alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LOG OF MEETING

DIRECTORATE FOR ENGINEERING SCIENCES

SUBJECT: ASTM Hand Held Carrier Task Group Meeting

DATE OF MEETING: April 26, 2013

PLACE OF MEETING: SGS Laboratories, Fairfield, NJ

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Patricia Edwards

COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Patricia Edwards, Vince Amodeo

NON-COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Contact ASTM for attendee list

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

The task group met to perform testing to the hand-held carrier ASTM standard, F2050-

12, section 6.1 Carry Handle Auto-locking requirement. 

Testing

 Six seats from six manufacturers carriers were tested with each of the following 

occupant surrogates

o CAMI Dummy Mark II

o Infant hinged weight gage

o Infant hinged “flex” gauge (infant hinged weight gauge modified to allow 

great travel about the hinge)

o Cylinder

Observations and Conclusions

 Consistency and repeatability of testing, by surrogate in descending order

o Infant hinged weight gage / infant hinged “flex” gauge

o Cylinder

o CAMI Dummy Mark II

 The task agreed to remove the infant hinged weight gauge / infant hinged “flex” 

gauge and the cylinder from further consideration for the following reasons

o Location of the center of gravity for each is not consistent with the CAMI 

dummy center of gravity

o Inconsistent results across carriers (cylinder)

 The task group agreed that there are other significant contributors to the 

inconsistencies observed, beyond the surrogates used in the testing

o Lift speed – current standard calls for 1 – 2 seconds; need to reduce lift 

speed by increasing lift duration to 1.5 – 2 seconds

o Incompatibility between hooks and shape of carry handle

o Positioning of the carry handle in the unlocked position

o Positioning of the surrogate in the carrier

Next Steps

 Manufacturers of carriers intended for use in motor vehicles will perform testing 

per the current standard using the 12 month-old Crabi ATD

 Manufacturers and labs will test products with webbing straps in place of the 

metal hooks to better accommodate the various carry handle shapes
 Manufacturers and labs will test products where instead of lifting the unit, the 

supporting surface will be lowered from the carrier allowing it to be suspended in 

the hooks and webbing straps

 In all testing, lifting or removing the support surface, either action should be 

performed over 1.5 – 2.0 seconds

 Don Huber to derive changes the test method, adding words to that provide more 

precise instructions for test set-up and performance, especially for positioning 

handle in the unlocked position

The testing described in Next Steps will be completed by May 10, and results forwarded 

to Don Huber, who consolidate the data and distribute to the task group.
#### In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Appellant, to Acquire Certain Real Estate in the Town of Hempstead for Purposes of Water Supply. William DeC. White et al., Respondents.

(Submitted February 8, 1909;

decided February 16, 1909.)

Motion to amend remittitur denied, without costs. (See 192 N. Y. 569.)
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION { CONVENED JANUARY 7, 2003

SECOND SESSION {

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Thursday, February 13, 2003

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

By Michelle Haynes, Executive Clerk

Issue No. 15
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT

Ordered, That at 11:00 a.m., on Tuesday, February 13, 2003, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume

consideration of the nomination of Miguel A. Estrada, of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District

of Columbia Circuit. (Cal. No. 21)

(February 12, 2003)
CALENDAR

NO.

EX.RES

NO. SUBJECT

REPORTED

BY

RESOLUTIONS

1
CALENDAR

NO.

TREATY

DOC. NO. SUBJECT

REPORTED

BY

TREATIES

2
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

REVIEW COMMISSION

* 17 81 Stanley C. Suboleski, of Virginia, to be a Member

of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review

Commission for a term of six years expiring

August 30, 2006, vice Marc Lincoln Marks,

term expired.

Jan 23, 2003 Reported by Mr.

Gregg, Committee on Health,

Education, Labor, and Pensions,

without printed report.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

REVIEW COMMISSION

* 18 82 W. Scott Railton, of Virginia, to be a Member of

the Occupational Safety and Health Review

Commission for a term expiring April 27, 2007,

vice Gary L. Visscher, term expired.

Jan 23, 2003 Reported by Mr.

Gregg, Committee on Health,

Education, Labor, and Pensions,

without printed report.

THE JUDICIARY

21 6 Miguel A. Estrada, of Virginia, to be United

States Circuit Judge for the District of

Columbia Circuit, vice Patricia M. Wald,

retired.

Jan 30, 2003 Reported by Mr.

Hatch, Committee on the

Judiciary, without printed report.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

* 31 265 William H. Donaldson, of New York, to be a

Member of the Securities and Exchange

Commission for the remainder of the term

expiring June 5, 2007, vice Harvey Pitt,

resigned.

Feb 11, 2003 Reported by Mr.

Shelby, Committee on Banking,

Housing, and Urban Affairs,

without printed report.

* Signifies nominee’s commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate

NOMINATIONS

CALENDAR

NO.

MESSAGE

NO. NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR

REPORTED

BY

3
FOREIGN SERVICE

PN199 Foreign Service nominations (157) beginning Russell J. Nicely, and ending George Adams Moore, Jr.,

which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 15, 2003

PN200 Foreign Service nominations (243) beginning Nicholas R. Kuchova, and ending Richard W. Johnston,

which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 15, 2003

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY’S DESK

4
SENATE OF THE UNITED ST ATES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

Convened January 5, 1993 

FIRST SESSION { 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Wednesday, April 21, 1993 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WALTER J. STEWART, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett, Executive Clerk 
Treaty I 

Doc. No. 

1 

TREATIES 

SUbJCCt Reported 

BY 
2 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Me.mge Nominee, Office, And Pred~r Reported 

• 

• 

No. No. Bv 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

61 102 Timothy E. Wirth, of Colorado, to be Apr l, 93 Mr. Pell, 

Counselor of the Department of State. vice Committee on Foreign 

Robert B. Z.oellick, resigned. Relations, without printed 

report 

62 126 Winston Lord, of New York, to be an Do. 

~istant Secretary of State, vice William 

Clark. Jr. resiirned. 

•Signifies nom1nee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of the Senate.
§ 9.103 What standards must be met to approve my operations permit? ( a ) The Regional Director will approve your operations permit if the NPS has determined that your operations: ( 1 ) Will not violate the laws governing administration of units of the National Park System; and
( 2 ) Will meet all applicable operating standards.
( b ) Before approval of your operations permit, you must submit to the Superintendent: ( 1 ) Financial assurance in the amount specified by the Regional Director and in accordance with the requirements of §§ 9.140 through 9.144;
( 2 ) Proof of liability insurance with limits sufficient to cover injuries to persons or property caused by your operations; and
( 3 ) An affidavit stating that the operations planned are in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAIME CISNEROS-GARCIA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, 

District Judge. (3:08-cv-00618-RLV; 3:03-cr-00096-RLV-1)

Submitted: December 22, 2010 Decided: January 10, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jaime Cisneros-Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Savage, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Kenneth Michel Smith, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jaime Cisneros-Garcia seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Cisneros-Garcia has not made the requisite 

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, 

deny the motions for stay of deportation pending appeal and to 

expedite decision, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NO. 07-07 -019 9-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU NE 7, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ KEN DR IC K J ER MA IN E F ULTON , 199 5 C HE VR OLET BLAZER VIN: 1GNDT 13W 1S2 180 389 TE XAS TAG : 5GN S11 , APPE LLA NT V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 32 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; TH NO . 94, 782- D; H ON ORABLE DO N EM ER SON , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellant , Ken drick Jerma ine Fulton, filed a not ice of app eal on May15, 20 07. He did no t pay the f iling fee required un der Rule 5 of the T exas Rule s o f

A ppe llate Proce dure or fil e an aff ida v itof ind ig ence in co n f o rm it y with Rul e 20. 1. Nor di d he file a doc ket ing s t a t e m e n t a s re qu ir e d b y Ru le 3 2
. 1
. By l e t t e r f ro m t h is Co u rtd a t e d Ma y 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , we adv is ed appe ll ant t he “ fili ng fee in the amount o f $125.00 h as not been paid. Fail ure to pay the f iling fee w ithin ten (10) days f rom the date of this not ice ma y result i n dism issal.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 42. 3(c) . T h e l e t t er also directe d him fo f ile a docke ting w ithin te n (10) days.2

App ellanthas no t f iled a docke ting state me nt, p aid th e fee a s directed or filed an af f idavit of indi g ence. Ac cordin g ly , w e di smi ss the appeal
. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3 (c).
Mackey K. Hancock Justice
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARCUS THORNTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:01-cr-00235-RBS)(2:05-cv-00281-RBS) Submitted: February 15, 2007 De cided: February 22, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus Thornton, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Marcus Thornton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thornton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Thornton’s motion to authorize preparation of transcript at government expense. 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.

DISMISSED
§ 148.310 Eligibility requirements for a grant. A State must meet all of the following requirements to be eligible for a grant: ( a ) The State has a qualified high risk pool as defined in § 148.308.
( b ) The pool restricts premiums charged under the pool to no more than 200 percent of the premium for applicable standard risk rates for the State.
( c ) The pool offers a choice of two or more coverage options through the pool.
( d ) The pool has in effect a mechanism reasonably designed to ensure continued funding of losses incurred by the State after the end of each fiscal year for which the State applies for Federal Funding in fiscal year (FY) 2005 through FY 2010 in connection with the operation of the pool.
( e ) The pool has incurred a loss in a period described in § 148.314.
( f ) In the case of a qualified high risk pool in a State that charges premiums that exceed 150 percent of the premium for applicable standard risks, the State will use at least 50 percent of the amount of the grant provided to the State to reduce premiums for enrollees.
( g ) In no case will the aggregate amount allotted and made available to the U.S. Territories for a fiscal year exceed $1,000,000 in total.
( h ) Bonus grant funding must be used for one or more of the following benefits: ( 1 ) Low income premium subsidies;
( 2 ) Reduction in premium trends, actual premium or other cost-sharing requirements;
( 3 ) An expansion or broadening of the pool of individuals eligible for coverage, such as through eliminating waiting lists, increasing enrollment caps, or providing flexibility in enrollment rules;
( 4 ) Less stringent rules or additional waiver authority with respect to coverage of pre-existing conditions;
( 5 ) Increased benefits; and
( 6 ) The establishment of disease management programs.
[68 FR 23414, May 2, 2003, as amended at 72 FR 41236, July 27, 2007; 73 FR 22285, Apr. 25, 2008]
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 985 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure campus access 

at public institutions of higher education for religious groups. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2023 

Mr. LANKFORD (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. SCOTT of 

Florida, Mr. RISCH, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. HYDESMITH, Ms. ERNST, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. TILLIS, Mrs. 

FISCHER, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. COTTON, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure 

campus access at public institutions of higher education 

for religious groups. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Equal Campus Access 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 985 IS

1 SEC. 2. CAMPUS ACCESS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS. 

2 Part B of title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

3 (20 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

4 the following: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 124. CAMPUS ACCESS FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS. 

6 ‘‘None of the funds made available under this Act 

7 may be provided to any public institution of higher edu8 cation that denies to a religious student organization any 

9 right, benefit, or privilege that is otherwise afforded to 

10 other student organizations at the institution (including 

11 full access to the facilities of the institution and official 

12 recognition of the organization by the institution) because 

13 of the religious beliefs, practices, speech, leadership stand14 ards, or standards of conduct of the religious student or15 ganization.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### § 1355.37 Opportunity for public inspection of review reports and materials.

The title IV-E agency must make available for public review and inspection all statewide or Tribal assessments (§ 1355.33(b)), report of findings (§ 1355.33(e)), and program improvement plans (§ 1355.35(a)) developed as a result of a full or partial child and family services review.

[77 FR 931, Jan. 6, 2012]
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.25

                               THIRD AMENDMENT TO
                      AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT

This Third Amendment ("Amendment") amends that certain Credit Agreement
("Agreement") by and between IMPERIAL BANK ("Bank") and OBAGI MEDICAL PRODUCTS,
INC. ("Borrower") dated as of March 22, 2000, as follows:


1.   Section 4.07 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

          "4.07 COVERAGE RATIO. Maintain on a quarterly basis a Coverage Ratio
          of not less than 1.25 to 1.00 beginning with the period ending
          December 31, 2000, and 1.50 to 1.00 beginning with the period ending
          March 31, 2001, and continuing thereafter, all as measured on a
          rolling four quarter basis, wherein the numerator shall be net income
          plus depreciation, amortization, and non-cash expense resulting from
          the issuance of stock options; and the denominator shall be the sum of
          the current maturities of all long-term debt (including subordinated
          debt), with the exception of the ABL, preferred stock or preferred
          stock dividends; all as computed and determined in accordance with
          generally accepted accounting principles on a basis consistently
          maintained by Borrower."

2.   Section 4.09 is restated in its entirety to read as follows:

          "4.09 BASE BUSINESS REVENUE. Maintain Base Business Revenue of at
          least $5,500,000 for each of the fiscal quarters ending March 31,
          2000, and June 30, 2000; $6,000,000 for the fiscal quarter ending
          September 30, 2000, and $7,000,000 for the fiscal quarter ending
          December 31, 2000, and for each fiscal quarter thereafter. "Base
          Business Revenue" is defined as the ongoing revenue derived from the
          sale of product lines as such products were offered for sale by
          Borrower as of December 31, 1999, including acne products."

3.   A $1,000 amendment fee is due upon the execution hereof, payment of which
     will be made by Bank's debit to Borrower's primary demand deposit account
     with Bank.

4.   This Amendment is dated as of December 31, 2000, and the parties hereby
     confirm that the Agreement as amended is in full force and effect upon
     execution hereof and upon Bank's receipt of payment as required herein.


IMPERIAL BANK                                  OBAGI MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.
("BANK")                                       ("BORROWER")


By:  ___________________________________       By:  ____________________________
    Clinton E. Anderson, Vice President



                                               By:  ____________________________
#### § 1233.4 [Reserved]
§ 1324.408 State plans. ( a ) State entities must develop and submit to the Director of the Office of Elder Justice and Adult Protective Services, the position designated by 42 U.S.C. 3011(e)(1), a State APS plan that meets the requirements set forth by the Assistant Secretary for Aging.
( b ) The State plan shall be developed by the State entity receiving the Federal award under 42 U.S.C 1397m-1 in collaboration with APS programs and other State APS entities, if applicable.
( c ) The State plan shall be updated at least every 5 years but may be updated more frequently as determined by the State entity.
( d ) The State plan shall contain an assurance that all policies and procedures required herein will be developed and adhered to by the State APS system.
( e ) State plans will be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Office of Elder Justice and Adult Protective Services. Any State dissatisfied with the final decision of the Director of the Office of Elder Justice and Adult Protective Services may appeal to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aging not later than 30 calendar days after the date of the Director of the Office of Elder Justice and Adult Protective Services' final decision and will be afforded the opportunity for a hearing before the Deputy Assistant Secretary. If the State is dissatisfied with the final decision of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aging, it may appeal to the Assistant Secretary for Aging not later than 30 calendar days after the date of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aging's decision.
#### Edward Dinkelspiel, Respondent, *v.*New York Evening Journal Publishing Company, Appellant.

*Dinkelspiel*v. *N. 7. Evening Journal Pub. Go.,*122 App. Div. 889, affirmed.

(Argued January 28, 1909;

decided February 9, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 13, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a now trial in an action for libel.

*Clarence J. Shearn*for appellant.

*B. F. Einstein*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
#### Halstead v. Halstead *et al.*

*Gosts—on appeal—between defendants in partition suit.*

In an action for partition, one of the defendants appealed from an order therein to the general term, where the order was affirmed, and to the court of appeals, where the appeal was dismissed. One of the other defendants was an infant, who appeared by a guardian and put in a general answer. -The infant’s interests were identical with those of the plaintiff, and the guardian was represented during the whole litigation by the same counsel as the plaintiff. *Held,*that the guardian was not entitled to costs as against the appealing defendant, upon the appeal to the court of appeals, in the absence of an explicit direction of that court granting him costs.

Appeal from an order of the special term, denying an application by the guardian of an ihfant defendant for costs upon an appeal made by his co-defendant.

*674Barnard, P. J.

The substance of the opinion, and the only point passed upon therein, are given in the head-note.'

*Order affirmed.*