alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDesign and Use of a Guided Weight Impactor to Impart Barely Visible Impact DamageAircraft structure is required to demonstrate satisfaction of the FAR requirements for Category 1, such as barely visible impact damage (BVID). Typical aircraft structure is impacted using a dropped weight impactor, which can impart BVID to the top surface of the structure. A recent test of a multi-bay box (MBB) composite test article, that represents an 80% scale center section of a hybrid wing body aircraft, required impact to be in a direction other than vertical from above, but still in an direction that is normal to the surface. This requirement eliminated the use of the conventional dropped weight impactor. Therefore, a design study was undertaken to determine the most effective way to efficiently and reliably impact the MBB. The chosen design was a guided weight impactor that is gravity driven. This paper describes the design of the guided weight impactor, and presents the results of its use for imparting BVID to the MBB. The guided weight impactor was seen to be a very reliable method to impart BVID, while at the same time having the capability to be highly configurable for use on other aircraft structure that is impacted at a variety of impact energies and from a variety of directions.Document ID20160006304Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsLovejoy, Andrew E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Przekop, Adam*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredMay 17, 2016Publication DateApril 1, 2016Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberL-20636NF1676L-23049NASA/TM-2016-218977Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 338881.02.22.07.01.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160006304.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





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 annual report of Cemtrex, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Renato Dela Rama,
principal financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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/
      Renato Dela RamaRenato
      Dela Ramaprincipal
      financial officerJanuary
      22, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99.6


                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                      -------------------------------------



I, John M. Nichols, Chief Financial Officer of Varsity Brands, Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

3)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
     ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
     requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



Dated: November 14, 2002                                 /s/ John M. Nichols
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
H. Res. 208 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 16, 2007. 

Whereas Operation Smile is a private, not-for-profit volunteer 

medical services organization providing reconstructive 

surgery and related health care to indigent children and 

young adults in developing countries and the United 

States; 

Whereas in 1982, Dr. William P. Magee Jr., a plastic surgeon, and his wife, Kathleen S. Magee, a nurse and clinical social worker, traveled to the Philippines with a 

group of medical volunteers to repair children’s cleft lips 

and cleft palates; 

Whereas there they discovered hundreds of children ravaged 

by deformities, and although they helped many children, 

the volunteers were forced to turn away the majority of 

those who sought help; 

Whereas Operation Smile headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, 

was founded in 1982 by Dr. William Magee Jr. and his 

wife Kathleen S. Magee to address this need; 

Whereas since 1982, Operation Smile’s volunteers have provided free reconstructive surgery to more than 100,000 

children and young adults with facial deformities in 25 

countries; 
2 

•HRES 208 EH 

Whereas Operation Smile provides education and training to 

thousands of healthcare professionals globally, and is implementing a plan for a Global Standard of Care to ensure that every child treated will receive the same high 

standard of care every time; 

Whereas Operation Smile provides a network of resources to 

assist families in the United States with children born 

with facial deformities; 

Whereas more than 450 Operation Smile Student Associations in the United States and around the world build 

awareness, raise funds, and educate students about values of commitment, leadership, and volunteerism; and 

Whereas in 2007, in commemoration of its 25th anniversary, 

Operation Smile has announced a year-long series of initiatives to include implementing global standards of care 

for all its medical programs, opening comprehensive care 

centers in seven countries, hosting international forums 

on medical diplomacy, and launching the World Journey 

of Smiles, which consists of 40 simultaneous missions in 

25 countries with the goal of treating an estimated 5,000 

children living with facial deformities: Now, therefore, be 

it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes 

the 25th anniversary of the founding of Operation Smile as 

its volunteer medical professionals continue to travel around 

the world to treat children suffering from facial deformities. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
From: vbuchmiller@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:40:35 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,

Val Buchmiller

Highland, IL 62249
Exhibit 32.2 

**Certification Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

        Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2004 (the“Report”) of Immucor, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I certify, to the best of myknowledge, that: 

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

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

August 16, 2004 

/s/Steven C. Ramsey

StevenC. Ramsey
From: lindabdavis@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:16 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,

Linda Davis

Minden, LA 71055
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ernesto GALLEGOS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-50107.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

*670Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ernesto Gallegos appeals the sentence imposed in a corrected judgment entered after his guilty plea to attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that pursuant to *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), in increasing his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) on the ground that he previously was deported after a conviction for an aggravated felony, the district court should have required proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the temporal relationship between the pri- or conviction and the deportation. He also contends that in calculating his criminal history score, the district court should have required proof beyond a reasonable doubt of whether the prior sentences were relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § IB 1.3(a), whether the prior sentences were related under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2), whether Gallegos was under a criminal justice sentence under U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(d), and the date of his prior release under U.S.S.G. § 4Al.l(e).

The government contends that this appeal should be dismissed because in his plea agreement, Gallegos waived his right to appeal his sentence. Gallegos argues that the district court’s advice that he had the right to appeal superceded his written waiver under *United States v. Buchanan,*59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th Cir.1995). The district court stated only that Gallegos had the right to appeal its decision to correct the judgment to conform with the oral pronouncement of sentence. This statement did not supercede Gallegos’s waiver of his right to appeal the sentence itself. *Cf. id.; see also United States v. Bergmann,*836 F.2d 1220, 1221 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that the only sentence that is legally cognizable is the actual oral pronouncement in the presence of the defendant). Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver. *See United States v. Cardenas,*405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005).

DISMISSED.

**

 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.
No: 70124 

# FILED MAY 0 9 2016

Hardesty , J. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
GARY WAYNE WALTERS, Petitioner, vs. BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., WARDEN; THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, OFFENDER MANAGEMENT DIVISION; AND CASE WORKER, UNIT (2), Respondents. 

### ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is a pro se petition for a writ of extraordinary 

### relief challenging the computation of time served. We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in this matter. A challenge to the computation of time served must be raised in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court in the first instance.' NRS 34.724(2)(c); NRS 34.738(1); NRAP 22. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED. 2

Saitta , J. 

# Pieku dAp

, j

. Pickering 'We express no opinion as to whether petitioner could meet the procedural requirements of NRS chapter 34.

2 We also deny petitioner's motion for attorney general opinion



# N-1L14 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A

### cc: Gary Wayne Walters Attorney General/Carson City

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 2 (0) I947A 444to
From: worshipfully@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:13:56 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,

Donna Layne

Larkspur, CO 80118
From: berry3901@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:40:23 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,

Mildred Berry

Griffin, GA 30224
APPENDIX J 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN CRITERIA FOR 

SUBSEQUENT ROAD AND TRAIL SELECTION, 

IDENTIFICATION, AND DESIGNATIONS IN 

‘LIMITED’ OHV AREAS 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 1 

APPENDIX J 

Travel Management Plan Criteria for Subsequent Road and Trail Selection, 

Identification, and Designations in ‘Limited’ OHV Areas 

Considerations of both social and physical elements will be used to define the criteria for a travel 

plan. All decisions made in this process would apply only to public lands managed by the BLM in 

the WDO and would recognize current valid existing rights. Decisions regarding OHV travel would 

be consistent with the BLM’s National OHV Strategy. 

In general, policy guidance in 8343.1 lists the OHV designation criteria that the BLM must meet in 

the travel planning process: 1) Cultural and Natural Resources—Designations must minimize 

damage to all cultural and natural resources; examples include historical and archaeological sites and 

soil, water, air, vegetation, and scenic values; 2) Wildlife—Designations must minimize harassment 

of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat; 3) Endangered Species—Special attention 

must be given to protect endangered or threatened species and their habitat; and 4) Wilderness—

Designations must not impair the wilderness suitability of lands under consideration for inclusion in 

the wilderness system (WSAs). 

In addition, the designation of roads, trails, and areas must take into account user access 

requirements, public safety, and conflict resolution. 

The following criteria are used to assure adequate consideration for the requirements for each 

resource activity (such as minerals, range, and recreation): 1) Operational needs—Designations must 

consider user access requirements for inventory, exploration, use supervision, facilities maintenance, 

development, and extraction of public land resources; 2) State and private lands—Designations must 

consider the access and use needs for roads and trails within intermingled state and private lands; 3) 

Hazards—Designations must eliminate, mitigate, or minimize travel in areas of extreme natural or 

man-made hazards and separate uses in situations where safety factors present unacceptable risks 

(e.g., rifle ranges, open mines, and proposed campgrounds); and 4) Conflict resolution—

Designations must assure full consideration of the multiple-use value of public lands. 

The items listed below represent criteria that will be used to select, indentify, and designate “limited” 

areas in the WDO. It is not meant to be an all-inclusive list. 

Social Aspects: 

Public demands; 

Historical uses; 

Existing rights-of-way; 

Permitted uses; 

Public access; 

Resource development; 

Law enforcement; 

Safety; 
Appendix J 

May 2010 Winnemucca District Office – Draft RMP/EIS 2 

Conflicts between existing or potential uses; 

Recreational opportunities; 

Local uses; 

Cultural uses; 

Economic use. 

Physical Aspects: 

Terrain; 

Soils; 

Water and watersheds; 

Route connections; 

Special designations (AQCECs, WSAs); 

Demands for specific types of vehicle uses; and 

Manageability.