alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsStructural performance of space station trusses with missing membersStructural performance of orthogonal tetrahedral and Warren-type full truss beams and platforms are compared. In addition, degradation of truss structural performance is determined for beams, platforms and a space station when individual struts are removed from the trusses. The truss beam, space station, and truss platform analytical models used in the studies are described. Stiffness degradation of the trusses due to single strut failures is determined using flexible body vibration modes. Ease of strut replacement is assessed by removing a strut and examining the truss deflection at the resulting gap due to applied forces. Finally, the reduction in truss beam strength due to a missing longeron is determined for a space station transverse boom model.Document ID19860015260Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsDorsey, J. T.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1986Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:87715NASA-TM-87715Accession Number86N24731Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-43-41-02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860015260.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
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

                                                      BOOK 230 PAGE 2

                 CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF LODE MINING CLAIM

      The undersigned hereby certifies that he has caused to be located the TC
#39 Lode Mining Claim in the following described legal subdivision(s):

NE    1/4 , Section       10  Township 15N,     Range 64E,              MDB7M
                         ----
SE    1/4 , Section       10  Township 15N      Range 64E               MDB&M
                         ----
      1/4 , Section      ___  Township          Range                   MDB&M
      1/4 , Section      ___  Township          Range                   MDB&M

In White Pine County, Nevada, on the 15th day of September, 1994.

      The name and address of the locator is:

                               Brancoto U.S. Inc.
                               127 Cheney Street
                               Reno, Nevada 89511
                               (702) 853-7015

The claim is approximately 1500 feet long and 600 feet wide, such that 25 feet
in a Northerly direction and 1475 feet in a southerly direction from the
location monument (point of discovery), at which the Notice of Location was
posted, together with 300 feet on each side of the location monument.

      The general course of the lode or vein is from the Northwest to the
Southwest direction.

      The number, location and markings on each corner monument are as follows:

            Number 1 Northwest corner is a 2"x2"xz4' wooden post
            Number 2 Northeast corner is a 2"x2"xz4' wooden post
            Number 3 Southeast corner is a 2"x2"xz4' wooden post
            Number 4. Southwest corner is a 2"x2"xz4' wooden post

      As erected on the ground, each corner monument is marked by the claim
name, number and which corner it is with an aluminum tag attached to the post.
Monumentation of this claim was completed by the 15th day of October, 1994.

      This claim is intended to cover all land open to location existing within
its boundaries as of this date, but does not in any way affect the rights of
private mineral owners.

      The work of location consisted of making a claim map as provided in NRS
517.040.

      Dated this 24th day of October, 1994.

      SIGNATURE OF LOCATOR                      RECORDERS STAMP
                                                FEE $9.50 FILE #288306
      By: /s/ Herb Duerr                            FILED FOR RECORD
         ---------------------------                AT THE REQUEST OF
         Agent for Brancoto U.S. Inc.               JOHN PROCHNAU
                                                    '94 NOV 28 P2:43

                                                RECORDED IN BOOOK 230 PAGES 2
                                                WHITE PINE COUNTY RECORDER
§ 792.16 What unusual circumstances can delay NCUA's response? ( a ) In unusual circumstances, the time limits for responding to your request (or your appeal) may be extended by NCUA. If NCUA extends the time, it will provide you with written notice setting forth the reasons for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. Our notice will not specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 10 working days, except as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section. The unusual circumstances that can delay NCUA's response to your request are: ( 1 ) The need to search for, and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;
( 2 ) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or
( 3 ) The need for consultation, which will be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of NCUA having a substantial interest in the subject matter.
( b ) If you, or you and a group of others acting in concert, submit multiple requests that NCUA believes actually constitute a single request, which would otherwise satisfy the unusual circumstances criteria specified in this section, and the requests involve related matters, then NCUA may aggregate those requests and the provisions of § 792.15(b) will apply.
( c ) If NCUA sends you an extension notice, it will also advise you that you can either limit the scope of your request so that it can be processed within the statutory time limit or agree to an alternative time frame for processing your request. In such cases, NCUA will make available its FOIA Public Liaison and notify you of the right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services.
[63 FR 14338, Mar. 25, 1998, as amended at 73 FR 30478, May 28, 2008; 81 FR 93794, Dec. 22, 2016; 82 FR 29713, June 30, 2017]
H. R. 3504

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to redesignate

the American Indian Education Foundation as the National Fund for Excellence

in American Indian Education.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION

FOUNDATION.

(a) REDESIGNATION.—Section 501(a) of title V of the Indian

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.

458bbb(a)), as added by Public Law 106–568, is amended by striking

‘‘the American Indian Education Foundation’’ and inserting ‘‘a

foundation to be known as the ‘National Fund for Excellence in

American Indian Education’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Foundation’)’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Title V of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458bbb),

as added by Public Law 106–568, is amended—

(1) in the heading to read as follows:

‘‘TITLE V—NATIONAL FUND FOR EXCELLENCE IN AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION’’;

and

(2) in the heading of section 501 to read as follows:
H. R. 3504—2

‘‘SEC. 501. NATIONAL FUND FOR EXCELLENCE IN AMERICAN INDIAN

EDUCATION.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Colton Estate

*Smith, Cahill & Aker*and *Grubb, Guest & Littleton,*for accountants.

February 25, 1957.

Taxis, P. J.,

The reason or purpose of the filing of the account now before the court is the death of Bayard Hand, one of the trustees. He died on February 15, 1956, leaving a last will and testament on which letters testamentary have been granted to Margaret C. Hand, executrix therein named. . .

At page 32 of the account, the corporate trustee has taken as a credit the sum of $7,500, “on account of Trustees’ commissions.”

It is conceded that the trust does not terminate, and that the charge is an interim principal commission.

The credit for interim commissions raises directly the question whether the Act of May 1,1953, P. L. 190, may be applied retroactively with respect to the services of a trustee rendered in a trust created prior to the effective date of the act.

*539A statute is unconstitutional and hence invalid in its retroactive application if such application destroys a substantial property fight: Crawford Estate, 362 Pa. 458; Cf. Willcox v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 357 Pa. 581; Williamson Estate, 368 Pa. 343.

Substantial property rights will not be destroyed by retroactive application of the Act of 1953. The payment of compensation is essentially procedural pertaining to trust administration and can have no adverse effect upon remaindermen. The estate ultimately passing to remaindermen must bear the charge for the trustee’s compensation and they have no cause to complain if part of such compensation is prepaid before the trust terminates. The only possible injury is visited upon life tenants who lose the future income which the amount of the interim principal compensation would produce. Does such loss to the life tenant bar a retroactive application of the Act of 1953? I think not. Such loss is minor and is but incident to a change in a rule óf trust administration.

Moreover, the views herein expressed have been •adopted in other very recent cases: Mifflin Trust, 4 Fiduc. Rep. 275; Colladay Estate, (unreported opinion of Saylor, J., Phila. O. C., April 22, 1954). See Stotesbury Trust, 85 D. & C. 551.

Statutes which affect administration of trusts rather than destroying property rights have been retroactively applied to preexisting trusts despite the fact that in the process property rights are affected incidentally: Cf. Jewell’s Estate, 235 Pa. 119; Jeffery’s Estate, 333 Pa. 15; Demorest v. City Bank Co., 321 U. S. 36, 43; Van Voorhis Estate, 355 Pa. 82.

The credit for interim principal commission is approved.

And now, February 25, 1957, this adjudication is confirmed nisi.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7353

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIE REYNOLDS, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-54-WS, CA-01-375) Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: January 2, 2002 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Willie Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Willie Reynolds seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Reynolds , Nos. CR-90-54-WS; CA-01-375 (M.D.N.C. July 23, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****A Glance atthe HIV/AIDS epidemic [electronic resource].**** 
SuDoc:HE 20.7320/3:G45/
ItemNumber:0494-K-12(online)
CGPsystem Number:000604620
 
2005
2006
2007
 
 
 **
Record of Contacts

Docket No. FAA-2012-0938 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-271-AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval 

Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON 

CONTACTED

DATE RESPONSE

Boeing Grant Rodland 10/20/2011 Concur.

ATA Joe White 11/03/2011 Other. List below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information: E-mail sent to ATA describing this AD action.
§ 792.61 Accounting for disclosures. ( a ) Each system manager identified in the “Notice of Systems of Records” must establish a system of accounting for all disclosures of information or records under the Privacy Act made outside NCUA. Accounting procedures may be established in the least expensive and most convenient form that will permit the system manager to advise individuals, promptly upon request, of the persons or agencies to which records concerning them have been disclosed.
( b ) Accounting records, at a minimum, shall include the information disclosed, the name and address of the person or agency to whom disclosure was made, and the date of disclosure. When records are transferred to the National Archives and Records Administration for storage in records centers, the accounting pertaining to those records shall be transferred with the records themselves.
( c ) Any accounting made under this section shall be retained for at least five years or the life of the record, whichever is longer, after the disclosure for which the accounting is made.
[54 FR 18476, May 1, 1989, as amended at 73 FR 56939, Oct. 1, 2008]
Editorial Note on Part 709
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 709 appear at 84 FR 1607, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 709.1 Definitions. For the purposes of this part, the following definitions apply: ( a ) *General Counsel* means the General Counsel of the National Credit Union Administration or any attorney assigned to the General Counsel's staff.
( b ) *Liquidating Agent* means the NCUA Board or person(s) appointed by it with delegated authority to carry out the liquidation of the credit union.
( c ) *Insolvent* means insolvent as that term is defined in § 700.2 of this chapter.
( d ) *Claim* means a creditor's claim against the credit union in liquidation. This term does not include insurance claims arising out of the liquidation of a federally insured credit union. Insurance claims are decided pursuant to part 745 of this chapter.
( e ) *Shareholder* means members, nonmembers, accountholders or any other party or entity that is the owner of a share, share certificate or share draft account or the equivalent of such accounts under state law.
[56 FR 56925, Nov. 7, 1991, as amended at 69 FR 27828, May 17, 2004; 78 FR 32545, May 31, 2013]
August 7, 2014

Mr. Luke Christen 8055 South Clayton Circle

Centennial, CO 80122

Dear Mr. Christen:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from §§ 61.35(a)(2), 61.96(b)(1), 61.103(a) and (b), 61.123(a), 61.153(a), 61.183(a), 61.305(a)(1) and 65.53(a) of Title 14 Code of Federal Regula tions (14 CFR). The relief you seek is from specific age eligibility requirements to test for the knowledge leading to the following certificates: (1) recreational pilot, (2) private p ilot, (3) commercial pilot, (4) airline transport pilot, (5) flight instructor, (6) sport pilot, and (7 ) aircraft dispatcher. You request this relief to allow you and other collegiate aviation students to attempt the Airline Transport Pilot knowledge test before August 1, 2014, the date in which new knowledge test requirements

became effective.

Why we cannot process your request

Your petition was posted into public docket number FAA-2014-0479 on July 14, 2014, but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR §§ 11.63 and 11.81 (copy enclosed).

Specifically, the following information must be included in your petition:

1. The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole;

2. The reasons the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rules from which you seek an exemption.

In addition, petitions for exemption should be received by the FAA at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

Moreover, the FAA has remained consistent through denials of requests for exemption and previous rulemaking efforts to maintain the eligibility requirement of 23 years of age for an2

ATP certificate. The FAA has stated that the minimum age requirement of 23 years ensures “a high maturity level for those pilots who are permitted to operate as pilot in command in operations requiring an ATP certificate. Exemption No. 7472 is enclosed. Similarly, the FAA has issued denials of exemption in response to other requests for relief from minimum age requirements.

If you have any questions, you may contact the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Transportation Division, at (202) 267-8166.

Sincerely,

//s//

John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosures
###### Editorial Note on Part 11

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 11 appear at 61 FR 18052, April 24, 1996.

#### § 11.51 May I request that FAA hold a public meeting on a rulemaking action?

Yes, you may request that we hold a public meeting. FAA holds a public meeting when we need more than written comments to make a fully informed decision. Submit your written request to the address specified in the rulemaking document on which you are commenting. Specify at the top of your letter or message that you are requesting that the agency hold a public meeting. Submit your request no later than 30 days after our rulemaking notice. If we find good cause for a meeting, we will notify you and publish a notice of the meeting in the Federal Register.
U.S
. Department ofTransportation Federal AvJation Administration 

## MAY 1 2 

## 2010 The Honorable Tom Coburn United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Coburn: Office ofthe Administrator S I II-I 00216-1146

BOO Independance A ve., S.w. Washington, D.C. 20591

Secretary LaHood has asked me to respond to your letter, cosigned by SenatorJames M
. Inhofe, about the Federal Aviation Administration's new crewmember flight
. duty, and rest rules. 

### In June 2009, we chartered a new flight, duty, and rest Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) comprisingrepresentatives from the FAA, industry, and labor organizations to address these issues. The ARC was tasked with making recommendations for a science·based approach to fatigue management. In the ARC's charter, werecognized that the effects offatigue are universal so the strategies needed to mitigate these effects are the same, regardless ofthetype of fljght operation. We received the ARC'srecommendations in September 2009, and we are preparing a new notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM will invite interested persons to participate by submitting written commentsto the public rulemaking docket during the comment period. Your letter, which expresses concerns about the potential effects ofproposed changes to the flight, duty, and restrules. will become a part ofthe docket. We will review all input from the process and make a final determination for the new guidelines. You were also concerned about how these proposed changes will affecthumanitarian and military transportation. Current regulations address these issues and are notthe subjectofthis rulemaking. We have sent an identical letter to Senator Inhofe. IfI can be offurther assistance. please contact me orRoderick D. Hall, AssistantAdministrator for Government and Industry Affairs, at (202) 267-3277. Sincerely.

. Randolph Babbitt Administrator .>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3374

To amend title 14, United States Code, to authorize the Commandant of 

the Coast Guard, after informing the Secretary of the department in 

which the Coast Guard is operating, to make such recommendations 

to the Congress relating to the Coast Guard as the Commandant considers appropriate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 28, 2003

Mr. JONES of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. CAPUANO, 

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, Mr. COBLE, Mr. DELAHUNT, and Mr. 

LOBIONDO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend title 14, United States Code, to authorize the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard, after informing the 

Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard 

is operating, to make such recommendations to the Congress relating to the Coast Guard as the Commandant 

considers appropriate.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commandant of the 

5 Coast Guard Advice and Recommendations Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 3374 IH 

1 SEC. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS BY COM2 MANDANT OF THE COAST GUARD. 

3 Section 93 of title 14, United States Code, is amend4 ed—

5 (1) in paragraph (w) by striking ‘‘and’’ after 

6 the semicolon at the end; 

7 (2) in paragraph (x) by striking the period at 

8 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(y) after informing the Secretary, make such 

11 recommendations to the Congress relating to the 

12 Coast Guard as the Commandant considers appro13 priate.’’.

Æ