alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsForced response testing of an axi-centrifugal turboshaft engineDynamic data from tests of a T55-L-712 engine are presented. Engine stall/surge data were analyzed using digital signal processing techniques. In addition, forced response testing (system identification studies) was done at various engine speeds. Forced response testing was done using eight jet ejectors approximately equally circumferentially spaced about the compressor front face. This paper presents some preliminary results for the ground idle (approximately 60% of design speed) point. Brief descriptions of the jet injection system, the test matrix, and analysis techniques used are presented. Results of these analyses indicate a substantial transfer of energy across the compressor first stage at some frequencies and that the ejectors are effective in modifying the local flow conditions in front of the first compressor stage.Document ID19960048689Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsOwen, A. Karl*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland,OH United States)*Le, Dzu K.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland,OH United States)*Braun, Donald C.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland,OH United States)*Mattern, Duane L.*(NYMA, Inc. Brook Park, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1996Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107282E-10357NASA-TM-107282AIAA Paper 96-2573ARL-TR-1151Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint Propulsion ConferenceLocation: Lake Buena Vista, FLCountry: United StatesStart Date: July 1, 1996End Date: July 3, 1996Sponsors:Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,American Society of Mechanical Engineers,American Society for Electrical EngineersAccession Number96N33909Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-10PROJECT: DA Proj. 1L1-62211-A-47-ACONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-27186Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19960048689.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
From: dakota@integrity.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:45:10 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,

L Lewis

Temecula, CA 92592
No. 66516.

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States,

protest 61/4729 (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nonelectric dry shavers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63302, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANTONNE PIERRE MILES,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5224M 

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 November 18, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mj-05224-JKA Document 7 Filed 11/18/05 Page 1 of 1
From: rmganley@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:52:21 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,

rosemary ganley

Orange, CT 06477
From: dsifferm@pacbell.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:29:21 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,

Donald Sifferman

Saratoga, CA 95070
From: Igot2scrap@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:14:10 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.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Mary Ann Wagner

Omro, WI 54963
Hummingbird

Springs Wilderness

Big Horn

Mountains

Wilderness

Harquahala

Mountains

Wilderness

Hells Canyon

Wilderness

Hassayampa

River Canyon

Wilderness

Castle Creek

Wilderness

Mohave County

Yavapai County

Yavapai

Marico

County

pa County

La Paz County

Maricopa County

White Tank

Mountains

Regional Park

Lake

Pleasant

Regional

Park

Prescott

Prescott

Valley

Cordes

Junction

Yarnell

BLACK

CANYON

CITY

NEW

RIVER

WICKENBURG

PEORIA

SURPRISE

BUCKEYE

GOODYEAR

PHOENIX

GLENDALE

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2009

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

conducts land use planning only in the areas administered

by BLM. BLM has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation of the State

of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map

for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

standards. This information may be updated without

notification.

Map 1

Bradshaw-Harquahala

Planning Area

Resource Management

Planning Area

0 5 10 15

Miles

BLM Wilderness

USFS Wilderness

Interstate

Major Road

Major River, Streams or Wash

Highway

Agua Fria National

Monument Planning Area

Bradshaw Harquahala

Planning Area

Land Status

BLM

BOR

City, County & State Parks

County Lands

Indian Lands

Military

NPS

Private

State

State Wildlife Area

USFS

USFWS
From: anderslawoffice@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:23:20 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,

Cameo Anders

Sioux Falls, SD 57110
Before the Second Division,

September 6, 1966

No. P66/212. —

#### Metropolitan Industries, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 322034-K and 323730-K (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise covered by the foregoing protests, described as sprinklers, are, in fact, hose nozzles and following the rationale of *United States*v. *Lipman’s*(52 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 859), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 1

U.S. v. Bump; CR05-5746RBL

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

JUDGE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TONY BUMP,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-5746RBL

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DATE 

Based on the motion of the defense to continue the trial date, and the reasons set

forth in the affidavit of defense counsel in support of the motion, which are hereby

adopted and incorporated by reference, the Court makes the following findings of fact

and conclusions of law:

1. The ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A). 

2. Proceeding to trial absent adequate time for the defense to prepare would

result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(i). 

3. The defense needs additional time to explore issues of some complexity,

including all relevant issues and defenses applicable to the case, which would make it

unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for trial itself

within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act and currently set for this case. 

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B(ii). 

Case 3:05-cr-05746-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 2

U.S. v. Bump; CR05-5746RBL

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1331 Broadway, Ste. 400

Tacoma, Washington 98402

(253) 593-6710

4. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a continuance is necessary

to allow the defendant the reasonable time for effective preparation his defense. 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date is continued from January 30, 2006

to April 17, 2006, at 9:00 am. The resulting period of delay from January 30, 2006, to

April 17, 2006, is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).

Pre-trial motions are due no later than February 13, 2006.

Pre-trial conference shall be on April 11, 2006, at 9:00 am.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2005.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented By:

/s/ Russell V. Leonard Russell V. Leonard 

Attorney for Defendant 

Case 3:05-cr-05746-RBL Document 21 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 64554.

#### East Asiatic Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 760028-G, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
[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: Law ofWar Documentary Supplement [electronic resource].**
 
2007|2008|2009|2010|2011
 
SuDoc Number:D 108.10/4:
Item Number:0348-C-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000948629
 
July 5, 2018
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Everardo NAVA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50550.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Henry Joseph Bemporad, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Everardo Nava-Chavez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.