alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
3 min read

# Quantum Code Crunchers (3-6)

### Catherine G. Manning

Apr 11, 2022

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

## Contents

              -  Quantum Code Crunchers Activity 1 
              -  Quantum Code Crunchers Activity 2 

Everything physical around us is made of **matter**, from the air we breathe to the water we drink—even our own bodies are made of matter. **Atoms**are an example of matter, and the basic building blocks of our world. Atoms are made of even smaller units (or particles) of matter, called electrons, protons, and neutrons – and protons and neutrons are made of even smaller units of matter, called quarks! 

**Quantum physics** is the study of things that are very, very small, like the size of an atom and even smaller (an atom is much smaller than the period at the end of this sentence). It is a branch of science that investigates the nature of energy and matter, like the activities happening inside of atoms, in order to make sense of the smallest things in nature. In quantum physics, predictions are given in terms of probability, which allows us to find answers that traditional computers cannot provide.

When it comes to sending important data, a message is usually encrypted, or turned into a secret code, and then sent to a receiver with decoding ‘keys’ so they can reveal the original message. This is done to stop eavesdroppers from “listening in” and stealing special information. It is important to keep these decoding keys safe from eavesdroppers so that our messages stay hidden. **Quantum communications**researchers at NASA have been using the laws of quantum physics to send these keys safely using a technique called **superposition**. When you are using the internet, the data you send online is represented by groups of the numbers “0” and “1”. We call these groups of numbers bits. An example of a bit could look like the following: 000101100101. However, when using quantum communications, superposition allows these bits of data to be represented as both “0s” and “1s” at the exact same time. We call these special strings of data qubits. If an eavesdropper tries to hack or read a key sent as a **qubit**before it makes its way to the receiver, the key will change and the sender and receiver will know that someone else tried to listen in on their communications.  

NASA Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) aims to use quantum communications to securely send and receive space data. Complete the new Quantum Code Crunchers activity to help NASA SCaN crack the hidden code! 

### Quantum Code Crunchers Activity 1

Quantum Code Crunchers Activity 1Quantum Code Crunchers Activity 1 Key

### Quantum Code Crunchers Activity 2

Quantum Code Crunchers Activity 2Quantum Code Crunchers Activity 2 Key
Order filed September 17, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00442

- CV

____________ PAUL STEVEN JACOBS , Appellant

V.

MELISSA ELLEN FIELDS JACOBS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 14576A



### ORDER
No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter
for the 308th District Court informed this court that appellant had not made arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On July 10, 2013 , the clerk of this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter’s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, provided this court with proof of payment for the record. See T ex. R. App

. P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no reply.Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within 30 days

of the date of this order

. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecuti on.

PER CURIAM
* P ursuant 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-20214 Summary Calendar

_____________________

ALFRED E. DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-96-CV-3943)

_________________________________________________________________
January 13, 1999

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alfred Dawson, pro se , appeals the adverse summary judgment in

his Tile VII action against the City of Houston.

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de

novo , applying the same standard as the district court. E .g. , OHM

Remediation Services v. Evans Cooperage Co., Inc. , 116 F.3d 1574,

1579 (5th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there

is no gen uine issue of material fact and ... the moving party is

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." F E D

. R. C IV

. P. 56(c).Dawson claims that he was excluded from job advancements

because of his rac e; that he was discharged (during his

probationary period) because of his race; and that the City

intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon him. Pursuant to

our de novo review of the record and review of the briefs, summary

judgment is proper for essentially the reasons stated by the

district court. S ee Dawson v. City of Houston

, No. H-96-3943, slip

op. (S.D.Tex. Feb. 2, 1998).

AFFIRMED
NO. 12-08-00276-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§

IN RE: REGINALD CHILTON,

RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Reginald Chilton seeks habeas relief from this court alleging that his parole was illegally

revoked because the revocation hearing was not held within the time required by law. We dismiss

for want of jurisdiction.

The original habeas jurisdiction of the courts of appeals is limited to those cases in which a

person's liberty is restrained because the person has violated an order, judgment, or decree entered

in a civil case. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (Vernon 2004). Stated another way, courts of

appeals do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters. See id. Because the

underlying cause is a criminal case, we are without jurisdiction to grant the requested habeas relief.

Accordingly, Chilton’s application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered June 25, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
#### CHERRY HILL TOWNSHIP v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
# USACE St. Paul District Celebrates 150 Years of Service with  Lock and Dam Open House

ST. PAUL, Minn. – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, is celebrating its 150th Anniversary this year by opening the doors at Lock and Dam 10 to the public.

The open house is scheduled for Saturday, Sept. 24, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The lock is located at 5 Lock and Dam Lane, Guttenberg, Iowa, adjacent to the Lockmaster House Museum. The event is being held in conjunction with Guttenberg’s German Fest.

The Corps is opening its doors to the public to demonstrate how a lock works and supports inland waterways navigation. Lock and Dam 10 is one of 13 Mississippi River locks managed by the St. Paul District. In total, there are 29 locks on the Mississippi River from Minneapolis to St. Louis. The locks serve as a stairway for towboats moving commodities up and down the river. Members of the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary will also be in attendance and have information on water and boating safety.

Due to security considerations, backpacks and larger bags are not allowed on the lock site, purses are acceptable. The open house is free. For accessibility questions or more information, please contact the Lock and Dam 10 staff at (651) 290-5949.

The St. Paul District is celebrating its sesquicentennial throughout 2016. The district marks Aug. 17, 1866, as its birthday. This is the day Maj. Gouverneur K. Warren, a West Point graduate widely acclaimed for his leadership at the Battle of Gettysburg, arrived in St. Paul, Minnesota, with orders to set up an engineering office. And since its creation, the district’s history has been entwined with the history of the region.

 The nearly 600 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, employees working at more than 40 sites in five upper-Midwest states serve the American public in the areas of environmental enhancement, navigation, flood damage reduction, water and wetlands regulation, recreation sites and disaster response. Through the Corps’ Fiscal Year 2015 $100 million budget, nearly 1,600 non-Corps jobs were added to the regional economy as well as $155 million to the national economy.
# Mississippi Valley Division News

Mississippi Valley Division News RSS Feed

- The Corps Environment - May 2020 issue now available The Corps Environment May 2020 issue is now available. This edition highlights protecting and preserving the environment, in support of USACE's Environmental Operating Principle #4, and showcases extraordinary environmental stewardship efforts across the Army.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-5622

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROGER LEWIS SMYRE, a/k/a Red, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-93-36) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Wall Minor, Statesville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, H. Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Roger Lewis Smyre pled guilty to distributing crack cocaine.He was sentenced to 140 months incarceration, four years of supervised release, and a $50 special assessment. Smyre noted a timely appeal. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that in his view there exist no meritorious grounds for appeal. Smyre filed a supplemental brief claiming that the district court erred by denying his request to substitute his counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest and he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Smyre's claims cannot be reviewed on direct appeal. United States v. DeFusco , 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 503 U.S. 997 (1992). We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders , supra , and find no meritoriousissue for appeal. Counsel has moved to withdraw from further representation. The court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petitionbe filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court at that time for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We therefore deny counsel's motion to withdraw at this stage of the proceedings. We further deny Smyre's motion to substi tute his attorney. We affirm the district court's judgment order. We dispense with oral argument3 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 32

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 Uroplasty, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel
G. Holman, Chief Executive Officer and 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ DANIEL G. HOLMAN

Daniel G. Holman
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: November 12, 2003

Page 18



---



##### 



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 Uroplasty, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arie
J. Koole, Controller and Principal Accounting 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/ ARIE J. KOOLE

Arie J. Koole
Controller (Principal Accounting Officer)

Dated: November 12, 2003

Page 19
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Downey Bridgwater, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |     |  |                                                
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 10, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ J. Downey Bridgwater                       
|                    |  |     |  | J. Downey Bridgwater                           
|                    |  |     |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 
    1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)), and2)
    
    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 covered by the Report.
 Date: May 8, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Ronald E. Hermance, Jr.Ronald E. Hermance, Jr.Chairman, President and Chief Executive
OfficerDate: May 8, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ James C. KranzJames C. KranzSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
 Page 35
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MI C HA E L S AN GL AN G R E S U R E C C IO N , a. k. a. M i chae l S anga l ang R e s urr e c c i on, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72605 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 313- 252 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 20, 2011 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i ch ael S an g l an g R esu recci o n , a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f th e P h i l i p p i n es, pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order d is m is s in g h is ap p e a l f

r o m an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to 

# FI LED MA Y05 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72605 2 r e o p e n d e p o rta tio n p r o c e e d in g s c o n du c te din ab s e n tiaan dd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e m and. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f

am o tio n to r e o p e n , I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 889, 894 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , an dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e a g e n c yd idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g R e s u r e c c io n ’s m o tio n to re op en as un t i m el y w here he fa i l ed t o sho w thathe ac t ed w i th the du e di l i gence r e q u ir e dto w arr an t e q u itab le to llin g o f th e f ilin g d e a d lin e . See 8 C. F. R. § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( A ) ( 1) ( m ot i on t o r e ope n m us tbe f i l e d w i thi n 180 day s of d e p o rta tio n o r d e re n te r e din ab s e n tia ) ; I tu rr ib a rr ia , 32 1 F . 3d at89 7 (a pet i t i on er m ayob t ai n equ i t abl e t ol l i ng base d o n i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l as l on g as he “ ac t [e d] w i th d ue di l i gence i n d i sc ov er i ng the decept i on , fr aud, or error” ). B e c aus e the a ge nc y ’ s c onc l us i on tha tR e s ur e c c i on f a i l e d t o a c tw i th due d ilig e n c e up o n d is c o v e r in g th a t h e h a db e e n o r d e r e dr e m o v e din ab s e n tiais di s pos i t i ve , i tw a s unne c e s s aryf orthe B I A t o r e m and hi s c a s e f orc ons i de r a t i on of w hether R es urec ci on ’ s s ec on d cou nselprov i ded h i m w i th i neff ec t i ve as si st ance . In l i gh tof ou r di sposi t i on , w e nee d n otaddres s w hether R es urec ci on has de m ons tr a t e d s uf

f i c i e ntc om pl i anc e w i th M at te rof L oz ada , 19 I . & N . D e c . 637 (B IA 19 88 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STEVEN BEY.

November 21, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32


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


In connection with the Annual Report of Guggenheim Credit Income Fund 2016 T on Form 10-K for the  period ended December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers of Guggenheim Credit Income Fund 2016 T, does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, 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 Guggenheim Credit Income Fund 2016 T.


Date:March 17, 2022/s/ Matthew S. BloomMATTHEW S. BLOOMChief Executive OfficerDate:March 17, 2022/s/ Michael GussMICHAEL GUSSChief Financial Officer
Order entered April 23, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 01337 - CV PAULA MOORE & ALL OC CUPANTS, Appellant s V. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BA NK, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. CC - 13 - 05404 - E 

### O RDER We GRANT appellants’ motion for extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief tendered to the Clerk of the Court April 21, 2014 filed as of the date of this order

. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21

- 0954 V

UNPUBLISHED

TREMAYNE D. EDWARDS

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: September 6, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ; Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession; Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Scott B. Taylor

, Urban & Tayl or, S.C. , M ilwaukee

, WI

, for Petitioner.

Tyler King , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On February 19, 2021

, Tremayne D. Edwards filed a petition for compensation

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine

a dministr at ion ( “ SIRVA ” ) as a result of an influenza vaccin ation on November 5, 2018

. Petition at 1

. T he case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 6, 2022

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that P etitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at

1. Specifically, R espondent “ concluded that [P]etiti oner ’ s claim meets t he T able criteria

fo r S IRVA

. ” Id. at 5 . Respondent further agrees that “ the case was timely file d , that the

1 Because this unpublished R uling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the R uling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I wil l redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2

vaccine was received in the United States, and that [P] etitioner satisfies the statutory

severit y req uirement by suffering the residual effects o r co mplications o f his injur y for

more than six months afte r vaccine administrati on

. ” Id. Respondent a lso notes that

Petitioner has av erred that he has “‘ not filed a civil ac tion for [his] vaccine

- related injuries

and has ‘ not rec eived compensation in the form of an award or civil settlement for [his]

vaccine

- relat ed injury. ’ ” Id . at 5 (citing Pet. Ex. 1 at 7).

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master