alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-18 Biomass Density Image of the SSAThe BOREAS TE-18 team focused its efforts on using remotely sensed data to characterize the successional and disturbance dynamics of the boreal forest for use in carbon modeling. This biomass density image covers almost the entire BOREAS SSA. The pixels for which biomass density is computed include areas, that are in conifer land cover classes only. The biomass density values represent the amount of overstory biomass (i.e., tree biomass only) per unit area. It is derived from a Landsat-5 TM image collected on 02-Sep-1994. The technique that was used to create this image is very similar to the technique that was as used to create the physical classification of the SSA. The data are provided in a binary image file format. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Activity Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010004614Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Knapp, David*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberRept-2000-03136-0/VOL174NAS 1.15:209891/VOL174NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL174Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010004614.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
#### Mae Lewis et al., Respondents, v. Charles P. Wright et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 9, 1968, in favor of plaintiffs upon a jury verdict. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted to 'both defendants, with one bill of costs to defendants jointly, to abide the event. In our opinion, the receipt of the expert testimony as to the speed of plaintiffs’ vehicle at the moment of impact with the guardrail was reversible error *(Zavaro*v. *Mann,*26 A D 2d 692, and eases cited therein). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

§ 51.106 Public hearings in proceedings for issuance of operating licenses. ( a ) Consistent with the requirements of this section and as appropriate, the presiding officer in an operating license hearing shall comply with any applicable requirements of §§ 51.104 and 51.105.
( b ) During the course of a hearing on an application for issuance of an operating license for a nuclear power reactor, or a testing facility, the presiding officer may authorize, pursuant to § 50.57(c) of this chapter, the loading of nuclear fuel in the reactor core and limited operation within the scope of § 50.57(c) of this chapter, upon compliance with the procedures described therein. In any such hearing, where any party opposes such authorization on the basis of matters covered by subpart A of this part, the provisions of §§ 51.104 and 51.105 will apply, as appropriate.
( c ) The presiding officer in an operating license hearing shall not admit contentions proffered by any party concerning need for power or alternative energy sources or alternative sites for the facility for which an operating license is requested.
( d ) The presiding officer in an operating license hearing shall not raise issues concerning alternative sites for the facility for which an operating license is requested *sua sponte.*
1219.7000 General.

(a) The Small Business Administration provides general oversight to Federal mentor-protégé

programs. However, DOT has its own program tailored to assist small business concerns in the

transportation industry to enhance their capability to compete for Federal procurement

opportunities. The program is administered by the DOT Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business

Utilization (OSDBU) at https://www.transportation.gov/osdbu/procurement-assistance/mentor-prot....

(b) Small business concerns and large DOT prime contractors are encouraged to participate in the

Department's Mentor-Protégé Program. Mentor firms provide eligible small business Protégé firms

with developmental assistance to enhance their business capabilities and ability to obtain Federal

contracts.

(c) Mentor firms are eligible small businesses and large DOT prime contractors or other

socioeconomic firms capable of providing developmental assistance. Protégé firms are small

businesses as defined in 13 CFR part 121.

(d) Developmental assistance is technical, managerial, financial, and other mutually beneficial

assistance that assists Protégé firms. The costs for developmental assistance will not be reimbursed

to the Mentor firm.

(e) Mentor and Protégé firms shall submit an evaluation of the overall experience in the program to

OSDBU at the conclusion of the agreement or the voluntary withdrawal by either party from the

program, whichever occurs first. At the end of each year, the Mentor and Protégé firms will submit a

report regarding program accomplishments under their agreement.

(f) Mentor or Protégé firms shall notify OSDBU in writing, at least 30 calendar days in advance of

the effective date of the firm's withdrawal from the program.

Parent topic: Subpart 1219.70—DOT Mentor-Protégé Program
#### § 590.109 FE investigations.

The Assistant Secretary or the Assistant Secretary's delegate may investigate any facts, conditions, practices, or other matters within the scope of this part in order to determine whether any person has violated or is about to violate any provision of the NGA or other statute or any rule, regulation, or order within the Assistant Secretary's jurisdiction. In conducting such investigations, the Assistant Secretary or the Assistant Secretary's delegate may, among other things, subpoena witnesses to testify, subpoena or otherwise require the submission of documents, and order testimony to be taken by deposition.
#### Norman Ellis, Appellee-Plaintiff, v. Schafer Plow, Inc., a Corp., *Appellant-Defandant.*

No. 47,737

Opinion filed November 8, 1975.

*Bill Murray,*of Pratt, argued the cause, and *B. V. Hampton,*of Pratt, was with him on the brief for the appellant-defendant.

*Eldon L. Meigs,*of Pratt, argued the cause, and was on the brief for the appellee-plaintiff.

Prager, J.

Affirmed.

Miller, J., not participating.
### Response of birds to thinning young Douglas-fir forests

By: John P. HayesJennifer M. WeikelManuela M. P. HusoJanet L. Erickson

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs03303

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (600 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-CR-205-WHA

) 

SEBASTIAN K. SMITH, JR. )

) 

United States’s Motion for Downward Departure 

for Acceptance of Responsibility and for Substantial Assistance

The United States moves this Court to reduce Sebastian Smith’s offense level by onelevel based on Smith’s acceptance of responsibility and three additional levels based upon

his substantial assistance in this case. As grounds for this Motion, the United States notes:

1. Soon after the August 24, 2006 arraignment in this case, Smith’s counsel

contacted the United States Attorney’s Office to indicate that Smith would like to cooperate

with the Government and plead guilty. 

2. This was sufficiently early to permit the Government to avoid preparing for

trial and to allocate its resources efficiently. 

3. Therefore, under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1(b), the United

States makes this formal request for a one-level reduction in Smith’s offense level for

acceptance of responsibility so that he shall receive a total reduction for acceptance of

responsibility of three-levels.

4. During Smith’s cooperation, Smith also agreed to testify against his codefendant and friend Courtney Flowers. Smith’s testimony would have been critical to

establish Flowers’s involvement in the case. The United States submits that Smith has, at all

Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 38 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
-2-

times, been truthful with federal investigators. As part of the plea agreement, Smith has

waived his right to appeal and/or collaterally attack the sentence imposed in this case.

Therefore, United States asks this Court to depart an additional three-levels under Guideline

§ 5K1.1 based upon Smith’s substantial assistance. 

Respectfully submitted this the 29th day of January, 2006.

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher Snyder 

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334) 223-7280

Fax: (334) 223-7135

E-mail: christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 29, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such

filing to all attorneys of record.

/s/ Christopher Snyder 

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 38 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
H. Res. 498

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

July 18, 2006.

Whereas approximately 480,000 yellow school buses carry 25 

million children to and from school every weekday; 

Whereas America’s 480,000 school buses comprise the largest 

mass transportation fleet in the country, 2.5 times the 

size of all other forms of mass transportation—transit, 

intercity buses, commercial airlines, and rail—combined; 

Whereas during the school year, school buses make more 

than 50 million passenger trips daily carrying the Nation’s future—our children; 

Whereas school bus transportation is eight times safer than 

traveling in a passenger vehicle and is the safest form of 

ground transportation available; 

Whereas school buses meet higher construction, equipment, 

and inspection standards than any other vehicle, and 

school bus drivers meet higher qualification, training, and 

testing standards than any other drivers; 

Whereas according to the National Academy of Sciences, an 

average of 820 students are killed annually during school 

transportation hours, but less than 2 percent of them are 

school bus passengers; 

Whereas despite the industry’s best efforts, accidents still 

happen; 
2

•HRES 498 EH 

Whereas an average of seven school-age passengers are killed 

in school bus crashes each year, and an average of 19 

children are killed each year getting on and off the bus; 

Whereas most of those killed are children aged five to seven, 

and most often those children are killed in the area immediately surrounding the bus—either by a passing vehicle or by the bus itself; 

Whereas School Bus Safety Week, which is celebrated in 

more than 40 States and sponsored by the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was 

created to remind all students of the best ways to get on 

and off the bus in an effort to enhance the safety of the 

Nation’s children; 

Whereas School Bus Safety Week, which dates back to 1966, 

also recognizes the hard work and dedication of school 

transportation personnel, especially the many school bus 

drivers who ensure a safe journey each and every day; 

and 

Whereas School Bus Safety Week, celebrated the third week 

in October, promotes awareness through local and State 

poster and speech contests, lessons utilizing school bus 

safety community awareness kits, and other activities 

built around themes that raise awareness of school bus 

safety issues: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

the goals and ideals of School Bus Safety Week. 

Attest:

Clerk.
#### § 19.32 Discrimination prohibited.

No person shall on the grounds of sex be excluded from participation in, be denied a license, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity carried on which is under the jurisdiction of the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or under any title of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. This provision will be enforced through agency provisions and regulations similar to those already established, with respect to racial and other discrimination, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This remedy is not exclusive, however, and will not prejudice or cut off any other legal remedies available to a discriminatee.

[72 FR 49485, Aug. 28, 2007]
#### Charlene F. Wessel, Respondent, v. Harry N. Wessel, Jr., Appellant.

In an action for separation, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated April 5, 1968, as awarded alimony and support of the parties’ two children in the sum of $12,000 per annum and directed him to pay outstanding bills in the sum of $2,331.51 for necessaries purchased by plaintiff. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting from the tenth decretal paragraph thereof the following: “Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.)” and “Five Hundred Dollars ($500.)” and substituting therefor: “Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) ” and “Four Hundred Sixteen Dollars and Sixty Six Cents ($416.66) ”, respectively. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our Opinion, upon the instant record, the award of alimony and support in the sum of $12,000 per annum was excessive. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 920 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 920

  To provide that Executive Order 13767 (82 Fed. Reg. 8793; entitled 
 ``Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements''), shall 
   have no force or effect, to prohibit the use of Federal funds to 
          enforce the Executive Order, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2017

 Ms. Lofgren introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on 
Homeland Security, and Foreign Affairs, 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 Executive Order 13767 (82 Fed. Reg. 8793; entitled 
 ``Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements''), shall 
   have no force or effect, to prohibit the use of Federal funds to 
          enforce the Executive Order, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Protecting Our Border Communities 
Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EXECUTIVE ORDER TO HAVE NO FORCE OR EFFECT.

    Beginning on January 25, 2017, Executive Order 13767 (82 Fed. Reg. 
8793; entitled ``Border Security and Immigration Enforcement 
Improvements''), is null and void, shall have no force or effect, and 
may not be implemented, administered, enforced, or carried out.

SEC. 3. NO FUNDS AVAILABLE.

    No Federal funds (including fees) made available for any fiscal 
year, may be used to implement, administer, enforce, or carry out 
(including through the issuance of any regulations) any of the policy 
changes set forth in Executive Order 13767 (82 Fed. Reg. 8793; entitled 
``Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements'').
                                 <all>
```
#### Transland Assets, Inc., Appellant, v Adele E. Davis, Defendant, and Ralph M. Thompson, Jr., et al., Respondents.

[813 NYS2d 675]

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosen, R.), dated July 16, 2004, as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed its causes of action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the deed of the defendants Ralph M. Thompson, Jr., and Gessie Thompson to be null and void.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The New York Recording Act (Real Property Law § 290 *et seq.)*protects a good faith purchaser for value from a prior unrecorded interest in real property provided, inter alia, that the subsequent purchaser’s interest is the first to be duly recorded *(see*Real Property Law § 291; *Yen-Te Hsueh Chen v Geranium Dev. Corp.,*243 AD2d 708, 709 [1997]; *Morrocoy Mar. v Altengarten,*120 AD2d 500 [1986]; *Goldstein v Gold,*106 AD2d 100, 101-102 [1984], *affd*66 NY2d 624 [1985]; 11 Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property, Recording §§ 1.05, 1.07 [4th ed). Here, it is undisputed that the defendants Ralph M. Thompson, Jr., and Gessie Thompson recorded their deed before the plaintiff did. As a result, the plaintiff may not invoke the protection of the New York Recording Act, regardless of whether those defendants actually paid valuable consideration for the property *(see Rivas v McDonnell,*308 AD2d 572, 573 [2003]).

*680The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit, except for its contention that it has standing to challenge the contract of sale to the Thompsons as a fraudulent conveyance. Florio, J.P., Crane, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
#### In re NETTLES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 19, 1914.)

In the matter of the application of Clarence S. Nettles for admission to the bar.

No opinion. Application granted.
Deutsche Mortgage&Asset Receiving Corporation

60 Wall Street

New York, NY 10005





RE: Annual Statement of Compliance



The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and Paying Agent for the Moffett Towers Loan Combination (in such capacities, 'Wells Fargo”),
hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the “reporting period”):





| | (a) | A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s)
listed on Schedule A hereto (the “Servicing Agreement(s)”) has been made under my supervision; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







March 17, 2015





Brian Smith

Vice President













To: Deutsche Mortgage&Asset Receiving Corporation



Schedule A





List of Servicing Agreement(s) and
Series





| | 1. | Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of January1,2013, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE&ASSET
RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO
CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC as Special Servicer, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent, Trustee and Custodian relating to the Series COMM 2013-LC6 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates relating to the Moffett Towers Loan Combination, a pari passu portion of which is included in the Series COMM 2013-CCRE6
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





















To: Deutsche Mortgage&Asset Receiving Corporation



Schedule B





Material Non-Compliance with Servicing
Obligations



NotApplicable