alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 586.7 Processing of registrations. Upon receipt of a registration submitted on vPIC, NHTSA will automatically notify the registrant by email within 90 days of the receipt whether the registration is approved, denied, or incomplete. This notification will be sent to the email address provided in the manufacturer's original submission. If an application is approved, the registrant's name will automatically be added to the list of approved registrants on NHTSA's website. NHTSA will deny a registration if: ( a ) NHTSA determines that the registrant does not meet the requirements of this part 586;
( b ) The registration is incomplete, and the registrant has failed to provide the missing information within 60 days after being notified by NHTSA pursuant to 586.8; or,
( c ) The registration relies on the same facts and circumstances as a previously denied registration.
March 31: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq
 By CJTF - Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
  March 31, 2015 Release # 2015031
	FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **SOUTHWEST ASIA –** On March 30, Coalition military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria, using bomber aircraft to conduct an airstrike. Separately in Iraq, Coalition military forces conducted seven airstrikes approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, using attack, fighter and bomber aircraft against ISIL terrorists. “The strategy has not changed,” said Col. Wayne Marotto, Combined Joint Task Force Public Affairs Officer. “The focus remains to drive ISIL out of Iraq. We have struck at ISIL’s command and control, supply lines, fighters and leaders, and military and economic infrastructure and resources. We have debilitated ISIL’s oil producing, processing and transportation infrastructure. We are seeing successes in this fight. It will take time, but we will succeed in our mission.” All strikes took place between 8 a.m., March 30, and 8 a.m., March 31, local time. The following is a summary of the strikes conducted since the last press release: **Syria** Near Kobani, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.  Iraq Near Bayji, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed three ISIL fighting positions. Near Mosul, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, one ISIL checkpoint and destroyed 31 ISIL vehicles and two ISIL anti-aircraft artillery weapons. Near Ramadi, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL buildings. Near Sinjar, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroyed an ISIL building and suppressed ISIL movement. Near Tikrit, an airstrike struck multiple ISIL buildings.  The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations. Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in Iraq include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Netherlands, United Kingdom and U.S. Coalition nations which have conducted airstrikes in Syria include Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and U.S.
EXHIBIT 10.48 BRIGHAM EXPLORATION COMPANY
1997 INCENTIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
TO
OPTION AGREEMENTS This Amendment to Option Agreements (the
“Amendment”) is made effective as of April 22, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), by Brigham
Exploration Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Company and the Optionee have entered into
Option Agreements pursuant to the terms of the Brigham Exploration Company 1997 Incentive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Option Agreements with respect to those
options listed on Exhibit A attached hereto are set to terminate on the Expiration Dates shown on Exhibit A
(the “Expiring Agreements”); and WHEREAS, the exercise price of each of the options
underlying the Expiring Agreements is greater than the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock as of the Effective Date
of this Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend the Expiring
Agreements to extend the Expiration Date for one year; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the
Company does hereby amend the Expiring Agreements as follows: 1. The Expiration Date for each Expiring Agreement is
hereby extended until the first anniversary of such Expiration Date. 2. Except as otherwise specifically set forth herein,
all other terms and conditions of the Expiring Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment
to be executed effective as of the 22nd day of April, 2009. BRIGHAM EXPLORATION COMPANY By:

Ben.
M. Brigham, President & CEO ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO BY:  Dated:  1




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A Type                              
Date of Grant                              
# of Shares                              
Exercise Price                              
Expiration Date  2
4

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0024

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KOBY MARTELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Self-represented Appellant Koby Martell moves this Court, pursuant to M. R. Civ.

P. 45, for a subpoena of his former counsel's disciplinary hearing transcript. Martell states

that "the Nranscripts from the Discipl i nary Council [a]re very Relevant to Show this High

Court that [his counsel's] Perforrnance Fell well below the Standards Required by the Sixth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution[dMartell is appealing a November 23, 2020 Order on Defendant's Post-Conviction

Filings, issued in the Seventh Judicial District Court, Prairie County.

Martell's motion is not well taken. The Montana Rules of Civil Procedure do not

apply to this Court. M. R. Civ. P. 1. As an appellate court, this Court reviews the record,

comprising the original papers and exhibits filed in the District Court. M. R. App. P. 8(1).

We review the statement of issues, facts, and arguments as presented in the filed briefs. M.

R. App. P. 9. We do not subpoena records or materials outside of a district court

proceeding. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Martell's Motion for Subpoena is DENIED.

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel

of record and to Koby Martell along with a copy of this Court's Civil Appellate Handbook.

DATED this day of March, 2021.

For the Court.

FILED

ton fi 9 1r191 Chief Justice

03/02/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0024
[No. 1210.]

#### Thomas v. Thomas.

Pbactice — Appeal—Pinal Judgment.

Neither an order overruling a demurrer, nor one setting aside a decree of divorce is such final order or judgment as can be reviewed on appeal.

, *Error to the District Court of Arapahoe County.*

Mr. E. W. Norltn, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. W. E. Richards, for defendant in error.

Wilson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Clara L. Thomas, plaintiff in error, instituted suit in the district court for a divorce from defendant. Personal service of process was had, but defendant failed to answer or make any appearance, and on February 7, 1895, a decree of divorce was granted.

On the 25, day of April, following, defendant filed a peti*171tion to vacate and set "aside the decree. On June 28, following, by permission of the court and consent of counsel, an amended petition was filed. To this, plaintiff interposed a demurrer, on the ground that it did not “state a cause of action against the plaintiff nor state’sufficient facts to entitle the defendant to a rehearing or a new trial of the above entitled cause, if true.” The 'demurrer was overruled by the court and thereupon, as it appears from the record, plaintiff elected to “ abide by her demurrer.” It was then ordered by the court that the decree be set aside.

The plaintiff brings the case here by writ of error and seeks to have this court review the order of the district court overruling the demurrer and setting aside the decree.

Plaintiff saved no exception to the order setting aside the decree, and no bill of exceptions has been filed in this court. It is decisive of the case, however, and sufficient for us to say, that neither the order, overruling the demurrer nor that setting aside the decree is such a final order, judgment or decree as can be reviewed by this court either on appeal or under writ of error. *Hagerman v.*Moore, 2 Colo. App. 83; *Higgins v. Brown,*6 Colo. 148.

The writ, of error will be dismissed.

*Dismissed.*
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA life prediction model for laminated composite structural componentsA life prediction methodology for laminated continuous fiber composites subjected to fatigue loading conditions was developed. A summary is presented of research completed. A phenomenological damage evolution law was formulated for matrix cracking which is independent of stacking sequence. Mechanistic and physical support was developed for the phenomenological evolution law proposed above. The damage evolution law proposed above was implemented to a finite element computer program. And preliminary predictions were obtained for a structural component undergoing fatigue loading induced damage.Document ID19900013298Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsAllen, David H.*(Texas A&M Univ. College Station, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1990Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:186587NASA-CR-186587Accession Number90N22614Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-979Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900013298.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
Swanson, Brian (OST) C)OT'O^T^ i^^Lp• IT H 

From: Manistee Airport [manisteeairport@gmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:28 PM ; -: 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST) : 

Cc: Swanson, Brian (OST); Duane DuRay; Paul Kahalley; Jim Gallagher 

Subject: EAS at MBL 

DenniSj 

I wanted to confirm with you that I as well as the Manistee County Blacker AirportjAuthority 

Board are aware that Charter Air Transport does not currently have any interline Agreements 

with other air carriers. This information was made available to the board members for their 

consideration during their discussion around EAS bids for service to MBL. Even with 

knowledge of this limitation the board felt that the bid from Charter Air Transport was in 

the best interest of the airport and community. 

Of the four top carriers at our hub Milwaukee (Frontier/Midwest, AirTran, Delta, Southwest), 

Great Lakes Aviation only has an interline agreement with Frontier/Midwest. If a passenger 

is connecting on to AirTran, Delta or Southwest today, they need to collect their baggage and 

check in with the connecting airline. 

Therefore while Charter Air Transport may be starting with no agreements in place it is not 

much different than our current situation with the established EAS carrier Great Lakes. In 

fact, I am encouraged by the fact that Charter Air Transport intends to work with the Low 

Cost Carriers (LCCs) (AirTran, Southwest) in non-traditional ways to facilitate the transfer 

of baggage. This is a level of effort that Great Lakes would never have attempted. 

Having said this, I do fully expect that Charter Air Transport will work with carriers to 

establish traditional interline agreements for baggage handling, starting with Frontier and 

then working on the other carriers serving Milwaukee. But I also realize that sometimes 

these agreements can take a significant amount of time to work out and it therefore may be a 

while before the benefits are available for our passengers. 

Given the situation at MKE where there is no single dominant carrier, but rather a very 

competitive market with multiple LCCs (AirTran, Southwest, Frontier) as well as the legacy 

carriers, I would prefer Charter Air Transport to partially support interlines with as many 

carriers as possible, even if those 'interlines' are non-traditional, than to have only a 

very tight interline/code share with a single carrier. The competition at MKE is keeping 

airfares low. It is very desirable for our passengers to be able to easily tap into those 

low connecting fares, even if those fares are on an LCC like Southwest or AirTran that does 

not typically interline in the traditional sense. 

sincerely, 

Barry Lind 

Airport Manager 

Manistee County Blacker Airport 

231-723-4351
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Anti-trafficking news bulletin[electronic resource].**
 
SuDoc Number:J 1.3/3:
Item Number:0717-A-39 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000588335
 
Volume01: 01020304/05060708/091011/12
Volume02: 0102
Volume03: 010203
 
February 24, 2020
Jordanian, U.S. Marine Corps senior NCOs meet during Eager Lion
 By Sgt. Rachael K. A. Moore , Marine Corps Forces Central Command
  Senior staff noncommissioned officers from U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command (Forward) and senior noncommissioned officers from the Royal Jordanian Armed Forces take a tour of Royal Jordanian Naval Base, Aqaba, Jordan, June 12 during Exercise Eager Lion 2013.
 AQABA, Jordan – Senior staff noncommissioned officers from U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command (Forward) and senior noncommissioned officers from the Royal Jordanian Armed Forces take a tour of Royal Jordanian Naval Base, Aqaba, Jordan, June 12 during Exercise Eager Lion 2013. Exercise Eager Lion is a recurring annual exercise designed to strengthen tactical proficiency in critical mission areas, support long-term relationships, and enhance regional security and stability by responding to modern-day security scenarios. (Photo by Sgt. Rachael Moore)
#### Yeager *v.*Winton Motor Carriage Company.

*Negligence*— Automobile—Injury *in collision*— Measure *of damages.*

In an action to recover damages for injuries to an automobile caused by a collision with another automobile owned by the defendant, the measure of damages is the difference between the fair market value of the automobile before the accident and its fair market value after-wards.

*507Argued Dec. 10, 1914.

Appeal, No. 223, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., June T., 1909, No. 5,65.2, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Andrew J. Yeager, etc., trading as Lewistown Garage, v. Winton Motor Carriage Company.

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, PIead, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass for injuries'to an automobile received in a collision with defendant’s machine. Before Staples, P. J.

At the trial the case turned on the measure of damages.

On this subject the court charged as follows:

In addition to this you may consider the question of whether or not the market value of the Mitchell automobile owned by the plaintiffs was lessened by the damages done to it, notwithstanding it was repaired. You have heard testimony in that respect. Both plaintiffs testify that the market value before the accident was, or what they paid for it was, one said $1,200 and the other said $1,250. It seems that the plaintiffs do not contend for its market value, but only what they paid for it. Its market value, it was testified, was $1,500. They further testify that its market value after the repairs was $750. That would make a difference between the two market values of $450 or $500, as you should find.

Verdict for plaintiff for $732.07, on which judgment was entered for $500, all above that sum having been remitted.

*Error assigned*was portion of charge as above, quoting it.

*G. D. Bartlett,*for appellant.

*Howard Schell Baker*and *Franklin Spencer Edmonds,*for appellees.

*508April 19, 1915:

Opinion by

Orlady, J*.,*

The question involved in this case was substantially disposed of in Price v. Newell, 53 Pa. Superior Ct. 628, and in following it, the same trial judge fairly and adequately submitted to the jury the disputed facts in regard to the depreciation in value of the plaintiffs’ automobile resulting from the defendant’s negligence in causing the collision. The verdict as rendered might well have stood, but the trial judge in the exercise of his discretion, directed that a new trial be granted unless the plaintiffs remitted all in excess of $500, which was done, and we are not disposed to disturb it. The plaintiff was clearly entitled to damages in some amount, and after a fair trial we discover no reversible error in this record.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 11


                                  Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        Three Months Ended                 Nine Months Ended
                                                           September 30                      September 30
                                                 ---------------------------        --------------------------
                                                      1996           1995                1996          1995
                                                 -----------     -----------        -----------    -----------
<S>                                              <C>             <C>                <C>            <C>
Primary:
     Average shares outstanding:                     441,072         440,083            441,072        439,570
          Net effect of the assumed
          exercise of stock options -
          based on the treasury stock
          method using average stock price             1,512           2,259              1,882          2,265

               Total                                 442,584         442,342            442,954        441,835

Net income                                       $   322,300     $   571,248        $ 1,374,810    $ 1,613,406

Net income per share                             $      0.73     $      1.29        $      3.10    $      3.65


Fully Diluted:                                                        
     Average shares outstanding:                     441,072         440,083            441,072        439,570
          Net effect of the assumed exercise of
          stock options - based on the treasury
          stock method using average market
          price or period end market price, which
          ever is higher                               1,542           2,259              1,928          2,448

               Total                                 442,614         442,342            443,000        442,018

Net income                                       $   322,300     $   571,248        $ 1,374,810    $ 1,613,406

Net income per share                             $       .73     $      1.29        $      3.10    $      3.65


</TABLE>
From: Krivo, Stan

Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:23 PM

To: Shepherd, Lorinda

Subject: FW: StatOil Gulf Service, PSD permit application, Maersk Developer 

and Transocean Discoverer

Categories: OCS

Lori,

For your information and record on this project.

...sjk

From: Webster, Jill [mailto:jill_webster@fws.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 6:11 PM

To: Krivo, Stan

Cc: Bart Brashers; Meredith Bond

Subject: StatOil Gulf Service, PSD permit application, Maersk Developer and Transocean Discoverer

Stan,

The Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the recent modeling report/air quality impact 

assessment submitted by StatOil for the Maersk Developer and Transocean Discoverer, PSD 

permit application.

The results of the visibility modeling for the project reveals values of greater than 5% extinction 

for one modeled year of operation of the Developer and for all 3 modeled years for the 

Discoverer. The applicant is seeking flexibility to operate either rig, and has analyzed impacts 

from each operation.

It is my understanding that there area number of conservative assumptions built into the 

emissions estimates modeled by the operator. Assumptions such as 1-hour maximum emission 

rates for all equipment at 100% load and conservative assumptions with respect to the marine 

vessels were modeled. In addition, we understand that the operations are temporary in nature 

and will be limited to 180 days per year in the leased area.

While we do not approve of the modeled visibility impacts presented by the applicant, we are not 

objecting to the AQRV analysis contained in the permit application. We believe that the overly 

conservative assumptions contained in the emissions estimates yielded higher modeled 

impacts and the temporary nature of the activity will not result in significant additional impacts 

to the Breton Wilderness.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Please note that I will be out of the office 

July15-July 29th. I will respond to any concerns when I return on July 30th.

--

Jill Webster, Environmental Scientist
US Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge System

Branch of Air Quality

7333 W. Jefferson Ave., Suite 375

Lakewood, CO 80235-2017

(303) 914-3804

fax: (303) 969-5444
----

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 11 February 2004

in Case C-180/03 P: Benito Latino v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal - Officials - Occupational disease - Recognition of the occupational origin of arthrosis-related damage - Validity of the opinion of the Medical Committee - Exhaustion of the latter's competence and requirement that it act impartially - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure)

(2004/C 94/35)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-180/03 P; Benito Latino, a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Sérignac-Peboudou (France) (lawyers: J.R. Iturriagagoitia Bassas and K. Delvolvé) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 26 February 2003 in Case T-145/01 Latino v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by J.-F. Fagnart) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 11 February 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.

----