alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeEducationCurrents

# Current Profiler

## Currents Tutorial

**Click on the image**

**Click on the image**

An Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)  measures ocean currents using the principle of “Doppler shift.” If you  have heard a train whistle in the distance, you are familiar with  Doppler effect. As the train gets closer, the whistle pitch gets  higher. As the train moves away, the whistle pitch gets lower. The  change in pitch is proportional to the speed of the train.

An  ADCP follows the premise of the Doppler effect. It emits a series of  high-frequency pulses of sound that bounce off of moving particles in  the water. If the particle is moving away from the instrument, the  return signal is at a lower frequency. If the particle is moving toward  the instrument, the return signal is at a higher frequency. Because the  particles move at the same speed as the water that carries them, the  speed of the water’s current can be determined.

### Currents Lessons

              - Welcome
              - Tidal Currents 1
              - Tidal Currents 2
              Coastal Currents
              - Waves
              - Longshore Currents
              - Rip Currents
              - Upwelling
              Surface Ocean Currents
              - The Coriolis Effect
              - Surface Ocean Currents
              - Boundary Currents
              - The Ekman Spiral
              The Global Conveyor Belt
              - Thermohaline Circulation
              - The Global Conveyor Belt
              - Effects of Climate Change
              How Are Currents Measured?
              - Age of Exploration
              - What is a "knot"?
              - Shallow Water Drifter
              - Deep Ocean Drifter
              - Current Profiler
              - Shore-based Current Meters
              - How Currents Affect Our Lives?
              - References
              - Roadmap to Resources
              - Subject Review

###### **Search** Education

###### Get **Social**

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
STATE v. JACKSON.

No. COA03-1086.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 6, 2004.

Certification Date July 26, 2004.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 11774]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Jannis Kounellis in Six Acts” at the Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to                               ( print page 39887)                            be determined, is of cultural significance and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Stacy E. White,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-14228 Filed 7-1-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Nahach GARAY, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-7020

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Catherine Long, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Spirit Finance Corporation;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date:  November 14, 2005
|   | /s/  Catherine Long      |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Catherine  Long          |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Corey Anthony, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 625]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered January 19, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court providently exercised its discretion in balancing the probative value of allowing the People to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions against any prejudicial effect on his defense *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203, 207-208 [2002]; *People v Gray,*84 NY2d 709, 712 [1995]; *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 459 [1994]; *People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371 [1974]; *People v Kelland,*208 AD2d 954 [1994]; *People v Overton,*192 AD2d 624 [1993]).

The hearing court properly declined to suppress identification testimony at trial, since neither the photo array nor the line-up procedure was unduly suggestive *(see*CPL 710.20 [6]; *United States v Wade,*388 US 218 [1967]; *People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]; *People v Callender,*8 AD3d 294 [2004]; *People v Richards,*2 AD3d 883 [2003]; *People v Torres,*309 AD2d 823, 824 [2003]; *People v Wright,*297 AD2d 391 [2002]; *People v Shaw,*251 AD2d 686 [1998]; *People v Stackhouse,*201 AD2d 686 [1994]).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel made *904only a general motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case and at the close of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; *People v Seabrooks,*289 AD2d 515 [2001] ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Linda E. SHOFFNER, Employee v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Employer and INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Carrier.

No. 569P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 11, 2005.

Jeffrey T. Linder, Raleigh, for Wal-Mart and Insurance of Pa.

Kathleen G. Sumner, Greensboro, for Shoffner.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd day of November 2004 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of April 2005."
George S. GEORGY and wife, Iris A. Georgy v. Shenouda S. ABDEL-MALAK and Wife, Shahla M. Abdel-Malak.

No. 574P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2005.

Edward J. David, Fayetteville, for Abdel-Malak.

Edgar R. Bain, Lillington, for Georgy.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of November 2004 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of February 2005."
COUNTY OF CABARRUS, et al. v. TOLSON.

No. 329P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

R. Daniel Boyce, Philip R. Isely, Raleigh, for County of Cabarrus, et al.

Grayson G. Kelly, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John F. Maddrey, Norma S. Harrell, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, for Secretary of Revenue.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of May 2005 by Plaintiffs to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review and Alternative Petition for Discretionary Review of Constitutional Issues:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2005."
EXHIBIT 32.2

Section 1350 Certification of the Chief
Financial Officer

In connection
with the Annual Report of Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ingrid Mittelstaedt,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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.

|                              |     |                          | 
|----------------------------- | --- | ------------------------ | 
|Date:
      November 30, 2010 | /s/ | Ingrid
 Mittelstaedt     | 
|                              |     |                          | 
|                              |     | Ingrid
 Mittelstaedt     | 
|                              |     | Chief
 Financial Officer | 

---
Form of Director Stock Option Amendment



 Exhibit 10.24 
  
 July 28, 2005 
  
 Mr. [Name of Director] 
  
 [Address of Director] 
  
 RE:    Pegasystems Inc. (the “Company”) Board Resolution dated April 6, 2005 
  
 Dear [Name of Director]: 
  
 As you may recall, at the Board of Directors meeting held on April 6, 2005, the Board
approved an amendment to certain stock option agreements between the Company and each of Alexander d’Arbeloff, Richard Jones, Steven Kaplan, William Keough, Edward Maybury, James O’Halloran, Edward Roberts and William Wyman (each, a
“Director Optionee”). 
  
 Pursuant to these amendments, the Company
agreed to extend the period of time during which a Director Optionee may exercise the applicable stock option following the date upon which such Non-Employee Director ceased to be a member of the Company’s Board of Directors. The amendments
provide that, if a Director Optionee has been a member of the Board of Directors for five years or more as of the date that such Non-Employee Director ceases to be a Board member, such Non-Employee Director may exercise the applicable stock option
at any time before the scheduled expiration date of the option agreement (which is typically ten years from the date of grant). 
  
 These amendments apply to all grants of stock options held by a Director Optionee with an exercise price equal to or greater than the fair market value of the
Company’s common stock on April 6, 2005. These amendments do not apply to any option grants held by a Director Optionee with an exercise price of less than the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on April 6, 2005. These terms
also apply to all future option grants to Director Optionees. 
  
 In your case,
the following Option Agreements are affected by the passage of this resolution by the Company’s Board of Directors: 
  

							
	 Grant Number

	 	 Date

	 	 Exercise Price

	 	 Number of Shares



  
 This letter, once fully-signed, shall
constitute a formal amendment to the Option Agreements listed above in order to affect the resolution adopted at the April 6, 2005 meeting. Accordingly, please provide us with your written acknowledgement of these amendments by executing one copy of
this letter in the space below and returning it to my attention at the Company. 
  
 Please let me know if you have any questions. 
  
 Regards, 
  

	
	 /s/ Shawn Hoyt


	 Shawn Hoyt


  
 Acknowledged and Accepted: 

 

	
	 /s/ Name of Director


	 [Name of Board Member]

	
	 July 28, 2005


	 Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS & STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                       6,257,157
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  196,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    814,225
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,430,751
<PP&E>                                      59,175,265
<DEPRECIATION>                              (5,046,035)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              67,334,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,036,196
<BONDS>                                     11,198,309
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       279,162
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,821,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                67,334,880
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            62,433,131
<CGS>                                       54,903,968
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,511,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (811,921)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (889,930)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.13)
        

</TABLE>
Debra DAVIS v. John DAVIS.

No. 571PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 15, 2005.

Theodore M. Molitoris, Winston-Salem, Michelle D. Reingold, for John Davis.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of August 2005 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Debra Davis) shall have up to and including the 14th day of September 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 15th day of August 2005."
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 **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 Advanced Accessory Holdings Corporation
        (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        I,
        Alan C. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
        to 18
        U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
        ALAN C. JOHNSON
 Alan
        C.
        Johnson
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal
        Executive Officer)
 August
        15, 2005
<PAGE>

                                   [BDO LOGO]


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Multimedia K.I.D., Inc. and Subsidiaries
Petach Tikva, Israel

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement on Form S-3 (file #333-38010) filed on May 30, 2000 as to the use
of our report dated September 22, 2000 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Multimedia K.I.D., Inc. and subsidiaries included in the
Form 10-KSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



BDO Interational

/s/ BDO International
---------------------
Tel-Aviv, Isreal

September 28, 2000