alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 314

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 314 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 81 FR 69639, Oct. 6, 2016.

#### § 314.550 Promotional materials.

For drug products being considered for approval under this subpart, unless otherwise informed by the agency, applicants must submit to the agency for consideration during the preapproval review period copies of all promotional materials, including promotional labeling as well as advertisements, intended for dissemination or publication within 120 days following marketing approval. After 120 days following marketing approval, unless otherwise informed by the agency, the applicant must submit promotional materials at least 30 days prior to the intended time of initial dissemination of the labeling or initial publication of the advertisement.
### Future eruptions in California's Long Valley area - what's likely?

By: David P. HillRoy A. BaileyC. Dan MillerJames W. Hendley IIPeter H. Stauffer

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs07397

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract
habt-ex101_12.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 

 

FIFTH AMENDED & RESTATED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT

 

 

This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”) to the Fifth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement, dated as of April 6, 2015, as amended on May 16, 2016 (as amended, the “LLC Agreement”), of The Habit Restaurants, LLC (the “Company”) is made and entered into as of March 22, 2017 by and among the signatories hereto.  Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the LLC Agreement.

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.5 of the LLC Agreement, any amendment or modification to the Agreement may be effected by written consent of the Managing Member in its sole discretion without the approval of any other Member or other Person, provided that such amendment does not materially and adversely affect the rights of a holder of Units, other than on a pro rata basis with other holders of Units of the same Class without the consent of such holder; 

 

WHEREAS, the Managing Member desires to amend the Exchange Procedures pursuant to Section 3.9 of the LLC Agreement in such a way as does not materially and adversely affect the rights of a holder of Units, other than on a pro rata basis with other holders of Units of the same Class; and

 

WHEREAS, this Amendment shall be binding on all of the parties hereto for all purposes.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment and in the LLC Agreement, as amended, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which being hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:

 


	
1.
	
Amendment to Weekly Exchange Date.  All references to “Bi-Weekly Exchange Date” are hereby deleted and replaced with “Monthly Exchange Date.” Additionally, the definition of “Bi-Weekly Exchange Date” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




“Monthly Exchange Date” means the First Exchange Date and the first Friday of each month thereafter, assuming such day is a Business Day. 

 


	
2.
	
Miscellaneous.  Except as set forth herein, the terms of the LLC Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  The provisions of Article IX (Miscellaneous Provisions) of the LLC Agreement shall apply to this Amendment directly as if incorporated herein.




***

 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this LLC Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first written above.

 

COMPANY:

THE HABIT RESTAURANTS, LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company

 

By: The Habit Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware 

corporation, its Managing Member

 

 

/s/ Russell Bendel

By:Russell Bendel
Title: Chief Executive Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsReal-Time Background Oriented Schlieren: Catching Up With Knife Edge SchlierenBackground Oriented Schlieren (BOS) is a widely used technique that provides density gradient information in flow fields of interest, without imposing stringent optical quality requirements on the facility/experiment windows and/or optics used in the BOS setup. Typically, the BOS reference image is acquired before the test begins (flow off) and then the "live" image data are acquired during the actual testing/experiment (flow on). The raw BOS image data, while displayed in real-time as they are acquired from the camera, unfortunately provide little if any visual indication of the density gradients in the flow. Generally, the "live" images must be processed off-line after the testing is completed, providing no indication of the success of the BOS setup and no feedback on the operational success of the test. Advances in computer processing hardware enables the implementation of real-time processing and display of the BOS image data. Two different approaches to implementing the real-time BOS (RT-BOS) processing capability are described herein. First, a traditional multi-core Central Processing Unit (CPU) based approach using scheduled parallel threads is used to build a RT-BOS processing engine. In the second approach, a Graphical Processing Unit (GPU) approach is used to costruct a RT-BOS processing engine. Generally, high core count CPU processors can provide a useful processing rate for RT-BOS. However, the GPU based approach exceeds the processing capability of the CPU approach, at a fraction of the cost. The GPU approach places no restrictions on the Host PC processing capability, except that it be capable of acquiring the BOS image data from the camera in real-time.Document ID20190002831Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWernet, Mark P.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredApril 29, 2019Publication DateApril 1, 2019Subject CategoryInstrumentation And PhotographyReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM—2019-220144GRC-E-DAA-TN65183E-19665Funding Number(s)WBS: 109492.02.03.02.20.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Technical ReviewSingle ExpertAvailable DownloadsNameType20190002831.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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0173

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH PAUL DEWISE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 8, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 31 2020

12/31/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0173
### Geochemistry of soils from the San Rafael Valley, Santa Cruz County, Arizona

By: Helen W. Folger**Floyd Gray**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20131149

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report** 
- Companion Files:                               - **Companion Files**
  - **Companion Files**
  - **Companion Files**
  - **Companion Files**
  - **Companion Files** 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

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.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has det ermined t hat this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit
No. 96-40656 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS CHARLES EVERETT BILLS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Texas (4:93-CR-62-1) January 28, 1997

Before WISDOM, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
In this appeal, we are asked to review a jury’s finding that the defendant, Charle s Everett Bills, was not entrapped by federal agents in his arrest for vario us drug trafficking offenses. The defendant further asserts that federal prosecutors violated the Jencks Act by no t producing a transcript of prior testimony by one of the government’s witnesses. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the testimony in question, we AFFIRM.
I.1 United States v. Rodriguez , 43 F.3d 117, 126 (5th Cir.), cert denied , 115 S.Ct. 2260

(1995).

2 Id.

3 Rosenberg v. United States , 360 U.S. 367, 375-76 (1959).

4 18 U.S.C. § 3500.

5 United States v. Keller , 14 F.3d 1051, 1055 (5th Cir. 1994), quoting United States v. Merlino , 595 F.2d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1979). 2 The jury’s finding that the defendant was not entrapped may only be disturbed if we conclude that no rational jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was predisposed to commit the offenses. 1 We must view every fact in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. 2 A review of the record reveals ample evidence against the defendant. Moreover, the defendant’s entrapment theory was supported solely by his own testimony. As such, a rational juror could easily have found that the defendant was not entrapped, but rather possessed the required predisposition to commit the instant offenses.
II. Courts should be hesitant to conclude that the defense could not have effectively utilized a producible statement had it been properly in their possession. 3 Here, the government failed to produce a transcript of prior testimony by Officer Robinson. Such material is arguably a “statement” within the purview of the Jencks Act. 4 Failure to produce a statement that is required to be so produced under the Jencks Act is harmless error, however, where there is no “substantial inconsistency, contradiction or variation” between the prior statements and the witnesses trial testimony. 5 Having reviewed Officer Robinson’s testimony at trial and his testimony from the revocation hearing, we find no such inconsistency. We find, further, that the evidence was not6 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 3

exculpatory. Hence, the defendant’s rights under Brady v. Maryland 6 were not violated. AFFIRMED.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 3, 2010

0526 

# Order

June 3, 2010

140405

GERALD W. PANO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 140405 COA: 294321 WCAC: 09-000054 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 15, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 43781/43782

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

BRANDON JACK TIMPSON ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 629

Filed: August 4, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Samuel A. Hoagland ; Hon. Steven J. Hippler, District Judges.

Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of four years, with one year determinate, for obtaining a controlled substance by fraud; twenty

- five years, with six y ears determinate, for robbery; and seven years, with two years determinate, for possession of hydromorphone, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant

.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
In Docket No. 43781, Brandon Jack Timpson pled guilty to obtaining a controlled
substance by fraud , Idaho Code § 37

- 2734(a)(3) . The district court imposed a unified sentence
of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year . In Docket No. 43782,
Timpson pled guilty to robbery, I .C. §§ 18

- 6501, 18

- 204, and possession of hydromorphone, I.C.
§ 37

- 2732(c). The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of twenty

- five years, with
a minimum period of confinement of six years, and seven years, with a minimum period of2

confinem ent of two years, respectively. Timpson appeals, contending that his sentence s are

excessive.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of th e sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Timpson ’s judgment s of conviction and sentence s are affirmed.
The HONORABLE GEORGE F. GUNN, J R., United States District Judge for 1 the Eastern District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2369

___________ Van Perry-El, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Michael Bowersox; Ray Pogue; * Bill Hartley, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 6, 1998 Filed: March 20, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Mi ssouri inmate Van Perry-El appeals the district court & s grant of summar y 1 judgmen t dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit seeking damages because priso n officials confined him in a

shower stall while he refused to be double-celled. After de novo review of the record and the parties & bri efs, we conclude the district court did not err in g ranting summary judgment in favor of defendants. Perry-El sued them only in their official capacities, see Murphy v. Arkansas , 127 F.3d 750, 754-55 (8th Cir.-2-

1997), and he failed to respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment wit h inf ormation sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fac t defeating defendants & r

ight to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 09059**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 09059\09059_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09059\09059_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 09059\09059_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 09059\09059_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09059\09059_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09059\09059_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09059\09059_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09059\09059_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

09059\Certification Statement Plant ID 09059.pdf Plant certification statement x 09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_A5-2 Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_A5-3 Water Balance Diagrams.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_C2-31_FAS-all units.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_D4-22_Basin 3 Closure.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_D4-22_landfill closure plan.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09059\Supplemental Documents\09059_BP_D4-24_GW mon plans.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

09059\09059_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### § 340.3 Definition.

As used in this part:

*Stimulant.* A drug which helps restore mental alertness or wakefulness during fatigue or drowsiness.
§ 1304.45 Internet Web site disclosure requirements. ( a ) Each online pharmacy shall display, at all times and in a visible and clear manner, on its homepage a statement that it complies with the requirements of section 311 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 831) with respect to the delivery or sale or offer for sale of controlled substances. This statement must include the name of the pharmacy as it appears on the DEA Certificate of Registration.
( b ) Each online pharmacy shall clearly display the following information on the homepage of each Internet site it operates, or on a page directly linked to the homepage. If the information is displayed on a page directly linked to the homepage, that link on the homepage must be visible and clear. The information must be displayed for each pharmacy that delivers, distributes, or dispenses controlled substances pursuant to orders made on, through, or on behalf of that Web site. ( 1 ) The name and address of the pharmacy as it appears on the pharmacy's DEA Certificate of Registration.
( 2 ) The pharmacy's telephone number and e-mail address.
( 3 ) The name, professional degree, and States of licensure of the pharmacist-in-charge, and a telephone number at which the pharmacist-in-charge can be contacted.
( 4 ) A list of the States in which the pharmacy is licensed to dispense controlled substances.
( 5 ) A certification that the pharmacy is registered under part 1301 of this chapter with a modification of its registration authorizing it to deliver, distribute, or dispense controlled substances by means of the Internet.
( 6 ) The name, address, telephone number, professional degree, and States of licensure with State license number of any practitioner who has a contractual relationship to provide medical evaluations or issue prescriptions for controlled substances, through referrals from the Web site or at the request of the owner or operator of the Web site, or any employee or agent thereof.
( 7 ) The following statement: “This online pharmacy is obligated to comply fully with the Controlled Substances Act and DEA regulations. As part of this obligation, this online pharmacy has obtained a modified DEA registration authorizing it to operate as an online pharmacy. In addition, this online pharmacy will only dispense a controlled substance to a person who has a valid prescription issued for a legitimate medical purpose based upon a medical relationship with a prescribing practitioner. This includes at least one prior in-person medical evaluation in accordance with section 309 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 829) or a medical evaluation via telemedicine in accordance with section 102(54) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(54)).”
[74 FR 15623, Apr. 6, 2009]
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

|                                                     |                                           
|---------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                   | PERCENTDIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLYBY REGISTRANT
|Active                                              
|                                                     |                                           
|Encre Consumables B.V. (Encre)                       | 100%                                      
|NUR America Inc. (NUR America)                       | 100%                                      
|NUR Asia Pacific (Hong Kong) Ltd. (NUR Asia Pacific) | 100%                                      
|NUR DO Brazil Ltda. (NUR Brazil)                     | 100%                                      
|NUR Europe S.A. (NUR Europe)                         | 100%                                      
|NUR Hungary Trading and Software Licensing           | 100%                                      
|Limited Liability Company (HOC)                      | 100%                                      
|NUR Macroprinters (Shanghai) Ltd. (NUR Shanghai)     | 100%                                      
|NUR Media Solutions S.A. (NUR Media Solutions)       | 100%                                      
|Salsa Digital Printers Ltd. (Salsa Digital Printers) | 100%                                      
|NUR Japan Ltd. (NUR Japan)                           | 100%                                      
|Stillachem S.A. (Stillachem)                         | 100%                                      
|NUR Pro Engineering Ltd. (NUR Pro Engineering)       | 50%                                       



---

---
[No. 20386-3-II.

Division Two.

November 21, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Brenda Egan, *Respondent,*and Charles R. Arnold, Jr., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 94-3-02064-1, Brian M. Tollefson, J., entered January 19, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Hunt, JJ.