alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMathematical analysis study for radar data processing and enhancement.  Part 1:  Radar data analysisA study is performed under NASA contract to evaluate data from an AN/FPS-16 radar installed for support of flight programs at Dryden Flight Research Facility of NASA Ames Research Center. The purpose of this study is to provide information necessary for improving post-flight data reduction and knowledge of accuracy of derived radar quantities. Tracking data from six flights are analyzed. Noise and bias errors in raw tracking data are determined for each of the flights. A discussion of an altiude bias error during all of the tracking missions is included. This bias error is defined by utilizing pressure altitude measurements made during survey flights. Four separate filtering methods, representative of the most widely used optimal estimation techniques for enhancement of radar tracking data, are analyzed for suitability in processing both real-time and post-mission data. Additional information regarding the radar and its measurements, including typical noise and bias errors in the range and angle measurements, is also presented. This is in two parts. This is part 1, an analysis of radar data.Document ID19860003885Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsJames, R.*(GMD Systems, Inc. Lancaster, CA, United States)*Brownlow, J. D.*(GMD Systems, Inc. Lancaster, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1985Subject CategorySpace Communications, Spacecraft Communications, Command And TrackingReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:166616-PT-1H-1287-PT-1NASA-CR-166616-PT-1Accession Number86N13353Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-51-11CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS2-11491Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860003885.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
# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A0 75 6

. KENROY KEVON POW ELL v . GEORGI A DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVI CES, EX REL. AYI ESHA BURTON.

K enro y Po w el l fi led this direc t ap p eal f ro m the su p erio r c o u rt’ s o rd er enf o rc ing

an o ut- o f

- state c hild su p p ort o rd er. W e lac k j urisd ic tio n.

“ Ap p e als f

r o m j u d g m en t s o r o r d ers in d iv o rc e, alimo ny, and o ther d o mestic relatio ns c a ses” mu st be initiated b y f iling an ap p lic a tio n f

o r d isc r e t i o n a r y rev iew

. OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 (a) (2), (b). Bec au se t his c ase inv o lv e s the c o llec tio n o f c hild su p p o rt, it is a d o mestic relatio ns c ase w ithin t he m eaning o f the d isc retio nary ap p eal statu te. See Bo o ker v

. Ga

. D ept. o

f Hu ma n Res o urces , 3 1 7 Ga. A p p

. 426 , 427 ( 731 SE2d 1 1 0) (201 2) (an ac tio n in w hic h the “ u nd e rlying su bj ec t matter is a f a t her’ s o bligatio n to
p ro v id e c h i l d s u p p o rt” is “ a d o mestic r elatio ns c ase s u bj ec t to rev iew o nly by
ap p lic atio n” ). “ Co m p lianc e w ith the d isc retio nary a p p e als p ro c e d u re is j u risd ic tio nal. ” S mo a k v

. D e pt. o f Hu ma n Res ou rces , 221 Ga. A p p

. 257 , 257 (47 1 SE2d
6 0) (1 9 9 6 ). A cc o rd ingly, Po w ell w as requ ired to c o mp ly w ith the d isc retio nary ap p eal
p ro c ed ure to o btain rev iew o f the su p erio r c o u rt’ s o rd er.

January 03, 2024H is failu r e to d o so d ep riv es u s o f j u risd ic tio n o v er this d irec t ap p eal, w hic h is hereby

D I SM I SSED

. See Bo o ker , 31 7 Ga. A pp

. at 427

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n ta ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r tify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m
t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 01/03/2024
#### § 101-45.000 Cross-reference to the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) (41 CFR chapter 102, parts 102-1 through 102-220).

For information on the sale of personal property previously contained in this part, see FMR part 38 (41 CFR part 102-38). For information on demilitarization and decontamination; gold; and all-terrain vehicles previously contained in this part see FMR part 102-40 (41 CFR part 102-40).

[68 FR 51420, Aug. 26, 2003, as amended at 80 FR 7353, Feb. 10, 2015]
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5398

AN ACT

To provide that land which is owned by the

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana but which is notheld in trust by the United States for the Tribemay be leased or transferred by the Tribe without further approval by the United States.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5398

AN ACT

To provide that land which is owned by the Coushatta Tribe

of Louisiana but which is not held in trust by the United

States for the Tribe may be leased or transferred by

the Tribe without further approval by the United States.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 5398 EH

1 SECTION 1. APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED TO VALIDATE LAND

2 TRANSACTIONS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law, without further approval, ratification, or au5 thorization by the United States, the Coushatta Tribe of

6 Louisiana, may lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise

7 transfer all or any part of the Tribe’s interest in any real

8 property that is not held in trust by the United States

9 for the benefit of the Tribe.

10 (b) TRUST LAND NOT AFFECTED.—Nothing in this

11 section is intended or shall be construed to—

12 (1) authorize the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana

13 to lease, sell, convey, warrant, or otherwise transfer

14 all or any part of an interest in any real property

15 that is held in trust by the United States for the

16 benefit of the Tribe; or

17 (2) affect the operation of any law governing

18 leasing, selling, conveying, warranting, or otherwise

19 transferring any interest in such trust land.

Passed the House of Representatives October 17,

2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5478

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire by donation suitable

land to serve as the new location for the home of Alexander Hamilton,

commonly known as the Hamilton Grange, and to authorize the relocation of the Hamilton Grange to the acquired land.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 17, 2000

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire by

donation suitable land to serve as the new location for

the home of Alexander Hamilton, commonly known as

the Hamilton Grange, and to authorize the relocation

of the Hamilton Grange to the acquired land.

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

3 SECTION 1. RELOCATION AND PRESERVATION OF THE

4 HAMILTON GRANGE IN NEW YORK CITY.

5 Section 2 of Public Law 87–438, as amended by Pub6 lic Law 100–701; 102 Stat. 4640; 16 U.S.C. 431 note)

7 is amended—
2

•HR 5478 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before

2 ‘‘The Secretary of the Interior’’; and

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub4 section:

5 ‘‘(b) RELOCATION OF HAMILTON GRANGE.—The

6 Secretary is authorized to acquire by donation from the

7 City of New York, New York, a parcel of land or suitable

8 interests in such land, not to exceed one acre, to serve

9 as the new location for the home of Alexander Hamilton,

10 commonly known as the Hamilton Grange, and to relocate

11 the Hamilton Grange to such land. The acquired land or

12 interests in land shall be in close proximity to the original

13 location of Hamilton Grange and shall be added to and

14 administered as part of the memorial.’’.

Æ
132 STAT. 1228 PUBLIC LAW 115–144—MAR. 23, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2464: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): Oct. 10, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): Mar. 7, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–144 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 25 New 

Chardon Street Lobby in Boston, Massachusetts, as the ‘‘John Fitzgerald Kennedy 

Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 25 New Chardon Street Lobby in Boston, 

Massachusetts, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John Fitzgerald Kennedy Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘John Fitzgerald Kennedy Post Office’’. 

Approved March 23, 2018. 

Mar. 23, 2018 

[H.R. 2464]
[Civ. No. 10760.

First Appellate District, Division Two.

November 4, 1938.]

#### AMALIE RIIS, Respondent, v. YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY (a Corporation) et al., Appellants.

Crosby & Crosby for Appellants.

Elliott Johnson, Geary & Geary and D. W. Brobst for Respondent.

SPENCE, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of the negligence of defendants. Upon a trial by jury, plaintiff had judgment against the defendant Yellow Cab Company and defendant P. Hollinger, the driver of the cab. Defendants appeal from said judgment.

The accident occurred at about 11 o’clock on a rainy night as plaintiff and two women companions were leaving the Auditorium Theater in Oakland. They hailed a cab and it drew up to permit them to enter. The driver got out of the *26cab, opened the door and stood behind the door with his hand on the door handle ready to close the door with a forward movement after the passengers had entered. Plaintiff’s companions entered the cab and plaintiff was in the act of entering. She placed her right hand on the sill of the door, placed her left foot on the running board and as she lifted her right foot from the ground, the door moved forward, her hand slipped, and she fell to the ground.

The sole contention of appellants is that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment. They cite and rely upon *Wyatt*v. *Pacific Elec. Ry. Co.,*156 Cal. 170 [103 Pac. 892], and *Steele*v. *Pacific Elec. Ry. Co.,*168 Cal. 375 [143 Pac. 718], We do not believe that said authorities sustain appellants’ contention. Respondent did not rest her case upon the doctrine of *res ipsa loquitwr,*but claimed that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer that the driver negligently started to close the door before respondent had gotten into the cab thereby causing the injuries. We believe that such inference could properly be drawn and therefore the evidence cannot be said to be insufficient.

The judgment is affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., concurred.

Nourse, P. J., concurred in the judgment.
§ 334.1126 Naval Base Ventura County, Point Mugu, California; restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* The restricted area at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu incorporates its shoreline and connects the following points: latitude 34°7′9.9′′, longitude 119°9′35.6′′ (up-coast shoreline point); latitude 34°7′0.0′′, longitude 119°9′46.7′′ latitude 34°6′44.9′′, longitude 119°9′22.5′′; latitude 34°6′30.2′′, longitude 119°8′59.0′′; latitude 34°6′20.5′′, longitude 119°8′46.7′′; latitude 34°6′8.4′′, longitude 119°8′25.2′′; latitude 34°5′53.7′′; longitude 119°7′59.5′′; latitude 34°5′45.9′′, longitude 119°7′41.5′′; latitude 34°5′40.1′′, longitude 119°7′21.0′′; latitude 34°5′33.6′′, longitude 119°6′58.1′′; latitude 34°5′31.2′′, longitude 119°6′37.9′′; latitude 34°5′31.0′′, longitude 119°6′22.2′′; latitude 34°5′32.9′′, longitude 119°6′14.4′′; latitude; 34°5′44.7′′, longitude 119°5′54.0′′; latitude 34°5′45.2′′, longitude 119°5′43.5′′; latitude 34°5′41.0′′, longitude 119°5′21.2′′; latitude 34°5′42.2′′, longitude 119°5′13.3′′; latitude 34°5′27.8′′, longitude 119°4′49.5′′; latitude 34°5′17.9′′, longitude 119°4′27.9′′; latitude 34°5′5.7′′, longitude 119°3′59.90′′; latitude; 34°5′17.9′′, longitude 119°3′55.4′′ (down-coast shoreline point).
( b ) *The regulation.* No vessels may enter the restricted area unless permission is obtained in advance from the Commanding Officer of Naval Base Ventura County. Contact Naval Base Ventura County Security at (805) 989-7907.
( c ) *Enforcement.* The regulation in this section, promulgated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer of Naval Base Ventura County, and such agencies or persons as he/she may designate.
[69 FR 20546, Apr. 16, 2004]
Case 1:22-cv-22343-KMM   Document 117-11   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/27/2023   Page 1 of 1
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXP IRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT ROBERT EUGENE REAMES, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-1305 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) 

### ) Opinion filed July 24, 2015. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Paul Alessandroni, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. After finding that he willfully violated probation, the trial court revoked Robert Eugene Reames' probation and sentenced him to six years in prison for trafficking in stolen property in case 11-CF-1684 and to a conc urrent term of five years- 2 - in prison for burglary of a structure in case 12-CF-174. We af firm. However, despite the trial court granting Reames' motion to correct scrivener's errors, Reames' corrected orders of probation still contain the errors. Specifically, bo th orders reflect that he admitted to the violations of probation when he actually contes ted the violations. Also,

the order of revocation in cas e 12-CF-174 erroneously reflects that the trial court found him to have violated conditions one and sixteen of his probatio n, when the trial court orally found him to have violated only condition one in that ca se. Accordingly, we remand for entry of corrected written orders of revocation of p robation in cases 11-CF1684 and 12-CF-174. See Moore v. State, 100 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Reames need not be present when the corrections are made.

Affirmed and remanded for correction of the written orders of revocation of probation.

LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and CR ENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity                           ( print page 38281)                        that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                 

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 5, 2000. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Maria Villanueva, Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579: 

1. CB Bancshares, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii; to acquire Citibank Properties, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, and thereby holding and acquiring commercial and residential mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities, pursuant to Section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 15, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-15526 Filed 6-19-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7107** 
CARLOS MAYBERRY, a/k/a Bel Sable Napolean , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. J. PHILIP MORGAN, Warden , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 02215

- WDQ )

Submitted : November 20 , 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Carlos R. Mayberry, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane

Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preceden t in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Carlos Mayberry appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the di strict
court. Mayberry v. Morgan , No. 1:11

- cv - 0 2 215

- WDQ (D. Md. June 15, 2012)
. Mayberry’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials befo re the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 02-09-00397-CR

02-09-00398-CR

ADAM LEE GROS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Adam Lee Gros appeals the trial court’s judgments, which 

revoked his deferred adjudication community supervision in these assault-family 

violence cases, adjudicated him guilty, and assessed two years’ confinement 

each, to be served concurrently. Gros’s court-appointed appellate counsel has 

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. 

Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are 

no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We gave 

Gros an opportunity to file a pro se brief, and he has done so. The State 

declined to file a response.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on 

the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this 

court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 

904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may 

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–

83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Gros’s pro se 

brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without 

merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also 

Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we 

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 24, 2011
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsComputer program for post-flight analysis of rigid body moments acting on a launch vehicle first stageA FORTRAN coded computer program and method for evaluation of the rigid body disturbing moments for a launch vehicle first stage based on post-flight measurements is described. The technique is a straightforward deterministic approach. Residual moments are computed to satisfy the equations of motion. Residuals are expressed in terms of altered vehicle characteristics; the aerodynamic coefficients, thrust misalignment, and control effectiveness. This method was used on the Scout launch vehicle and uncovered several significant differences between flight data and wind tunnel data. The computer program is written in FORTRAN IV for a CDC CYBER 173 computer system.Document ID19860004449Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsKnauber, R. N.*(Vought Corp. Dallas, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1982Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:166033NASA-CR-166033Accession Number86N13918Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-15000PROJECT: RTOP 490-02-02-77Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860004449.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