alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMS212--A Homogeneous Sputtered Solid Lubricant Coating for Use to 800 CComposite coatings containing chromium carbide, stable fluorides and silver were prepared by magnetron sputtering. The microstructure of the coatings is very homogeneous compared to that of plasma sprayed and sintered versions of the same chemical composition. Friction and wear of MS212-coated and baseline uncoated aluminum and Inconel X-750 are compared. At room temperature, the friction and wear of coated aluminum is dramatically better compared to the baseline. The acceptable load is limited by deformation of the soft aluminum substrate. In the case of the nickel alloy, lower friction is observed for the coated alloy at all temperatures up to the maximum test temperature of 800 C. Pin wear factors for sliding against the coated alloy are lower than the baseline at room temperature and 350 C, and comparable to baseline wear at higher test temperatures. Low baseline wear at high temperatures is due to the lubricious nature of the natural oxides formed on nickel-chromium alloys in a hot, oxidizing atmosphere. No load limit was found for coated Inconel X-750 at loads up to five times the load limit for coated aluminum.Document ID19970026597Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSliney, Harold E.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Waters, William J.*(OMNI Corp. Cleveland, OH United States)*Soltis, Richard*(OMNI Corp. Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1997Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-107437NAS 1.15:107437E-10699Accession Number97N25846Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 243-30-07Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970026597.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
#### Tilman Jackson v. The State.

*No. 1117.*

*Decided May 5th, 1897.*

Complaint—Information—V erdict.

Where defendant is prosecuted by information based upon a complaint, a verdict finding defendant, “guilty as charged in the complaint,” is plain, intelligible, responsive to the pleadings and good.

Appeal from the County Court of Jackson. Tried below before Hon. John O. Rowlett, County Judge.

Appeal from a conviction for unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty, a fine of $25.

No statement of facts. A motion was made in arrest of judgment on the ground that the verdict was not responsive to the pleading in the case.

[No briefs for either party have come to the hands of the Reporter.]

*Mann*Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of carrying on his person a pistol, and appeals. The motion for a new trial is based upon three grounds, all of which refer to and grow out of the evidence. As there is no statement of facts in the record, these matters cannot be considered. The motion in arrest of judgment was made, “because the verdict is not responsive to the case, as it reads, ‘Guilty as charged in the complaint,’ when in fact and in truth the defendant was charged by and tried on an information.” As usual in such cases, and as required by law, the information in this case was based upon the complaint, and it may be stated that the appellant was convicted upon the charge contained in both. But the fact that the verdict stated that appellant was found guilty as charged in the complaint does not vitiate the verdict. The verdict is plain, intelligible, is responsive to the pleadings in the case and the charge of the court, and it is wholly immaterial whether the jury stated that he was found guilty as charged in the complaint, or in the information, or either. The objection is hypercritical, and the judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Namibian Independence Day

# 									Namibian Independence Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

March 21, 2021

On behalf of the Government of the United States, I offer congratulations to all Namibians on the 31st anniversary of your country’s independence.

Namibia and the United States share an enduring partnership grounded in our common democratic values and commitment to the rule of law.  Our mutual efforts ensure freedom, security, and health for both our peoples.  Against the backdrop of the global pandemic, our cooperation on health issues – built over 20 years of shared investments to fight HIV/AIDS – has never been more important and continues to prove that the United States and Namibia are stronger together.  Our bond will grow even stronger as we jointly combat climate change and nurture bilateral trade and other ties that will define our friendship for years to come.

Please accept my best wishes on this auspicious day.

 

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborDemocracyNamibiaOffice of the SpokespersonPartnershipsThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 20, 2020

NO. 03-20-00037-CV

Luther W. Cobb, Sr, Appellant

v.

Joseph Campbell, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3572 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3572

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 1996

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the 
   Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the 
                     ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the Ohio River 
between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the bridge referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 18, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 441.550 Service plan requirements for self-directed model with service budget. The person-centered service plan under the self-directed model with service budget conveys authority to the individual to perform, at a minimum, the following tasks: ( a ) Recruit and hire or select attendant care providers to provide self-directed Community First Choice services and supports, including specifying attendant care provider qualifications.
( b ) Dismiss specific attendant care providers of Community First Choice services and supports.
( c ) Supervise attendant care providers in the provision of Community First Choice services and supports.
( d ) Manage attendant care providers in the provision of Community First Choice services and supports, which includes the following functions: ( 1 ) Determining attendant care provider duties.
( 2 ) Scheduling attendant care providers.
( 3 ) Training attendant care providers in assigned tasks.
( 4 ) Evaluating attendant care providers' performance.
( e ) Determining the amount paid for a service, support, or item, in accordance with State and Federal compensation requirements.
( f ) Reviewing and approving provider payment requests.
HomeNATO Recent Actions...NATO – North Atlantic Treaty – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Sweden, March 7, 2024

# 									NATO – North Atlantic Treaty – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Sweden, March 7, 2024							

Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Download Attachment						 [91 KB]

Tags

North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationSweden

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                               1000
<S>                       <C>            
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>             12-MOS
<CASH>                                     660,170
<SECURITIES>                               452,590
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,666,523
<ALLOWANCES>                               196,091
<INVENTORY>                                437,978
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         3,728,450
<PP&E>                                     799,893
<DEPRECIATION>                             858,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           4,697,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,849,038
<BONDS>                                     39,930
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       288
<OTHER-SE>                               2,741,649
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             4,697,274
<SALES>                                  8,598,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         8,598,346
<CGS>                                    4,320,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            7,751,828
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            19,940
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          1,121,207
<INCOME-TAX>                               358,787
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        762,420
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               762,420
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.96
        

</TABLE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on the Attacks in Iraqi Kurdistan Region

# 									Joint Statement on the Attacks in Iraqi Kurdistan Region							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 16, 2021

The text of the following statement was released by the governments of France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States of America following the April 14 attack in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region:

*Begin Text***:**

We, the governments of France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America condemn in the strongest terms the April 14 attacks in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.  Together, our governments will support the Government of Iraq’s investigation into the attacks to ensure that those responsible will be held accountable.

We are united in our view that attacks on U.S. and Coalition personnel and facilities will not be tolerated and reiterate our steadfast commitment to the fight against ISIS.

*End text*

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsIraqOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
§ 488.211 Final reconsideration determination. ( a ) The hearing officer's decision is final unless the Administrator, within 30 days of the hearing officer's decision, chooses to review that decision.
( b ) The Administrator may accept, reject or modify the hearing officer's findings.
( c ) Should the Administrator choose to review the hearing officer's decision, the Administrator will issue a final reconsideration determination to the accreditation organization or State laboratory program on the basis of the hearing officer's findings and recommendations and other relevant information.
( d ) The reconsideration determination of the Administrator is final.
( e ) A final reconsideration determination against an accreditation organization or State laboratory program will be published by CMS in the Federal Register.
§ 456.436 Continued stay review process. The UR plan must provide that— ( a ) Review of continued stay cases is conducted by— ( 1 ) The group performing UR; or
( 2 ) A designee of the UR group;
( b ) The group or its designee reviews a beneficiary's continued stay on or before the expiration of each assigned continued stay review date.
( c ) For each continued stay of a beneficiary in the ICF, the group or its designee reviews and evaluates the documentation described under § 456.411 against the criteria developed under § 456.432 and applies close professional scrutiny to cases described under § 456.432(b);
( d ) If the group or its designee finds that a beneficiary's continued stay in the ICF is needed, the group assigns a new continued stay review date in accordance with § 456.434;
( e ) If the group or its designee finds that a continued stay case does not meet the criteria, the group or a subgroup that includes at least one physician reviews the case to decide the need for continued stay;
( f ) If the group or subgroup making the review under paragraph (e) of this section finds that a continued stay is not needed, it notifies the beneficiary's attending physician or, in institutions for individuals with intellectual disabilities, the beneficiary's qualified Intellectual Disability professional, within 1 working day of its decision, and gives him 2 working days from the notification date to present his views before it makes a final decision on the need for the continued stay;
( g ) If the attending physician or qualified Intellectual Disability professional does not present additional information or clarification of the need for the continued stay, the decision of the UR group is final;
( h ) If the attending physician or qualified Intellectual Disability professional presents additional information or clarification, the need for continued stay is reviewed by— ( 1 ) The physician member(s) of the UR group, in cases involving a medical determination; or
( 2 ) The UR group, in cases not involving a medical determination; and
( i ) If the individuals performing the review under paragraph (h) of this section find that the beneficiary no longer needs ICF services, their decision is final.
#### Robert THOMAS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. V-271.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 15, 1974.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and James O. Brecher, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen, and Jerry B. Rose, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his convictions in a jury trial on two charges of robbery for which he was sentenced to two consecutive terms of seventy-five and fifty years imprisonment.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs filed herein. Upon our consideration thereof, we conclude that appellant has ■ failed to demonstrate reversible error in the judgments and sentences appealed herein, and the same are therefore

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Acting C. J., and SPEC-TOR and BOYER, JJ., concur.
#### THE UNITED STATES v. ROBERT A. LAUGHLIN.

[52 C. Cls., 292; 249 U. S., 440.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, and the Supreme Court decided:

The act of March 26, 1908, chapter 102, 35 Statutes, 48, providing for repayment in all cases where it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Interior that excessive *194payments have been made to the Unit; <1 States under the public land laws, gives the Secretary exclusive jurisdiction to determine questions of fact; but when the undisputed facts, shown to his satisfaction, call for repayment as a matter of law, his adverse decision is reviewable by the courts and may be reviewed by an action brought by the claimant under Judicial Code, section 145, in the Court of Claims.

Under the Northern Pacific land grant act of July 2, 1864, chapter 217, 13 Statutes, 365, the filing of a map of general route, although followed by a withdrawal order, did not take the odd sections out of the public domain or exempt them from entry under the preemption and homestead' laws prior to the-filing and acceptance of the map of definite location. *Nelson*v. *Northern Pacific Ry. Co.,*188 U. S., 108.

The act of 1864, *supra,*fixed no special price for odd-numbered sections within the limits of the Northern Pacific grant, and the right of a qualified person to preempt such a section prior to the acceptance of the railway’s map of definite location at the minimum price of $1.25 per acre (Rev. Stats., sections 2357, 2259), was a substantial right of which he could not be arbitrarily deprived by Government officials.

Revised Statutes, section 2364, providing that the Commissioner of the General Land Office shall fix a price of not less than $1.25 per acre for the lands of any reservation when brought into market, has no application to withdrawn odd sections within the Northern Pacific grant limits, when preempted before definite location of the railroad.

The act of June 22, 1874, chapter 400, 18 Statutes, 194, confers no authority upon officials of the United States to charge more for land relinquished by the Northern Pacific Company than otherwise might have been charged.

Mr. Justice Pitney

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 14, 1919.
#### § 424.500 Scope.

The provisions of this subpart contain the requirements for enrollment, periodic resubmission and certification of enrollment information for revalidation, and timely reporting of updates and changes to enrollment information. These requirements apply to all providers and suppliers except for physicians and practitioners who have entered into a private contract with a beneficiary as described in part 405, subpart D of this chapter. Providers and suppliers must meet and maintain these enrollment requirements to bill either the Medicare program or its beneficiaries for Medicare covered services or supplies.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1300 V

UNPUBLISHED

BRENDA KEARNS

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: March 22, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC , for

P etitioner.

Matthew Murphy

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On August 27, 2019

, Bre nda Kearns filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine

administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) after receiving the influenza vaccine on October 24, 2018

. Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of

Special Masters.

On March 22, 2021

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at

1. Specifically, R espondent has concluded “ that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

(2012 ).2

forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation

(QAI)

. ” Id. at 6.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master