alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFlexible radiator systemThe soft tube radiator subsystem is described including applicable system requirements, the design and limitations of the subsystem components, and the panel manufacturing method. The soft tube radiator subsystem is applicable to payloads requiring 1 to 12 kW of heat rejection for orbital lifetimes per mission of 30 days or less. The flexible radiator stowage volume required is about 60% and the system weight is about 40% of an equivalent heat rejection rigid panel. The cost should also be considerably less. The flexible radiator is particularly suited to shuttle orbiter sortie payloads and also whose mission lengths do not exceed the 30 day design life.Document ID19840012555Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsOren, J. A.*(Vought Corp. Dallas, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateOctober 30, 1982Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberREPT-2-19200/3R-1195BNAS 1.26:171765NASA-CR-171765Accession Number84N20623Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS9-14776Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840012555.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
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Case Studies in Union Leadership Training, 1951-52

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Case Studies in Union Leadership Training, 1951-52 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1114*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1952,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4445,			accessed on August 30, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

KATHERINE BIRL, as parent and : 

natural guardian of G.B, a minor, and : Civ. No. 3:22-CV-1598 

in her own right, et al., : 

 : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : 

v. : (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom) 

 : 

SKI SHAWNEE, INC., : 

 : 

Defendant. : 

 

 

ORDER 

 

 AND NOW, this 6th day of January 2025, in accordance with the 

accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment (Doc. 46) is GRANTED. 

 

 s/ Daryl F. Bloom 

Daryl F. Bloom 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

 

Case 3:22-cv-01598-DFB Document 64 Filed 01/06/25 Page 1 of 1
#### CRANE BROTHERS MOTORS, INC. and American Motor Sales Corporation, Appellants, v. D. D. CONNELL, Appellee.

No. 70-86.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 5, 1970.

Conely & Conely, Okeechobee, for appellants.

*139Sanford M. Swerdlin, Clewiston, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Crane Brothers Motors, Inc. and American Motor Sales Corporation, bring this interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial court denying their motions for summary judgment. This action is an action at law for replevin and therefore the order appealed is not an appeal-able order. The correctness of the order would be subject to review upon an appeal from a final judgment entered in this cause.

For the foregoing reasons this interlocutory appeal is dismissed ex mero motu.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

YAN YAN, : Case No. 4:14-CV-01590

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Brann)

:

v. :

:

PENNSYLVANIA STATE : (Magistrate Judge Schwab)

UNIVERSITY, :

PENNSYLVANIA STATE :

UNIVERSITY BRANDYWINE :

CAMPUS, :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

September 1, 2015

BACKGROUND:

On November 2, 2014, pro se Plaintiff Yan Yan filed an amended complaint

against Defendant Pennsylvania State University and Pennsylvania State 

University Brandywine Campus claiming, inter alia, that Penn State refused to hire 

her for jobs that require a Ph.D. ECF No. 41. Plaintiff’s prior two cases (4:10-cv212 and 4:14-cv-1373) against Defendants related, in part, to her failure to obtain a 

Ph.D. from Penn State. 

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim, filed November 14, 2014. ECF No. 44. The case was jointly assigned 

Case 4:14-cv-01590-MWB Document 76 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 2
2

to Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, who issued a report and recommendation on 

August 11, 2015, recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted 

and that all of Plaintiff’s claims in her amended complaint be dismissed. No 

objections have been filed to the report and recommendation.

Magistrate Judge Schwab exhaustively reviewed every conceivable facet of 

the Plaintiff’s claims. Because this Court agrees with her analysis, the undersigned 

will not rehash her sound reasoning, but will instead adopt the report and 

recommendation in its entirety. ECF No. 73.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Schwab is ADOPTED

in full. ECF No. 73.

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED.

ECF No. 44.

3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. ECF No. 41.

4. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED as moot. ECF No. 74.

5. The clerk is directed to close the case file.

BY THE COURT:

/s Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-01590-MWB Document 76 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1894 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1894

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 20, 2005

              Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide for 
 the making of foster care maintenance payments to private for-profit 
                               agencies.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Access Foster Care Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. FOSTER CARE MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT 
              AGENCIES.

    Section 472(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 672(b)) is 
amended by striking ``nonprofit'' each place it appears.

            Passed the Senate October 19, 2005.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the ‘‘Report’’) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 17, 2008

/s/ Alan KessmanAlan Kessman
Chief Executive Officer


---
No. 99-1675.

#### United States v. Farley et ux.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 193 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 193

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To increase the penalties for violations by television and radio 
   broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, 
                    indecent, and profane language.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR OBSCENE, INDECENT, AND PROFANE 
              BROADCASTS.

    Section 503(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
503(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as 
        subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
        subparagraph:
    ``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the violator is--
            ``(i)(I) a broadcast station licensee or permittee; or
            ``(II) an applicant for any broadcast license, permit, 
        certificate, or other instrument or authorization issued by the 
        Commission; and
            ``(ii) determined by the Commission under paragraph (1) to 
        have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane language, the 
        amount of any forfeiture penalty determined under this 
        subsection shall not exceed $325,000 for each violation or each 
        day of a continuing violation, except that the amount assessed 
        for any continuing violation shall not exceed a total of 
        $3,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.''; and
            (3) in subparagraph (D), as redesignated by paragraph (1), 
        by striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting 
        ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)''.

            Passed the Senate May 18, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 193

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To increase the penalties for violations by television and radio 
   broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, 
                    indecent, and profane language.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25380]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-344-000]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

September 19, 1997.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on Wednesday, October 8, 1997, at 10 a.m. and 
Thursday, October 9, 1997, at the offices of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, for 
the purpose of exploring the possible settlement of the above-
referenced docket.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined in 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, please contact Kathleen M. Dias at 
(202) 209-0524 or Michael D. Cotleur at (202) 208-1076.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25380 Filed 9-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
December 4, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PHILIP DEAN LYNCH , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00363

- CV V.

CACH, LLC , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on March 27, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Philip Dean Lynch.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25145]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-527-000]


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

September 17, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 12, 1997, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Original Volume No. 2, the revised tariff sheets listed on 
Appendix A of the filing to become effective October 6, 1997.
    Texas Eastern states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect 
changes in Texas Eastern's Rate Schedule X-28 which were authorized in 
Texas Eastern's Order No. 636 restructuring proceeding in Docket Nos. 
RS92-11-000, et al.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were served on all 
affected parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this 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 Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in 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. 97-25145 Filed 9-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          17,917
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                11,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     21,649
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          18,636
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            18,820
<LOANS>                                        101,408
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,107
<DEPOSITS>                                     155,568
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,350
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,480
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 177,107
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,122
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,675
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   390
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,188
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,627
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,627
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,561
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      250
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,853
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,251
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,251
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.92
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.52
<LOANS-NON>                                         58
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1407
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       38
<RECOVERIES>                                        13
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1632
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MOHAMMED NAZIR BIN LEP, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 09-0031 (JDB) BARACK OBAMA, et al., Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING STAY OF CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE Upon consideration of Petitioner's Unopposed Motion to Stay the Case Management Schedule, and finding good cause therefor, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is granted and that the deadlines established in the Case Management Order filed April 30, 2010 ("CMO") are stayed; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that by no later than April 1, 2012, Petitioner shall submit to the Court a proposed schedule to govern further proceedings in this case and/or a joint status report on the scheduling of further proceedings in this case; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that during the pendency of this stay, Petitioner may confer with Respondents regarding potential discovery pursuant to CMO § I.E.2 or, if necessary, file a single I.E.2. motion on a schedule to be proposed at the time the motion, if any, is filed; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that aside from the stay of the deadlines in the CMO, all other aspects of the CMO shall remain in full force and effect.

SO ORDERED./s/ JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge
Date: October 3, 2011

-2-
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 30373 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

− Appellee , v ersus
AZIZI ANSARI , Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:07

- CR

- 337

- 1

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Azizi Ansari, federal prisoner #30027

- 086, moves to proceed in forma pauperis ( “ IFP ” ) on appeal fro m the order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. Ansari filed the § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking to have his 240

- month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-30373 Document: 00515298733 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2020No. 19

- 30373

2 to distribute MDMA (ecstasy) reduced per Amendm ents 591, 599, and 742 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied Ansari’s IFP motion on
the basis that any appeal would be frivolous.
To proceed IFP, a litigant must show that he is economically eligible and that his appeal is taken in g ood faith, that is, he will raise a nonfrivolous issue. Carson v. Polly , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). This court’s inquiry into good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolou s).” Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation s omitted). Section 3582(c)(2) permits the district court to modify a sentence “in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” but only if the modification is consistent with the guidelines pol

icy statements. § 3582(c)(2). A defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction
i f the guideline range originally applicable to him has been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1). Because Ansari was sentenced after the effective date of Amendments 591 and 599, he has failed to show that his term of imprisonment was based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered. Thus , he is not eligible for a reduc

tion under § 3582(c)(2). See § 1B1.10(a)(1) ; United States v. Doublin , 572 F.3d 235, 237 (5th Cir. 2009). Ansari has abandoned his argument that he is enti

tled to a reduction based on Amendment 742. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

− 25 (5th Cir. 1993)

. Accordingly, Ansari has not shown that his proposed appeal raises a nonfrivolous issue. The request for leave to procee d IFP is therefore DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard , 707 F.2d at 219

- 20; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Case: 19-30373 Document: 00515298733 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2020