alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEffect of impact damage and open holes on the compression strength of tough resin/high strain fiber laminatesStructural damage and design-based inclusions such as cutouts can reduce significantly the strength of graphite-epoxy laminates. One composite mechanics research activity at the Langley Research Center is to assess and improve the performance of composite structures in strength are common to both tension and compression loaded laminates; however, the problem associated with compression performance is the most illusive to solve. Compression failure involves both shear crippling and delamination modes. Several graphite-epoxy material systems proposed for improved damage-tolerance were studied. Material parameters included both tough resin formulations and high strain fibers.Document ID19840012582Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWilliams, J. G.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateFebruary 1, 1984Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:85756NASA-TM-85756Meeting InformationMeeting: Tough Mater. Composite WorkshopLocation: Hampton, VACountry: United StatesStart Date: May 24, 1983End Date: May 26, 1983Accession Number84N20650Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840012582.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
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0274 Focus Ready Draft 4/16/2012 ENGINEER: Macek \ AG PV (kg/yr):
SUBMITTER: USE:
OTHER USES:CRSS :Consumer Use: SAT (concerns) (04/10/2012): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox Related Cases: Analogs Migration to groundwater: PMN: negl // moderate PBT rating: P1B1T2 PMN: P1B1T2 // P1B1 Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 1 No releases to Water OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2C NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:P2 Claims:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0274

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0274

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source belowmay coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARYInhalation:

Dermal:
|  EXHIBIT 32.1                         |
|--------------------------------------------|
| Union Carbide Corporation and Subsidiaries |
|                                       |

| 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Corporation. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ PATRICK E. GOTTSCHALK                                  |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Patrick E. GottschalkPresident and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
| Date: August 4, 2010                                       |   |   |

----
PUBLIC LAW 110–147—DEC. 21, 2007 121 STAT. 1817 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3703: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Nov. 13, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 17, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–147 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To amend section 5112(p)(1)(A) of title 31, United States Code, to allow an exception 

from the $1 coin dispensing capability requirement for certain vending machines. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 

5112(p)(1)(A) of title 31, United States Code, is amended to read 

as follows: 

‘‘(A) any business operations conducted by any such 

agency, instrumentality, system, or entity that involve coins 

or currency will be fully capable of— 

‘‘(i) accepting $1 coins in connection with such 

operations; and 

‘‘(ii) other than vending machines that do not 

receive currency denominations higher than $1, dispensing $1 coins in connection with such operations; 

and’’. 

Approved December 21, 2007. 

Dec. 21, 2007 

[H.R. 3703] 


jbridges on POFP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
No. 39064.

#### Protest 938084-G of T. D. Downing Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It appeared that salt and pepper shakers were attached and constituted only one piece of merchandise whereas they were assessed as two pieces. The protest was therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Frederick M. Strader, as Chief Executive Officer of United Industrial Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|   | a.     | the   accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed   with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully   complies with the requirements of Section 13a or 15(d) of the Securities   Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|   | b.     | the   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                             |

Date: August 6, 2004

| /s/ FREDERICK M. STRADER  |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                           |   |
| Frederick M.   Strader    |   |
| Chief   Executive Officer |   |
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 of Torotel, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dale H. Sizemore,
Jr., Chief Executive 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 the 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/  Dale H. Sizemore, Jr.


Dale H. Sizemore, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
September 12, 2002
----

|   | (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      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May      6, 2009 | /s/ CHRISTOPHER J.      EPERJESY                                            |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              | Christopher      J. Eperjesy                                                |
|                              | Vice      President – Finance, Chief Financial Officer and  Treasurer |
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13682-13683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5526]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending February 18, 2012

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2006-25857.
    Date Filed: February 16, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: March 8, 2012.
    Description: Application of Sundance Air Venezuela S.A. requesting 
renewal of its existing foreign air carrier permit

[[Page 13683]]

authorizing it to engage in the foreign air transportation of property 
and mail between points in Venezuela and points in the United States.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2012-5526 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
(Reap. Dec. 8835)

#### D. C. Andrews & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 847629.

(Decided June 13, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a re-appraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff and the case was ordered submitted by the court. Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or ap*687pellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                   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


    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Michael
R. Mulcahy, President and Chief Executive Officer of Trans-Lux Corporation, do
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:

    (1) The Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

    This Certification accompanies this Form 10-Q as an exhibit, but shall not
be deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Registrant or
the certifying officer.



                                       /s/ Michael R. Mulcahy
                                       -------------------------------------
Date:  November 16, 2009               Michael R. Mulcahy
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
AAM-10-255-E

May 5, 2010

 Exemption No. 10060

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0456

Mr. Grant E. Goetsch

Vice President, Flight Operations

Wisconsin Aviation, Inc.

3606 Corben Court

Madison, WI 53704

Dear Mr. Goetsch:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 12, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Wisconsin Aviation, Inc. (Wisconsin Aviation), for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow 

Wisconsin Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its 

safety-sensitive employees under one testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Wisconsin Aviation.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into 

one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 
2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of 

exemption;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Wisconsin Aviation, Inc., an exemption from part 120 to 

the extent necessary to allow Wisconsin Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of 

the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to 

the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Wisconsin Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

 2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the 

 Wisconsin Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
March 4, 1971

No. 71-5

#### Stephen D. Crider, LCPL, U. S. Marine Corps v G. F. O’Malley, Charles Timblin, J. Fielding Jones, All Judges of Panel 2, U. S. Navy Court of Military Review.

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is, hereby denied without prejudice to the right of petitioner to assign the issue herein raised in a Petition for Grant of Review submitted to this Court, in due course, should the same be considered necessary or appropriate.

(J. DARDEN would dismiss the Petition because of his views that action on it would not be necessary or appropriate in aid of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 67 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 867.)
No. 50255.

#### Protest 3722-K of California Ship Supply Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar,in all material respects to that passed upon in Abstracts 36724 and 38185, which records were incorporated herein. In accordance therewith it was held that the collector should compute the duty upon the basis of the dutiable value obtained by multiplying the appraised unit of value, plus packing when not included, by the net weight of the cheese as shown by the weigher, less l ounce per loaf for taro of paper or foil covering or both. The protest was sustained to this extent.
# C_2015414EN.01004401.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/44

---

Action brought on 30 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-129/15)

(2015/C 414/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Jeannin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to take into account, for the purposes of calculating the applicant’s retirement pension, the period of service equivalent to 26 days which was granted following the transfer of pension rights acquired in the national system to the EU pension scheme, and a claim for one symbolic euro by way of compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision rejecting his complaint and the implied decision, by the decision of 6 February 2015 on the granting and payment of his pension rights, not to take into account, for the purposes of calculating that pension, the period of 26 days acquired through the transfer of pension rights from the French retirement schemes known as CNAVTS-ARRCO and MSA; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision rejecting his complaint and the implied decision, by the decision of 6 February 2015 on the granting and payment of his pension rights, not to take into account, for the purposes of calculating that pension, the period of 26 days acquired through the transfer of pension rights from the French retirement schemes known as CNAVTS-ARRCO and MSA;

| — | award one symbolic euro by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

award one symbolic euro by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

| — | order the Commission to pay EUR 3  500 by way of costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay EUR 3  500 by way of costs.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JEFFERY A. JOHNSON, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:13-cv-0025 

 Judge Watson 

 Magistrate Judge King 

MUSKINGUM CO. SHERIFF’S DEPT., 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 

 This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for default 

judgment against defendant Aramark, Inc., Doc. No. 15. For the 

reasons that follow, it is recommended that the motion be denied. 

In directing service of process by the Marshals Service, the 

Court specified that each defendant would have “forty-five days after 

service of process to respond to the Complaint.” Initial Screen of 

the Complaint, Doc. No. 5. The docket indicates that service of 

process was effected on defendant Aramark, Inc., on January 22, 2013. 

Summons Returned Executed, Doc. No. 10. This defendant’s response is 

therefore due on or before March 11, 2013. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6(a)(1). Thus, the time by which defendant Aramark, Inc., must 

respond to the Complaint has not yet expired, and this defendant is 

not in default. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for default 

judgment, Doc. No. 15, be DENIED. 

Case: 2:13-cv-00025-MHW-NMK Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/01/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

 If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report 

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file 

and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part 

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 

U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must 

be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy 

thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to 

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to 

de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the 

decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of 

Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States 

v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

March 1, 2013 

Case: 2:13-cv-00025-MHW-NMK Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/01/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>