alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA GUADALAUPE TAPIA

HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER

, Acting

Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73811

Agency No. A076

- 846

- 703

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 27, 2018 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Maria Guadalaupe Tapia

- Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 30 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absenti a. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d

785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agenc y did not abuse its discretion in denying Tapia

- Hernandez ’s

motion to reopen based on lack of noti ce, where the Notice to Appear w as sent by

certified mail to her correct address

, she did not show that the certified mail receipt

was not signed by a respons ible person at that address, and her counsel appeared in

court on the date of her hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § § 1229(a)(1), 1229a (b)(5) (A),

(C)(ii) ; cf. Chaidez v. Gonzales , 486 F.3d 1079, 1083

- 86 (9th Cir. 2007) (service of

an Order to Show Cause sent by certified mail is effective when the return receipt

is signed by the alien or a responsible person at the alien’s address (emphasis

added) )

.

The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Tapia

- Hernandez’ s

motion to reopen where she did not establish that exceptional circumstances

prevented her from attend ing her 1998 hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) ;

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1)

.

We reject Tapia

- Hernandez’s contention that the IJ fa iled to address

evidence or arguments. See Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990

- 91 (9th Cir.

2010)

.3

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
NIST SME Workshop

Panel 2 Discussion

LSI Challenges

Dave Abbott

Senior Staff Engineer

Additive Manufacturing

June 6, 2023
To edit the confidentiality disclosure, go to the View tab > Slide Master > Insert tab > 

Header & Footer

2

AM Supplier Qualification
Additive Manufacturing Process Basics

Control = Quality + Consistency
Additive Manufacturing Process Basics

Control = Quality + Consistency

SDO’s
Additive Manufacturing Process Basics

Control = Quality + Consistency

SDO’s

Regulatory
Additive Manufacturing Process Basics

Control = Quality + Consistency

SDO’s

Regulatory

Current 

Gap
7

• Limited ‘qualifed’ AM parts supplier base

• Limited understanding of ‘qualification’ requirements

• Part, Material, Supplier, Equipment, Operator

• IQ, OQ, PQ (materials and parts) 

• Cost of developing and qualifying AM suppliers

• Supplier Oversite (auditing and certification) 

Supply chain is developing. 

Qualification and oversite need to develop with it. 

AM Supply Chain Challenges Today
8

• AS9100

• Customer supplier qualification (general quality system requirements)

• Customer AM process site qualification (site audit by process)

• AM material qualification (by machine serial number and material spec)

• AM part qualification (by part serial number)

• Periodic special process audit (site accreditation renewal)

This is very OEM-specific, i.e., does not transfer.

Cost and effort are significant.

AM Supplier Qualification Today
9

• AS9100 = up to supplier

• Customer supplier qualification = 12-18 months = $

• Customer special process qualification = 6-12 months = $

• AM material qualification = 12-18 months, $$

• AM part qualification = 6-12 months = $$$

• Periodic special process audit = 3-6 months, every 1-3 yrs = $

AM Supplier Qualification Today – Timeline and Cost

Up to several years to qualify a supplier and first part number.
10

• AM Ecosystem

• Qualification pre-work

• AS9100 or similar accreditation

• Nadcap or similar accreditation for AM special processes

• AM baseline material pre-qualification (common database)

• AM representative part pre-qualification (representative part geometry)

• Periodic special process audit (Nadcap)

• Supplier completes prework to establish process and demonstrate capability, 

then approaches OEMs.

• Would still need OEM-specific qualification but at significantly reduced effort.

AM Supplier Qualification – Future (for discussion)

50-80% of qualification effort would not be OEM-specific and would be transferable.
To edit the confidentiality disclosure, go to the View tab > Slide Master > Insert tab > 

Header & Footer

11

Thank You
Unlocking Knowledge in Maintenance Work 

Orders with Echidna and Redcoat

Michael Stewart

Research Fellow, ARC Training Centre for

Transforming Maintenance through Data Science

TLP Community of Interest Workshop,

2021 Model-Based Enterprise Summit, NIST, April 12 - 16, 2021
15 April 2021 2

Outline

1. Overview and Motivation

2. Echidna - a knowledge graph that supports the 

visualisation and querying of maintenance work 

orders

3. Redcoat – an annotation tool supporting technical 

language processing
15 April 2021 3

Overview

Maintenance management systems capture a significant 

amount of important structured information, such as:

Functional Locations (FLOCs)

Costs

Dates

Downtime events
15 April 2021 4

Overview

However, a significant volume of knowledge in a MWO is 

unstructured and therefore inaccessible – it is buried 

within the short text description.

The short text often contains indicators of failure modes,

and end of life events which are directly tied to mean time 

to failure (MTTF) values.

Short text is seldom used to support routine analysis,

despite the significant information held within.
15 April 2021 5

StartDate FuncLocDesc ShortText

10/07/2005 hydraulics repair cracked hydraulic tank

27/07/2005 engine engine wont start

15/01/2008 air conditioning system a/c blowing hot air

Example Maintenance Work Orders
15 April 2021 6

Motivation

Knowledge graphs are the perfect tool for combining 

structured and unstructured data.

Constructing a knowledge graph that captures the 

knowledge in the unstructured text and structured fields 

allows for vital information to be highly accessible, such as:

How many times have pumps in <location> been 

replaced in the last month?

Are the pumps failing in ways we didn’t expect?
15 April 2021 7

Echidna – Knowledge Graph for Maintenance

https://nlp-tlp.org/echidna
15 April 2021 8

The need for labelled training data

Human-labelled

training data

To build the knowledge graph and provide decision 

support, the underlying model must be fed high quality 

labelled data.

Machine-labelled

data

Knowledge graph 

construction

Decision

support

Deep learning

model
15 April 2021 9

Redcoat – a Collaborative Annotation Tool

https://nlp-tlp.org/redcoat
15 April 2021 10

Conclusion

In this presentation we have presented our work on 

unlocking maintenance knowledge via two powerful tools: 

Echidna and Redcoat.

These tools create a knowledge graph that provides reliability 

engineers with the ability to easily access and query their 

maintenance work orders, providing unprecedented decision 

support.
15 April 2021 11

Thank you

Email: michael.stewart@uwa.edu.au

CTMTDS UWA NLP-TLP Group

https://maintenance.org.au https://nlp-tlp.org

Echidna – Demo Redcoat – Demo 

https://nlp-tlp.org/echidna https://nlp-tlp.org/redcoat
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 72225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28544]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73710; File No. SR-OCC-2014-805]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; 
Notice of Withdrawal of an Advance Notice Concerning Enhancements to 
the Risk Management Framework Applied to the Clearance of Confirmed 
Trades Executed in Extended and Overnight Trading Sessions

December 1, 2014.
    On September 17, 2014, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), 
pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement 
Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule 
19b-4(n)(1)(i),\2\ an advance notice concerning enhancements to the 
risk management framework applied to the clearance of confirmed trades 
executed in extended and overnight trading sessions. Notice of the 
advance notice was published in the Federal Register on October 20, 
2014.\3\ The Commission did not receive any comments in response to the 
advance notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73343 (October 14, 
2014), 79 FR 62684 (October 20, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-805).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 28, 2014, OCC filed a withdrawal of its advance notice 
(SR-OCC-2014-805) from consideration by the Commission. The Commission 
is hereby publishing notice of the withdrawal.

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28544 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit 10(xii)


MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN – FISCAL YEAR 2006


PURPOSE


The purpose of the Plan is to provide an incentive for extraordinary performance by management who, individually and collectively as a management team, have the greatest influence over the financial success of the Bank.


In addition to its primary purpose, the Plan is designed to accomplish other important objectives of the Bank including: fostering teamwork and cooperation among management; helping to retain and encourage commitment on the part of management, and setting high goals and increasing returns to shareholders.


ADMINISTRATION 


The Compensation Committee of the Bank’s Board of Directors shall administer the Plan.


PARTICIPANTS


Participation is limited to the President, Executive Vice President, Senior Vice Presidents and Vice Presidents (“officers”).  Participants must be actively employed in this capacity on the date the incentive is paid to be eligible to receive the full award.  Those participants who are no longer officers on the date the incentive is paid, may be eligible for a partial award, depending upon the circumstances.  Those participants promoted into this category during the fiscal year may receive a pro-rated amount of any incentive compensation awarded.


BANK PERFORMANCE GOALS


Performance goals to be determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.


CALCULATION OF INCENTIVE AWARDS


Incentive compensation awards are calculated based on the attainment of various goals.  For fiscal year 06, the goals and incentives are as follows:


A 10% growth in EPS would mean a bonus of 5% of salary.
 ROA of at least 1.5% would be an additional 5% of salary.
 ROE of at least 15% would increase the bonus by another 5% of salary.
 The maximum bonus would be 15% of salary.

NOT AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

Nothing contained in the Plan shall give any officer the right to be retained in the employment of the Bank or affect the right of the Bank to dismiss any officer.  The adoption of the Plan shall not constitute a contract between the Bank and any officer.

FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

The Compensation Committee will review the Bank’s results for the year to determine whether the Plan goals should be adjusted for the purpose of the Management Incentive Plan.  If extraordinary events distort the results, it will be at the Committee’s sole discretion to modify those results to determine whether the bonus should be paid.  The budget will be a gauge in determining what is an extraordinary event.

The Compensation Committee reserves the right to amend or terminate the Plan, should the Bank encounter unforeseen or extraordinary circumstances that impact the financial stability/profitability of the Bank.
#### BLUE RIDGE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland Corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. John JACOBSEN and Brigette Jacobsen, Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants.

No. 98-55052.

D.C. No. CV-93-4268-IH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 1999.

Submission Withdrawn Nov. 29, 1999.

Resubmitted May 22, 2001.

Decided May 30, 2001.

Before RYMER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and SHEA, District Judge *.

*

 Honorable Edward F. Shea, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

*564ORDER

This case is resubmitted as of May 22, 2001.

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM **

We earlier issued a memorandum disposition, filed November 29, 1999, in which we affirmed that “portion of the district court’s order finding no coverage under either the business pursuits or professional services exclusions of the Blue Ridge homeowner’s policy and that the $300,000 settlement was reasonable .... ” At the same time, we certified to the Supreme Court of California the following question:

> Whether an insurer defending a personal injury suit under a reservation of rights may recover settlement payments made over the objection of the insured when it is later determined that the underlying claims are not covered under the policy.

*Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Jacobsen,*197 F.3d 1008, 1009 (9th Cir.1999). The Supreme Court of California accepted certification. On May 10, 2001 the court issued an opinion answering the certified question in the affirmative and concluding that, under such circumstances, “an insurer may be reimbursed for a reasonable settlement payment made over the objection of its insureds.” *Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Jacobsen,*25 Cal.4th 489, 492-493, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 535, 22 P.3d 313 (2001). In view of the response from the Supreme Court of California, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment granting Blue Ridge Insurance Company reimbursement in the sum of $300,000. We also affirm the district court’s judgment in all other respects, including the dismissal of the Jacobsens’ counterclaims.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

The following Commission meeting has been cancelled. No earlier announcement of the cancellation was possible.

# TIME AND DATE:

 10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 11, 2014

# PLACE:

 The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance)

# STATUS:

 Open

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                         The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Excel Mining, LLC,*                         Docket No. KENT 2009-1368. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred by affirming a “significant and substantial” designation and an “unwarrantable failure to comply” designation.)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

 Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll-free.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2014-29150 Filed 12-9-14; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
#### Restoney ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terry WOOD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-7722.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 27, 2001.

Decided May 3, 2001.

*95Restoney Robinson, pro se.

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Restoney Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order allowing him to file papers in a case that already was closed. Our review of the record discloses no abuse of discretion. *National Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue,*47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir.1995) (denial of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Named Executive Officer Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.91 
  
 NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION 
  
 The following table sets forth the annual base salaries that the Named Executive Officers(1) of Franklin Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) are scheduled to receive effective January 1, 2006, as approved by the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors of the Company. 
  

				
	 Name and Current Position

	  	Base Salary ($)


	 Gregory E. Johnson
 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	780,132
		
	 Anne M. Tatlock
 Vice Chairman, Member-Office of the Chairman
	  	$	590,000
		
	 Vijay C. Advani
 Executive Vice President – Advisor Services
	  	$	525,000
		
	 William Y. Yun
 Executive Vice President – Institutional
	  	$	525,000
		
	 Murray L. Simpson
 Executive Vice President
	  	$	502,500

  
 The Named Executive Officers are also eligible to: 
  
 Annual and Equity Incentive Plans. 
  

	(a)	Receive an annual cash incentive award pursuant to either the 2004 Key Executive Incentive Compensation Plan or the Company’s Amended and Restated Annual Incentive Compensation
Plan. 

  

	(b)	Participate in the Company’s equity incentive program, which currently involves the award of restricted stock awards (including those awards based on performance), restricted
stock units (including those units based on performance) and stock options pursuant to the Company’s 2002 Universal Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated. 

  
 Benefit Plans and Other Arrangements. 
  

	(a)	Participate in the Company’s broad-based benefit programs generally available to its salaried employees, including health, disability and life insurance programs, a qualified
401(k) plan and profit sharing plan. In addition Ms. Tatlock and Mr. Yun have severance arrangements under their employment agreements. 

  

	(b)	Receive certain perquisites offered by the Company, including financial counseling and tax preparation, club memberships, use of Company owned condominiums and, in certain cases,
use of the Company’s aircraft for personal use. 

  
 Ms. Tatlock and Mr. Yun have employment agreements with the Company and Fiduciary Trust Company International, a subsidiary of the Company. 


	(1)	The Named Executive Officers include the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and each of the four highest compensated executive officers of the Company for fiscal year ended
September 30, 2005.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4731 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4731

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                       National Estuary Program.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4731

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 
                       National Estuary Program.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

    Section 320(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 29, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 10.29

 

FORM OF TERM LOAN NOTE

 

	
$
    	
          ,   20     
    


 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Glaukos Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”) promises to pay to the order of [insert name of applicable financial institution] (“Payee”), in care of Agent, at Detroit, Michigan, the principal sum of [insert amount derived from Percentages] Dollars ($                          ), or if less, the aggregate principal amount of the Term Loan Advances made by the Payee, in lawful money of the United States of America payable in principal installments each in the amount and on the dates set forth in the Credit Agreement (as defined below) until the Term Loan Maturity Date, when the entire unpaid balance of principal and interest thereon shall be due and payable. Interest shall be payable at the rate (including the default rate) and on the dates provided in the Revolving Credit and Term Loan Agreement made as of February 23, 2015 (as amended, restated or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”), by and among the financial institutions from time to time signatory thereto (individually a “Lender,” and any and all such financial institutions collectively the “Lenders”), Comerica Bank, as Administrative Agent for the Lenders (in such capacity, the “Agent”), and Borrower.

 

This Note evidences Term Loan Advances made under, is subject to, may be accelerated and may be prepaid in accordance with, the terms of the Credit Agreement, to which reference is hereby made.

 

This Note shall be interpreted and the rights of the parties hereunder shall be determined under the laws of, and enforceable in, the State of California.

 

Borrower hereby waives presentment for payment, demand, protest and notice of dishonor and nonpayment of this Note and agrees that no obligation hereunder shall be discharged by reason of any extension, indulgence, release, or forbearance granted by any holder of this Note to any party now or hereafter liable hereon or any present or subsequent owner of any property, real or personal, which is now or hereafter security for this Note.

 











 

Nothing herein shall limit any right granted Payee by any other instrument or by law.

 

 

	
 
    	
GLAUKOS   CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Its:
    	
 
    


 

2