alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsClean catalytic combustor programA combustor program was conducted to evolve and to identify the technology needed for, and to establish the credibility of, using combustors with catalytic reactors in modern high-pressure-ratio aircraft turbine engines. Two selected catalytic combustor concepts were designed, fabricated, and evaluated. The combustors were sized for use in the NASA/General Electric Energy Efficient Engine (E3). One of the combustor designs was a basic parallel-staged double-annular combustor. The second design was also a parallel-staged combustor but employed reverse flow cannular catalytic reactors. Subcomponent tests of fuel injection systems and of catalytic reactors for use in the combustion system were also conducted. Very low-level pollutant emissions and excellent combustor performance were achieved. However, it was obvious from these tests that extensive development of fuel/air preparation systems and considerable advancement in the steady-state operating temperature capability of catalytic reactor materials will be required prior to the consideration of catalytic combustion systems for use in high-pressure-ratio aircraft turbine engines.Document ID19840007083Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsEkstedt, E. E.*(General Electric Co. Cincinnati, OH, United States)*Lyon, T. F.*(General Electric Co. Cincinnati, OH, United States)*Sabla, P. E.*(General Electric Co. Cincinnati, OH, United States)*Dodds, W. J.*(General Electric Co. Cincinnati, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1983Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-168323NAS 1.26:168323Accession Number84N15151Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-22003Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840007083.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
#### Cibrowski *v.*Rittenhouse Equities, Inc., Appellant.

Argued October 24, 1933.

Before Tkexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Báldente, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*J. B. Golahcm,*and with him *Townsend, Elliott £ Munson,*for appellant.

*Marc Billett,*for;, appellee.

December 16, 1933:

Per Curiam,

Assumpsit. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant corporation, the owner of the Bittenhouse Hotel, by written contract, engaged him to get lessees for apartments in said hotel and to secure parties to hold functions therein, he to receive for his services five per *34cent of the amounts paid, and to have a drawing account of1 $100 per month to be deducted from his commissions. He further states that on December 1, 1931, there was a balance due the defendant of $28.46 by reason of the fact that plaintiff had received more than he had earned. He attaches a statement setting out the functions procured and the names of the tenants he had obtained and the amounts of money received, the items of the statement covering from June 12, 1931, to December 7, 1932, and showing commissions earned, $725, and deducts therefrom the overdraft above mentioned, making the net amount $696.75. The defendant admits the existence of the contract, but questions the correctness of the plaintiff’s conclusion, and sets out a statement giving the same items as contained in plaintiff’s exhibit; but instead of giving credit to the plaintiff for the periods of occupancy, allows commissions only for the duration of the original leases. The written contract is silent in this regard. The defendant’s figures show that instead of it owing the plaintiff the latter owes it $196.25, for which sum it asks judgment. These contrasting statements show the question which must be decided at the trial. The issue is clearly joined. Is the plaintiff entitled to commissions for the entire period the various tenants occupied the apartments, or can he only claim for the duration of the original lease?

We all are of the opinion that this is not a matter for judgment on the pleadings, but that the defendant has sufficiently answered the plaintiff’s demand. In justice to the lower court it is but fair to state that the judgment was entered by it on the mistaken idea that the parties had amicably arranged for its entry. When the mistake was discovered, the court tried to correct it but thei power to do so had passed by reason of the appeal having been taken to this court.

The judgment is reversed with a procedendo.
#### Quincy BURKES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-207.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 18, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
EXHIBIT
32.1





Section
1350 Certification





In
connection with the Annual Report of Digital Lifestyles Group Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ken Page, Chief Executive
Officer and principal financial and accounting officer, of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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, as amended,
  and




2.
                The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the
      Company.





August
      21, 2009
                  /s/
      Ken PageKen
      Page, Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer, principal
      financial and accounting
      officer
# ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

April 19, 2024 CR-2023-0761 Michael Bethany Steger, Jr. v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CC-07-6438.60) 

## NOTICE You are hereby notified that on April 19, 2024, the following action was taken in the above-reference cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals: Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: J. A. B. v. C. N. B.

Appellate case number: 01-20-00723-CV

Trial court case number: 19-DCV-268152

Trial court: 328th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant J.A.B. has filed a motion to strike the appellee’s brief filed by appellee C.N.B. 

in the above-referenced appeal. Appellant’s motion is denied. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s Amparo Guerra

Acting individually 

Date: April 13, 2021
#### Adam LEWIS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 39977.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 24, 1971.

*63Adam Lewis, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of habeas corpus and return thereto. Upon consideration of the petition, the return and jurisdictional brief of the respondent, we find that the writ was improvidently issued. The writ is discharged but without prejudice to petitioner’s right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in the light of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Stonom v. Wainwright, 235 So.2d 545 (Fla.App.lst 1970); and Shedrick v. State, 235 So.2d 57 (Fla.App.4th 1970).

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL EUGENE STOFFA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 286 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL EUGENE STOFFA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 287 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of December, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.7

                                AMENDMENT NO. 3
                  MATRIXONE, INC. 1999 STOCK PLAN, AS AMENDED


MatrixOne, Inc.'s 1999 Stock Plan, as amended (the "Plan"), is hereby amended as
follows:

1.   Section 4(c) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as
follows:

     "Exercise Price. The Board shall establish the exercise price (or determine
     the method by which the exercise price shall be determined) at the time
     each Option is granted and specify it in the applicable option agreement.
     Such exercise price per share shall not be less than the fair market value
     per share of Common Stock on the date of such grant."


2.   Section 5(a) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as
follows:

     "Grants. The Board may grant Awards entitling recipients to acquire shares
     of Common Stock, subject to (i) delivery to the Company by the Participant
     of a check in an amount at least equal to the par value of the shares
     purchased, and (ii) the right of the Company to repurchase all or part of
     such shares at their issue price or other stated or formula price from the
     Participant in the event that conditions specified by the Board in the
     applicable Award are not satisfied prior to the end of the applicable
     restriction period or periods established by the Board for such Award
     (each, a "Restricted Stock Award"). No Restricted Stock Awards may be
     granted after January 21, 2002."


3.   Except as modified hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
Case 4:06-cv-00450-JEJ-AV Document 14 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:06-cv-00450-JEJ-AV Document 14 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2
### Water resources of the Louisville area, Kentucky and Indiana

By: M. I. RorabaughFloyd F. SchraderLeslie Bostwick Laird

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir276

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. EL97-56-000 and QF94-84-003]


Tenaska IV Texas Partners, Ltd.; Notice of Filing

September 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 22, 1997, Brazos Electric Power 
Cooperative, Inc. filed a Motion to Intervene and Request for 
Revocation of Qualifying Facility Status for plant operated by Tenaska 
IV Texas Partners, Ltd. in the above-referenced docket.
    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, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before October 3, 1997. 
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 proceedings. 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24130 Filed 9-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### A. C. TYNER, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, and Safety Cab Company, Inc., Respondents.

No. 77-1438.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 16, 1978.

A. C. Tyner, Orlando, pro se.

MOORE, Judge.

We treat this case as a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of June 14, 1977 of the Industrial Relations Commission affirming the appeals referee’s decision that the claimant (petitioner herein) voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to the employer. Having reviewed the entire record in this cause we find that the decisions of the appeals referee and the Industrial Relations Commission are supported by substantial, competent evidence consistent with the essential requirements of law. We, therefore, deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

DOWNEY, C. J., and BERANEK, J., concur.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Consolidated  Statement  of  Financial  Condition  at December  31, 1996 and the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Year Ended December 31, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000944250
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              15,490
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                           345
<INVENTORY>                                          1,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    20,584
<PP&E>                                             201,855
<DEPRECIATION>                                      28,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     223,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               19,892
<BONDS>                                            181,081
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               16,430
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                29
<OTHER-SE>                                           6,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       223,718
<SALES>                                            161,707
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   174,234
<CGS>                                               65,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       65,941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    69,143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       194
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  22,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      6,208
<INCOME-TAX>                                            69
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  6,139
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         6,139
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .15



</TABLE>
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 27, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20405

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELENA GUTIERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-279-3

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elena Gutierrez pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiracy

to transport aliens within the United States for financial gain. 

She appeals her 24-month sentence and argues that the district

court gave insufficient notice of its intent to upwardly depart

at sentencing. This issue is, as she concedes, reviewed for

plain error only due to her failure to object to the alleged

error in the district court. See United States v. Jones, 444

F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 2006). Gutierrez has not shown that the

district court would have imposed a lesser sentence if she had
No. 06-20405

-2-

received advance notice of its intent to depart. Consequently,

she has failed to establish plain error. See id. at 443. The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9

           SCHEDULE OF NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS UNDER
                     THE 1996 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR PLAN

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                          NUMBER OF SHARES
----                                          ----------------
                                              
<S>                                                <C>
Frank T. Cary                                       12,000
                                              
Harry Crutcher III                                  12,000
                                              
William R. Delk                                     12,000
                                              
Donald R. Hollis                                    12,000
                                              
Carl M. Mueller                                     12,000

Bernard F. Sergesketter                             12,000
                                              
Henry F. Skelsey                                    12,000

</TABLE>
#### Peter SIMMONS, Jr. v. STATE.

No. 39069.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
#### Maureen Lier, wife of/and Anthony Joseph CASH v. Carol W. HIGHT.

No. 62198.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1978.

In re: Maureen Lier, wife of/and Anthony Joseph Cash, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson. 357 So.2d 73.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24748]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


President's Advisory Board on Race

ACTION: President's Advisory Board on Race; Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The President's Advisory Board on Race will meet on September 
30, 1997, at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. The meeting will start at 9:30 a.m. and end at 
approximately 3:30 p.m. Agenda items to be covered include: a 
presentation of demographic data regarding the population of the United 
States, a discussion of social science research about race and 
prejudice, and reports from the Chair and the Executive Director about 
recent activities and upcoming plans.
    Expedited scheduling considerations for this meeting precluded the 
full notice period; however, timely advance notice is being provided to 
allow for appropriate public review and comment.
    The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first-
seated basis. Interested persons are encouraged to attend. Members of 
the public may submit to the contact person, any time before or after 
the meeting, written statements to the Board. Written comments may be 
submitted by mail, telegram, or facsimile, and should contain the 
writer's name, address and commercial, government, or organizational 
affiliation, if any.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Comments or questions or regarding this meeting may be directed to 
Randy Ayers, (202) 395-1010, or via facsimile, (202) 395-1020.

    Dated: September 12, 1997.
Randy D. Ayers,
Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-24748 Filed 9-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-AR-M