confirmation. Without the consent and approval of the Student Senate, no appointment to 

the Student Supreme Court, whether temporary or permanent in nature, can be 

confirmed. Therefore, this is not a viable option. 

While we believe the no-confidence vote taken against Mr. Denton resulting in his removal 

as Student Senate President on June 5 followed proper procedure according to Senate Rule 1.8, we 

cannot comment on the substantive arguments made in Mr. Denton's complaint. The proper venue 

for those arguments is the Student Supreme Court. 

Again, the University shares your frustration regarding the failure on the Student Senate's 

part to debate and confirm those appointed to Student Supreme Court, but we also share your hope 

that the currently vacant Supreme Court seats will be filled at the conclusion of the first Student 

Senate meeting of the fall semester so that Mr. Denton's complaint can be heard immediately. 

Please feel free to reach out with any further concerns. 

Sincerely, 

Kyle Griffis, Esq. 

Associate General Counsel, Florida State University 

222 South Copeland Street, Suite 424 Westcott Building, P.O. Box 3061400, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1400 

850.644.4440 • 850.644.8973 • www.generalcounsel.fsu.edu 

Exhibit 10, Page 001 

Case 4:20-cv-00425-AW-MAF Document 1-10 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Eric Bello, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Quipp, Inc.; and

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.

/s/  ERIC BELLO
Eric Bello

Treasurer (principal financial officer)

Date:

May 23, 2007
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case Nos. 5:88cr5040/RV

5:10cv284/RV/EMT

KUNTA ALLAH MUWWAKIL

_____________________________________/

ORDER

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Defendant commenced the

current action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on October 22, 2010 (Doc. 281). He filed an amended

motion on November 30, 2010 (Doc. 283), but failed to file a copy of the amended motion as the

court had directed (Doc. 282). On December 17, 2010, the court entered an order giving Defendant

twenty-one (21) days in which to provide the service copy of his amended motion (Doc. 286). 

Defendant failed to provide the service copy, therefore, on January 19, 2011, the court issued an

order requiring Defendant to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not

be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (Doc. 287). The time for compliance

with the show cause order has now elapsed, and Defendant has not provided the court with a service

copy of his amended motion. 

The docket reflects that none of the court’s orders have been returned as undeliverable. The

Bureau of Prisons’ online inmate locator service, however, indicates that Defendant presently is in

transit. Therefore, Defendant will be given one final opportunity to file a copy of his amended

motion before the court concludes that Defendant has decided to abandon this action.1

 If Defendant

1

 The docket reflects that Defendant was convicted of drug and firearm charges well over twenty years ago—in

1988—and has previously pursued relief, unsuccessfully, pursuant to § 2255. Thus it appears that the present motion

is subject to dismissal for being impermissibly successive. Moreover, to the extent Defendant now seeks relief under

the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”) of 2010, he is advised that such relief appears to be foreclosed by the Eleventh Circuit’s
Page 2 of 2

does not file a copy of his amended motion within twenty-one (21) days of this order, the court will

recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant shall have twenty-one (21) days in which to file a copy of his amended

motion to vacate (Doc. 283).

2. The clerk shall terminate Defendant’s motion to vacate filed October 22, 2010 (Doc.

281), as it has been superceded by the amended motion.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of February 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

decision in United States v. Gomes, 621 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “because the FSA took effect

in August 2010, after appellant committed his crimes, 1 U.S.C. § 109 bars the Act from affecting his punishment.”). 

Case Nos: 5:88cv5040/RV; 5:10cv284/RV/EMT
52.222-39 [Reserved]

Parent topic: 52.222 [Reserved]
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 99-10042

JOHN WESLEY FORD,

Petitioner-Appellant,

VERSUS

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:98-CV-241-A)

October 17, 2000

Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Texas prisoner John Wesley Ford, acting pro se, appeals from

the district court’s final judgment denying his first federal

habeas corpus petition. Ford’s conviction became final after the

April 1996 effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), and his claims are, therefore,
2

controlled by the provisions of that statute. Although Ford raised

numerous issues in the district court, this Court granted COA on a

single issue, which is whether Ford’s constitutional right to a

speedy trial was violated. Ford’s speedy trial issue is controlled

by the four-factor analysis applied in Barker v. Wingo, 92 S. Ct.

2182 (1972), and its progeny. Under that test, the Court

considers: (1) the length of the pretrial delay; (2) the reason for

the pretrial delay; (3) the defendant’s attempts to assert his

speedy trial rights, if any; and (4) the prejudice caused by the

pretrial delay. See Hughes v. Booker, 220 F.3d 346, 348 (5th Cir.

2000) (citing Lindh v. Murphy, 117 S. Ct. 2059 (1997)). 

Ford pressed his speedy trial claim before the state habeas

court, which received evidence and then entered findings of fact

and conclusions of law in support of its decision denying relief.

Under the strictures of AEDPA, this Court may not grant relief

unless (1) the state court made an unreasonable determination of

the facts in light of the evidence presented, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d)(2), or (2) the state court’s legal conclusions were in

violation of clearly established Supreme Court precedent in

existence when Ford’s conviction became final, id. § 2254(d)(1).

Having considered Ford’s claims in light of the record and those

standards, we are persuaded that there is no material error in the

state court’s disposition. We, therefore, affirm the district
3

court’s denial of relief for essentially the same reasons given by

that court.

The district court is in all respects AFFIRMED.
52.000 Scope of part.       This part-                                       (a) 						            Gives instructions for using provisions and clauses in solicitations and/or contracts;                                          (b) 						            Sets forth the solicitation provisions and contract clauses prescribed by this regulation; and                                          (c) 						            Presents a matrix listing the FAR provisions and clauses applicable to each principal contract type and/or purpose (*e.g.,* fixed-price supply, cost-reimbursement research and development).    **Parent topic:** Part 52 - Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses
4:20cv514-MW/MAF