alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsModal analysis of UH-60A instrumented rotor bladesThe dynamic characteristics of instrumented and production UH-60A Black Hawk main rotor blades were measured, and the results were validated with NASTRAN finite element models. The blades tested included pressure and strain-gage instrumented blades, which are part of the NASA Airloads Flight Research Phase of the Modern Technology Rotor Program. The dynamic similarity of the blades was required for accurate data collection in this program. Therefore, a nonrotating blade modal analysis was performed on the first 10 free-free modes to measure blade similarities. The results showed small differences between the modal frequencies of instrumented and production blades and a close correlation with the NASTRAN models. This type of modal testing and analysis is recommended as a standard procedure for future instrumented blade flight testing.Document ID19910009739Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHamade, Karen S.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Kufeld, Robert M.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1990Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:4239A-90252NASA-TM-4239Accession Number91N19052Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-61-51Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910009739.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
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States governmentSkip to main content
end of header


Census.gov
                                    >                                
                                Business and Economy    >Retail - Monthly    >FAQs    >Advance Monthly Retail FAQs    >Sample Revision FAQs
 Skip to looking for section Main	About	Information for Respondents	Data	Time Series/Trend Charts	Technical Documentation	Release Schedule	Definitions	FAQs	Contact Us Back to Our Surveys & Programs
 Main	About	Information for Respondents	Data	Time Series/Trend Charts	Technical Documentation	Release Schedule	Definitions	FAQs	Contact Us
                                Back to Our Surveys & Programs
  Advance Monthly Retail Trade Survey - Sample Revision FAQs  What is a sample revision and why is it necessary?  ensure each sample is representative of its target population
	improve the efficiency of each sample
	incorporate updates to the industry classification structure
	expand industry coverage of the survey
	update questions and instructions to obtain more accurate data
	redistribute burden for small and medium size businesses How often is a sample revision performed for the Advance Monthly Retail Trade Survey?   When were estimates from the new Advance Monthly Retail Trade Survey sample released?   What is the size of the Advance Monthly Retail Trade Survey sample?   Are the estimates from different Advance Monthly Retail Trade Survey samples comparable?   What was the impact of adopting the 2012 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) definitions for the Advance Monthly Retail Trade Survey? summary of NAICS restatement and publication table changes


CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### Dennis Buckley, Jr., Appellant, v. The Gutta Percha and Rubber Manufacturing Company, Respondent.

—Judgment reversed and new

trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Dykman, J., dissenting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000707604
<NAME> BRITTON AND KOONTZ FIRST NATIONAL BANK
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         3603225
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       112776691
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                600000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    3989647
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        40036697
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          40236629
<LOANS>                                       99565453
<ALLOWANCE>                                     686736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               154839798
<DEPOSITS>                                   129070142
<SHORT-TERM>                                   2481119
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            5948730
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       4417660
<OTHER-SE>                                    12922147
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               154839798
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                4303132
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1603300
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               5906432
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2463729
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2549616
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          3356816
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    80000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                2187860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1875526
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1249435
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1249435
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       71
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     808
<LOANS-NON>                                      28041
<LOANS-PAST>                                    391645
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                622975
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    32126
<RECOVERIES>                                     15887
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               686736
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsInfluence of interfacial shear strength on the mechanical properties of SiC fiber reinforced reaction-bonded silicon nitride matrix compositesThe influence of fiber/matrix interface microstructure and interfacial shear strength on the mechanical properties of a fiber-reinforced ceramic composite was evaluated. The composite consisted of approximately 30 vol percent uniaxially aligned 142 microns diameter SiC fibers (Textron SCS-6) in a reaction-bonded Si3N4 matrix (SiC/RBSN). The interface microstructure was varied by controlling the composite fabrication conditions and by heat treating the composite in an oxidizing environment. Interfacial shear strength was determined by the matrix crack spacing method. The results of microstructural examination indicate that the carbon-rich coating provided with the as-produced SiC fibers was stable in composites fabricated at 1200 C in a nitrogen or in a nitrogen plus 4 percent hydrogen mixture for 40 hr. However this coating degraded in composites fabricated at 1350 C in N2 + 4 percent H2 for 40 and 72 hr and also in composites heat treated in an oxidizing environment at 600 C for 100 hr after fabrication at 1200 C in a nitrogen. It was determined that degradation occurred by carbon removal which in turn had a strong influence on interfacial shear strength and other mechanical properties. Specifically, as the carbon coating was removed, the composite interfacial shear strength, primary elastic modulus, first matrix cracking stress, and ultimate tensile strength decreased, but the first matrix cracking strain remained nearly the same.Document ID19900015066Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsBhatt, Ramakrishna T.*(Army Aviation Systems Command Cleveland, OH., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:102462NASA-TM-102462AVSCOM-TR-90-C-003E-5250AD-A224968Meeting InformationMeeting: Advanced Metal and Ceramic Material Composites SymposiumLocation: Anaheim, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: February 23, 1990End Date: February 27, 1990Sponsors:Metallurgical SocietyAccession Number90N24382Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 510-01-0ADistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900015066.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
SERVED: March 31, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0287 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") filed a 

Complaint dated May 14, 2013. Alaska Airlines. (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") filed an 

Answer dated June 13, 2013. Counsel for the Complainant has notified the court that the matter has 

been settled and a hearing is no longer necessary. 

WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

TEL: 202-385-8229 

FAX: 202-493-5142 

ONE COPY 

Joanna L. Simon, Respondent's Counsel 

Morrison & Foerster, LLP 

12531 High Bluff Drive 

San Diego, CA 92130-2040 

TEL: 858-720-5100 

FAX: 858-720-5125 

Email: JoannaSimon@mofo.com 

Bradley Tilde, President 

Alaska Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

P.O. Box 68900 

Seattle, Washington 96168 

Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel 

FAA Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

E-MAIL: robert.spitzer@faa.gov 

FDMS No. F AA-2013-0287 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
#### DeSteiger v. The Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company, *Appellant.*

Interest in Action of Damages: negligence. Interest is not recoverable in an action for the loss of property, destroyed through negligence.

*Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court.*— Hon. Geo. *W.*Dunn, J udge.

Reversed.

*Geo. W. Hasley*for appellant.

*S. H. Corn*for respondent.

Housh, J.

This was an action to recover damages for the destruction of a large quantity of hay by fire, which, it was alleged, escaped from one of the defendant’s locomotives, through the negligence of the servants of the ■defendant in charge thereof. Among other instructions given by the court, was the following: “If the jury find for the plaintiff, they will assess his damage at the value of the hay at the time it was destroyed, with interest thereon at six per cent from that time to the present.” Interest is not allowable in cases of this character. *Kenney v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co.,*63 Mo. 99; *Marshall v. Shricker,*63 Mo. 309; *Atkinson v. Atlantic & Pacific R. R. Co.,*63 Mo. 367; *Meyer v. A. & P. R. R. Co.,*64 Mo. 543. The judgment will, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded.

The other judges concur.
#### § 38.1 Purpose.

This part provides minimum guidelines and requirements for accessibility standards in part 37 of this title for transportation vehicles required to be accessible by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.*).
1210-AB32-2-1301.html[7/26/2015 1:18:12 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvv-2gyn

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1796

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I have made plans and provisions for my retirement with the help of my financial advisor, and I absolutely do not

 need nor will I allow the intervention of the DOL into my private plans and investments-funds!
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1201.html[7/22/2015 3:36:16 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-4fz1

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1201

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: William Laurence

General Comment

I can plan my own retirement. The government can't even balance the budget and you don't need to mess with

 my retirement.

I know much better than you what my needs are and that does not include you in my personal business.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51838-51839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4435]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. 
(Formerly AAF Association, Inc.)

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 22, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), AAF Association, Inc. has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing that it has changed its name and 
made changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    AAF Association, Inc. has changed its name to: Advanced Media 
Workflow

[[Page 51839]]

Association, Inc. In addition, Arbitron, Inc., Columbia, MD; Closed 
Captioning Service, Inc., Burbank, CA; Convergent Media Labs, Marina 
del Ray, CA; DG FastChannel, Irving, TX; Digital Laundry, New York, NY; 
Digital Vision, London, United Kingdom; eBus Limited, Auckland, New 
Zealand; Filmlight, Harbord, New South Wales, Australia; Harris 
Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO; National TeleConsultants, Glendale, 
CA; Protability4Media, Achnasheen, United Kingdom; Pro-Bel, Reading, 
United Kingdom; SGI Japan, Tokyo, Japan; and TMD Ltd., Aylesbury, 
United Kingdom have been added as parties to this venture. Also, 
CANVASs Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; i-Yuno Global, Seoul, Republic of 
Korea; and Visible World, New York, NY have withdrawn as parties to 
this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, 
Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all 
changes in membership.
    On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed 
its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 21, 
2007. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on May 7, 2007 (72 FR 25780).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-4435 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
1210-AB32-2-1122.html[7/24/2015 6:15:53 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvq-na91

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1616

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Haley Paty

Organization: Freedom Works

General Comment

The government does not have the power to tell its citizens how or when they can spend their money. This is a

 huge over reach of government power and it needs to be stopped. As a citizen of the United States, I will not

 stand to let President Obama try to control my hard earned money. I urge you to speak up and to stand up for all

 of the hard working people. Don't let the government expand its power like that.
Correction for the Record: Sgt. Bergdahl Recovery Efforts
 By By U.S. Central Command Public Affairs
  **TAMPA, Fla. –** An Associated Press article posted April 24, 2014, included comments by an anonymous U.S. defense official alleging that when Secretary of Defense Hagel's office and U.S. Central Command separately learned about a proof of life video of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in December 2013, there was confusion about who should tell the family. Additionally, this official also alleges in the article that USCENTCOM was "angered" because the Secretary's office ended up informing the family and that neither office was communicating with the other about the video notification. Both allegations are completely false and mischaracterize the ongoing close coordination and teamwork between U.S. Central Command, the Department of Defense and other U.S. government agencies. Sgt. Bergdahl has been gone far too long and there should be no doubt that we work hard every day using all the military, intelligence and diplomatic tools at our disposal to see Sgt. Bergdahl returned home safely. It is also important to underscore that the reason Sgt. Bergdahl remains a captive is because he is being held by a terrorist organization, not because of a lack of effort or coordination by the U.S. government, as National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden makes clear in the AP's article.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3575

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kelvin Maximillion Stanford

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

 Submitted: March 7, 2013

Filed: April 5, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kelvin Stanford appeals after he pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses and

the district court1

 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. Stanford’s counsel has

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.
moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), arguing that the district court committed an error in calculating Stanford’s

Guidelines range, imposed an unreasonable sentence, and plainly erred in imposing

a special condition of supervised release.

First, we conclude that there is no merit to counsel’s argument challenging the

district court’s Guidelines calculations. See United States v. Swanson, 610 F.3d 1005,

1007-08 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court’s Guidelines applications are reviewed de novo

and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error; application of firearm

enhancement requires district court to make finding that gun facilitated or had

potential to facilitate drug possession; facilitation requirement “may be met when a

defendant concurrently possesses drugs and a firearm while in public, like in a car”). 

Second, we find no basis for concluding that the district court abused its discretion by

imposing an unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)

(discussing appellate court review of sentencing decision under abuse-of-discretion

standard; noting that appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness to

within-Guidelines-range sentence). Third, we conclude that the district court did not

plainly err in imposing an alcohol ban as a special condition of Stanford’s supervised

release. See United States v. Roberts, 687 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (8th Cir. 2012)

(upholding alcohol ban for daily, heavy user of marijuana, because alcohol use limits

recovering person’s ability to maintain drug-free lifestyle). Finally, having reviewed

the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no

non-frivolous issues. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

-2-