alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAltitude Effects on Thermal Ice Protection System Performance; a Study of an Alternative ApproachResearch has been conducted to better understand the phenomena involved during operation of an aircraft's thermal ice protection system under running wet icing conditions. In such situations, supercooled water striking a thermally ice-protected surface does not fully evaporate but runs aft to a location where it freezes. The effects of altitude, in terms of air pressure and density, on the processes involved were of particular interest. Initial study results showed that the altitude effects on heat energy transfer were accurately modeled using existing methods, but water mass transport was not. Based upon those results, a new method to account for altitude effects on thermal ice protection system operation was proposed. The method employs a two-step process where heat energy and mass transport are sequentially matched, linked by matched surface temperatures. While not providing exact matching of heat and mass transport to reference conditions, the method produces a better simulation than other methods. Moreover, it does not rely on the application of empirical correction factors, but instead relies on the straightforward application of the primary physics involved. This report describes the method, shows results of testing the method, and discusses its limitations.Document ID20160006686Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsAddy, Harold E., Jr.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Orchard, David*(National Research Council of Canada Boucherville, Quebec, Canada)*Wright, William B.*(Vantage Partners, LLC Brook Park, OH, United States)*Oleskiw, Myron*(National Research Council of Canada Boucherville, Quebec, Canada)*Date AcquiredMay 27, 2016Publication DateMay 1, 2016Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2016-219081GRC-E-DAA-TN30299E-19208Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 081876.02.03.08.02.02CONTRACT_GRANT: NNC12BA01BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordsice protection system performancealtitude effectsAvailable DownloadsNameType20160006686.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
Exhibit 32.2
                                AEROCENTURY CORP.

                                  CERTIFICATION


In connection with this quarterly report of AeroCentury Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Toni M. Perazzo, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best
of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
              indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: May 12, 2005                  /s/ Toni M. Perazzo
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Toni M. Perazzo
                                    Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-10443

Conference Calendar

 

LESTER WARNELL FREEMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TERRI MOORE, Lawyer,

Defendant-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:99-CV-546-D

--------------------

October 20, 1999

Before JONES, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lester Freeman (Texas prisoner #751150) appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as

frivolous. In connection with his appeal, Freeman has filed a

motion requesting the appointment of counsel and a motion

requesting the production of a transcript of a hearing conducted

before a grievance committee of the State Bar of Texas. 

Freeman’s motions are DENIED.

As the basis for his § 1983 suit, Freeman states that he was
No. 99-10443 

-2-

denied the effective assistance of counsel when his courtappointed attorney, Terri Moore, failed to file an appellate

brief on his behalf during his direct criminal appeal. Freeman’s

§ 1983 suit lacks an arguable basis in law because Moore was not

acting under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 liability. 

See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981); Mills v.

Criminal Dist. Court No. 3, 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his

complaint as frivolous. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191,

193 (5th Cir. 1997). Freeman’s appeal is likewise frivolous and

is therefore DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220

(5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of Freeman’s

complaint as frivolous and the dismissal of this appeal as

frivolous each count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th

Cir. 1996). We caution Freeman that once he accumulates three

strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action

or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any

facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. See § 1915(g).

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; § 1915(g) WARNING ISSUED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Material Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert M. Bernstein, Chief Executive Officer, President and Principle Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

\s\         Robert M. BernsteinRobert M. BernsteinChief Executive Officer and President

October 31, 2002

----
No. 60473.

#### J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 276589-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers disclosed that the collector’s assessment was in accordance with plaintiff’s claim. Since the protest presented no justiciable question, the protest was dismissed.
From: eharrington@crookston.k12.mn.us

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:43:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Emily Harrington

Crookston, MN 56716
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 24.1

                             IDENTIX INCORPORATED

                        POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR FORM 10-K


KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints James P. Scullion and Mark S. Molina, jointly and
severally, his attorneys-in-fact, each with the power of substitution, for him
in any and all capacities, to sign any amendments to the Annual Report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2000 on Form 10-K and to file the same, with exhibits
thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said
attorneys-in-fact, or his substitute or substitutes, may do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this Annual
Report on Form 10-K has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of
the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     Signature                               Title                                Date
     ---------                               -----                                ----
<S>                                   <C>                                    <C>
   /s/ Randall C. Fowler              Director and Chairman                  September 22, 2000
-------------------------------
       Randall C. Fowler              of the Board

   /s/ James P. Scullion              President, Principal Executive         September 22, 2000
-------------------------------
       James P. Scullion,              Officer, Director
                                       Principal Financial and
                                       Accounting Officer

   /s/ Randall Hawks, Jr.             Director                               September 22, 2000
-------------------------------
       Randall Hawks, Jr.

                                      Director
 ------------------------------
       Patrick H. Morton

   /s/ Charles W. Richion             Director                               September 22, 2000
 ------------------------------
       Charles W. Richion

   /s/ Fred U. Sutter                 Director                               September 22, 2000
 ------------------------------
       Fred U. Sutter

                                      Director
-------------------------------
       Larry J. Wells

   /s/ John E. Major                  Director                               September 22, 2000
-------------------------------
       John E. Major
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jerry Louis HUGHES, aka G-Ride, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-50550.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Dorothy Kim, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*675Kenly Kiya Kato, Liner Yankelevitz et al., LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant — Appellee.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

1. The district court concluded that it could not apply the career offender, bodily injury to victims, and amount of loss enhancements to Hughes. Accordingly, Hughes’ sentence was not imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment. However, the government is entitled to a remand for resentencing under the now-advisory Sentencing Guidelines. *See United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 769, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (holding that even though respondent’s sentence was authorized by the jury’s verdict and thus presented no Sixth Amendment violation, “the Government (and the defendant should he so choose) may seek resentencing under the system set forth in today’s opinions.”).

2. Applying *Booker*in this case results in no violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause. *See United States v. Dupas,*419 F.3d 916 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the retroactive application of Booker’s remedial holding does not offend due process). *Booker*expressly provided for its application to *all*cases on direct review. *See Booker,*125 S.Ct. at 769 (“[W]e must apply today’s holdings — both the Sixth Amendment holding and our remedial interpretation of the Sentencing Act — to *all cases on direct review.*”) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); *see also Dupas,*419 F.3d at -. Moreover, Hughes faces the same statutory maximum sentence as he did *pre-Booker. See id.*at -.

SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT
 32(a)



CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 report on Form 10-Q ofWWA
 Group, Inc. for thequarterly
 period endedMarch 31,
 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
 Commission on the date hereof, I,Eric Montandon, do
 hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
 best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | Thisreport 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 this report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of the registrant
for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:May
 14, 2009





/s/
 Eric Montandon

Eric
 Montandon

Chief
 Executive Officer



Thiscertification
 accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
 except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
 registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report),
 irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.   A signed original of this written
 statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant
 and will be retained by the registrant
 and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

29
sourceTypeIDroadTypeIDroadTypeVMTFraction 11 1 0.000000 11 2 0.560033 11 3 0.439967 11 4 0.000000 11 5 0.000000 21 1 0.000000 21 2 0.560033 21 3 0.439967 21 4 0.000000 21 5 0.000000 31 1 0.000000 31 2 0.560033 31 3 0.439967 31 4 0.000000 31 5 0.000000 32 1 0.000000 32 2 0.560033 32 3 0.439967 324 0.000000 32 5 0.000000 41 1 0.000000 41 2 0.560033 41 3 0.439967 41 4 0.000000 41 5 0.000000 42 1 0.000000 42 2 0.560033 42 3 0.439967 424 0.000000 42 5 0.000000 43 1 0.000000 432 0.560033 43 3 0.439967 434 0.000000 43 5 0.000000 51 1 0.000000 51 2 0.560033 51 3 0.439967 51 4 0.000000 51 5 0.000000 52 1 0.000000 52 2 0.560033 52 3 0.439967 524 0.000000 52 5 0.000000 53 1 0.000000 532 0.560033 53 3 0.439967 534 0.000000 53 5 0.000000 54 1 0.00000054 2 0.560033 54 3 0.439967 544 0.000000 54 5 0.000000 61 1 0.000000 61 2 0.560033 61 3 0.439967 61 4 0.000000 61 5 0.000000 62 1 0.000000 62 2 0.560033 62 3 0.439967 624 0.000000 62 5 0.000000
H. Res. 612

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 15 (legislative day, November 14), 2002.

Whereas Dr. Cruz received a bachelor’s degree in Spanish

from the Wichita State University, a masters degree in

education from the University of California-Berkeley, and

a doctoral degree in policy, planning, and administration

from the University of California-Berkeley;

Whereas Dr. Cruz was appointed by the Secretary of Education to a national advisory council that dealt with the

education of language minority students;

Whereas Dr. Cruz has received many honors from educational and Hispanic organizations for his support of

education for limited English proficient children, including introduction into the Hispanic Hall of Fame and the

Hispanic Achievement Award in Education;

Whereas Dr. Cruz had the foresight and courage to address

the lack of educational opportunities for young Hispanic

students coming out of high school by founding the National Hispanic University in Oakland, California, in

1981, and serving as its first President;

Whereas Dr. Cruz developed strong partnerships between the

academic and business communities to foster educational

opportunities; and
2

•HRES 612 EH

Whereas on September 4, 2002, Dr. Cruz died after a long

and distinguished career: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) recognizes Dr. Roberto Cruz’s professionalism

and commitment to education;

(2) honors Dr. Cruz’s life; and

(3) extends its condolences to the Cruz family and

to the faculty, staff, and students of the National Hispanic University on the occasion of his death.

Attest:

Clerk.
(R.D. 11415)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 5, 1967)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for .the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*786Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation :

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subj ect to the approval of the Court:

1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION Ill 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

Mr. David K. Paylor, Director 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

629 East Main Street 

P.O. Box 1105 

Richmond, Virginia 23218 

Dear Mr. Paylor: 

SEP Z 3 tu14 

On April10, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to 

the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (V ADEQ). The SIP revision consists of amendments to 9V AC5 Chapter 45, Consumer 

and Commercial Products, and to 9V AC5 Chapter 40, Existing Stationary Sources, in order to 

apply provisions pertaining to certain types of consumer and commercial products to the 

Richmond Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Emissions Control Area. The SIP revision also 

includes a revision to compliance dates and a temporary exemption for particular adhesives and 

sealants. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete and 

is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Leslie Jones Doherty, 

at (215) 814-3409, the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

j);:~~~ Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

cc: Mr. Michael G. Dowd, Air Quality Division Director 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474