alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §20116. Reports to Congress

(a) Presidential Report.—The President shall transmit to Congress in May of each year a report, which shall include—

(1) a comprehensive description of the programmed activities and the accomplishments of all agencies of the United States in the field of aeronautics and space activities during the preceding fiscal year; and

(2) an evaluation of such activities and accomplishments in terms of the attainment of, or the failure to attain, the objectives described in section 20102(d) of this title.

(b) Recommendations for Additional Legislation.—Any report made under this section shall contain such recommendations for additional legislation as the Administrator or the President may consider necessary or desirable for the attainment of the objectives described in section 20102(d) of this title.

(c) Classified Information.—No information that has been classified for reasons of national security shall be included in any report made under this section, unless the information has been declassified by, or pursuant to authorization given by, the President.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3337.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 20116 | 42 U.S.C. 2476. | Pub. L. 85–568, title II, §206, July 29, 1958, 72 Stat. 432; Pub. L. 92–68, §7, Aug. 6, 1971, 85 Stat. 177; Pub. L. 106–391, title III, §302(b), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1591. |

Section

In subsections (a)(2) and (b), the words "section 102(c) of this Act", which appear in section 206 of Public Law 85–568 (72 Stat. 432), are treated as referring to section 102(d), rather than section 102(c), of Public Law 85–568 because of the redesignation done by section 110(a)(2) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, 1985 (Public Law 98–361, 98 Stat. 426). Section 102(d) of Public Law 85–568 is restated as section 20102(d) of title 51.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Certain Reporting Authority

Memorandum of President of the United States, Mar. 5, 2004, 69 F.R. 11489, provided:

Memorandum for the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you the functions conferred upon the President by section 206 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended ([former] 42 U.S.C. 2476) [now 51 U.S.C. 20116], to provide the specified report to the Congress. Nothing in this delegation shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget with respect to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

George W. Bush.
Opinion issued September 8, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 16 - 00578 - CR

——————————— IN RE SAMUEL ROY JACKSON , Relat or
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Samuel Roy Jackson, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, “ seeking relief from [a] void court order” rendered in the underlying proceeding

. 1 We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Samuel Roy Jackson , cause number 913043 , pending in the 183rd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable V anessa V e lasquez presiding.2

Relator seeks relief from a final felony conviction. See Jackson v. State, No. 01

– 04

– 01137

– CR, 2005 WL 3072018, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 17, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (affirming conviction). Because hi s pe tition involves a final post

- conviction felony proceeding, article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs and provides the exclusive means to challenge the conviction

. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 11.07 ( Vernon 2015) ; Padieu v. C ourt of App eals of Tex., Fifth Dist., 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. C our t of App eals for Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W.2d 481, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction in final post

- conviction felony proceedings. See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196

– 97 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) ; In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717

– 18 (Tex. App.

— Housto n [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding)

. “Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals

. ” In re Briscoe , 230 S.W.3d at 196

. Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction over relator’s mandamus petition. We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdict ion. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Brown. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
EXHIBIT 32

                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of EDO Corporation, a New York corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the "Form
10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


                                  /s/ JAMES M. SMITH
Dated: August 6, 2007             ----------------------------------------------
                                  Name:     James M. Smith
                                  Title:    Chairman, President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer

                                  /s/ FREDERIC B. BASSETT
Dated: August 6, 2007             ----------------------------------------------

                                  Name:     Frederic B. Bassett
                                  Title:    Senior Vice President-Finance,
                                            Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                            Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
March 11, 2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: . 

On behalf of Kintetsu International, I am writing to express our strong support for 

the application of Delta Air Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda. 

Approval of Delta's new service would be a major benefit for our region, where 

many corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There are over 500 

Japanese companies located in Michigan and hundreds more whose business models rely 

on access to Japan and it's market. The growth of our business ties with Japan has created 

demand for increased capacity to Tokyo. Our business travelers look to the convenience 

of flying into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. \. 

'Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and as an airport that can 

support trans-pacific routes. This summer Delta is adding new service to Seoul and Hong 

Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTW to make it the airlines gateway to 

Asia. The addition of Haneda as a destination is a natural fit that would clearly benefit 

our business travelers. ' 

Thank you for consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 

L0JL 

·FrankLee 

President 

Kintetsu International 

www.kintetsLl.com 

Chicago Cincinnati Los Angeles New Jersey New York San Jose
EXHIBIT 23.0

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-9420,  33-17594 and 33-64421) of Ben & Jerry's Homemade,  Inc.
of our report dated  January 22, 1999,  except for Note 17, as to which the date
is February 26, 1999, with respect to the consolidated  financial statements and
schedule of Ben & Jerry's  Homemade,  Inc.  included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 26, 1998.


                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 19, 1999
### Part D—Protectability of Plant Varieties
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000315523
<NAME>                        USMX, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                 346
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          424
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                            488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     2,261
<PP&E>                                              46,439
<DEPRECIATION>                                       3,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      50,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               29,393
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                16
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        50,155
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     2,834
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        5,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     511
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (3,357)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (55)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (3,302)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (3,302)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
#### § 21.645 Deviation.

The issuance or use of a policy or procedure that is inconsistent with the DoDGARs.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Complete when issuing a supplemental NPRM, revision, or supersedure. 

## ⁭ No Change from existing AD action
Docket No. FAA

- 2008

- 0619 Directorate Identifier: 2007

-NM

- 356

-AD If you make changes to the values in the table be low, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, e ngine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet


### Operation check on all 4 engines 1 2. 0 $1,020.0 0 $0 

### $1,020.00 166 

### $169,320 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 169,320 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 0


### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field c an also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation:

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flex ibility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it ap propriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO

* Explanation:
TRAVIS STEEBY
, Appellant
,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
, Appellee

. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF F ILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4160

Opinion filed December 21, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Leon County Circuit Court. Angela Dempsey , Judge.

Travis Steeby, pro se
, Appellant

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Erik Kverne, Assistant Attorney Ge neral, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRM ED.

OSTERHAUS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ.
, CONCUR.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsExperimental determination of gap flow-conditioned forces at turbine stages and their effect on the running stability of simple rotorsInstabilities in turbine operation can be caused by forces which are produced in connection with motions involving the oil film in the bearings. An experimental investigation regarding the characteristics of such forces in the case of three typical steam turbine stages is conducted, taking into account the effect of various parameters. Supplementary kinetic tests are carried out to obtain an estimate of the flow forces which are proportional to the velocity. The measurements are based on the theoretical study of the damping characteristics of a vibrational model. A computational analysis of the effect of the measured fluid forces on the stability characteristics of simple rotor model is also conducted.Document ID19840007485Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeThesis/DissertationAuthorsWohlrab, R.*(NASA Headquarters Washington, DC United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1983Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-77293NAS 1.15:77293Accession Number84N15553Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NASW-3542Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840007485.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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                  317
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           772
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        2827
<PP&E>                                  20088
<DEPRECIATION>                          5175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          20852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1134
<BONDS>                                 7184
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                97
<OTHER-SE>                              2566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            20088
<SALES>                                 826
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        928
<CGS>                                   1446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           4997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      1974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (3926)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (3926)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (3926)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Viskase Companies, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Weisman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer 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 my knowledge:





(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 represents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:
      August 14, 2006








/s/
                Robert L. WeismanRobert
                L. WeismanPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
### §1007a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 1, 1941, ch. 267, §1, 55 Stat. 440, providing that rural rehabilitation loans should be subject to the conditions and penalties prescribed by former sections 1020k and 1020n of Title 12, Banks and Banking, was superseded by the repeal of those sections by act Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 964, §2(a)(2), 60 Stat. 1062. Section was not a part of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act which constitutes major part of this chapter.
Tegopren GS 2069 SDS

Sanitized
EXHIBIT 32.2
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report.
 /s/ Richard L. Travis, Jr.Richard L. Travis, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
Date: September 24, 2010 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.
§ 37.575 What are my responsibilities for determining milestone payment amounts? ( a ) If you select the milestone payment method (*see* § 37.805), you must assess the reasonableness of the estimated amount for reaching each milestone. This assessment enables you to set the amount of each milestone payment to approximate the Federal share of the anticipated resource needs for carrying out that phase of the research effort.
( b ) The Federal share at each milestone need not be the same as the Federal share of the total project. For example, you might deliberately set payment amounts with a larger Federal share for early milestones if a project involves a start-up company with limited resources.
( c ) For an expenditure-based TIA, if you have minimum percentages that you want the recipient's cost sharing to be at the milestones, you should indicate those percentages in the agreement or in separate instructions to the post-award administrative agreements officer. That will help the administrative agreements officer decide when a project's expenditures have fallen too far below the original projections, requiring adjustments of future milestone payment amounts (*see* § 37.1105(c)).
( d ) For fixed-support TIAs, the milestone payments should be associated with the well-defined, observable and verifiable technical outcomes (*e.g.,* demonstrations, tests, or data analysis) that you establish for the project in accordance with §§ 37.305(a) and 37.560(a).
#### Jay L. Fierst, Appellant, v. Meseck Steamboat Co., Inc., Respondent.

— Order, entered June 9,1959, denying plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict and vacate the judgment, and order entered August 25, 1959, denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the aforesaid order, unanimously affirmed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent. Upon the unsatisfactory affidavits submitted by plaintiff in support of his motion for a new trial, which were strongly contraverted by the affidavits submitted by defendant, Special Term very properly ordered a hearing. Plaintiff was unable to produce his affiants, although afforded an adjournment and ample opportunity to do so. In making its original decision, Special Term stated it had relied upon the statements procured by the District Attorney, but made no mention of reliance upon the so-called report of the Assistant District Attorney. Wholly apart from any consideration of the District Attorney’s statements, however, the denial of the relief sought was warranted, since plaintiff failed to make a showing sufficient to justify the radical relief of setting aside the jury’s verdict. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Eager, JJ.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4522

_____________________________
J ESSE J AMES P HILLIPS ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

— Original Jurisdiction

.

May 29, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
D ENIED

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5).

R OWE , J AY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jesse James Phillips, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.