alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Lab Report Assignment: Due: _____________________________________________________

This lab report will be a write up on the tadpole experiment that you just finished. It is different from an essay 

because it is divided into sections.

Here is the format for your lab report: 

1. Introduction/Background

a. Statement of the Problem:

i. What question(s) are you trying to answer?

ii. Include any preliminary observations or background information about the subject

b. Hypothesis:

i. Write a possible solution for the problem.

ii. Make sure this possible solution is a complete sentence.

iii. Make sure the statement is testable, an if-then statement is recommended to illustrate 

what criteria will support your hypothesis (and what data would no support the 

hypothesis).

2. Materials and Methods: 

a. Write a paragraph (complete sentences) explaining what you did in the lab as a short summary. It 

should be detailed enough for another student to run the same experiment from the information 

in your report.

b. Make sure to include all the items used in the lab. 

3. Results (Data):

a. This section should include any data tables, observations, or additional notes you make during 

the lab.

b. All tables, graphs and charts should be labeled appropriately.

4. Conclusions/Discussion:

a. Accept or reject your hypothesis.

b. EXPLAIN why you accepted or rejected your hypothesis using data from the lab.

c. Include a summary of the data - averages, highest, lowest..etc to help the reader understand 

your results. Try not to copy your data here, you should summarize and reference KEY 

information.

d. List one thing you learned and describe how it applies to a real-life situation.

e. Discuss possible errors that could have occurred in the collection of the data (experimental 

errors)

**Don’t forget to double-check your spelling and grammar to make sure that it flows well. Make sure you cite 

correctly and add a works cited page if you used outside sources!
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10739 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RONNIE RAY JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4-98-CR-29-1-Y

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1998 Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ronnie Ray Jackson appeals his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Jackson contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Jackson acknowledges that this court rejected this argument in United States v. Rawls , 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir.No. 98-10739 -2- 1996), but stated that he is raising this argument to preserve it for further review. In Rawls , this court held that the reasons the Supreme Court gave in Lopez for holding 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) unconstitutional do not apply to § 922(g). Rawls , 85 F.3d at 242. A mere showing that the weapon in question traveled at some time from one state to another is enough to demonstrate the jurisdictional nexus with interstate commerce. United States v. Gresham , 118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 702 (1998). Rawls is binding precedent. United States v. Kuban , 94 F.3d 971, 973 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 716 (1997); United States v. Eastland , 989 F.2d 760, 768 n.16 (5th Cir. 1993)(“In this circuit, one panel may not overrule the decision -- right or wrong -- of a prior panel, absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the Supreme Court.”). AFFIRMED.
Robert Leigh STOLTZ, Petitioner v. VIRGINIA

No. 19-585

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
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 Wind Works Power Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  3.  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.    Date:  February 15, 2010  By: /s/ Ingo Stuckmann ------- ----------------- Ingo Stuckmann Chief Executive Officer
----

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 I, John E. Salamon; Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial  Officer of Salamon Group, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify  pursuant to Rule 15d-l4(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that: 

|   | (1)    | the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form        10-QSB of the Registrant for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”),        to which this statement is filed as an exhibit, 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 Registrant.                                                                                                                                                                       |

| Dated: May 15, 2006 | By:    | */s/ John E. Salamon*   |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                |   | John E. Salamon         |
|                |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                |   | Chief Financial Officer |

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Steven Christopher BURKE.

No. 89A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2005.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for Steven Burke.

Tiare B. Smiley, Special Deputy Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 8th day of February 2004 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of March 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 Community Banks of Georgia,
Inc.  (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John T.
Trammell, 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 the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.
 
 This 16th
day of May 2005.
 
 
 /s/
John T. Trammell
 John T.
Trammell
 Chief
Executive Officer
HomeEducationCorals

# Where Are Reef Building Corals Found?

## Corals Tutorial

Reef-building corals are restricted in their geographic distribution by  their physiology. For instance, reef-building corals cannot tolerate  water temperatures below 18° Celsius (C). Many grow optimally in water temperatures between 23° and 29° C, but some can tolerate temperatures as high as 40° C  for short periods. Most also require very saline (salty) water ranging  from 32 to 42 parts per thousand, which must also be clear so that a  maximum amount of light penetrates it. The corals’ requirement for high  light also explains why most reef-building species are restricted to the euphotic zone, the region in the ocean where light penetrates to a  depth of approximately 70 meters. 

The majority of reef-building corals are found in tropical and subtropical waters. Learn more and view a larger image.

As coral reefs grow, they establish characteristic biogeographic patterns. Learn more and view a larger image.

### Corals Lessons

              - Welcome
              - What are Corals?
              - Zooxanthellae What's That?
              - How Do Stony Corals Grow?
              - How Do Coral Reefs Form?
              - Where Are Coral Reefs Found?
              - How Do Corals Reproduce?
              - Importance of Coral Reefs
              - Natural Threats to Coral Reefs
              - Anthropogenic Threats to Corals
              - Coral Diseases
              - Protecting Coral Reefs
              - References
              - Roadmap to Resources 
              - Subject Review (PDF)

----

National Science Teaching Association (NSTA)

###### **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 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 23, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1203

Lower Tribunal No. F08-41705

________________

Tommie McClenney, Jr.,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carmen Cabarga, Judge.

Tommie McClenney, Jr., in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4774 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4774

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2008

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 10250 John Saunders Road in San Antonio, Texas, as the ``Cyndi 
                  Taylor Krier Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CYNDI TAYLOR KRIER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 10250 John Saunders Road in San Antonio, Texas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Cyndi Taylor Krier Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cyndi 
Taylor Krier Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 38834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13861]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Establish Prices for 2023 United States Mint Silver Numismatic 
Products

AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is announcing pricing for United States 
Mint numismatic products in accordance with the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2023 Retail
                         Product                               price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Dollar--Uncirculated.............................          $67.00
Peace Dollar--Uncirculated..............................           67.00
Morgan Dollar--Proof....................................           73.00
Peace Dollar--Proof.....................................           73.00
Morgan and Peace Dollar Two-Coin Reverse Proof SetTM....          175.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Customer Service; United States Mint; 
801 9th Street NW; Washington, DC 20220; or call 1-800-USA-MINT.
    Authority: Public Law 116-286.

Eric Anderson,
Executive Secretary, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2022-13861 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-37-P
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 Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of Del Mar Income
Partners, Ltd. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, each of the
undersigned, Stephen D. Replin, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Wanda E. Wages, the Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, each hereby
certifies that, to the best of her/his knowledge:

     1. 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.


Dated:  August 14, 2007


/s/ Stephen D. Replin                             /s/ Wanda E. Wages
---------------------                             -----------------
 Stephen D. Replin                                Wanda E. Wages
 Chief Executive Officer                          Secretary and Treasurer
(Principal Executive Officer)                    (Principal Financial Officer)
STATE v. Jeffrey BOWES.

No. 394A03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 9, 2005.

Jeffrey R. Edwards, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State.

Keith A. Williams, Greenville, for Bowes.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of March 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Bowes) shall have up to and including the 20th day of April 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of March 2005."
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Date:
March 17, 2008
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ DAVID G. NANCEName:
Title:
    
    David G. Nance
Chief Executive Officer
  Date:
March 17, 2008
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ JAMES W. ALBRECHT, JR.Name:
Title:
    
    James W. Albrecht, Jr.
 Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER 31, 1997 CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,908
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,809
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,447
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,108
<PP&E>                                           8,797
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,608
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,191
<BONDS>                                          3,659
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,550
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,513
<SALES>                                         46,225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,225
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,093
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,792
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    611
<INCOME-TAX>                                       200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                411
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,195)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,784)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.68)


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. David Franklin HURT.

No. 192A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 4, 2005.

Lisa Bradley Dawson, Robert C. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

Barbara Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hurt.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of defendant's Motion for Appropriate Relief, the State's response thereto, and the subsequent responses of the parties, the Court enters the following order:

Defendant shall have to and including 21 March 2005 to file and serve a brief in support of the motion, and the State shall have fifteen days after the filing of defendant's brief to file and serve a brief in response thereto. The parties shall be entitled to argue the motion when the case is called for oral argument.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 4th day of March, 2005.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-037-CR

EX PARTE 

RAYMOND DOMINIC COZZI, JR.	

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

	FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	OPINION

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

	Appellant Raymond Dominic Cozzi, Jr. appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his article 11.072 application for writ of habeas corpus as moot.1  Article 11.072 provides that “the trial court shall enter a written order granting or denying the relief sought in the application.”2  An applicant may appeal from the denial of any or all relief.3  In this case, the trial court did not enter the statutorily mandated ruling but instead dismissed the application.  While Appellant could have very well filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court, requesting that the trial judge be ordered to rule on his application,4 he does not have the right to appeal from a dismissal of his application.5  We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

								LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

								JUSTICE

PANEL F:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

PUBLISH

DELIVERED:  April 29, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 PortaltoChina.com, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for  the quarter ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Caroline  Rechia, Chief
Executive  Officer,  President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
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:

(1)     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.



Date:  January 8, 2009       By:/s/ Caroline Rechia
                                Caroline Rechia
                                President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                Chief Financial Officer and
                                Principal Accounting Officer