alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Stack Diameter feet inches Area ft2 122.88 Points per Diameter Port Depth inches Diameter 150.1 inches
Eff Diameter inches

NOTE: Select a measurement line that passed through the center of the duct in a direction through the stratification.

Distance Upstream from Flow Disturbance (A) A

B Distance Downstream from Flow Disturbance (B) Inches
Inches
# of Ports Long Measurement Line
Point 1 Point 1 Stratification Points
Inches Inches Point 2 Point 3 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Point 5 Point 6 Point 7 Point 8 Point 9 Point 10 Point 11 Point 12 Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches 36.82 Inches 86.8 Inches 136.78

Number of Points 24 Duct Diameters A Duct Diameters B 3.7575 2.0786
14.9 21.81 29.46 38.32 49.28 65.19 Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches

Point 6 Point 5 Point 4 Point 3 Point 2 Inches Point 1 108.41 124.32 135.28 144.14 151.79 158.7 Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches

Point 12 Point 11 Point 10 Point 9 Point 8 Inches Point 7 Single point allowed for MW determination. Point 1 Inches Single Point
51.75
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24509 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 14:42:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24509 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 14:42:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24509 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 14:42:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24509 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 14:42:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24509 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 14:42:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 6
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24509 Filed:06/08/23 Entered:06/12/23 14:42:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 6
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsField test to intercompare carbon monoxide, nitric oxide and hydroxyl instrumentation at Wallops Island, VirginiaDocumentation of the first of three instrument intercomparisons conducted as part of NASA Global Tropospheric Experiment/Chemical Instrumentation Test and Evaluation (GTE/CITE-1) is given. This ground-based intercomparison was conducted during July 1983 at NASA Wallops Flight Facility. Instruments intercompared included one laser system and three grab-sample approaches for CO; two chemiluminescent systems and one laser-induced fluorescent (LIF) technique for NO; and two different LIF systems and a radiochemical tracer technique for OH. The major objectives of this intercomparison was to intercompare ambient measurements of CO, NO, and OH at a common site by using techniques of fundamentally different detection principles and to identify any major biases among the techniques prior to intercomparison on an aircraft platform. Included in the report are comprehensive discussions of workshop requirements, philosophies, and operations as well as intercomparison analyses and results. In addition, the large body of nonintercomparison data incorporated into the workshop measurements is summarized. The report is an important source document for those interested in conducting similar large and complex intercomparison tests as well as those interested in using the data base for purposes other than instrument intercomparison.Document ID19870006091Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsGregory, Gerald L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Beck, Sherwin M.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Bendura, Richard J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1987Subject CategoryEnvironment PollutionReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-87718NAS 1.15:87718L-16126Accession Number87N15524Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 176-20-21-70Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870006091.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
#### § 713.5 What is the required minimum dollar amount of coverage?

(a) The minimum required amount of fidelity bond coverage for any single loss is computed based on a federally insured credit union's total assets.

| Assets | Minimum bond |
| --- | --- |
| $0 to $4,000,000 | Lesser of total assets or $250,000. |
| $4,000,001 to $50,000,000 | $100,000 plus $50,000 for each million or fraction thereof over $1,000,000. |
| $50,000,000 to $500,000,000 | $2,550,000 plus $10,000 for each million or fraction thereof over $50,000,000, to a maximum of $5,000,000. |
| Over $500,000,000 | One percent of assets, rounded to the nearest hundred million, to a maximum of $9,000,000. |

(b) This is the minimum coverage required, but a federally insured credit union's board of directors should purchase additional or enhanced coverage when its circumstances warrant. In making this determination, a board of directors should consider its own internal risk assessment, its fraud trends and loss experience, and factors such as its cash on hand, cash in transit, and the nature and risks inherent in any expanded services it offers such as wire transfer and remittance services.

(c) While the above is the required minimum amount of bond coverage, federally insured credit unions should maintain increased coverage equal to the greater of either of the following amounts within thirty days of discovery of the need for such increase:

(1) The amount of the daily cash fund, i.e. daily cash plus anticipated daily money receipts on the federally insured credit union's premises, or

(2) The total amount of the federally insured credit union's money in transit in any one shipment.

(3) Increased coverage is not required pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, however, when the federally insured credit union temporarily increased its cash fund because of unusual events which cannot reasonably be expected to recur.

(d) Any aggregate limit of liability provided for in a fidelity bond policy must be at least twice the single loss limit of liability. This requirement does not apply to optional insurance coverage.

(e) Any proposal to reduce a federally insured credit union's required bond coverage must be approved in writing by the NCUA Board at least twenty days in advance of the proposed effective date of the reduction.

[64 FR 28720, May 27, 1999, as amended at 70 FR 61716, Oct. 26, 2005; 84 FR 35525, July 24, 2019]
### Gormas, Michael (OST) From: 

### Sent: To:



### Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Hello everyone, 

## i)oT**~** 

## otl- ;;_ ood.._- 

### !IJ8& 

# bCiT
_ o

# >i_:2. 6o6- C).{J'<t)._
Gormas, Michael (OST) Friday, October 24, 2014 2:19 PM 'PAUL.KHERA@ALASKA.GOV'; 'michael.lukshin@alaska.gov'; 'Rich.Sewell@alaska.gov'; 'patricia@pelicancity.org'; 'citytke@gmail.com'; 'angcityclerk@gmail.com'; 'tanaku@msn.com'; 'strommedog54@gmail.com'; 'shearwaterak@aol.com'; 'janedbutton@gmail.com'; 'alexandertcm@aol.com' scott@harrisair.com; 'Kent Craford'; Schlemmer, Kevin (OST); Devany, Dennis (OST) Essential Air Service at Angoon-Elfin Cove-Pelican-Tenakee Alaska Seaplanes EAS proposal Final with attachments 10-22-14.pdf; Harris Air EAS Angoon Tenakee Pelican.pdf

Iwould like to updateyou on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Angoon-Elfin Cove-Pelican-Tenakee, AK, as well as give you an opportunityto offerany comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary forAviation and InternationalAffairs. We issued Order 2014-9-13 (September 22, 2014), requesting proposals from airlines interested in providing EAS. In response to our request, we received two proposals: Alaska Seaplanes and Harris Aircraft Services, Inc. I have attached each air carrier's proposal foryour review and I expectthem to be uploaded on www.regulations.gov soon. I request thatyou review the proposals and submit any commentsyou may have as soon as possible, but no later than Monday, November24, 2014. Please send your comments directlyvia e-mail to michael.gormas@dot.gov. Also, please forward thisto all relevant parties that I have not included on the distribution list. Please direct all questions regarding these proposals to Michael Gormas at michael.gormas@dot.gov. Best Regards, Michael D. Gormas United States Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Analysis 1200 NewJersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590 202.366.1853

1 '•'
. '.,.'

..........J
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

BULLETIN 1032 PLATE 5

ALPHABETICAL WOEX To LOCALES NUMERICAL NOEX TO LOCALES
5 eee ei eaeeaetenen 5 cen aie eo
8 seer is besa eet ey 1 Saas 2 ieee
eee ae 1 EE so
Stee M bie HES) 2 ae
oe ae 2 are Sosa, ee
Soe ae. op fs Hee om Sone
2 eS ee Cees ti 5 oes, pe em
qe Sa eee 5 ear
3 ree Bae oy aoe a tec
Be e. 2 See aes A
3 = eee a, ee
Scout ee 2 sera Soe
: eee S eee 8 eon
ee me. : ee H
Pee 2 Sa z
3 pee eee, eae oe ae
: eee oo 2 oe
etoueeetaae euar Soe
5 Gamay set 3 ee ee 3 eee aioe
3 Sere ae pe ae See a er —
2 oee ee, = eee sene Sere
eee : ores ae See wae,
1 Senn omen ras. 4 Ree ees
2 aoe Ry Sine oe
oer tees Care nae
oh Sears Sete
© ee eS: west pete tee, Bee on 1
i ee {ease £ aeons
4 teen ia Seem
eeu; 8 (ee et ae
i eeee a ee eS
8 ce eee spear: eed HW ee P
2 eee. i S oeeee Z
2 ettoon 19 Sine age Se el some mater i 6
2 ararese Pa ee eS Bo ae Es
35 Sammsoune St West Coupon voNncL Se Mew een su 73. Oawonb MOUNTAM CONER TUNNEL af
eter 2 ere Hcy bead 2 ome we oe Je
ix
ay
SY
LY
2?
EXPLANATION
SyenticBotonte portory | =
Ta &
ase pros
ee
a
a ree
Teach ta glen
2a eS
a
‘ace oh, pte
ea Ope
135
Petal of editor tunnel
marae
Inds Weaiee
270
shar
mane lento
Index oats
~ _—
DISTRICT
sores
MOUNTAIN

Base map by U. S. Geological Survey from aerial photographs

105°3730"

1053615"

MAP OF THE FREELAND-LAMARTINE DISTRICT, COLORADO, SHOWING THE LOCATION OF MINES AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF VEINS AND DIKE ROCKS

500
t

2000 Feet
2 4 °

m n
‘Contour interval 100 feet
Datum is mean see level

105°3900"
‘Geology by J. E. Harrison and J. D, Wells, 1952
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEREMY LUJAN AIKEN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00092-1) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeremy Lujan Aiken, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jeremy Lujan Aiken seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to compel a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); seeUnited States v. Little , 392 F.3d 671, 680-81 (4th Cir. 2004) (applying ten-day appeal period to appeal from Rule 35 ruling). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its order on January 9, 2007. Aiken filed the notice of appeal on February 15, 2007, after the ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Aiken has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED
§ 1252.400 Compliance reviews. ( a ) NASA may conduct compliance reviews and pre-award reviews of recipients or use other similar procedures that will permit it to investigate and correct violations of the Act and these regulations. NASA may conduct these reviews even in the absence of a complaint against a recipient. The review may be as comprehensive as necessary to determine whether a violation of these regulations has occurred.
( b ) If a compliance review or pre-award review indicates a violation of the Act or these regulations, NASA will attempt to secure the recipient's voluntary compliance with the Act. If voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, NASA will arrange for enforcement as described in § 1252.405.
§ 136.11 Rotorcraft floats for over water. ( a ) A rotorcraft used in commercial air tours over water beyond the shoreline must be equipped with fixed floats or an inflatable flotation system adequate to accomplish a safe emergency ditching, if— ( 1 ) It is a single-engine rotorcraft; or
( 2 ) It is a multi-engine rotorcraft that cannot be operated with the critical engine inoperative at a weight that will allow it to climb, at least 50 feet a minute, at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the surface, as provided in the approved aircraft flight manual for that aircraft.
( b ) Each rotorcraft that is required to be equipped with an inflatable flotation system under this section must have: ( 1 ) The activation switch for the flotation system on one of the primary flight controls; and
( 2 ) The flotation system armed when the rotorcraft is over water beyond the shoreline and is flying at a speed that does not exceed the maximum speed prescribed in the approved aircraft flight manual for flying with the flotation system armed.
( c ) Neither fixed floats nor an inflatable flotation system is required for a rotorcraft under this section when that rotorcraft is: ( 1 ) Over water only during the takeoff or landing portion of the flight; or
( 2 ) Operated within power-off gliding distance to the shoreline for the duration of the flight and each occupant is wearing a life preserver from before takeoff until the aircraft is no longer over water.
[Docket No. FAA-2022-1563; Amdt. No. 136-2, 88 FR 48091, July 26, 2023]
|   | (1). | The Report      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;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: April      17, 2008 | /s/Jeffrey R.      Scheffer |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                      | Jeffrey R.      Scheffer    |
|                      | Chief      ExecutiveOfficer |
89–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–1031

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 134, MAKING

FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2001

DECEMBER 15 (legislative day, DECEMBER 14), 2000.—Referred to the House

Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 675]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 675, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration in the House of H.J.

Res. 134, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year

2001, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order

against consideration of the joint resolution. The rule also provides

one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED APRIL 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,862,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,868,000
<PP&E>                                          37,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,203,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,686,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,797,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,280,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,203,000
<SALES>                                        420,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               443,000
<CGS>                                          134,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (122,000)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                562,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            362,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   562,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11


                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE


                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED  NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                            SEPTEMBER 30,      SEPTEMBER 30,
                                            1997    1996       1997    1996
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        (In thousands, except per share amounts)

Net income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    $2,195  $2,545     $6,510  $7,401

Weighted average common shares (1, 2, 3).     3,825   3,916      3,822   3,935

Net income per common share (3) . . . . .    $ 0.57  $ 0.65     $ 1.70  $ 1.88

(1)  Outstanding common stock equivalents (stock options) did not have a
     significant dilutive effect on the per share data for any of the periods
     presented.

(2)  Net of treasury stock.

(3)  The 1996 amounts were adjusted for the three-for-two stock split completed
     in December 1996.  See   note 2 to the consolidated interim financial
     statements.
#### McCOY *v.*THOMPSON.

Bill of particulars — evidence confined to*

The bill of particulars filed in the justices court is required to be certified up with the appeal^ and the evidence on the trial is confined to the items set out in it.

Error to the Common Pleas. McCoy brought assumpsit against Thompson before a justice of the peace. A bill of particulars was furnished by the plaintiff at the trial before the justice, and the defendant recovered a judgment. The plaintiff appealed to the Common Pleas, and a trial was had on non assumpsit. During the trial, the plaintiff offered evidence of items not included in the bill of particulars, which the defendant objected to, and the court ruled out the evidence, because the bill of particulars gave no notice of such claim. Judgment went for the defendant, and the plaintiff now seeks to reverse the judgment, because the court erred in ruling out the evidence.

*D. S.*Bell, for the plaintiff.

*J. XL.*Bacon, contra.

Wright, J.

Thed act of assembly (29 *O.L.*175) expressly provides that the plaintiff or defendant, if required, shall file a bill of the particulars of his demand, and that *Hhe evidence on the trial shall he confined to the items set forth in the said hills.'1*The same act *(p.*178) requires a justice of the peace, when a case is appealed, to transmit the bill of particulars to the Court of Common Pleas. The terms of the act are *general,*and confines the evidence *on the trial of the cause*to the matters contained in the bill: it is not as supposed, limited to the trial before the justice, either in the terms or the spirit of the act. If the terms of the provision were equivocal, the other provisions of the act would remove doubt. Why require the justice to send up the bill with the other papers when the case is appealed, if not intended to be used when sent up? What other use could be made of it, than to confine the evidence to it at the trial? We think the Common Pleas did not err in confirming the evidence to the bill of particulars before the justice, and affirm the judgment.
#### W. A. Fisher and Wife, Appellants, v. E. Villamil and J. B. Jackson, *Appellees.*

Opinion Filed June 3, 1913.

1. A bill, amended by narrowing the prayer for relief, does not make an entirely new case.

2. The concurrent findings of two Circuit Judges upon the same evidence *will*not *be lightly*disturbed.

Appealed from the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County.

*489Decree affirmed.

*Wall*& *McKay,*for Appellants;

*Hilton 8. Hampton,*and *Dozier*A. *DeVane,*for Appellees.

Cockrell, J.

Upon a former appeal in this case, 62 Fla. 472, 56 South. Rep. 559, we held that it was error to reform a master’s deed, but that it would be permissible to cancel the deed, reform the mortgage and reinforce it by judicial decree; this was done upon an amended bill and the defendants again appeal.

The amended bill was properly filed, as being in entire accord with the ruling of this court and being merely a narrowing of the prayer for relief cannot possibly be held to make an entirely new case. In fact it was agreed by the parties that no new evidence be taken, and that the evidence on the original bill stand as to evidence on the amended bill.

As to whether the evidence warranted the finding that the mistake in the description of the lands embraced was an innocent one and such as would justify a reformation in a court of equity, we cannot hold the decree erroneous. Two Circuit Judges, resident in the community, familiar with the character of the witnesses, have found the same way upon the same testimony, and we cannot say on this record they should have done differently.

Decree affirmed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur