alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3918]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review of R13 Application for NIH 
Support of Conferences and Scientific Meetings.
    Date: March 26, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
     Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Victor Henriquez, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, DEA/SRB/NIDCR, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 668, Bethesda, MD 
20892-4878, 301-451-2405, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#543c313a263d252122143a3d3037267a3a3d3c7a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="523a373c203b232724123c3b3631207c3c3b3a7c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 19, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-3918 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsComputational Performance of Progressive Damage Analysis of Composite Laminates using Abaqus/Explicit with 16 to 512 CPU CoresThe computational scaling performance of progressive damage analysis using Abaqus/ Explicit is evaluated and quantified using from 16 to 512 CPU cores. Several analyses were conducted on varying numbers of cores to determine the scalability of the code on five NASA high performance computing systems. Two finite element models representative of typical models used for progressive damage analysis of composite laminates were used. The results indicate a 10 to 15 times speed up scaling from 24 to 512 cores. The run times were modestly reduced with newer generations of CPU hardware. If the number of degrees of freedom is held constant with respect to the number of cores, the model size can be increased by a factor of 20, scaling from 16 to 512 cores, with the same run time. An empirical expression was derived relating run time, the number of cores, and the number of degrees of freedom. Analysis cost was examined in terms of software tokens and hardware utilization. Using additional cores reduces token usage since the computational performance increases more rapidly than the token requirement with increasing number of cores. The in- crease in hardware cost with increasing cores was found to be modest. Overall the results show relatively good scalability of the Abaqus/Explicit code on up to 512 cores.Document ID20190001427Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBergan, A. C.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredMarch 12, 2019Publication DateFebruary 1, 2019Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2019-220251L-20998NF1676L-32380Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 826611.04.07.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20190001427.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
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3991]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That Are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. [thinsp]225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board 
has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and 
permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than March 25, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior 
Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-
1521:
    1. Bryn Mawr Bank Corporation, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania; to acquire 
First Keystone Financial, Inc. Media, Pennsylvania, and thereby 
indirectly acquire First Keystone Bank, Media, Pennsylvania, and 
thereby engage in operating a savings and loan assocation, pursuant to 
225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 23, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-3991 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32(b)

     CERTIFICATION 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 Northland Cable Properties Seven
Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Gary Jones, President of Northland
Communications Corporation, the General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that;

         (1)      The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m or 78(d)); and

         (2)      The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Partnership.

DATE: 11-14-03

/s/ GARY S. JONES
    --------------------------------
    Gary S. Jones
    President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Northland Cable Properties Seven Limited Partnership and will be
retained by Northland Cable Properties Seven Limited Partnership and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING ASSOCIATION v. THE UNITED STATES.

[41 C. Cls. R., 389; 207 U. S. R., 556.]

*On the claimant's Appeal.*

Brewers of beer made for exportation import corks band cut in Spain, paying tbe duty tbereon. Tbe corks are subject to certain processes necessary to fit them for tbe preserving of beer made for exportation. Tbe brewers claim a rebate on tbe corks so exported. The question in tbe ease is whether corks made in Spain and modified by various processes in this country “ *are materials used in the manufacture or production ”*of an article entitled to drawback when exported.

The court below decides:

I.Imported bottle corks hand cut in Spain are not “ *imported materials used in the manufacture or production of articles entitled to drawbaclo of customs duty when exported”*within tbe meaning of tbe *Act 1st July, 1890*(26 Stat. L., p. 617), though they are sterilized, cleansed, softened, and coated by distinct and peculiar processes so as to adapt them to be used in tbe bottling of beer for exportation.

II.Raw materials may be subject to successive processes of manufacture, each one of which is complete in itself, but several of which may be required to make the final production — as logs sawed into boards, boards made into boxes, etc. The process or processes must produce some new article by the application of labor to raw materials in order to entitle the importer of the materials to a drawback.

III.The mere cleaning of Spanish corks by washing and steaming and making the corks soft and elastic does not produce a new article; bathing the corks in glycerine so as to stop their seams, and giving them a coating so as to prevent the beer from acquiring a cork taste, does not produce a new article. Imported corks, though improved and modified and adapted to a specific purpose which they were not originally so well adapted to, are still corks.

The decision, of the court below is affirmed upon the same grounds.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 6, 1908.
§ 26.74 Preservation of regulatory authority. ( a ) Nothing in this part shall be construed to limit the authority of a party to determine, through its legislative, regulatory, and administrative measures, the level of protection it considers appropriate for safety; for protection of human, animal, or plant life or health; for the environment; for consumers; and otherwise with regard to risks within the scope of the applicable subpart A or B of this part.
( b ) Nothing in this part shall be construed to limit the authority of a regulatory authority to take all appropriate and immediate measures whenever it ascertains that a product may: ( 1 ) Compromise the health or safety of persons in its territory;
( 2 ) Not meet the legislative, regulatory, or administrative provisions within the scope of the applicable subpart A or B of this part; or
( 3 ) Otherwise fail to satisfy a requirement within the scope of the applicable subpart A or B of this part. Such measures may include withdrawing the products from the market, prohibiting their placement on the market, restricting their free movement, initiating a product recall, and preventing the recurrence of such problems, including through a prohibition on imports. If the regulatory authority takes such action, it shall inform its counterpart authority and the other party within 15 days of taking such action, providing its reasons.
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 173.130 Carbohydrase derived from *Rhizopus oryzae.* Carbohydrase from *Rhizopus oryzae* may be safely used in the production of dextrose from starch in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) *Rhizopus oryzae* is classified as follows: Class, Phycomycetes; order, Mucorales; family, Mucoraceae; genus, *Rhizopus;* species, *Rhizopus oryzae.*
( b ) The strain of *Rhizopus oryzae* is nonpathogenic and nontoxic.
( c ) The carbohydrase is produced under controlled conditions to maintain nonpathogenicity and nontoxicity, including the absence of aflatoxin.
( d ) The carbohydrase is produced by a process which completely removes the organism *Rhizopus oryzae* from the carbohydrase product.
( e ) The carbohydrase is maintained under refrigeration from production to use and is labeled to include the necessity of refrigerated storage.
#### Thomas *v.*Kelly.

[No. 17,321.

Filed February 2, 1945.]

*P. F. Mason, L. A. Savage,*and L. *N. Savage,*all of Rockport, for appellant.

*Thomas W. Lindsey,*of Evansville, for appellee.

Draper, C. J.

— This action was instituted by appellee by an original complaint to vacate and set aside a default judgment theretofore rendered against him and in favor of appellant. The court below, to which the cause was venued, granted that relief; appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled and he attempts to prosecute an appeal to this court.

The judgment sought to be appealed from is not a final, appealable judgment within the meaning of our statutes authorizing appeals. § 2-3201, Burns’ 1933. *Karnes, Admr. v. Perisho*(1938), 104 Ind. App. 584, 12 N. E. (2d) 403; *Soil*v. *Soil*(1936), 102 Ind. App. 112, 1 N. E. (2d) 311; *Woodard*v. *Kitten*(1925), 196 Ind. 570, 148 N. E. 195.

The appeal is therefore dismissed on the court’s own motion.

Note. — Reported in 58 N. E. (2d) 942.
#### § 860.4 Unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials.

Unauthorized carrying, transporting, or otherwise introducing or causing to be introduced any dangerous weapon, explosive, or other dangerous instrument or material likely to produce substantial injury or damage to persons or property, into or upon any facility, installation or real property subject to this part, is prohibited.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Thomas Paul Hartley, Defendant.

Motion granted, judgment vacated and a new trial granted. Memorandum: The destruction of the court reporter’s notes forecloses the defendant from having this court review all the evidence and rulings of the trial court. *(People*v. *Lomoso,*284 App. Div. 670; *People*v. *Schwach,*16 A D 2d 879; see *Waterman*v. *State of New York,*13 A D 2d 619.)
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 14

- 00133

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2009

- 63319

Style: United Services Automobile Association

v Joseph Hayes, Jr and Joanne Hayes

Date motion filed * : November 17, 2014

Type of motion: Extension of Time to File Reply

Party filing motion: Cross

- Appellants, Joseph Hayes, Jr. and Joanne Hayes

Document to be filed: Reply Brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: October 20, 2014

Number of previous extensions granted: 1

Date Requested: November 26, 2014

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: November 26, 2014

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

Acting indivi dually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

Date: November 20 , 2014
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                                  PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Keith A. Meister, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer) of American Property Investors, Inc., the General Partner of
American Real Estate Partners, L.P. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best
of my knowledge, based upon a review of the American Real Estate Partners, L.P.,
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 of the
Registrant (the "Report"):

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

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

                                                 /s/ KEITH A. MEISTER
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                     KEITH A. MEISTER
                                          PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                                            OF
                                            AMERICAN PROPERTY INVESTORS, INC.,
                                                  THE GENERAL PARTNER OF
                                           AMERICAN REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, L.P.

Date: May 10, 2004
#### Lasch *v. Platz,*Administrator.

[No. 17,156.

Filed September 29, 1943.]

*Lewis W. Hammond,*of South Bend, for appellant.

*Aaron Huguenard,*of South Bend, for appellee.

Royse, C. J.

Appellee has entered his special appearance for the sole purpose of filing his motion to dismiss this appeal. There are three specifications in his motion to dismiss. They are as follows:

> “1. The appellant apparently attempted to take a term appeal, but did not file the transcript of the record in this court within sixty days after filing his appeal bond.

> *“2.*Assuming that the appellant has abandoned his attempted term appeal he has failed to perfect an appeal under the rules governing vacation appeals in that no notice of said appeal has been given and in that the appellee has not appeared thereto.

> “3. This case not having been appealed in term and having been on the docket for more than 30 days and there being no appearance by the appellee and no steps having been taken to bring him into court, the appeal should be dismissed.”

*10The record discloses judgment was rendered against appellant on February 17, 1943. On April 2, 1943, appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled. On the same date appellant prayed an appeal to this court which was granted upon the filing of an appeal bond in the sum of $1,000 within thirty days. On the 29th day of April, 1943, appellant tendered his appeal bond to the trial court which was, on said day, approved by the court and ordered filed. The transcript was filed in the office of the clerk of this court on June 29, 1943, more than sixty days after the filing of the appeal bond. No notice was given or served on appellee to perfect a vacation appeal. It is now too late to perfect such vacation appeal. *Beu*v. *Short*(1929), 89 Ind. App. 17, 165 N. E. 560; *McKinstry et al.*v. *Russell et al.*(1942), 112 Ind. App. 133, 43 N. E. (2d) 875; *Clemens*v. *Pierce*(1942), 112 Ind. App. 136, 43 N. E. (2d) 1024.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 50 N. E. (2d) 663.
www.iata.org

International Air Transport Association

1201 F. Street, NW, Suite 650

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 628 9292

Federal Aviation Administration

Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes

Docket No. FAA-2014-0780

Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-168-AD

To whom it may concern,

On behalf of the Secretary of the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) Unit 

Load Device Panel (ULDP), I am writing to request a 30 day extension for the above 

referenced proposed FAA new airworthiness directive (AD).

The proposed AD, once effective, would not only affect U.S. registered aircraft but also 

aircraft of the same types worldwide through the Boeing Company’s Aircraft Weight & 

Balance Manuals. As such, the IATA ULDP has been investigating the technical 

specifications of the testing methods as well as evaluating several potential alternative 

methods of compliance that could alleviate the significant economic impact without 

impacting safety. We need more time to complete this evaluation.

One challenge we have encountered in this process is that we are not aware of any 

airline that has received the Boeing test reports, making it more difficult to substantiate 

other potential methods in reference to the specific testing case used by the AD.

Thank you for your consideration and we apologize for the late submission of this 

request.

Best regards,

Douglas E. Lavin

Vice President, Member and External Relations

IATA

(202) 628 9292

lavind@iata.org