alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23817]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-2-18-000]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

September 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 28, 1997, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing the following tariff sheets 
to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1:

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 14

    The tariff sheet is being filed to establish a revised Effective 
Fuel Retention Percentage (EFRP) under the provisions of Section 16 
``Fuel Retention'' as found in the General Terms and Conditions of 
Texas Gas FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1. The revised EFRP 
may be in effect for the annual period November 1, 1997, through 
October 31, 1998. The instant filing generally results in net 
reductions of fuel retention percentages versus the percentages for the 
annual period beginning November 1, 1996.
    Texas Gas Requests an effective date of November 1, 1997, for the 
proposed tariff sheet.
    Copies of the tariff sheet are being mailed to Texas Gas affected 
customers and interested state commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Secs 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations. All such motions or protests should be filed in accordance 
with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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 motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23817 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 189 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 189

      To amend the Head Start Act to require parental consent for 
             nonemergency intrusive physical examinations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2005

  Mr. Inhofe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Head Start Act to require parental consent for 
             nonemergency intrusive physical examinations.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. HEAD START ACT AMENDMENT IMPOSING PARENTAL CONSENT 
              REQUIREMENT FOR NONEMERGENCY INTRUSIVE PHYSICAL 
              EXAMINATIONS.

    The Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:

``SEC. 657A. PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR NONEMERGENCY INTRUSIVE 
              PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.

    ``(a) In General.--A Head Start agency shall obtain written 
parental consent before administration of any nonemergency intrusive 
physical examination of a child in connection with participation in a 
program under this subchapter.
    ``(b) Definition.--The term `nonemergency intrusive physical 
examination' means, with respect to a child, a physical examination 
that--
            ``(1) is not immediately necessary to protect the health or 
        safety of the child involved or the health or safety of another 
        individual; and
            ``(2) requires incision or is otherwise invasive, or 
        involves exposure of private body parts.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1619-Y

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PLATE 4
cy
Well 18 |

a oo
g}e
5
a Well 11
2|. in. casing ooo encore}
z a ———— =e
& [0 e
ed Well 12
# 2.in. casing
z
a |
a
4 ‘Well 11
& 2.in. casing
g 18 - = 1 =

20

26

24 el . ha Y¥

a = ee ——- = | VF weber on no ag woh age res ae

a

| ae
oe”

20 x

=
<7 —well 10
re 6-in. casing
5
ve athe
o-
nel
oe
ot oF
16 ist va
2
“
14
12
S ‘Well 9
= | Tin, casing
ae) =
a
g gates =
= _L £6 -in, casing
wl es ee el =
8
2
=
in|
Ele
z
S
34
ral
=
=
10
=
p-——+—__| Well 8
am Ein. casing
‘ pe
‘Well 8-
2.in. casing
6
4
6
I Well 7, Well 7
poten
e fi
| Well 7
6 To 40 ft below land surface
=050 Barometric pressure r 1
Datum is arbitrary; scale is inverted
PRESSURE, IN 0 na —
FEET OF WATER =a (a a
+£0.50,
0.50
GAGE HEIGHT, | 9 49
IN FEET i Gage on East Fork of Jemez fiver | eS el
ea a
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 17 18 17 1.6 18 19 2.0
0.30 ‘Average daily flow of East Fork of Jemez River. in cubic feet per second
pischarce, | 1° |_| Well 7 Well developed by pumping J
IN GALLONS js
PER MINUTE — |
o oe
26 27 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 i 12 13 14 15 16

28 29 8 9
OCTOBER 1949 NOVEMBER 1949

GRAPHIC PLOT OF THE WATER LEVEL IN WELLS 7-12 AND 18, THE RATE OF DISCHARGE OF WELL 7, AND THE BAROMETRIC
PRESSURE FROM OCTOBER 26 TO NOVEMBER 16, 1949 IN THE VALLE GRANDE, SANDOVAL COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

679-607 O - 63 (In pocket)
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 Quarterly Report of Adolor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas P.
Hess, Chief 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:

(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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas P. Hess                                 
|Thomas P. Hess                                     
|Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|April 28, 2008
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSystem life and reliability modeling for helicopter transmissionsA computer program which simulates life and reliability of helicopter transmissions is presented. The helicopter transmissions may be composed of spiral bevel gear units and planetary gear units - alone, in series or in parallel. The spiral bevel gear units may have either single or dual input pinions, which are identical. The planetary gear units may be stepped or unstepped and the number of planet gears carried by the planet arm may be varied. The reliability analysis used in the program is based on the Weibull distribution lives of the transmission components. The computer calculates the system lives and dynamic capacities of the transmission components and the transmission. The system life is defined as the life of the component or transmission at an output torque at which the probability of survival is 90 percent. The dynamic capacity of a component or transmission is defined as the output torque which can be applied for one million output shaft cycles for a probability of survival of 90 percent. A complete summary of the life and dynamic capacity results is produced by the program.Document ID19860015519Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsSavage, M.*(Akron Univ. Akron, OH, United States)*Brikmanis, C. K.*(Akron Univ. Akron, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1986Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:3967E-2889NASA-CR-3967Accession Number86N24990Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-55PROJECT: RTOP 505-62-51Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860015519.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
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Roy Ozell WALKER.

No. 60945.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 15, 1978.

Charles E. McConnell, Indigent Defender Board, 26th Judicial District, Springhill, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry N. Brown, Jr., Dist. Atty., Randy D. Elkins, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:04 AM

To: Brian Coffey; Parker Richard; Cymbalsky John

Cc: Wes Patterson; Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com Meyers;

adelaski@standardsasap.org; ahofmann@publicpower.org;

Antonio.Trujillo@cooperindustries.com Trujillo; Berman Robert A.;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; Bolduc Christopher; Caitlin

Johnson; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Gaytan Carlos; chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com; Simmons Charles E.; Cohen Dan; Millure David;

eduardorobles@eaton.com; Petersen Eric; Fernstr om Gary; Rosenquist Gregory;

Coulter Greg; Jack.Moore@cooperindustries.com Moore C;

Jeffrey.Schneider@cooperindustries.com Schneider A;

Jennifer.Smith2@cooperindustries.com Smith; Corkran Jerry L.; Schoen Jerry W.;

jhodge@howard

‐ ind.com Hodge; Creevy Jim; Mauer Joanna; Caskey John. F;

jrossetti@mlgw.org; Coughlin Katie; Winder Kenneth A.; stoering@xcelenergy.com;

Hyland Michael J.; Raba Jim; Michael.Loomans@cooperindustries.com Loomans T;

Michael Rivest; Waltner Meg; Ryan Paul; phopkin son@hvolt.com Hopkinson; Kumar

Puesh; Polinski Raymond; Raymond.Poole@cooperindustries.com Poole L; Greeson

Robert; Richard.Marusinec@cooperindustries.com Marusinec M; Anderson Richard;

Saint Robert; Matthew Nardotti; Pamela Costello

Subject: Analysis Requests And Clarifying Questions

Gentleman,

There appeared to be a consensus at the last meeting that the group would find it

helpful to see an analysis bas ed only on the least

‐ cost design for each

CSL/EL/TSL (as the case may be). Accordingly, the attached requests and questions

are offered to address those needs. Although there are many Calculations

requested, all are based on the existing runs and data that DOE/LBL/Navigant

have. Indeed, only 7 designs are necessary. The ca lculations are generally no

more than one or two lines each on the same spread sheet, and thus should not

constitute a burden.
# DLA’s Acquisition director visits Distribution

/ Published June 23, 2017
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
DLA’s senior procurement executive and director of Acquisitions, Matthew R. Beebe, Senior Executive Service, along with several procurement analysts from headquarters, visited DLA Distribution on June 12. His main purpose for the site visit was to review DLA Distribution’s contract oversight program, meet with the acquisition workforce, and have a tour of DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania’s Eastern Distribution Center.  

Distribution’s procurement analyst, Tracy Birch, gave Beebe an overview of Distribution’s program and walked him through conducting the actual file review using Headquarter’s Acquisitions contract quality review checklist, allowing him the opportunity to understand the time and effort it takes to review contract actions for compliance and quality.  

Beebe spent time talking to a variety of acquisition workforce members, including acquisition project officers, program analysts, contract specialists and purchasing agents. Additionally, he attended a working lunch with contracting officers and other Distribution Acquisition supervisors.

Workforce development was one of the topic areas that generated a great deal of positive dialogue and exchange of ideas and desires.  Beebe was afforded a better understanding of the Distribution acquisition workforce's drive to cross train, participate in various opportunities and their concern for continued growth.  

DLA Distribution Future Operations supply management specialist, Mandy Brechbill, provided Beebe with a brief on the topic of suspended stock due to unit of issue or unit of pack problems, as well as cage hopping concerns. 

Finally, Army Col. Brad J. Eungard, DLA Distribution Susquehanna commander, escorted Beebe on his first tour of a distribution center to familiarize him with the work executed by DLA Distribution, as well as the flow of material received from suppliers and a point of reference as DLA considers distribution modernization efforts.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

926 KA 10-01973 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
MARK A. ROBERTS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

AMY L. HALLENBECK, FULTON, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
DONALD H. DODD, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO (MICHAEL G. CIANFARANO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered August 9, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the third degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed ( see People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7121

RODNEY A. KOON

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

BRIAN K. WELLS; EMILY BROWN; SGT. BROWN

,

Defendants

- Appellees

a nd

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROY COOPER; KENNETH LASSITER

,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. ( 5:19

- ct

- 03014

- BO )

Submitted : December 21

, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Rodney A. Koon , Appellant Pro Se. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7121 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 32 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7121 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:

Rodney A. Koon appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm the district court ’s order

. Koon v. Wells , No. 5:19

- ct

- 03014

- BO (E.D.N.C. July

14, 2021) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7121 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23780]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration
[Notice No. 97-9]


Notice of Information Collection Approval

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of information collection approval

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces OMB approval of a request for extension 
of approval of an information collection, OMB No. 2137-0595, entitled 
``Hazardous Materials: Cargo Tank Motor Vehicles in Liquefied 
Compressed Gas Service''. The information collection has been extended 
until February 28, 1998.

DATES: The expiration date for information collection OMB No. 2137-0595 
is February 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the information collection should be 
directed to Deborah Boothe, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards 
(DHM-10), Research and Special Programs Administration, Room 8102, 400 
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Boothe, Office of Hazardous 
Materials Standards (DHM-10), Research and Special Programs 
Administration, Room 8102, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20590-0001, Telephone (202) 366-8553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
regulations (5 CFR part 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) require that interested members 
of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on 
information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 
1320.8(s) and specify that no person is required to respond to an 
information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. 
RSPA published a final rule in the Federal Register (62 FR 44038) on 
August 18, 1997, entitled ``Hazardous Materials: Cargo Tank Motor 
Vehicles in Liquefied Compressed Gas Service''. RSPA has received 
approval from OMB for the information collection contained in that 
final rule under OMB No. 2137-0595. The approval expires on February 
28, 1998.
    RSPA published Notice No. 97-4 (62 FR 44169) on August 19, 1997, 
requesting comments on this information collection. The comment period 
on Notice No. 97-4 closes on September 18, 1997. Based on comments 
received on Notice 97-4, RSPA will submit a request to OMB for 
extension of the information collection approval until March 1, 1999, 
which is the expiration date for requirements in the final rule. RSPA 
will then publish notice of OMB's action in the Federal Register.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 3, 1997.
Edward T. Mazzullo,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-23780 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
**EXHIBIT 10.57**

**NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION**

Our non-employee directors received an annual retainer of$150,000 and reasonable and accountable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings. Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc.’s Board of Directors has established a policy that non-employee directors willreceive 5,000 shares of restricted stock each May 1st beginning in 2006. In addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional $50,000 and the Chairman of each of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and theCompensation Committee receives an additional $25,000 per year. Each member of the Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, other than their respective Chairmen, receive an additional $5,000 per year. Our Presiding Director is paid an additional$35,000 annually.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 939 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 200 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
Abatement Order filed February 23, 2017

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00068-CV

____________

QUINCY K.A. SINTIM AND SHIRLEY H. MILLS N/K/A SHIRLEY H. 

SINTIM, Appellants

V.

MICHELE LARSON & BRIAN LARSON, Appellees

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2002-40624A

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellants notified this court that on February 9, 2017, they filed a petition

for voluntary bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Southern District of Texas under case number 17-30896. A bankruptcy suspends the 

appeal from the date when the bankruptcy petition is filed until the appellate court

reinstates the appeal in accordance with federal law. Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal abated.
2

When a case has been suspended by a bankruptcy filing, a party may move 

the appellate court to reinstate the appeal if permitted by federal law or the 

bankruptcy court. Tex. R. App. P. 8.3. If the bankruptcy court has lifted or terminated 

the stay, a certified copy of the order must be attached to the motion. Id. A party 

filing a motion to reinstate shall specify what further action, if any, is required from 

this court when the appeal is reinstated. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a).

For administrative purposes only, and without surrendering jurisdiction, the 

appeal is abated and treated as a closed case until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM