alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.363 Ocmulgee River.

The draws of each bridge shall open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTURBOMAT: A Probabilistic Turbomachinery Aeroelastic Analysis ToolAn integration of aeroelastic analysis procedures with probabilistic analysis methods enables us to design safe reliable engines with quantified reliability. Towards this goal, a graphical user interface (GUI) based tool that integrates the codes Aeroelastic analysis of propfans (ASTROP2) and Numerical Evaluation of Stochastic Structures Under Stress (NESSUS) is developed. The tool entitled TURBOMachinery Aeroelastic Analysis Tool (TURBOMAT), is developed utilizing the MATrix Laboratory (Matlab) Guide (Graphical User Interface Development) tool box. TURBOMAT provides a user friendly computational environment for rapid assessment of Turbomachinery blades flutter characteristics, subjected to uncertain loading conditions with variability in material and aerodynamic properties. The tool is seen as an education tool for new students and young engineers starting their careers in structural Aeroelasticity who want to learn and understand aeroelastic aspects of turbomachinery components, fans, compressors and turbines, including uncertainties in loading and material properties.A typical fan blade configuration geometry was chosen to demonstrate the tool. The results are presented in the form of probabilistic density function (PDF), the cumulative distribution function (CDF) and sensitivity factors. Both first order fast probability integration (FPI) and the Monto Carlo (MC) techniques are used in the analysis and compared. The tool enabled us to quantify blade flutter reliability as well as the ranking of uncertain variables and their importance to blade flutter response.Document ID20190000816Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMurthy, Pappu L. N.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Reddy, T. S. R.*(Toledo Univ. Toledo, OH, United States)*Stefko, George L.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredFebruary 19, 2019Publication DateJanuary 1, 2019Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberE-19588GRC-E-DAA-TN56291NASA/TM-2019-219979Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNC13BA10BWBS: WBS 081876.02.03.50.06.02.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordsAeroelastic AnalysisProbabilistic AnalysisAvailable DownloadsNameType20190000816.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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6698

GARFIELD WILLIAM HOLLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. BAKER, Correctional Officer, Keen Mountain

Correctional Center,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

R. A. YOUNG, Regional Director, Keen Mountain

Correctional Center,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Pamela M. Sargent, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-98-643-7)

Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 28, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
* The parties consented to have this matter tried by a

magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1994).

2

Garfield William Holley, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett

Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Garfield William Holley appeals magistrate judge’s order denying his motions to set aside the jury’s verdict in favor of Appellee and to alter or amend its final judgment.* We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of

discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district

court. See Holley v. Baker, No. CA-98-643-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 26,

2000). We also deny Holley’s motion for the appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Lockridge *v.*Lockridge.

*(Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia,*

*Oct.*7, *1874.)*

Pleadingand Practice — Process and Return — Waiver of Irregularities.

By appearing and pleading to the action the defendant waives all irregularities in the process and return.

Appellate Practice — Waiver of Irregularities of Return.

Where the defendant appears and pleads and the issue thus made is tried by a jury, a verdict found and a judgment rendered for the plaintiff, it is too late to raise the question in the appellate court, “that the case was never properly in court and that everything done in the case after return ‘no inhabitant’ was illegal and void. ’ ’

Same — Final Judgment — Errors.

The appellate court will only consider error to a final judgment.

This was an action of debt in the circuit court of Highland county by William Lockridge against John Lockridge upon a bond executed by the latter to the plaintiff for the sum of 1500.00.

Process was issued against the defendant and returned £ £no inhabitant’ ’; but the defendant appeared and pleaded, and the case was tried by a jury, and a verdict found for the plaintiff.

*Haas,*counsel for appellant.

Christian, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court is of the opinion that the appearance of the de*62fendant and the pleading to the action after it was docketed was a waiver of his right to have the suit abated.

It was the duty of the clerk upon the return of the process “no inhabitant” to have entered an abatement of the suit. But not having done this, and the suit having been placed upon the docket, and the defendant having appeared and pleaded, and the issue thus made having been tried by a jury and verdict, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, it is too late now to raise the question in the appellate court that £ £the case was never properly in court and everything done in the case after the return £no inhabitant’ was illegal and void. ’ ’

By appearing and pleading to the action the defendant recognized the right of the plaintiff to have his action tried, and waived his right to abate the suit because process had not been executed on him but returned £ £no inhabitant. ’ ’

The court is further of the opinion that whatever irregularities there may have been in suing out the attachment, after the return £ £no inhabitant’ ’ and *before*the appearance of the defendant (which was a waiver of his right to abate the suit) or in the return to *a special term*of the circuit court, in which the suit was not pending, and for which irregularities it may have been proper for the court below to have granted the attachment; inasmuch as there was no *final*judgment on the attachment, and as this court can only consider errors to a *final*judgment, it would be premature now to pass on the question raised in the petition for a writ of error as to the attachment, the court below not having entered any judgment on the proceedings in the attachment.

The court is therefore of opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the said circuit court in entering a judgment for the debt found due by the verdict of the, jury and that this judgment be affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training  Administration

          - [TA-W-37,541]

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Joshua L. Bailey Co., Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

TA-W-37, 541; Joshua L. Bailey Co., Hoboken, New Jersey (May 24, 2000).

Signed at Washington, DC this 25th day of May 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-13758 Filed 6-1-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001075066
<NAME> MODTECH HOLDINGS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         262,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,727,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   728,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,141,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,181,000
<PP&E>                                      21,342,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,142,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             180,014,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       38,072,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,000
<COMMON>                                       132,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 111,740,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               180,014,000
<SALES>                                     43,722,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,722,000
<CGS>                                       37,900,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,900,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,766,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,014,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,050,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   943,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,107,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,107,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of McMoRan Exploration Co. (the Company) for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Nancy D. Parmelee, as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of her 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.



Dated:  March
15, 2004







/s/ Nancy D. Parmelee

Nancy D.
Parmelee

Senior Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Secretary





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



This certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 127.011 Inspections of waterfront facilities.

The operator must ensure that the COTP or his representative is allowed to make reasonable examinations and inspections to determine whether the facility meets this part.

[CGD 78-038, 53 FR 3376, Feb. 7, 1988, as amended by CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39795, Aug. 3, 1995; USCG-2019-0444, 87 FR 5690, Feb. 2, 2022]
#### § 779.320 [Reserved]
§ 95.33 Federally-owned and exempt property. ( a ) *Federally-owned property.* ( 1 ) Title to federally-owned property remains vested in the Federal Government. Recipients shall submit annually an inventory listing of federally-owned property in their custody to DOL. Upon completion of the award or when the property is no longer needed, the recipient shall report the property to DOL for further Federal agency utilization.
( 2 ) If DOL has no further need for the property, it shall be declared excess and reported to the General Services Administration, unless DOL has statutory authority to dispose of the property by alternative methods (e.g., the authority provided by the Federal Technology Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 3710(i)) to donate research equipment to educational and non-profit organizations in accordance with E.O. 12821, “Improving Mathematics and Science Education in Support of the National Education Goals.”) Appropriate instructions shall be issued to the recipient by DOL.
( b ) *Exempt property.* When statutory authority exists, DOL has the option to vest title to property acquired with Federal funds in the recipient without further obligation to the Federal Government and under conditions DOL considers appropriate. Such property is “exempt property.” Should DOL not establish conditions, title to exempt property upon acquisition shall vest in the recipient without further obligation to the Federal Government.
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 10-517V

(E-Filed: June 16, 2014)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FRANK FALCONE and KIM FALCONE, * UNPUBLISHED

as parents and natural guardians of K.F., a *

minor, * 

 Petitioners, * Special Master

* Hamilton-Fieldman

v. * 

* Decision on Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * 

HUMAN SERVICES, * 

* 

Respondent. * .

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

F. John Caldwell, Jr., Maglio, Christopher & Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioners.

Michael P. Milmoe, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION1(ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2the 

undersigned issued a decision on May 28, 2014. On June 16, 2014, the parties filed a 

stipulation concerning attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter. The parties’ stipulation 

requests a total payment of $111, 523.64, representing total attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 

1

The undersigned intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States 

Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, 

Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 

3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within 

which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade 

secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that 

are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Otherwise, “the entire” decision will be available to 

the public. Id.

2

The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 
2

Pursuant to General Order #9, Petitioners stated that they incurred no out-of-pocket 

litigation costs.

I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a 

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems 

reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award the amount of $111, 523.64, 

in the form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioners and Petitioners’ counsel, 

F. John Caldwell, Jr., Esq. 

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of 

the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment 

in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

Special Master
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 07, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 07, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16A0988. HERNEY GONZALEZ v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
An official website of the United States government
          Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A
              **.gov** website belongs to an official government
              organization in the United States.
        **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A
              **lock** (
              Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Skip to main contentSkip to main navigationGet instructions for navigating this site Announcements A - Z Browse Search
 OAM HomeMaterialsActivity IdeasSocial MediaHistoryOAM History202320222021202020192018Earlier Years
 Go to ACL.gov
 OAM 2023 Other Artwork
 This image can be used to brand documents, flyers, and other materials you use to celebrate OAM.
Masthead for print or digital useOlder Americans Month, Aging Unbound: May 2023

                    *Last modified on 02/24/2023*
 Back to Top    What We Do and Why We Do It
ACL was created around the fundamental principle that all people, regardless of age or disability, should be able to live independently and fully participate fully in their communities. Learn more about community living.

FacebookYouTubeTwitter x logo  XLinkedInShare on Other PlatformsSite Support
  

        
      Home
                      Accessibility
                      Disclaimers
                      Contact Us
                      Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
                      Privacy Policy
                      Site Map
                      Viewers & Players
                      Vulnerability Disclosure PolicyOther ACL Sites
  

        
      Disability Assistance and Information Line
                      Eldercare Locator
                      ElderJustice.acl.gov
                      LongTermCare.gov
                      OlderIndians.govRelated Sites
  

        
      Grants.gov
                      HHS.gov
                      No Fear Act
                      Plain Writing (on HHS.gov)
                      USA.gov
                      WhiteHouse.gov
                      Vote.gov**Sign up for ACL Updates**
Subscribe **
      *Advancing independence, integration, and inclusion throughout life*
        U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living
§ 801.26 Qualifications of and requirements for examiners. ( a ) Section 8 (b) and (c) of the Act provides that the limited exemption in section 7(d) of the Act for ongoing investigations, and the security service and controlled substances exemptions in section 7 (e) and (f) of the Act, shall not apply unless the person conducting the polygraph examination meets specified qualifications and requirements.
( b ) An examiner must meet the following qualifications: ( 1 ) Have a valid current license, if required by the State in which the test is to be conducted; and
( 2 ) Carry a minimum bond of $50,000 provided by a surety incorporated under the laws of the United States or of any State, which may under those laws guarantee the fidelity of persons holding positions of trust, or carry an equivalent amount of professional liability coverage.
( c ) An examiner must also, with respect to examinees identified by the employer pursuant to § 801.30(c) of this part: ( 1 ) Observe all rights of examinees, as set out in §§ 801.22, 801.23, 801.24, and 801.25 of this part;
( 2 ) Administer no more than five polygraph examinations in any one calendar day on which a test or tests subject to the provisions of EPPA are administered, not counting those instances where an examinee voluntarily terminates an examination prior to the actual testing phase;
( 3 ) Administer no polygraph examination subject to the provisions of the Act which is less than ninety minutes in duration, as described in § 801.24(b) of this part;
( 4 ) Render any opinion or conclusion regarding truthfulness or deception in writing. Such opinion or conclusion must be based solely on the polygraph test results. The written report shall not contain any information other than admissions, information, case facts, and interpretation of the charts relevant to the stated purpose of the polygraph test and shall not include any recommendation concerning the employment of the examinee; and
( 5 ) Maintain all opinions, reports, charts, written questions, lists, and other records relating to the test, including statements signed by examinees advising them of rights under the Act (as described in § 801.23 (a)(3) of this part) and any electronic recordings of examinations, for at least three years from the date of the administration of the test. (See § 801.30 of this part for recordkeeping requirements.)