alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Video: HDL-VLT_7-4-Soil Compaction Station.mp4**

**YouTube Information:**

Title: Virtual Hydraulics Lab Tour – Soil Compaction Station

Description: A brief overview of the soil compaction station which produces lab soil samples with similar properties to field soils for erosion experiments.

Video: mp4

Captions: attached

Thumbnail file: attached

Public Listing Type: Unlisted (we only want people to discover this video through our website and the virtual tour.)

**Permissions, copyright, licensing:**

Video: The entire video is FHWA-owned.

Music: Typical by Liquify. Licensed from Artlist. See attached PDF: Typical_License_719099 - 2020-2021.pdf

**Script:**

The soil compaction station reproduces lab soil samples that have similar strength to field soils. An intelligent industrial robot featuring a 7-axis robotic arm and mobile platform is programmed to carry soil samples between the compaction station and the various testing devices while utilizing sensors to avoid obstacles.

**508 Caption Description:**

The video shows the soil compaction station, which is a framework with three linear driven pistons that can compact cylinders of laboratory soils. Industrial equipment to the right of the pistons power their movement. The mobile robot sits in front of the soil compaction station with a Shelby sample resting on its mobile platform. The robotic arm picks up the sample and places it one of the compaction areas, then drives away for a moment. The robot pauses then returns to the station and picks up the sample, placing it back in the holder on the mobile platform.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RONALD G. DANDAR, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 06-46 Erie

v. )

)

DAVID GOOD, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This petition for writ of habeas corpus was received by the Clerk of Court on

February 23, 2006 and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise

Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, filed on May 15, 2007

[46], recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction and that a certificate of appealability be denied. The parties were allowed

ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on

Petitioner by certified mail at SCI Cresson, where he is incarcerated, and on

Respondents. Objections were filed by Petitioner on May 29, 2007 [47]. After de novo

review of the petition and documents in the case, together with the Report and

Recommendation and objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 2007;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is 

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, dated May

15, 2007 [46], is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 /s Sean J. McLaughlin 

SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter 

Case 1:06-cv-00046-KRG-SPB Document 48 Filed 06/11/07 Page 1 of 1
**TO: [STATE DOT TARGET APPROVER(S) such as DOT Director, Commissioner, or Chief Engineer]**

**FROM:**

**DATE:**

**SUBJECT: Approval of Safety Performance Targets for Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Report**

Each year, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires States to establish safety performance targets, as mandated by the Safety Performance Management Measures (Safety PM) Final Rule.[footnoteRef:1] These targets can be used to measure the performance of safety improvements implemented through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The overall goal is to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by creating a data-driven, performance-based HSIP. The targets, reported in the State’s annual HSIP report, are due August 31 of each year.  [1:  The Safety PM Final Rule adds Part 490 to title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations to implement the performance management requirements in 23 U.S.C. 150.] 

Your approval is requested to help ensure [STATE] sets reasonable and achievable targets for the upcoming year.

Safety performance targets relate to the following five areas: (1) number of fatalities, (2) rate of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT), (3) number of serious injuries, (4) rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT, and (5) number of non-motorized fatalities plus non-motorized serious injuries.

[DEPARTMENT or CONTACT NAME and TITLE] is requesting your approval regarding these targets for their inclusion into this year’s HSIP report. As a [WHY WOULD THEY HAVE INTEREST], you hold interest in the [SETTING/OUTCOME] of these targets, and [DEPARTMENT NAME] wants to consider all scenarios before finalizing targets.

Currently, these are [STATE's] rolling 5-year averages for each performance target:

If [STATE] is unable to meet at least four of the five targets, or if the performance outcome is not better than the baseline performance, [STATE] will be required to use obligation authority equal to the HSIP apportionment for HSIP projects only and submit an HSIP Implementation Plan.

Your input and approval is requested by [DUE DATE AND TIME] to [DEPARTMENT OR CONTACT NAME].

Any questions can be sent to [CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS].
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52085-52086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-475-821]


Notice of Postponement of Time Limit for Countervailing Duty 
Investigation: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy

AGENCY: International Trade Administration/Import Administration/
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Lockard or Kelly Parkhill, 
Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1168 or 482-4126, respectively.

Postponement

    On August 19, 1997, the Department of Commerce (``the Department'') 
initiated the countervailing duty investigation of stainless steel wire 
rod from Italy. See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty 
Investigation: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod (``SSWR'') from Italy, 
62 FR 45229 (Aug.

[[Page 52086]]

26, 1997). Respondents have indicated that they will be cooperating in 
the investigation. In addition, we are investigating a large number of 
potentially complex alleged countervailable subsidy practices. 
Accordingly, as detailed in our September 23, 1997, Memorandum to 
Robert S. LaRussa, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, (on 
file in the public file of the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the 
Department of Commerce) we deem this investigation to be 
extraordinarily complicated, and determine that additional time is 
necessary to make the preliminary determination. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 703(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), 
we are postponing the preliminary determination in this investigation 
to no later than December 29, 1997.
    This notice is published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act.

    Dated: September 30, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-26455 Filed 10-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXHIBIT32.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned ChiefFinancial Officer of Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the"Company"), hereby certify that the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004(the "Report") fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Date: March 15,2005

|  | /s/ Howard B. JohnsonHoward B. Johnson Chief FinancialOfficer |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------|

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26704]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


National Defense Panel Meeting

AGENCY: DoD, National Defense Panel.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the 
meeting of the National Defense Panel on October 20 and 21, 1997. In 
accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended [5 U.S.C. App. II, (1982)], it has been 
determined that this National Defense Panel meeting concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1982), and that accordingly this meeting 
will be closed to the public from 0830-1700, October 20 and 21, 1997 in 
order for the Panel to discuss classified material.

DATES: October 20 and 21, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Suite 532, 1931 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Defense Panel was established 
on January 14, 1997 in accordance with the Military Force Structure 
Review Act of 1996, Public Law 104-201. The mission of the National 
Defense Panel is to provide the Secretary of Defense and Congress with 
an independent, non-partisan assessment of the Secretary's Quadrennial 
Defense Review and an Alternative Force Structure Analysis. This 
analysis will explore innovative ways to meet the national security 
challenges of the twenty-first century.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND AGENDA: The National Defense Panel will meet in 
closed session from 0900-1700 on October 20 and 21 to discuss the NDP 
staff presentations on various future strategies, desired capability, 
and developing force elements at the Crystal Mall 3 office.
    The determination to close the meeting is based on the 
consideration that it is expected that discussion will involve 
classified matters of national security concern throughout.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact the National Defense 
Panel at (703) 602-4175/6.

    Dated: October 3, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-26704 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           1,515
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,414
<ALLOWANCES>                                       530
<INVENTORY>                                     38,482
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,022
<PP&E>                                          98,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,580
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,816
<BONDS>                                         12,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           10,129<F1>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,418
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,337
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,580
<SALES>                                         56,289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,289
<CGS>                                           41,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (75)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     5
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,110
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,941
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,169
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,169
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
<FN>
<F1>REPRESENTS COMMON STOCK HELD BY ESOP
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### P. D. PEACHER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 10829.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Jan. 13, 1937.

Rex V. Wheeler, of Marion, Ark., and Joe C. Barrett and N. F. Lamb, both of Jonesboro, Ark., for appellant.

Fred A. Isgrig, U. S. Atty., of Little Rock, Ark.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal docketed and dismissed at costs of appellant, on motion of appellant.
EXHIBIT 99.2
                            PRESIDENT'S CERTIFICATION


                            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 The Bralorne Mining Company (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yenyou
Zheng,  President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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,  to  the  best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/ "Yenyou Zheng"
                                     ------------------
                                        Yenyou Zheng
                                  Chief  Executive  Officer
                                   President and Director

Date: October 19, 2004
#### STATE of Florida, ex rel. Osborne Wendell PRYOR, Relator, v. Samuel S. SMITH, Circuit Judge of the Circuit Court in and for the Third Judicial Circuit in and for Columbia County, Florida, Respondent.

No. M-277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 18, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 22, 1970.

James E. Moore, Jr., Merritt Island, and E. Wilson Crump, II, Niceville, for relator.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original action in prohibition by which relator seeks to prevent his trial on first degree murder charges on the constitutional ground of double jeopardy.

Relator was indicted and tried for first degree murder. While the jury was deliberating the case after a four-day trial, four photographs of the murder victim and a deposition of one of the State’s witnesses, neither of which was entered into evidence, were allowed into the jury room. After the matter of such spurious evidence was brought to the court’s attention by defense counsel who stated to the court in chambers that the evidence was such that a mistrial should be granted, inquiry relating thereto was made of the bailiff and court reporter. The trial judge started to call the jury in but the defendant, relator here, objected to the matter being the subject of the jury’s special attention for the reason that “ * * if the purpose of the Court in bringing the jury back is for the purpose of inquiry, we would object to it as to this evidence because *if the Court denies a motion for a mistrial,** * * it would put us in the untenable position that the evidence that was in the jury room was now brought forcibly to the attention of the jury, * * ”

Upon polling the jury as to whether the evidence was looked at in the jury room, the court declared a mistrial. *86Relator contends that a mistrial was not required and unnecessary in the circumstances and, therefore, the discharge of the jury operated as an acquittal. We do not agree and deny the writ. The entry into the jury room of the unadmitted evidence amounted to an impermissible intrusion of the jury’s deliberative process in violation of the rule announced by the Supreme Court in State ex rel. Larkins v. Lewis, 54 So.2d 199 (Fla.1951).

In determining what is a legally sufficient reason for which .to declare a mistrial, the court must be armed with discretion since he is conducting the trial and is familiar with the circumstances, tensions and conditions which may be present in the courtroom. Adkins v. Smith, 205 So.2d 530 (Fla.1967). See also Smith v. State ex rel. Hamm, 225 So.2d 417 (Fla.1969), reversing State ex rel. Hamm v. Smith, 209 So.2d 876 (Fla.App.1968), upon which relator relies.

The suggestion for prohibition is denied.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RONALD DANDAR, )

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 06-46 Erie

v. )

)

DAVID GOOD, et. al., )

Respondents. )

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, this 10th day of May, 2006, upon consideration of the Petitioner’s 

Notice of Appeal of the Magistrate’s Order dated May 2, 2006 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said appeal is DENIED and the Order of the

Magistrate Judge dated May 2, 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin 

 Sean J. McLaughlin 

 United States District Judge

cc: parties/counsel of record.nmk 

Case 1:06-cv-00046-KRG-SPB Document 16 Filed 05/10/06 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52615]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26670]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Rule on Application to Use a Passenger 
Facility Charge (PFC) at Portland International Airport, Portland, 
Oregon; Correction

SUMMARY: This correction incorporates information from the public 
agency's application which further defines the ``Class or classes or 
air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to 
collect PFC's''. The public agency's definition has been added to the 
previously published excluded class.
    In notice document 97-24256 beginning on page 48128 in the issue of 
Friday, September 12, 1997, make the following correction:
    In the first column: Class or classes of air carriers which the 
public agency has requested not be required to collect PFC's: On 
demand, non scheduled Air Taxi/Commercial Operators. Further defined by 
Ordinance 359 of the Port of Portland as: The carriage in air commerce 
of persons for compensation or hire as a commercial operator, but not 
an air carriers, of aircraft having a maximum seating capacity of less 
than twenty passengers or a maximum payload capacity of less than 6,000 
pounds. ``Air Taxi/Commercial Operator'' shall also include, without 
regard to number of passengers or payload capacity, revenue passengers 
transported for student instruction, nonstop sightseeing flights that 
begin and end at the same airport and are conducted within a 25 mile 
statute radius of the Airport, ferry or training flights, aerial 
photography or survey charters, and fire fighting charters.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on September 30, 1997.
David A. Field,
Manager, Planning, Programming and Capacity Branch, Northwest Mountain 
Region.
[FR Doc. 97-26670 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### Ex parte Arthur Brennan MALLOY, II.

77-402.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 28, 1978.

SHORES, Justice.

Writ Denied.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
**MP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0 582 KIM NORQUAY, JR. ,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA ,

Respondent and Appellee .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 3 0 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including January 2 3 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 15 2022

12/15/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0582
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24830]



[[Page 48984]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of Proposed Changes to Section IV of the Field Office 
Technical Guide (FOTG) of the Natural Resources Conservation Service in 
Oklahoma

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Oklahoma, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed changes in Section IV of the 
FOTG of the NRCS in Oklahoma for review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS in Oklahoma to issue a series of 
new and revised conservation practice standards in Section IV of the 
FOTG. These new standards include Access Road (Code 560); Forage 
Harvest Management (Code 511); Irrigation Erosion Control, 
Polyacrylamide (Code I-444); Low Energy Precision Application (LEPA) 
Irrigation System (Code I-442A); Stream Crossing (Code I/583A); Well 
Decommissioning (Code 351); and Wetland Development or Restoration 
(Code 657). The revised standards include Brush Management (Code 314); 
Conservation Cover (Code 327); Firebreak (Code 394); Forest Site 
Preparation (Code 490); Forest Stand Improvement (Code 666); Grade 
Stabilization Structure (Code 410); Pond (Code 378); Prescribed Grazing 
(Code 528A); Residue Management, No Till and Strip Till (Code 329A); 
Residue Management, Mulch Till (Code 329B); Residue Management, Ridge 
Till (Code 329C); Residue Management, Seasonal (Code 344); Riparian 
Forest Buffer (Code 391); Terrace (Code 600); Tree/Shrub Establishment 
(Code 612); Tree/Shrub Pruning (Code 660); Trough or Tank (Code 614); 
Windbreak Renovation (Code 650); and Windbreak/Shelterbelt 
Establishment (Code 380). Some of these practices may be used in 
conservation systems that treat highly erodible land.

DATES: Comments will be received on or before October 20, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Inquire in writing to Kevin D. Norton, State Resource Conservationist, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 100 USDA, Suite 203, 
Stillwater, OK 74074-2655. Copies of these standards will be made 
available upon written request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after 
enactment of the law, to NRCS state technical guides used to carry out 
highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law, shall be made 
available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS 
in Oklahoma will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. 
Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in 
Oklahoma regarding disposition of those comments and a final 
determination of change will be made.

    Dated: September 3, 1997.
Ronnie L. Clark,
State Conservationist, Stillwater, Oklahoma.
[FR Doc. 97-24830 Filed 9-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-M