alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDevelopment and Characterization of Hot-Pressed Matrices for Engineered Ceramic Matrix Composites (E-CMCs)The present research effort was undertaken to develop a new generation of SiC fiber-reinforced engineered ceramic matrix composites (E-CMCs). In contrast to traditional CMCs with a brittle SiC matrix, an E-CMC is designed to consist of a matrix engineered to possess sufficient high temperature plasticity to minimize crack propagation, relatively high fracture toughness, and self-healing capabilities to prevent oxygen ingress to the BN-coated fibers through surface-connected cracks. The present paper discusses the bend strength, isothermal oxidation, microstructures and self-healing properties of several silicide-behaved engineered matrices. Based on the oxidation tests, where it was observed that some of the matrices exhibited either catastrophic oxidation ("pesting") or spalling of the oxide scale, two engineered matrices, CrSi2/SiC/Si3N4 and CrMoSi/SiC/Si3N4, were down-selected for further investigation. Four-point bend tests were conducted on these two engineered matrices between room temperature and 1698 degrees Kelvin. Although these matrices were brittle at low temperatures, it was observed that the bend strengths and bend ductility increased at high temperatures as the silicide particles became more ductile, which was qualitatively consistent with the theoretically expected behavior that crack blunting at these particles should increase the matrix strength. Additional studies were conducted to study the effects of different additives on the self-healing properties of the engineered matrices, which helped to identify the most effective additives.Document ID20190001797Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)External Source(s)doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.11.021AuthorsRaj, S. V.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredMarch 22, 2019Publication DateMarch 1, 2019Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberE-19663GRC-E-DAA-TN65208NASA/TM-2019-220071Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 109492.02.03.02.02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsComposite MaterialsAvailable DownloadsNameType20190001797.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
Editorial Note on Part 130
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 130 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 130.14 General statements of substandard quality and substandard fill of container. For the purposes of regulations promulgated under section 401 of the act: ( a ) The term *general statement of substandard quality* means the statement “Below Standard in Quality Good Food—Not High Grade” printed in two lines of Cheltenham bold condensed caps. The words “Below Standard in Quality” constitute the first line, and the second immediately follows. If the quantity of the contents of the container is less than 1 pound, the type of the first line is 12-point, and of the second, 8-point. If such quantity is 1 pound or more, the type of the first line is 14-point, and of the second, 10-point. Such statement is enclosed within lines, not less than 6 points in width, forming a rectangle. Such statement, with enclosing lines, is on a strongly contrasting, uniform background, and is so placed as to be easily seen when the name of the food or any pictorial representation thereof is viewed, wherever such name or representation appears so conspicuously as to be easily seen under customary conditions of purchase.
( b ) The term *general statement of substandard fill* means the statement “Below Standard in Fill” printed in Cheltenham bold condensed caps. If the quantity of the contents of the container is less than 1 pound, the statement is in 12-point type; if such quantity is 1 pound or more, the statement is in 14-point type. Such statement is enclosed within lines, not less than 6 points in width, forming a rectangle; but if the statement specified in paragraph (a) of this section is also used, both statements (one following the other) may be enclosed within the same rectangle. Such statement or statements, with enclosing lines, are on a strongly contrasting, uniform background, and are so placed as to be easily seen when the name of the food or any pictorial representation thereof is viewed, wherever such name or representation appears so conspicuously as to be easily seen under customary conditions of purchase.
(logo)LNR

          Partners, LLC

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

OF

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

 

 

The undersigned, Job Warshaw,being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the “Special Servicer”), as specialservicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for thetransactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject toany limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, onbehalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officerof the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1.            A review ofthe activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencingon January 1, 2019 and ending on December 31, 2019 (or any other shorter periodset forth on Schedule I hereto) (the “'Reporting Period”), and of theSpecial Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement hasbeen made under my supervision; and

 

2.            To the bestof my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicingcriteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC,

a Florida limited liabilitycompany

 

 

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw

President

 

 

Dated: February 20, 2020

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue • Suite 700 • Miami Beach,Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 • Fax: (305) 695-5601

 

 

 

**Schedule I**

 

 

MSBAM 2013-C9

Morgan Stanley Bank of AmericaMerrill Lynch Trust 2013-C9, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2013-C9

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York NY 10036

Stephen Holmes

 

Trimont Real Estate Advisors,LLC

3500 Lenox Road, Suite G1

Attention: Trust AdvisorServices

Atlanta GA 30326

Group Mailbox

 

Trimont Real Estate Advisors,LLC

3500 Lenox Road, Suite G1

Attn: Trust Advisor Services

Atlanta GA 30326

J. Gregory Winchester

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

9062 Old Annapolis Road

ATTN: MSBAM 2013-C9

Columbia MD 21045 1951

Corporate Trust (CMBS) BondGroup
§ 1306.27 Provision of prescription information between retail pharmacies and central fill pharmacies for initial and refill prescriptions of Schedule III, IV, or V controlled substances. Prescription information may be provided to an authorized central fill pharmacy by a retail pharmacy for dispensing purposes. The following requirements shall also apply: ( a ) Prescriptions for controlled substances listed in Schedule III, IV or V may be transmitted electronically from a retail pharmacy to a central fill pharmacy including via facsimile. The retail pharmacy transmitting the prescription information must: ( 1 ) Write the word “CENTRAL FILL” on the face of the original prescription and record the name, address, and DEA registration number of the central fill pharmacy to which the prescription has been transmitted and the name of the retail pharmacy pharmacist transmitting the prescription, and the date of transmittal;
( 2 ) Ensure that all information required to be on a prescription pursuant to § 1306.05 of this part is transmitted to the central fill pharmacy (either on the face of the prescription or in the electronic transmission of information);
( 3 ) Indicate in the information transmitted the number of refills already dispensed and the number of refills remaining;
( 4 ) Maintain the original prescription for a period of two years from the date the prescription was last refilled;
( 5 ) Keep a record of receipt of the filled prescription, including the date of receipt, the method of delivery (private, common or contract carrier) and the name of the retail pharmacy employee accepting delivery.
( b ) The central fill pharmacy receiving the transmitted prescription must: ( 1 ) Keep a copy of the prescription (if sent via facsimile) or an electronic record of all the information transmitted by the retail pharmacy, including the name, address, and DEA registration number of the retail pharmacy transmitting the prescription;
( 2 ) Keep a record of the date of receipt of the transmitted prescription, the name of the licensed pharmacist filling the prescription, and dates of filling or refilling of the prescription;
( 3 ) Keep a record of the date the filled prescription was delivered to the retail pharmacy and the method of delivery (*i.e.* private, common or contract carrier).
[68 FR 37411, June 24, 2003]
[No. 39564-5-I.

Division One.

December *1,*1997.]

#### Roger Wagner, et al., *Respondents,*v. Don Foote, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Skagit County, No. 91-2-00096-7, George E. McIntosh, J., entered September 30, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
[Nos. 14684-7-III; 14795-9-III; 15828-4-III.

Division Three.

October 30, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Allan Kovis, *Appellant,*and Kathleen Ann Kovis, *Respondent.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for Franklin County, No. 91-3-50159-5, Duane E. Taber and Craig Matheson, JJ., entered January 10, March 6, 1995 and April 15, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Thompson, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Brown, J.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ex Parte Donald Wayne Herod

Appellate case number: 01-15-00494-CR

Trial court case number: 0677275

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County

On June 30, 2015, the trial clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record with the 

amended trial court’s certification of the right of appeal of the April 21, 2015 denial of 

the habeas application, filed by the pro se appellant, Donald Wayne Herod. On August 

27, 2015, this Court had abated this appeal and requested a second supplemental clerk’s 

record be filed with findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the habeas denial

and to address appellant’s July 10, 2015 motion for appointment of counsel. On October 

13, 2015, appellant filed a second pro se motion for appointment of appellate counsel.

On December 11, 2015, a compliant second supplemental clerk’s record with the 

trial court’s findings, conclusions, and order, signed on December 8, 2015, was filed. 

The trial court, among other things, found that appellant’s habeas application did not 

meet the requirements under Articles 11.072 or 11.073, and that the appointment of 

counsel was not required in the interest of justice. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

1.051(d)(3), 11.072, § 7(a), 11.073(a) (West Supp. 2014).

Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on this Court’s active docket and DENY

appellant’s July 10, 2015 and October 13, 2015 motions for counsel. Because appellant

filed a pro se brief on June 17, 2015, his supplemental brief, if any, is ORDERED to be 

filed no later than 20 days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 31.1. The 

State’s appellee’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed no later than 20 days from the 

filing of the supplemental brief. If the supplemental or appellee’s briefs are not timely 

filed, this Court will set the appeal for submission without further briefs. See id. 31.1.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  

Date: December 15, 2015
#### ABRAHAM FISCHMAN, RESPONDENT, v. JOSEPH FISH HAT COMPANY, APPELLANT.

Submitted February 17, 1939

Decided April 21, 1939.

*430For the appellant, *Newton H. Porter, Jr.*

For the respondent, *Michael Silver.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered *per curiam*in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancelloe, Chief Justice, Paekee, Bodine, Hehee, Peeskie, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, WolfsKeil, Raffeety, Hague, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
§ 203.37 Investigation and notification requirements. ( a ) *Investigation of falsification of drug sample records.* A manufacturer or authorized distributor of record that has reason to believe that any person has falsified drug sample requests, receipts, or records, or is diverting drug samples, shall: ( 1 ) Notify FDA, by telephone or in writing, within 5 working days;
( 2 ) Immediately initiate an investigation; and
( 3 ) Provide FDA with a complete written report, including the reason for and the results of the investigation, not later than 30 days after the date of the initial notification in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) *Significant loss or known theft of drug samples.* A manufacturer or authorized distributor of record that distributes drug samples or a charitable institution that receives donated drug samples from a licensed practitioner shall: ( 1 ) Notify FDA, by telephone or in writing, within 5 working days of becoming aware of a significant loss or known theft;
( 2 ) Immediately initiate an investigation into the significant loss or known theft; and
( 3 ) Provide FDA with a complete written report, including the reason for and the results of the investigation, not later than 30 days after the date of the initial notification in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( c ) *Conviction of a representative.* ( 1 ) A manufacturer or authorized distributor of record that distributes drug samples shall notify FDA, by telephone or in writing, within 30 days of becoming aware of the conviction of one or more of its representatives for a violation of section 503(c)(1) of the act or any State law involving the sale, purchase, or trade of a drug sample or the offer to sell, purchase, or trade a drug sample.
( 2 ) A manufacturer or authorized distributor of record shall provide FDA with a complete written report not later than 30 days after the date of the initial notification.
( d ) *Selection of individual responsible for drug sample information.* A manufacturer or authorized distributor of record that distributes drug samples shall inform FDA in writing within 30 days of selecting the individual responsible for responding to a request for information about drug samples of that individual's name, business address, and telephone number.
( e ) *Whom to notify at FDA.* Notifications and reports concerning human prescription drugs or biological products regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research shall be made to the Division of Compliance Risk Management and Surveillance, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Notifications and reports concerning human prescription biological products regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research shall be made to the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G112, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
[64 FR 67756, Dec. 3, 1999, as amended at 69 FR 48775, Aug. 11, 2004; 70 FR 14981, Mar. 24, 2005; 74 FR 13112, Mar. 26, 2009; 80 FR 18090, Apr. 3, 2015]
§ 1114.31 Issuance of a marketing granted order. ( a ) FDA will issue a marketing granted order if it finds that none of the grounds for denial listed in section 910(c)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act apply. A marketing granted order becomes effective on the date it is issued.
( b ) FDA may include, as part of the marketing granted order: ( 1 ) Restrictions on the sale and distribution of the product, including restrictions on the access to, and the advertising and promotion of, the tobacco product, to the extent that it would be authorized to impose such restrictions under a regulation issued under section 906(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
( 2 ) Any restrictions on the sales, distribution, advertising, and promotion of the new tobacco product that the applicant proposed to be included as part of a marketing granted order under section 910(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to support a finding by FDA that permitting the product to be marketed would be appropriate for the protection of the public health; and
( 3 ) Requirements to establish and maintain records, and submit postmarket reports under section 910(f) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in addition to those described in § 1114.41, including but not limited to information such as labeling, advertising, marketing, promotional materials, or marketing plans not previously submitted to FDA.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, I, David H. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1.     I have read this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of International
Absorbents, Inc.;

2.     To my knowledge, this report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

3.     To my knowledge, the information in this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations as of
April 30, 2003.

|                    |  |                                                                 
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 10, 2003 |  |                                                                 
|                   
|                    |  | /s/ David H. Thompson

David H. Thompson
Chief Financial Officer

Assigned original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to International Absorbents Inc. and will be retained by International
Absorbents Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

24
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A2 28 1 . STEVEN SMI TH v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 0 9

, St ev e n S m i th ple d guil t y t o v o lu n tary m an sl au g ht er. In Feb ru ary 2 0 1 5,

Sm it h fi l ed a p ro s e m o ti o n t o v acat e a v o i d ju d g m en t

, arg u i n g t h at h is arres t warran t

was u n l awfu l

. Th e tri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t io n , an d Sm i t h fi l ed t h i s d i r e c t ap p eal

.
W e l ack ju ri sd ict i o n

.
A m o t i o n s eek in g t o ch al len g e an a l l eg ed l y i n v al i d o r v o id ju d g m en t o f

co n vi ct i o n “ i s no t o n e of t he es t ab l i s h ed p ro ced ures fo r ch al l en g i ng t h e v al i d i t y o f a
ju d g m en t i n a cri m in al cas e.” Ro ber t s v. S t a t e , 2 8 6 G a. 5 3 2 (6 9 0 SE2 d 1 5 0 ) (2 0 1 0 ).

Becau s e Sm i t h i s n ot au th o ri zed t o co l l at eral l y at t ack hi s co n v i ct i o n i n t h i s m an n er,

t h i s ap peal i s s ub

ject to d i sm i s s al

. See id .; s ee al s o Ha r per v. S t a t e , 2 8 6 Ga. 2 1 6

, 2 1 8

(1 ) (6 8 6 SE2 d 7 8 6 ) (2 0 0 9 ) (o v erru l i n g Ch es t er v. S t a te

, 2 8 4 Ga. 1 62

, 1 6 2 -1 6 3 (2 )

(6 6 4 SE2 d 2 20 ) (2 0 0 8 )); Ma t h e r l ee v. S t a t e , 3 0 3 Ga. Ap p. 7 6 5 (6 9 4 SE2 d 6 6 5 )

(2 0 1 0). Acco rd i n gl y , Sm i th ’ s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 09/11/2015 September 11, 2015
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

954 

KA 15-01108 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARTIN SMALLWOOD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

JAMES S. KERNAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LYONS (ROBERT TUCKER OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

RICHARD M. HEALY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LYONS (BRUCE A. ROSEKRANS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Daniel G.

Barrett, J.), rendered March 26, 2015. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled

substance in the third degree (three counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of three counts of criminal sale of a

controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). 

County Court imposed on defendant a determinate term of imprisonment

of two years in accordance with section 70.70 because the crime herein

constituted defendant’s second felony drug offense, with the term of

imprisonment to be followed by 11⁄2 years of postrelease supervision. 

The court also directed the Department of Corrections and Community

Supervision to enroll defendant in the shock incarceration program

(see § 60.04 [7] [a]). Defendant was removed from the shock

incarceration program prior to completion, finished the remainder of

his determinate sentence in prison, and was subsequently released to

parole supervision.

Inasmuch as defendant has completed his term of incarceration and

is currently on parole, his contention that he was entitled to

placement in an “alternative-to-shock-incarceration program” during

incarceration is moot (Penal Law § 60.04 [7] [b] [i]; see generally

People ex rel. Dickerson v Unger, 62 AD3d 1262, 1263, lv denied 12

NY3d 716), and none of the issues raised by defendant fall within the

exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Matter of Hearst

Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715).

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, we conclude that
-2- 954 

KA 15-01108 

the sentence is not unduly harsh and severe. However, we note that

the certificate of conviction and the uniform sentence and commitment

form should be amended because they incorrectly reflect that defendant

was sentenced as a second felony offender when he was actually

sentenced as a second felony drug offender (see People v Oberdorf, 136

AD3d 1291, 1292-1293, lv denied 27 NY3d 1073). 

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
[No. 21268-4-II.

Division Two.

December 12, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Shane Ammel Lynn, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Mason County, No. 96-8-00224-6, Robert Wilson-Hoss, J. Pro Tern., entered October 8, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Bridge-water, A.C.J., and Morgan, J.