alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCharacterization of Miniature Millimeter-Wave Vivaldi Antenna for Local Multipoint Distribution ServiceThe paper presents first, an efficient measurement technique to characterize the input impedance of a Vivaldi antenna, second, a simple technique to impedance match a Vivaldi antenna to a 50 Ohm feed line and lastly, a desktop arrangement to determine the directional gain of a Vivaldi antenna. The characterization is done using a microwave wafer probe station, a ground-signal microwave probe, impedance standard substrate and an automatic network analyzer. The Vivaldi antenna with a matching transformer has a VSVIR close to unity and a gain of about 10 dB over the frequency band of 27.5 to 28.35 GHz which is allocated for local multipoint distribution service (LMDS).Document ID19970017400Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsSimon, Rainee N.*(NYMA, Inc. Brook Park, OH United States)*Lee, Richard Q.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1997Subject CategoryElectronics And Electrical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-107445E-10716NAS 1.15:107445Meeting InformationMeeting: Automatic RF Techniques GroupLocation: Denver, COCountry: United StatesStart Date: June 13, 1997Sponsors:Microwave Theory and Techniques Society,Institute of Electrical and Electronics EngineersAccession Number97N19678Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 632-50-5BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970017400.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
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charlie F. LINDSAY.

No. 66872.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Charlie F. Lindsay, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. Parish of St. Tammany. No. 67,637.

Writ granted.
----

----

II Actos cuja publicação não é uma condição da sua aplicabilidade

Comissão

----

DECISÃO DA COMISSÃO

de 7 de Dezembro de 2004

que adopta, em aplicação da Directiva 92/43/CEE do Conselho, a lista dos sítios de importância comunitária da região biogeográfica continental

[notificada com o número C(2004) 4031]

(2004/798/CE)

A COMISSÃO DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS,

Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia,

Tendo em conta a Directiva 92/43/CEE do Conselho, de 21 de Maio de 1992, relativa à preservação dos habitats naturais e da fauna e da flora selvagens (1), nomeadamente o n.o 2, terceiro parágrafo, do artigo 4.o,

Considerando o seguinte:

ADOPTOU A PRESENTE DECISÃO:

Artigo 1.o

A lista que consta do anexo I da presente decisão constitui a lista inicial de sítios de importância comunitária da região biogeográfica continental em conformidade com o n.o 2, terceiro parágrafo, do artigo 4.o da Directiva 92/43/CEE.

A lista será revista à luz de novas propostas dos Estados-Membros em conformidade com o artigo 4.o da Directiva 92/43/CEE no que respeita a determinados tipos de habitats e espécies especificados no anexo 2 e no anexo 3 da presente decisão.

Artigo 2.o

Os Estados-Membros são os destinatários da presente decisão.

Feito em Bruxelas, em 7 de Dezembro de 2004.

Pela Comissão

Stavros DIMAS

Membro da Comissão

----

(1)JO L 206 de 22.7.1992, p. 7. Directiva com a última redacção que lhe for dada pelo Regulamento (CE) n.o 1882/2003 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho (JO L 284 de 31.10.2003, p. 1).

(2)JO L 107 de 24.4.1997, p. 1.

(3)  Acórdão de 11 de Setembro de 2002, processo C-71/99: Comissão c/Alemanha, Col. 2001, p. I-5811, pontos 27 e 28

----

ANEXO 1

Lista inicial dos sítios de importância comunitária da região biogeográfica continental

Cada sítio de importância comunitária (SIC) é identificado pelas informações fornecidas no formato Natura 2000, incluindo o mapa correspondente. Essas informações foram transmitidas pelas autoridades nacionais competentes de acordo com o n.o 1, segundo parágrafo, do artigo 4.o (excepto para os tipos de habitats e as espécies enumerados no anexo 2 da presente decisão).

O quadro infra inclui as informações seguintes:

As informações constantes da lista comunitária a seguir apresentada baseiam-se nos dados propostos, fornecidos e validados pela Áustria, Bélgica, Alemanha, Dinamarca, França, Itália, Luxemburgo e Suécia.

----

ANEXO 2

Lista de tipos de habitats e espécies para os quais é impossível concluir que a rede está completa

----

(1)

----

ANEXO 3

Lista dos tipos de habitats e espécies para os quais é impossível concluir que a rede está completa ou incompleta

A.   Tipos de habitats/espécies marinhos que exigem maior clarificação

B.   Tipos de habitats/espécies sujeitos a exame científico

----

(1)

----
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – August 10, 2022

# 									Public Schedule – August 10, 2022							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

August 9, 2022

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Cambodia, the Philippines, South Africa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Rwanda from August 2-12, 2022.  Pleasesee the Secretary’s trip page for more information.

**9:10 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken holds a meet and greet with employees and families from U.S. Embassy Kinshasa in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**10:20 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Democratic Republic of the Congo Prime Minister Jean-Michel Sama Lukonde in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**11:10 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken participates in an election transparency hackathon event in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**1:00 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with civil society representatives from eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN**

Deputy Secretary Sherman attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES BRIAN P. MCKEON**

Deputy Secretary McKeon attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND**

Under Secretary Nuland has no public appointments.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

No Department Press Briefing.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             18
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     368
<ALLOWANCES>                                       10
<INVENTORY>                                       229
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  691
<PP&E>                                          2,104
<DEPRECIATION>                                    850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             531
<BONDS>                                         1,567
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (131)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,699
<SALES>                                         2,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,837
<CGS>                                           2,379
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  210
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 82
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   166
<INCOME-TAX>                                       68
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                98
<DISCONTINUED>                                      6
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      104
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50614

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ENRIQUE ORTIZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-712-ALL-AML

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Enrique Ortiz-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Ortiz-Martinez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Ortiz-Martinez maintains that he
No. 03-50614

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Ortiz-Martinez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
§ 456.124 Notification of adverse decision. The UR plan must provide that written notice of any adverse final decision on the need for admission under § 456.123 (e) through (g) is sent to— ( a ) The hospital administrator;
( b ) The attending physician;
( c ) The Medicaid agency;
( d ) The beneficiary; and
( e ) If possible, the next of kin or sponsor.
#### § 430.86 Discovery.

CMS and any party named in the notice issued under § 430.70 has the right to conduct discovery (including depositions) against opposing parties. Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures apply to such proceedings; there will be no fixed rule on priority of discovery. Upon written motion, the presiding officer promptly rules upon any objection to discovery action initiated under this section. The presiding officer also has the power to grant a protective order or relief to any party against whom discovery is sought and to restrict or control discovery so as to prevent undue delay in the conduct of the hearing. Upon the failure of any party to make discovery, the presiding officer may issue any order and impose any sanction (other than contempt orders) authorized by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
#### F & S OFFSHORE, INC. v. SERVICE MACHINE AND SHIPBUILDING CORP. et al.

No. 65029.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Service Machine and Shipbuilding Corp., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of St. Mary. No. 12,555.

Writ denied.
Exhibit 4 (b) (1)




March 22, 1999




Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Re:    Texas Utilities Company
          1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K


Gentlemen:

     Pursuant to the exemption afforded by Item 601(b) (4) (iii) (A) of
Regulation S-K, Texas Utilities Company (Company) is not filing as exhibits to
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1998 instruments with respect to its
long-term debt of the Company and/or its subsidiaries.  These instruments
include (i) agreements with respect to pollution control revenue bonds and
(ii) agreements with respect to senior notes.  Each item of long-term debt
referenced above does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the Company and
its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.  Reference is made to Note 5 to
Consolidated Financial Statements (included in Appendix A of the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1998).

     The Company agrees to furnish a copy of the above instruments to the
Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.


                                               Sincerely,





                                        /s/        Jerry  W. Pinkerton
                                        ---------------------------------
                                                   Jerry  W. Pinkerton
                              Controller and Principal Accounting Officer
# Countering Terrorism

471 items

        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Djibouti	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Denmark	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Democratic Republic of the Congo	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Democratic People's Republic of Korea	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Cyprus	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Colombia	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: China (Hong Kong and Macau)	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Chad	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Canada	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Cameroon	  June 24, 2020 

previous page1…434445464748next page

Back to Top
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 *CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO*
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report of Communication Intelligence Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Guido DiGregorio, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  Date:
August 11, 2005
  
 By: /s/Guido
DiGregorio
 Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer
### D. Harris September 22, 2015 Correspondence to R. Kaplan



# Exhibit A

Comparison of St. Louis Area Hg Emissions

### Veolia Is a Small Source of Mercury Emissions In the St. Louis Area



### Region 5's primary concern since this process began has been Veolia's mercury emissions. However, Veolia's yearly mercury emissions are magnitudes lower than other major sources of 

### mercury emissions in the St. Louis area. As the table below shows, Veolia's estimated Toxic Release Inventory ("TRI") emissions for reporting year 2013 were a mere 3.1 pounds of mercury. 

### Facility 

### State 

### TEl Mercury Method of Calculation Approx. Distance Emissions for 2013 

## &Direction from Reporting Year* Veolia's Sauget Facility Labadie Power Station MO 823.2 lbs/yr published emission factor 36.6 miles west
Rush Is land Power Station MO 402.5 lbs/yr published emission factor 32.6 miles south
US Steel

-Granite 

# City______ IL 223.41 lbs/yr published emission factor 7.5 miles north

Sioux Power PlantMO 194.9 lbs/yr published emission factor 19.3 miles southwest Baldwin Power IL 82.7 lbs/yr site-specific emission 32.6 miles Station factor southeast Meramec Power MO 68.7 lbs/yr published emissions factor 15.9 miles Plant southwest Mississippi Lime MO 54.16 lbs/yr published emissions factor 45.0 miles south Concrete Plant Wood River PowerIL 41.3 lbs/yr site-specific emission 18.4 miles north Station factor Prairie State IL 40.0 lbs/yr site-specific emission 35.9 miles Energy Campus factor southeast Wood River IL 20.0 lbs/yr published emissions factor 17.7 miles north

Veolia Incinerator IL 3.1 lbs/yr site-specific emissions 0 miles monitoring *Values are from each facility's 2013 reporting year Form R, at www.epa.gov/enivro/facts/triform_r_search.html. 

### This pales in comparison to the hundreds of pounds of mercury emitted by sources within a 45 

### mile radius of the Veolia facility. Specifically, Veolia is literally surrounded by coal-fired utilities that emit hundreds of pounds of mercury on a yearly basis. To the west, the Labadie power station emits a whopping 823 pounds of mercury a year. To the south, Rush Island power station emits over 400 pounds. To the southeast, Baldwin power station and Prairie State Energy (which are only 11 miles apart) combine to emit over a 100 pounds of mercury per year, and, just 

### 7.5 miles to the north of the Veolia facility, US Steel in Granite City releases over 220 pounds of 

### mercury into the atmosphere per year. In relative terms, Veolia's mercury emissions are only a tiny portion of the total mercury emissions of the greater St. Louis area.
# Human Rights and Democracy

515 items

        -    Press Statement  		Venezuela: Arrests and Detentions of Democratic Opposition and Civil Society	  Matthew MillerJanuary 23, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Remarks at the Screening of Beyond Utopia	  Uzra ZeyaJanuary 19, 2024Washington, DC 
        -    Press Statement  		Nauru Officially Breaks Ties with Taiwan	  Matthew MillerJanuary 15, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		On Taiwan’s Election	  January 13, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		One Year Anniversary of #WithoutJustCause Political Prisoners Initiative	  January 11, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Parliamentary Elections in Bangladesh	  Matthew MillerJanuary 8, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		On the Human Rights Situation in Burundi	  Matthew MillerJanuary 5, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Religious Freedom Designations	  Antony J. BlinkenJanuary 4, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tajani	  January 2, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Concern with Hungary’s Sovereign Defense Authority Law	  Matthew MillerDecember 20, 2023 

previous page1…56789…52next page

Back to Top
#### Henry C. Miner, Appellant, *v.*The Edison Electric Illuminating Co., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

March, 1899.)

Appeal — Refusal to dismiss on plaintiff's case reviewahle, although the case on appeal does not contain all the evidence.

The fact that a case, as settled, fails to state that it contains all the evidence, does not preclude the appellate court from considering an exception to the denial by the trial court of a motion to dismiss the complaint on 'ihe plaintiff's case, as such a motion is notice to the latter that the defendant intends to question the sufficiency of the proof and it becomes the duty of the plaintiff to amend the case so that it will sustain the ruling made.

Miner v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 22 Misc. Rep. 543, affirmed.

Appeal from an order of the General Term of the City Court of the city of New York, reversing a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and directing a new trial.

Benjamin Steinhardt, for appellant.

C. R. Waterbury, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

After a careful consideration of the evidence in the case and the brief submitted by the counsel for the appellant in support of his appeal, we are of the opinion that the order of the General Term of the City Court directing a new trial was *713right. Assuming that the employees of the defendant undertook to make the contract sued on, there is no evidence in the case which is sufficient to support the conclusion that they had any authority from the defendant to hind it in the matter. The contention that there was a subsequent ratification by the defendant is equally without reasonable support.

There was no statement in the case as settled that it contained all of the evidence, and the appellant maintains that for that reason the exceptions to the denial by the trial court of the motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiff’s case, cannot be considered, because evidence may have been given, which was omitted on the settlement, mending the plaintiff’s case, and that by reason of the absence of the statement that all the evidence was before the appellate court, there is an uncertainty upon the subject which is fatal to the consideration of the exception. The position is untenable. The precise point was raised in the case of Wynne v. Haight, 27 App. Div. 7, and was disposed of contrary to the appellant’s contention, the court holding that an exception to the denial of such a motion at the close of the plaintiff’s case is notice to him of an intention on the part of the defendant to raise the question of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s proof, and impress upon the latter the responsibility of adding to the case by amendment any proof which may be necessary to sustain the ruling made upon the trial.

The order appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed and under the stipulation of the appellant in that event, judgment absolute must be rendered against him.

Present: Beekman, P. J. and Giegerich, J.; Gildersleeve, J., not voting.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, and judgment absolute directed for the defendant upon the appellant’s stipulation.