alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA Benchmark Problem for Development of Autonomous Structural Modal IdentificationThis paper summarizes modal identification results obtained using an autonomous version of the Eigensystem Realization Algorithm on a dynamically complex, laboratory structure. The benchmark problem uses 48 of 768 free-decay responses measured in a complete modal survey test. The true modal parameters of the structure are well known from two previous, independent investigations. Without user involvement, the autonomous data analysis identified 24 to 33 structural modes with good to excellent accuracy in 62 seconds of CPU time (on a DEC Alpha 4000 computer). The modal identification technique described in the paper is the baseline algorithm for NASA's Autonomous Dynamics Determination (ADD) experiment scheduled to fly on International Space Station assembly flights in 1997-1999.Document ID19970010002Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsPappa, Richard S.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Woodard, Stanley E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Juang, Jer-Nan*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1996Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-110291NAS 1.15:110291Accession Number97N15259Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 237-03-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970010002.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
**Attachment	1**

1. 2AgEagle 2. 3D Robotics Aero

- M 3. 3D Robotics I

ris 4. 3D Robotics I

ris+ 5. 3D Robotics X8 6. 3DR Spektre 7. 3D Robotics Solo 8. 3DRobotics X8+ 9. 3D Robotics X8

- M 10. 3D Robotics Y6 11. Aerial Mob Heavy Lifter 12. Aerial Mob Light Lifter 13. Aerial Remote Mineral Detection System (ARMDS) 14. Aerialtronics Zenith with intergrated Airware s ys tem 15. Aerialtronics Altura Zenith ATX8 16. AeroCine Kopterworx Hammer X12 17. Aeromao AeroMapper 300 18. Aeromao Talon 19. Aeromao Aeromapper 300 20. Aeromao Aeromapper EV

- 2 21. AeroVironment Shrike 22. AeroVironment Puma 23. Aeronavics X4 Titanium 24. Aeryon Sky

Ranger 25. Aervonics Sky J ib frame with a DJ I A2 flight sy stem 26. Aeryon Scout 27. Aeryon Sky

Ranger 28. AgEagle Robotic 29. AgScout 30. AgScout Mini 31. Agribotix Hornet Drone 32. Air Rover AR

- 3000 33. Air Cover QR

- 425s 34. AirRobot AR 18035. AirRobot AR200

36. Arch Aerial OCTO multi

- rotor UAS 37. Astraeus Aerial Cinema Sy stem V.3CS 38. Atlantic RC Aircraft LC04 39. Auburn Trimble UX5 40. Auburn War Eagle 41. Auburn Eas yS tar 42. DJIFlame Wheel F450 43. DJIFlame Wheel F550 44. DJI Inspire 45. DJI Phantom 46. DJISpreading Wings S900 47. DJISpreading Wings S1000 48. DJISpreading Wings S1000 49. DJI S800 50. Draganfly er Guardian 51. Draganfly er X4ES 52. Draganfly er X4P 53. Draganfly er X6 54. DT

- 18 55. DYSD800

- X8 56. EagleVTOL 57. EagleV2 58. E

- Flite Apprentice 59. FireFl y6 60. First Aerial Responder UAV 61. Flame Wheel G4 7.8 Skycrane 62. Flying

- Cam 3.0 SARAH 63. KongCopterX8 64. Lockheed Martin Desert Hawk III 65. Lockheed Martin Indago 66. Nighthawk 67. NighthawkVTOL 68. Parrot Bebop drone 69. Parrot PF 725100 Bebop Drone 14MP 70. Parrot Skycontroller 71. PatriotX4 72. PatriotX8 73. PhoenixVTOL 74. Phoenix60 75. Phoenix60LE 76. Pixhawk 77. Precision Drone Pacesetter 78. PrecisionHawk Hawkey e Mk

- III 79. PrecisionHawkLancaster 80. Precision Lancaster MK381. Prioria Hex

82. Prioria’s Maveric 83. Pulse Aerospace, PA 01 Vapor 84. Pulse Aerospace Pulse Vapor 35 85. Pulse Vapor 86. Puma AE DDL 87. SenseFl ye Bee 88. SenseFl ye BeeRTK 89. SenseFl yeXom 90. Sensurion Magpie MP

- 1 91. ShadowHawk Shrike 92. SkyCatch 93. Sky Jib 8 v.2 Heavy

L ifter 94. Sky Phill yM I 95. Sky walker Aero 96. SteadiDrone 97. SteadidroneQuad 98. SteadydroneQU4D 99. SteadidroneMavik 100. Talon 120L E 101. Tarot FY690S Hexacopter 102. Tarot quadcopter 103. Tarot 680pro 104. Tarot 690 105. Tarot 900 106. Tarot 960 107. Tarot T

- 15 108. Tarot T15 C/F Folding Octocopter 109. Tarot T18 UAV 110. Tarot T690 111. Tarot T810 112. Tarot T960 113. Trimble UX5 114. Trimble UX5 hp 115. Trimble ZX5 116. UAV Solutions Phoenix 60 117. Viking Unmanned Aerial Sy stems, LL C AgriView VK Ranger EX 118. VikingVK

- FF

- X4 119. VK

- Ranger EX

- SAR Fixed Wing UAS 120. Volantex Raptor Tarot T

- 18 121. Volt Aerial Robotics Octane
#### § 570.51 Scope.

This part specifies standards and procedures for the inspection of brake, steering and suspension systems, and tire and wheel assemblies, of motor vehicles in use with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds.
§ 392.9a Operating authority. ( a ) *Operating authority required.* A motor vehicle providing transportation requiring operating authority must not be operated— ( 1 ) Without the required operating authority or
( 2 ) Beyond the scope of the operating authority granted.
( b ) *Penalties.* Every motor carrier providing transportation requiring operating authority shall be ordered out of service if it is determined that the motor carrier is operating a vehicle in violation of paragraph (a) of this section. In addition, the motor carrier may be subject to penalties in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 14901.
( c ) *Administrative review.* Upon issuance of the out-of-service order under paragraph (b) of this section, the driver shall comply immediately with such order. Opportunity for review shall be provided in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 554 not later than 10 days after issuance of such order.
[71 FR 50867, Aug. 28, 2006, as amended at 78 FR 60233, Oct. 1, 2013]
Order entered January 30, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-01123-CR

ROBERT CHAD EUBANK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-83513-2017

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 26, 2023 motion for extension of 

time to file his response to counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw. 

Appellant’s response is due March 6, 2023. In the motion, appellant states he 

requires additional time to file his response because he has not received all of the 

documents related to his case from his former attorney, Heather Barbieri. 

Appellant requests the time for his pro se response to the motion to withdraw and 

Anders brief be extended to June 15, 2023. Appellant has not shown how any 
documents from his former attorney that are not part of the appellate record may be 

considered on appeal. See Leza v. State, 351 S.W.3d 344, 362 n.78 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2011) (appellate court may not consider extra-record materials). This Court 

has received certification from appellant’s attorney on appeal, Lara Bracamonte 

Davila, that she sent appellant a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record on 

November 2, 2022. Accordingly, appellant’s motion for extension of time to file 

appellant’s pro se response to counsel’s motion to withdraw and Anders brief is 

DENIED. Appellant’s pro se response is due MARCH 6, 2023. 

Appellant’s motion also requests that a special master be appointed to 

determine whether a photograph of spandex shorts with measuring devices along 

the top and left sides of the photograph had been sent to appellant’s former 

attorney Kent Star and whether it was backed up to a backup device. We DENY 

appellant’s request for a special master. See Leza, 351 S.W.3d at 362 n.78 

(appellate court cannot consider extra-record materials).

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
April 5, 2000

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Mr. Douglas Hobbs
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Heritage  Worldwide,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  November 14, 2004                       /s/ Alain Sereyjol-Garros
                                               ---------------------------
                                               Alain Sereyjol-Garros
                                               Chief Executive Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 05, 2022.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 05, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22D0350. EDWARD TYRONE RIDLEY v. CENTURY INSURANCE CO. et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2210009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RONALD JERMAINE GALBREATH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 690 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of March, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
From: Frank, Gary (IFC) [mailto:gary.frank@investfinancial.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 3:30 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: 401k's

In response to your article, suitable 401k products have been designed, but are not being used. I 

have been an advisor for over 20 years with middle America clients and have had about 10,000 

face to face, one on one, meetings with people over the years. I know a simple solution to the 

problem. Please call my office at 920-997-8020 if you would like my input.

I appreciate your time.

 

Gary A. Frank

Registered Representative of, and securities, advisory services and insurance products are 

offered through INVEST FINANCIAL CORPORATION (INVEST), member FINRA/SIPC a 

federally registered Investment Advisor, and affiliated insurance agencies.
#### § 392.25 Flame producing devices.

No driver shall use or permit the use of any flame-producing emergency signal for protecting any commercial motor vehicle transporting Division 1.1, Division 1.2, or Division 1.3 explosives; any cargo tank motor vehicle used for the transportation of any Class 3 or Division 2.1, whether loaded or empty; or any commercial motor vehicle using compressed gas as a motor fuel. In lieu thereof, emergency reflective triangles, red electric lanterns, or red emergency reflectors shall be used, the placement of which shall be in the same manner as prescribed in § 392.22(b).

[59 FR 63925, Dec. 12, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 38747, July 28, 1995]
From: Vinton Thengvall [mailto:VThengvall@labeltech.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 4:21 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule

Dear Department of Labor,

I am writing to request that the new proposed regulations regarding ESOP fiduciary

requirements be modified to remove the requirement that persons providing ESOP appraisals

and fairness opinions are fiduciaries.

We respectfully request that the department of labor change this proposed requirement.

We have been an ESOP company since 1999 and became 100% Employee‐Owned in 2007.  The

proposed requirement to make our appraiser a fiduciary is detrimental to our ESOP plan.

1. The valuation will cost more, since as a fiduciary the appraiser will require additional

insurance.

2. The valuator will become a target for litigation, further increasing the costs of the

valuation.  

3. An additional fiduciary is unnecessary, as we have an independent trustee who is a

fiduciary on the plan already.

4. The valuation needs to be by an independent appraiser, making them a fiduciary is in

conflict with the Internal Revenue Code, which requires an independent appraiser.

5. The additional appraisal cost will take money that we would otherwise use for growth

and hiring new employees.   

6. In the end, we will pay more for the appraisal, and our employees lose out, both in

share value and jobs.

Respectfully,

Vinton Thengvall 

Vice President - Finance 

Label Technology 

2050 Wardrobe Ave. 

Merced, CA 95341 

Phone: 209.722.1700 X3035 

www.labeltech.com
This e-mail (including all attachments) is confidential and expected to be read and/or used only by the individual(s) for whom it is 

intended. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon 

the contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error please reply to the sender so that we may arrange for proper 

delivery and then destroy the original and all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Heritage Worldwide,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.






Date:  November 16,  2004                            /s/ Claude Couty
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                         Claude Couty
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                         and General Manager
E-mail dated 12/20/12 

Russ: 

As we discussed earlier, I spoke with FAA (both Cliff Vacirca and Lisa 

Lesperance) regarding the BEH request to place a fuel dispensing cabinet within 

the Gate 3 Taxilane OF A. Their initial response was that it is current FAA policy 

to not allow any new obstructions to be place within any OF A areas regardless of 

any existing obstructions. That being stated there are special circumstances when 

an exception may be permitted. In this case if the issue was the hangar only, it may 

be allowed by FAA due to the existing obstructions and being in the shadow of 

those obstructions. However, the concern from FAA is the use of the current 

taxilane (size and type of aircraft) and how that would change by allowing possible 

larger itinerant aircraft operating on this taxilane late at night looking for fuel. 

Although there may not be any documented incidents along this taxiway, that 

could change with itinerant aircraft operating in this area where the current taxilane 

does not meet OF A standards. FAA would be looking for this type of information 

when BEH files the 7460. 

Let me know if you have any additional questions. 

Jeffrey Adler, P.E.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-28-1998
<CASH>                                          33,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,268
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,711
<INVENTORY>                                     58,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               168,173
<PP&E>                                         193,672
<DEPRECIATION>                                 107,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 305,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,183
<BONDS>                                         36,419
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,949
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   305,766
<SALES>                                        426,773
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               426,773
<CGS>                                          291,537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  291,537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,075
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,336
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,347
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,262
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,079
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,079
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
 
 COLONIAL
COMMERCIAL CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
 FED. I.D.
11-2037182
 
 
 Name
      of Subsidiary
    
    State
      of Incorporation
    
    I.D.
      NumberAtlantic
      Hardware and Supply Corporation
    
    
    New
      York
    
    
    13-2687036Wel-Com
      Financial Services, Inc.
    
    
    Ohio
    
    
    31-0484520Universal
      Supply Group, Inc.
    
    
    New
      York
    
    
    11-3391045Well-Bilt
      Steel Products, Inc.
    
    
    New
      Jersey
    
    
    22-3408907RAL
      Supply Group, Inc.
    
    
    New
      York
    
    
    20-0207168American/Universal
      Supply Inc.
    
    
    New
      York
    
    
    16-1661494
# CENTCOM Yemen Strike Summary Jan. 1 – Apr. 1, 2019 

/ Published April 1, 2019

Apr. 1, 2019

Release Number 20190401-01

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla.** – U.S. Central Command conducted 8 total air strikes in Yemen in 2019 targeting al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

CENTCOM conducted two air strikes in January and six airstrikes in March. The January air strikes took place in Marib and Al Bayda Governates respectively. The March airstrikes took place in Al Bayda Governate.

All strikes this year targeted AQAP terrorists. The Jan. 1 strike targeted Jamal al-Badawi, one of the planners involved in the USS Cole bombing.

“In coordination with the government of Yemen, U.S. forces continue to support ongoing counterterrorism operations against AQAP and ISIS-Y to disrupt and destroy militants' attack-plotting efforts, networks, and freedom of maneuver within the region,” said Lt. Col. Earl Brown, a CENTCOM spokesman.

CENTCOM does not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, the number of individual munition impact points against a target, or the organization of U.S. forces

-30-
From: Bill Ricker [mailto:MyInsurance@cox.net] 

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 3:45 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: DOL Fiduciary Rule

Angry is the most appropriate description . Take the Government out of controlling how we 

save our money. DOL Fiduciary Rule is overstepping...we have rights for us to live our life the way 

we choose, Not the Way Government chooses for us.

This is another example of the administrations tyranny .
1210-AB32-2-1111.html[7/24/2015 6:05:53 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvq-9e1x

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-1605

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Michael Anonymous

General Comment

I'm smart enough to plan for my own retirement. Leave my funds alone.