alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNumerical Study of the Effect of Mean Three-Dimensionality on Turbulence in Adverse-Pressure-Gradient Boundary LayersDirect numerical simulation (DNS) is used to isolate the influence of sweep on a separating turbulent boundary layer. Attention here is limited to the behavior of the turbulence within the adverse-pressure-gradient (APG) region upstream of separation. Other regions and quantities are considered in Coleman, Rumsey & Spalart. The mean three-dimensionality and outer-layer inviscid skewing have only a slight effect upon the structure of the turbulence (measured by the relationship of the components of the Reynolds-stress tensor and the efficiency of the turbulence energy transfer) compared with that of the adverse pressure gradient, which dominates both the skewed and unskewed layers.Document ID20190025272Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsColeman, G. N.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Rumsey, C. L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Spalart, P. R.*(Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. Seattle, WA, United States)*Date AcquiredMay 22, 2019Publication DateApril 1, 2019Subject CategoryNumerical AnalysisFluid Mechanics And ThermodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNF1676L-32854NASA/TM-2019-220273L–21014Funding Number(s)WBS: 109492.02.07.01.05Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20190025272.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
# C_2015213EN.01004402.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/44

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 19 May 2015 — Brune v Commission

(Case F-59/14) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Open competition EPSO/AD/26/05 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Annulment by the General Court - Article 266 TFEU - Organisation of another oral test - Refusal by the candidate to participate - New decision not to include the candidate on the reserve list - Action for annulment - Dismissal - Judgment of the General Court upheld on appeal - Later application for compensation - Observance of reasonable time-limit))

(2015/C 213/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Markus Brune (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H. Mannes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Claim for damages to compensate the alleged loss of an opportunity to be recruited to a position in the EU, based on the judgment in Case F-5/08.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Brune, on account of the non-pecuniary loss incurred between 6 March 2007 and 4 February 2011, the sum of EUR 4  000, plus default interest from 17 April 2013 at a rate applied by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations over the period concerned and increased by two points; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Brune, on account of the non-pecuniary loss incurred between 6 March 2007 and 4 February 2011, the sum of EUR 4  000, plus default interest from 17 April 2013 at a rate applied by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations over the period concerned and increased by two points;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and 50 % of the costs incurred by Mr Brune; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and 50 % of the costs incurred by Mr Brune;

| 4. | Orders Mr Brune to bear 50 % of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Brune to bear 50 % of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014, p. 48.

1

---
#### § 530.4 Advertising and promotion.

Nothing in this part shall be construed as permitting the advertising or promotion of extralabel uses in animals of approved new animal drugs or approved human drugs.
# C_2017202EN.01001501.xml

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2017 –Efler and Others v Commission

(Case T-754/14) (1)

1

((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties - Article 11(4) TEU - Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 202/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Michael Efler (Berlin, Germany) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: B. Kempen, professor)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Laitenberger and H. Krämer, subsequently by H. Krämer and finally by H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposal for a citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Mr Michael Efler and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Mr Michael Efler and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.

1

---
§ 522.2483 Triamcinolone. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of suspension contains 2 or 6 milligrams (mg) triamcinolone acetonide.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 000010 and 069043 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Dogs and cats* — ( i ) *Amount* — ( A ) *Intramuscular or subcutaneous.* For inflammatory, arthritic, or allergic disorders, administer 0.05 to 0.1 mg per pound (/lb) of body weight as a single injection. For dermatologic disorders, administer 0.1 mg per pound (/lb) of body weight as a single injection. If symptoms recur, the dose may be repeated, or oral corticosteroid therapy may be instituted.
( B ) *Intralesional.* Administer 1.2 to 1.8 mg, divided in several injections around the lesion, spaced 0.5 to 2.5 centimeters apart, depending on lesion size. At any one site, the dose injected should not exceed 0.6 mg. and should be well into the cutis to prevent rupture of the epidermis. When treating animals with multiple lesions, do not exceed a total dose of 6 mg.
( C ) *Intra-articular and intrasynovial.* Administer 1 to 3 mg as a single injection, depending on the size of the joint and severity of symptoms. After 3 or 4 days, repeat dosage if indicated. If initial results are inadequate or too transient, dosage may be increased, not to exceed 3 mg.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of inflammation and related disorders, and the management and treatment of acute arthritis and allergic and dermatologic disorders.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Horses* — ( i ) *Amount* — ( A ) *Intramuscular or subcutaneous.* Administer 0.01 to 0.02 mg/lb of body weight as a single injection. Usual dose is 12 to 20 mg.
( B ) *Intra-articular and intrasynovial.* Administer 6 to 18 mg as a single injection, depending on the size of the joint and severity of symptoms. After 3 or 4 days, repeat dosage if indicated. If initial results are inadequate or too transient, dosage may be increased, not to exceed 18 mg.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of inflammation and related disorders.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[75 FR 10167, Mar. 5, 2010, as amended at 78 FR 21060, Apr. 9, 2013; 80 FR 34279, June 16, 2015; 83 FR 48946, Sept. 28, 2018]
# C_2015073EN.01001601.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/16

---

Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-591/14)

(2015/C 073/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and B. Stromsky, Acting as agents, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing, within the period prescribed, to take all the necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011, concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (1), and by failing to inform the Commission, within the prescribed period, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing, within the period prescribed, to take all the necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011, concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (1), and by failing to inform the Commission, within the prescribed period, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU.

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By Commission Decision 2011/678/EU concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Commission declared aid granted by Belgium to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market.

The period prescribed by the decision for the recovery of the aid declared to be illegal expired on 28 November 2011, without the complete recovery of those aids having taken place.

At the date on which the present action was lodged, the defendant had still not adopted the necessary measures to recover the aid granted to the beneficiary companies, nor communicated to the Commission all the information requested.

---

(1)  OJ L 2011 274, p. 36.

---
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



First Amendment to the 2015 Stock Awards Plan 
Effective May 1, 2017 


The undersigned, being all of the directors of Synalloy Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Corporation), do hereby consent to and adopt the following First Amendment (the First Amendment) to the 2015 Stock Awards Plan (the Plan). 


WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to amend the Plan based on the terms set forth in this First Amendment. 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Board of Directors of the Corporation here by agrees as follows: 


1. Amendments. Section 6.A of the Plan is hereby amended by placing the following sentence at the bottom of Section 6.A of the Plan: 


"Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee shall have the authority, in its sole and absolute discretion, to establish and amend vesting schedules for stock awards made pursuant to this Plan." 


2. Reaffirmation. The Plan shall remain otherwise in full force and effect and unchanged. 


3. Counterparts. This First Amendment to the Plan may be executed in any number of identical counterparts, any or all of which may contain the signatures of fewer than all of the parties but all of which taken together as a single instrument. 


[SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE NEXT PAGE]


1







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the members of the Board of Directors of Synalloy Corporation have duly executed this First Amendment to the Plan as of May 1, 2017. 
	
	
	_________________________

	Murray H. Wright, Chair

	_________________________

	Craig C. Bram

	_________________________

	Anthony A. Callander

	_________________________

	Susan S. Gayner

	_________________________

	Henry L. Guy

	_________________________

	Amy J. Michtich

	_________________________

	James W. Terry, Jr.

	_________________________

	Vincent W. White








2
# L_2019011EN.01003401.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 11/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 11/34

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2019/26 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 January 2019 complementing Union type-approval legislation with regard to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 8 I of 10 January 2019
  )

On the cover page and on page 1:

for:

‘II   
  Non-legislative acts’,

read:

‘I   
  Legislative acts’.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Annual Report of Day International Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas J. Koenig, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial position and results of operations of the Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. /s/ Thomas J. KoenigThomas J. Koenig
Chief Financial Officer
March 24, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-8016

LARRY WILLIAMS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 versus

CAROFLINA F. WILLIAMS; THOMAS COOPER, Jr.,

Judge; WILLIAM H. CHANDLER; HARRY L. DEVOE,

JR.; NFN SHULER; GORDON B. JENKINSON; DAVID

SPENCER; HENRY D. MCMASTER,

 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-04-22296-3-24)

Submitted: March 10, 2005 Decided: March 15, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying,

without prejudice, his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny

Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement of Crown Jewel Resources Corp. on Form S-8 of our report dated April
11, 2001 appearing in the incorporated by reference Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
of Crown Jewel Resources Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                                   /s/ Feldman Sherb & Co., P.C.
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Feldman Sherb & Co., P.C.

December 19, 2001
New York, New York


                                      E-11
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Patrick P. Cesero

*Richard W. Pinto*and *Henry B. Rothblatt,*in support of the petition.

*John P. Evans,*chief prosecuting attorney, in opposition.

Submitted July 3

decided October 9, 1969

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
§ 803.19 Are there exemptions, variances, or alternative forms of adverse event reporting requirements? ( a ) We exempt the following persons from the adverse event reporting requirements in this part: ( 1 ) A licensed practitioner who prescribes or administers devices intended for use in humans and manufactures or imports devices solely for use in diagnosing and treating persons with whom the practitioner has a “physician-patient” relationship;
( 2 ) An individual who manufactures devices intended for use in humans solely for this person's use in research or teaching and not for sale. This includes any person who is subject to alternative reporting requirements under the investigational device exemption regulations (described in part 812 of this chapter), which require reporting of all adverse device effects; and
( 3 ) Dental laboratories or optical laboratories.
( b ) If you are a manufacturer, importer, or user facility, you may request an exemption or variance from any or all of the reporting requirements in this part, including the requirements of § 803.12. You must submit the request to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) in writing at *MDRPolicy@fda.hhs.gov*. Your request must include information necessary to identify you and the device; a complete statement of the request for exemption, variance, or alternative reporting; and an explanation why your request is justified. If you are requesting an exemption from the requirement to submit reports to FDA in electronic format under § 803.12(a), your request should indicate for how long you will require this exemption.
( c ) If you are a manufacturer, importer, or user facility, we may grant in writing an exemption or variance from, or alternative to, any or all of the reporting requirements in this part, and may change the frequency of reporting to quarterly, semiannually, annually or other appropriate time period. We may grant these modifications in response to your request, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or at our discretion. When we grant modifications to the reporting requirements, we may impose other reporting requirements to ensure the protection of public health.
( d ) We may revoke or modify in writing an exemption, variance, or alternative reporting requirement if we determine that revocation or modification is necessary to protect the public health.
( e ) If we grant your request for a reporting modification, you must submit any reports or information required in our approval of the modification. The conditions of the approval will replace and supersede the regular reporting requirement specified in this part until such time that we revoke or modify the alternative reporting requirements in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section or until the date specified in our response granting your variance, at which time the provisions of this part will again apply.
[79 FR 8846, Feb. 14, 2014, as amended at 85 FR 18441, Apr. 2, 2020; 88 FR 16879, Mar. 21, 2023]