alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1209.402 Responsibilities. ( a ) *Waiver of rights in inventions.* Under the authority of 51 U.S.C. 20135(g) and pursuant to 14 CFR part 1245 subpart 1, the Board will receive and evaluate petitions for waiver of rights of the United States to inventions, accord each interested party an opportunity for a hearing, and transmit to the Administrator its findings of fact as to such petitions and its recommendations for action to be taken with respect thereto.
( b ) *Monetary awards for scientific and technical contributions.* ( 1 ) Under the authority of 51 U.S.C. 20136 and pursuant to 14 CFR part 1240, the Board will receive and evaluate each application for award for any scientific or technical contribution to the Administration which is determined to have significant value in the conduct of aeronautical and space activities, will accord each applicant an opportunity for a hearing upon such application, and will then transmit to the Administrator its recommendation as to the amount of the monetary award and the terms of the award, if any, to be made for such contribution.
( 2 ) If the contribution is made by a Government employee, the Board is also authorized to consider such contribution for award under the Incentive Awards Program and to make an award, if any, on its own cognizance, up to the amount of $10,000, in accordance with NASA supplements to Chapter 451 of the Federal Personnel Manual covering this subject.
[76 FR 44462, July 26, 2011]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6584-9

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App. 2) notification is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development (ORD), Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), will hold an Executive Committee Meeting.

# DATES:

 The Meeting will be held on May 30-31, 2000. On Tuesday, May 30, the meeting will begin at 1 p.m., and will recess at 5 p.m. On Wednesday, May 31, the meeting will reconvene at 8:45 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Washington Monarch Hotel, 2401 M Street, NW, Washington, DC, (202) 429-2400.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Agenda items will include, but not limited to: Discussion on ORD's Particulate Matter2.5                     Research Program and BOSC Subcommittee Draft Reports on Particulate Matter, The SAB and BOSC Subcommittee Final Report on the Review of ORD's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program, and The State of ORD. Anyone desiring a draft BOSC agenda may fax their request to Shirley R. Hamilton, (202) 565-2444. The meeting is open to the public. Any member of the public wishing to make a presentation at the meeting should contact Shirley Hamilton, Designated Federal Office, Office of Research and Development (8701R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; or by telephone at (202) 564-6853. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes.                 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shirley R. Hamilton, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, NCERQA (MC 8701R), 401 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-6853.

Dated: April 18, 2000.

Peter W. Preuss, 

Director, National Center for Environmental Research.

[FR Doc. 00-10420  Filed 4-25-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
```

[House Report 106-603]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-603

======================================================================

 
  PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1106, THE ALTERNATIVE WATER 
                          SOURCES ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

 May 2, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

     Mr. Goss, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 485]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 485, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 1106, 
the Alternative Water Sources Act of 1999, under an open rule. 
The rule provides one hour of general debate divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
    The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII (requiring a three 
day layover of the committee report) against consideration of 
the bill. This waiver is necessary because the report was filed 
on Tuesday, May 2, and the bill may be considered as early as 
May 3. The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute, now 
printed in the bill, as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment, which shall be open for amendment at any point.
    Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the 
Congressional Record prior to their consideration will be given 
priority in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise 
consistent with House rules. The rule allows the Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during 
consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to five 
minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen 
minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.

                                  

```
#### § 121.551 Restriction or suspension of operation: Domestic and flag operations.

When a certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations knows of conditions, including airport and runway conditions, that are a hazard to safe operations, it shall restrict or suspend operations until those conditions are corrected.

[Doc. No. 28154, 61 FR 2613, Jan. 26, 1996]
#### OUTOKUMPU COPPER STRIP, B.V., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Hussey Copper, Ltd., The Miller Co., Olin Corp., Revere Copper Prod., Inc., International Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, International Union, Allied Indus. Workers of America (AFL-CIO), Mechanics Educ. Soc’y of America (Local 56), and United Steelworkers of America (AFL-CIO/CLC), Defendant-Intervenors.

Slip Op. 98-140.

Court No. 97-07-01155.

United States Court of International Trade.

Sept. 29, 1998.

JUDGMENT ORDER

DICARLO, Senior District Judge.

The United States Department of Commerce has submitted its *Results of Redetermination*in accordance with this Court’s Remand Order of June 23, 1998 in the case of *Outokumpu Copper Strip, B.V. v. United States,*15 F.Supp.2d 806, Slip Op. 98-85, Court No. 97-07-01155. In its Redetermination, Commerce corrected two ministerial errors and recalculated the dumping margin for Outokumpu Copper Rolled Products. The revised margin for the period August 1, 1990 through July 31, 1991 is 2.03 percent.

The Court having reviewed the Redetermi-nation Results, and Commerce having complied with the Court’s Remand, and no comments having been received from the parties within the time limit set in the Remand Order, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Remand Results are affirmed; and it is further

ORDERED that, as all other issues have been decided, this action is dismissed.
§ 111.315 Pilot right of review. ( a ) Once a pilot has received electronic access in accordance with § 111.305, the pilot may access the PRD to review all records pertaining to that pilot.
( b ) A pilot who submits written consent to a reviewing entity in accordance with § 111.310(c) may request a copy of any State motor vehicle driving records obtained by the reviewing entity in accordance with § 111.110.
( c ) A pilot may review all records contained in the PRD pertaining to that pilot, without accessing the PRD and without obtaining electronic access issued in accordance with § 111.305, upon submission of a form provided by the Administrator to confirm the pilot's identity.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 4.3

FORM OF STOCK CERTIFICATE


  [  NUMBER   ]             [          ]                     [  SHARES  ]
  [           ]             [          ]                     [          ]
  [ WMG___    ]             [ WMG LOGO ]                     [          ]
  [           ]             [          ]                     [          ]

COMMON STOCK            WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC.
                     Incorporated under the Law of the       CUSIP 98235T 10 7
                           State of Delaware

                                           SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS CERTIFIES THAT







IS THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE ONE CENT
                                                         ($.01) PER SHARE, OF

----------------------WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC.------------------------------
transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person
or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly
endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer
Agent and registered by the Registrar.
       WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile
signatures of its duly authorized officers.

    /s/ Jason P. Hood          [            ]         /s/ F. Barry Bays
 ----------------------        [  WMG SEAL  ]      -------------------------
      Secretary                [            ]         President and Chief
                                                      Executive Officer
gogo· 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 

June 21,2013 

1250 N. Arlington Heights Road 

Suite 500 

Itasca, II 60143 

Re: Petition for Exemption, 14 CFR § 25.571(e)(1), Project ST1865DRB-T. Installation of the Aircell Broadband 

Services (ABS) System with Ku Enhancements on Boeing 777 Series Aircraft 

In accordance with 14 CFR Part 11, Gogo, LLC. hereby petitions for an exemption from 14 CFR § 25.571(e)(1) 

(Amendment 25-96) as it relates to the above referenced certification project. For the reasons detailed below, Gogo, 

LLC. requests an immediate exemption from this rule and that it remain valid for a period of one year from the date of 

STC issuance. 

Safety and Public Interest 

The petition would not adversely affect safety because of the extremely low probability of a bird strike as summarized 

below. This radome and similar radome types are currently installed on following aircraft types: 

Airbus: A319, A320, A330, A340 

Boeing: BBJ, 737, 747, 767, 777 

McDonnell Douglas: MD-87 

This service experience further demonstrates an additional margin of safety. Moreover, the aircraft's frontal fuselage 

shadows the Ku Band radome due to the aircraft's angle of attack during all but the most extreme flight operations. 

Additionally, we have substantial service information from Delta Airlines that identifies 127 Airbus A330 and Boeing 767 

Series Aircraft which have over 500,000 accumulated hours throughout 2012, including over 30,000 hours below 10,000 

feet, without any bird strikes to a radome, which is detailed below in bird strike substantiation section of this document. 

Additionally, similar radome is in service with Live TV for over 13 years and close to 10 million flight hours without a bird 

strike occurring.

1 

Radome Design 

The design of the new Ku Band radome is an aerodynamic shape, similar to previous designs, with minimal height. It is 

located on the crown of the fuselage forward of the wing spar to reduce the aerodynamic influence on the original 

airframe. This location ensures that a bird strike event will not occur throughout the aircraft's normal flight operations 

due to the aircraft's angle of attack (AOA). In addition to these physical characteristics the new radome incorporates 

engineering advances in composite materials and lessons learned based on previous installations. 

Gogo chose the radome design, its location on the aircraft and method of compliance for 14 CFR § 25.571 (e)(1) over 10 

months ago. The current project, ST1865DRB-T, began in August 2012. The Project Specific Certification Plan was 

submitted on November 21 , 2012. ST1865DRB-T certification project requires successful completion of project number 

SA08072CH-T. 

1 In the matter of the petition(s) of LIVETV for an exemption from §25.571(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Regulatory 

Docket Nos. F AA-2013-0336, F AA-20 13-0338, F AA-2013-0372, F AA-201 3-0373 (United States Department of Transportation, 

Federal Aviation Administration May 9, 2013).
#### BUCKLES et al. v. SMITH et al.

No. 31574.

Jan. 9, 1945.

Rehearing Denied March 27, 1945.

*156 P. 2d 1022.*

Fred W. Green, of Guthrie, and P. D. Erwin, of Chandler, for plaintiffs in error.

M. A. Cox, of Chandler, and S. J. Berton, of Cushing, for defendants in error.

BAYLESS, J.

The appeal in this case is a companion to that involved in No. 31562, this day decided, 195 Okla. 272, 156 P. 2d 1019, and involves the same parties, the identical issues of law and fact, but land located in Lincoln county. It was covered by the same deed and other circumstances. The same judgment was rendered in it that was rendered in No. 31562.

Plaintiffs urge in this case “Many of the issues and questions of law in the two cases are identical but there are certain factual differences which raise different questions of law,” and for that reason they file full briefs in this case.

Upon'consideration of the records and briefs in this case we are unable to detect any difference in the issues of fact or law that require different treatment or any other conclusion than that reached in No. 31562. For that reason the judgment in this case is affirmed upon the basis of No. 31562 upon the same reasoning and to the same extent.

The judgment in this case is affirmed as stated and the cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed in No. 31562.

GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.
Schedule A

Actions to be Transferred to the Avoidance Actions Trust

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23506-1 Filed:02/09/23 Entered:02/09/23 17:04:31 Desc:

Schedule A Page 1 of 2
2

Actions to be Transferred to the Avoidance Actions Trust1

VENDOR NAME ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NO.

Core Laboratories N.V. d/b/a Saybolt 19-381

Puerto Nuevo Security Guards, Inc. 19-384

 1 The actions to be transferred to the Avoidance Actions Trust include, but are not limited to, the actions listed on 

this Exhibit.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23506-1 Filed:02/09/23 Entered:02/09/23 17:04:31 Desc:

Schedule A Page 2 of 2
#### Walter L. CLARK *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5780

486 S.W. 2d 677

Opinion delivered November 20, 1972

*455
      *Young h? Patton,*for appellant.

*Ray Thornton,*Atty. Gen., by: *James A. Neal,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Appellant Walter L. Clark was convicted of violating Ark. Stat. Anno., § 41-4501 (Repl. 1964). He was convicted under that part of the statute which makes it unlawful to carry a pistol as a weapon. The point for reversal is that there was no substantial evidence, as a matter of law, to convict appellant.

Sometime after 2:00 a.m. appellant, in company with a girl friend, drove to the outskirts of Texarkana, stopped at a motel and inquired of the clerk about some matches. He was informed that none were available. As appellant drove away the clerk called the sheriff’s office and reported the incident. The report was made because of certain peculiar actions of appellant and the suspicion that appellant was carrying a pistol (the officer testified to that report without objection). In response to the call the officers stopped appellant on the highway before he entered Texarkana. A loaded pistol was found under the front seat. Appellant testified that he was driving a borrowed car and had no knowledge of the presence of the pistol. His companion testified that she did not see the pistol. The owner of the car testified that the pistol belonged to her. She admitted that she had told the officers on the morning of appellant’s arrest that she did not own the pistol and knew nothing about it being in the car. She explained the inconsistency of that statement with her testimony by saying that she was fearful she would be placed in jail if she admitted ownership of the pistol. Appellant testified that his only purpose in stopping at the motel was to obtain some matches and that he was not successful. In rebuttal to that evidence the arresting officer testified that there was in plain view, between the “bucket” seats, a supply of matches.

*456There was a presumption of fact that the loaded pistol was placed under the seat as a weapon. Of course that presumption may be removed by, proof. *Stephens*v. *City of Ft. Smith,*227 Ark. 609, 300 S.W. 2d 14 (1957). Appellant offered proof to overcome the presumption but since we are dealing with a question of fact and not of law it was for the jury (or the judge sitting as a jury) to resolve the truth. We have said that the question of whether a pistol is carried as a weapon is a question for the jury. *Wylie*v. *State,*131 Ark. 572, 199 S.W. 905 (1917).

The trier of the facts was undoubtedly impressed with the suspicious actions of appellant at the motel; with the fact that appellant was inquiring for matches when in fact there was said to be a supply of matches in the car; and with the fact that the woman who owned the car first denied ownership of the pistol. When those inconsistencies are coupled with the presumption we have mentioned, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude there was substantial evidence to support the verdict.

Affirmed.
Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument Draft RMP / EIS

Map 14

US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Legend

State Border

Sensitive Plants

Planning Area Boundary

Public Lands Survey System

Montana

 Wyoming

Special Status Plants

T

9

N

T

1

N

T

1

S

T

8

S

R18E R29E

R104W R93W

T

57

N

0 3.5 7 14 21 28 35

Miles

Map scale 1:1,350,000

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in July 2011

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau

of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was 

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

Wyoming

Location Map

Montana

Billings 

Field 

Office

Ü
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201 700029

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.


### DAVIDMARK M. ANDION Logistics Specialist Second Class (E

- 5 ) , U.S. Navy Appellant

______________

___________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Ann K. Minami, JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: Command er , Navy Region Northwest, Silverdale, WA

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation : Lieutenant Commande r

J ustin L. Hawks , JAGC, USN. For Appellant: Major Jason L. Morris
, USMC

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ Decided 27 April 2017

_________________________ Before C AMPBELL , F ULTON , and J ONES , Appellate Military Ju dges

________

_________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40912 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
MANUEL CHAPA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-C-91-137

- - - - - - - - - - June 3, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Manuel Chapa appeals the revocation of his supervised release,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). He contends that he was denied

due process, claiming that the Government did not list a pending
criminal mischief charge in the petition to revoke supervised

release or inform defense counsel of its existence, but that the district court nevertheless considered that charge in determining
his sentence. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude-2-

that there wa s no due process violation. S ee United States v.
Ayers , 946 F.2d 1127, 1129 (5th Cir. 1991). Among other things, it

does not appear that the district court considered the charge in issue in imposing sentence.

AFFIRMED