alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Data set id: 

**Data Citation and Acknowledgment** As a condition of using these data, you must cite the use of this data set. Such a practice gives credit to data set producers and advances principles of transparency and reproducibility.

10.7265/N5/NSIDC-WGI-2012-02

https://doi.org/10.7265/N5/NSIDC-WGI-2012-02

Copied

To promote open science principles and reproducibility, we encourage you to make your data citation specific to the subset used in your research. Common examples of information include spatial and temporal range and file types if relevant.

For more general information, see our Citation Policies.

**COMPREHENSIVE Level of Service**

**Data:** Data integrity and usability verified; data customization services available for select data

**Documentation:** Key metadata and comprehensive user guide available

**User Support:** Assistance with data access and usage; guidance on use of data in tools and data customization services

See All Level of Service Details

This is the most recent version of these data.

                      - Rendering Links ...

                    - Rendering Links ...

## Overview

Parameter(s): 

GLACIERS

Platform(s):

Sensor(s):

Data Format(s):

Temporal Coverage:

Temporal Resolution:

                                  - Varies

Spatial Resolution:

                                  - Not Specified

Spatial Coverage:N:89.3S:-71.66E:180W:-180

View Metadata Record

## Data Access & Tools

### NOAA@NSIDC HTTPS File System

Get Data

NOAA@NSIDC HTTPS Access Guide

Type:

View Metadata

### World Glacier Inventory Search

Get DataSearch & DiscoverCustomize

Type:

Last updated:
April 2016

View Metadata

Customization Capabilities:

Output Formats:

## Documentation

### User Guide

World Glacier Inventory, Version 1 User Guide

### General Resources

Abbreviations used for WGI database field names

## Help Articles

### How to Articles

How to access and download NOAA@NSIDC data

Read More
(Reap. Dec. 9395)

#### Bien Trading Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1597.

(Decided April 13, 1959)

Plaintiff; not represented by counsel.

*George Goehr an Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision on the following stipulation of the parties:

> It is stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the Court, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States at the following prices:

> Seven ounce White Meat Tuna at $8.77 per carton, net, packed. Sixty-six and a half (66%) ounce White Meat Tuna at $9.28 per carton, net, packed.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find and bold tbat export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for determination of value of tbe merchandise herein, and that such value, for the entry white meat tuna in 7-ounce tins, is $8.77 per carton, net, packed, and for the entry white meat tuna in 66%-ounce tins, such value is $9.28 per carton, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JAMES ROBERTSON, Merchant Seaman, Civilian, Appellant

6 USCMA 805, 21 CMR 127

No. 5441

Decided March 30, 1956

*Fred W. Shields, Esq., Calvin FI. Childress, Esq.,*and *Commander James A. Brough, USN,*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Verne L. Oliver, USMC,*was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam:

This is the second time this case has been before us. See United States v Robertson, 5 USCMA 306, 19 CMR 102. *806The accused was initially convicted of the unpremeditated murder of a fellow American seaman in Yokohama, Japan. Upon our initial review, we gave exhaustive consideration to the facts, and concluded that the accused was amenable to court-martial jurisdiction under Article 2(11), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 552, as a person serving with, or accompanying the armed forces outside the territorial limits of the United States and its possessions. We also held that an issue of involuntary manslaughter had been raised at the trial, and reversed, for the law officer had failed to treat this subject in his instructions. At that time we did not consider the constitutionality of Article 2(11) of the Code, supra, and the constitutional question was not argued by defense counsel before us. Our original decision directed the return of the case to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for appropriate action. This took the form of a reduction of the findings, by a board of review, to involuntary manslaughter, and affirmance of an appropriate sentence, rather than a rehearing for unpremeditated murder. In the meantime, the Supreme Court decided the case of Toth v Quarles, 350 US 11, 76 S Ct 1, 100 L ed — (1955), holding that Article 3(a) of the Code, 50 USC § 553, which purported to confer jurisdiction on courts-martial to try former members of the military was unconstitutional. Following the affirmance of modified findings and sentence by the board of review, the accused comes to this Court again, urging, for the first time, the constitutional invalidity of Article 2(11), supra.

In United States v Burney, 6 USCMA 776, 21 CMR 98, we gave exhaustive consideration to the question of the constitutionality of Article 2(11) of the Code, and concluded that, on the basis of precedent, history, and logic, it was constitutionally sound. Most of what was said there is equally pertinent here, adequately disposes of the issue presented, and will not be repeated.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.
#### Jason Dale JACK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph L. MCGRATH, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-16124.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 15, 2005.

Decided Aug. 3, 2005.

*43C. Roman Rector, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Robert R. Anderson, Depty Atty Gen., Erik R. Brunkal, Office of the California Attorney General Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, CANBY, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Jason Jack appeals the district court’s denial of his federal habeas corpus petition challenging his state convictions on two counts of first degree murder in connection with a gang-related slaying in 1994.

Jack first maintains that the state court’s rejection of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was an unreasonable application of *Strickland v. Washington,*467 U.S. 1267, 104 S.Ct. 3562, 82 L.Ed.2d 864 (1984). Jack contends that his attorney did not properly prepare for trial and failed to adequately seek out and assess exculpatory witnesses. Jack’s attorney had, however, hired a private investigator who interviewed several witnesses. Jack has also not shown that the witnesses’ testimony would have produced a different result, and there are clear strategic reasons why his attorney may have decided not to interview or call certain witnesses, since their faculties were impaired at the time of the shooting. The state court’s determination that Jack suffered no prejudice under the *Strickland*standard is not an unreasonable application of that standard. Jack also relies on a witness’ recantation. He is not entitled to have a proffered recantation of a witness’ trial testimony serve as conclusive proof of actual innocence. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); *Hysler v. Florida,*315 U.S. 411, 413, 62 S.Ct. 688, 86 L.Ed. 932 (1942). This particular recantation, moreover, appears inherently suspect. The witness had given Jack’s investigator four different versions of the shooting, and her credibility was tested extensively at trial.

Jack’s contention that the trial court should have given a special California cautionary instruction does not rise to the level of a federal due process violation.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 23808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ07-3-000]


Basin Electric Power Cooperative; Notice of Filing

April 24, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 16, 2007, Basin Electric Cooperative 
filed revised tariff sheets to its non-jurisdictional open-access 
transmission reciprocity tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 
No. 1, to comply with paragraph 139 of Order No. 890 and the 
Commission's April 11, 2007 Order.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9fffcebfaf6d7d5d0d7dceaccc9c9d6cbcdf9dfdccbda97ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e1a7a4b3a2ae8f8d888f84b29491918e9395a187849382cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 7, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8215 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## SERVED AUGUST 27, 2012
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

In The Matter Of: EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS, INC Respondent 

### WASHINGTON, DC ?C 

### I Z
) ) ) ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2012-0476 Case No. 2009 SO 950054

ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING On August 22, 2012, the Complainant, the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), filed a Withdrawal ofComplaint. The FAA'sWithdrawal ofComplaint stated that the FAA and the Respondent, Executive Helicopters, Inc., had reached a settlement and that the FAAwas withdrawing its Complaint dated June 12, 2011. There is a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference currently set in this matter.· It Is Hereby Ordered: 1) The September 14, 2012 Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, set for 11 :OOam EST, is cancelled. 2) Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §13.215, the Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has Withdrawn its ComplaintJune 12, 2011, andthis proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service List Cj: 

### f2SERVICE LIST- BY

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY
Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur WrightBuilding-Suite 2W10001

Jeremy Bass, President Executive Helicopters, Inc., Respondent 3231 Victory Street Hanger 328 West Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 TEL: 843-333-1626 FAX: 843-828-0307 ONE COPY

Autumn Killingham, Complainant's Counsel Enforcement Division FederalAviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington, DC 20591 TEL: 202-267-7728 FAX: 202-267-5106 ' The Honorable J.E. Sullivan,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2012-0476 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service inperson or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430. '
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA prediction model of the depth-of-discharge effect on the cycle life of a storage cellCycle life requirements are very high for batteries used in aerospace applications in low Earth orbit. The data base required to establish confidence in a particular cell design is thus both extensive and expensive. Reliable accelerated cycle life testing and performance decay modeling represent attractive alternatives to real-time tests of cycle life. In light of certain long-term cycle life test results, this paper examines a very simple performance decay model developed earlier. Application of that model to available data demonstrates a rigid relationship between a battery's expected cycle life and the depth of discharge of cycling. Further, modeling analysis of the data suggests that a significantly improved cycle life can be obtained with advanced components, materials, and designs; and that cycle life can be reliably predicted from the results of accelerated testing.Document ID19870012878Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsThaller, Lawrence H.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Lim, Hong S.*(Hughes Research Labs. Malibu, Calif., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1987Subject CategoryEnergy Production And ConversionReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:89915AIAA PAPER 87-9080E-3608NASA-TM-89915Accession Number87N22311Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-41-21Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19870012878.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
# C_2017231EN.01005302.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/53

---

Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Facebook v EUIPO — Brand IP Licensing (lovebook)

(Case T-757/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 231/69)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

1

---
# C_2015213EN.01004901.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/49

---

Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-62/15)

(2015/C 213/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions reducing the weighting applicable to the pensions of the applicants, who reside in Denmark, as set out in their pension statements for the month of June 2014 and compensation for non-material harm allegedly suffered as a result of the diverging and contradictory information used as grounds for the contested decisions.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions contained in the pension statement of June 2014 by which the weighting applicable to the pensions of the applicants is reduced as of 1 January 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions contained in the pension statement of June 2014 by which the weighting applicable to the pensions of the applicants is reduced as of 1 January 2014;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs and an amount to be fixed on an equitable basis as compensation for the non-material harm caused. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs and an amount to be fixed on an equitable basis as compensation for the non-material harm caused.

---
|  | JLab Publications |
|--|-------------------|

| **Physics Annual Reports - Archives**
**2003-2004**
- Physics Division ( pdf )  - published 02/04  Theory Group (pdf,  ps) - published 2004
**2001-2002**
- Physics Division ( pdf ,   ps )  - published09/02  Theory Group (pdf,  ps) - published 06/02
**1999-2000**
- Physics Division ( pdf ,   ps )  - published04/01  Theory Group (pdf,  ps) - published 04/01maintained by webmaster@jlab.orgupdated July 7, 2004 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# C_2017178EN.01001802.xml

| 6.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/18

---

Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Viewty GT)

(Case T-534/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 178/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and U. Hildebrandt, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2015 (Joined Cases R 1937/2014-2 and R 1564/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH and LG Electronics, Inc.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | LG Electronics, Inc., is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

LG Electronics, Inc., is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

1

---
No. 48722.

#### Protests 769585-G, etc., of Westergaard Berg-Johnsen Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269 the collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, allowing 21⁄2 percent in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings.
# C_2017144EN.01003601.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Cryo-Save v EUIPO — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack (Cryo-Save)

(Case T-239/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Cryo-Save - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the mark - Burden of proof - Declaration of revocation))

(2017/C 144/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cryo-Save AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko and W. Schramek, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2015 (Case R 2567/2013-4), concerning revocation proceedings between MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack and Cryo-Save.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cryo-Save AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cryo-Save AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

1

---