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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 394 

Supporting international academic freedom and American universities abroad. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2017 

Ms. KAPTUR (for herself and Mr. COOK) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting international academic freedom and American 

universities abroad. 

Whereas American universities and colleges have worked to 

effectively share knowledge and promote the tradition of 

academic freedom around the world; 

Whereas American universities and colleges operating in 

other countries have created vibrant academic institutions 

that are part of the local society in the host countries 

and also connect local students and faculty to the United 

States and the world; 

Whereas such academic institutions strengthen the peaceful, 

productive ties between the host countries and the United 

States and benefit local economies, advancing the national interests of both the United States and the hosting 

country; 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 394 IH 

Whereas academic freedom is under assault in many parts of 

the world, among other urgent challenges to fundamental 

freedoms and universal values; and 

Whereas it is essential for the United States Government to 

support and defend American-accredited academic institutions that are subjected to discrimination, harassment, 

coercion, unjustified closure or seizure: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) believes that it should be the policy of the 

3 United States to support American-accredited aca4 demic institutions that are subjected to discrimina5 tion or harassment by foreign governments and to 

6 respond quickly in the case of the coercion, unjusti7 fied closure, or seizure of any such institution; and 

8 (2) urges the Secretary of State to take strong 

9 and effective measures to respond to any such treat10 ment toward American-accredited academic institu11 tions operating in other countries. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60843

Summary Calendar

EMILIO RODRIGUEZ-HERNANDEZ

Petitioner

v.

PETER D KEISLER, ACTING US ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A90 373 219

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Emilio Rodriguez-Hernandez petitions this court for review of an order

from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the Immigration

Judge’s decision granting the respondent’s motion to pretermit RodriguezHernandez’s request for a waiver of removal pursuant to former

8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) and ordering Rodriguez-Hernandez removed from the United

States. Rodriguez-Hernandez contends that the BIA erred by determining that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 8, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-60843

2

he was ineligible for relief pursuant to § 1182(c). The respondent moves for

summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a brief.

Rodriguez-Hernandez has not shown error in connection with the BIA’s

determination that he had failed to establish his status as a lawful permanent

resident of the United States. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188 n.6

(1984). He has concomitantly failed to carry his burden of showing that he is

eligible for relief under former § 1182(c). See Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363, 366-

70 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Ashby v. INS, 961 F.2d 555, 557 (5th Cir. 1992).

Rodriguez-Hernandez’s petition for review is DENIED. The respondent’s motion

is likewise DENIED.
No. 101.

#### Thomas S. Morgan, plaintiff in error, *vs.*George M. Keith, defendant.

[1.] A defendant is chargeable with full costs, when sued in the Superior Court, although the verdict be for less than thirty dollars *;*provided it be not rendered in a suit sounding in damages, and the demand set forth in the declaration be not proven to exceed the sum of thirty dollars.

Illegality, in Whitfield Superior Court. Decided by Judge Trippe, October Term, 1855.

Keith had sued Morgan for use and occupation of a lot of land, alleging two hundred dollars to be due.

No payment or set-off was pleaded, and the Jury found twenty dollars for plaintiff, and costs of suit. Judgment was entered for twenty dollars, and for one hundred and three dollars costs; and execution issued accordingly.

Defendant took affidavit of illegality to all said costs, except such as would have accrued in a Justice’s Court.

The Court dismissed the illegality, and error is assigned on that decision.

*550Walker, for plaintiff in error.

Brown ; Underwood, for defendant.

*By the Court.*

McDonald, J.

delivering the opinion.

The only question in this case is, whether the defendant can be charged with more costs than would have necessarily accrued, if the recovery had been before a Justice of the Peace?

[1.] The plaintiff has an election, to sue either in a Justice’s Court or one of the higher Courts, on any liquidated demand, debt or account, not exceeding thirty dollars, exclusive of interest; and before the Act of 12th December, 1809, he had a right to recover full costs. That Act, while it did not interfere with this right of election, disarmed plaintiffs of a power which they might use, and which some plaintiffs had used to harrass and oppress defendants with heavy bills of costs. It limited the costs to the amount with which defendants would be chargeable, in Justice’s Courts, in cases in which the verdict of the Jury should be for a sum under thirty dollars, and the demand set forth in the declaration should not be proven to exceed thirty dollars. The provisions of the Act do not extend to cases sounding in damages.

The civil jurisdiction of Justice’s Courts, is confined to suits *for debt, on liquidated demands,*or *accounts,*not exceeding (until the last session of the Legislature) thirty dollars, exclusive of interest. The plaintiff’s suit, in this case, was for the recovery of damages, and was not within the jurisdiction of a Justice’s Court. It did not, therefore, fall within the provisions of the Act of 1809, and the defendant is chargeable with full costs. The judgment of the Court below must, therefore, be affirmed.
Exhibit 4.12(A)

     

    
      Addendum No. 2 to the Service Agreement, dated February 1, 2014

      Dated and Signed March 3, 2020

      

      

    

    	
            BETWEEN:

          	
            E-Com Global Electronic Commerce Ltd

            Private Company No. 512691767

          	
             

          
	
             

          	
            Of: 3 Hashikma Street, Azor

          	
             

          
	
             

          	
            (hereinafter: "the Company")

          	
            Party of the First Part;

          
	
            AND:

          	
            Mr. Gil Sheratzky

          	
             

          
	
             

          	
            I.D. No. 035727957

          	
             

          
	
             

          	
            Of: 14 Dulchin St, Tel Aviv

          	
             

          
	
             

          	
            (hereinafter: "Gil")

          	
            Party of the Second Part;

          
	
            AND:

          	
            Zero-To-One S.B.L. Investments LTD

          	
             

          
	
             

          	
            Private Company No. 515048031

          	
             

          
	
             

          	
            Of: 10 Kdishe Ha'shoa St. Tel Aviv

          	
             

          
	
             

          	
            (hereinafter: "the Service Provider")

          	
            Party of the Third Part;

          


    
      

      

      WHREAS                 the Company and Service Provider and Gil have entered into Service Agreement dated February 1, 2014 (hereinafter: "the Agreement").

      

      

      AND WHEREAS      the parties wish to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional term of three years;

      

      

      THEREFORE, THE PARTIES DECLARED, AGREED AND STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:

      

      

      According to Section 6.1 to the Agreement, the term of the Agreement shall be extended for additional three years, starting from February 1, 2020.

      

      

      AND IN WITNESS THEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE AFFIXED THEIR SIGNATURES:

      

      

      ___________            _______________

              GIL                    THE COMPANY

      

      

      _______________

      THE EMPLOYER
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STEPHEN TROIANO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Jan. 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20419

Contact: William Spencer FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

202-653-7200 March 14, 2024

TDD/Videophone Users:

Please Call Via Relay

NEW MSPB CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN

In a brief ceremony on March 14, 2024, Cathy A. Harris was sworn in as Chairman of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) by the Honorable Elaine D. Kaplan, Chief 

Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Ms. Harris, who has been serving as the 

Vice Chairman and Acting Chairman of the MSPB since June 2022, was confirmed as 

Chairman of the MSPB by the U.S. Senate on March 6, 2024. This is the first time in seven 

years that MSPB has had a confirmed Chairman. 

In addition, on March 11, President Biden designated Board Member Raymond A. Limon 

as Vice Chairman of the MSPB. Mr. Limon was sworn in as a Board Member in March 2022.

Upon being sworn in, Chairman Harris expressed, “I am honored to continue to lead this 

small but mighty agency.” 

For additional information, please see https://www.mspb.gov/about/members.htm. 

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent, quasi-judicial agency whose mission is to protect the Merit 

System Principles and promote an effective Federal workforce free of Prohibited Personnel Practices.
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Annual Report of
Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. (“PESI”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Ben Naccarato, 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
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d)); and




(2) The
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Dated:
May 7, 2010




/s/ Ben NaccaratoBen
      NaccaratoVice
      President and Chief Financial
Officer





This
certification is furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for
purpose of 18 U.S.C. §1350 subject to the knowledge standard contained therein,
and not for any other purpose.
# Sitemap

## April 27, 2010

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2010
- 04
- April 27, 2010

            - Good International Space Station Sighting Opportunity on April 28
            - NASA Television To Broadcast Arrival Of Space Station Cargo Ship
            - Leonardo on the Move
            - Oil Slick Spreads off Gulf Coast
            - WIlson Suits Up
            - Space Maintenance
            - Ammonia Tank Relocation
            - On the Truss
            - Enceladus Flyby – April 28, 2010
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 Amended Annual Report of Alpine Air Express, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-1 for the period ending October 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Amended
Annual Report"), We, Eugene Mallette, Chief Executive Officer and director and
Don T. Squire, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of our 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 Amended Annual 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 Amended Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.

Dated: 5/17/2007                        /s/Eugene Mallette
       ---------                        ----------------------------------
                                        Eugene Mallette
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Director

Dated: 5/17/2007                        /s/Don T. Squire, Jr.
       ---------                        ----------------------------------
                                        Don T. Squire, Jr.
                                        Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

TYRONE PEELE,

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL D. OVERMYER,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 3 EM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of March, 2018, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are DISMISSED. See

Commonwealth v. Al

i

, 10 A.3d 282, 293 (Pa. 2010) (providing that hybrid representation

is not permitted). T he Prothonotary is DIRECTED to forward the filings to counsel of

record.
# STS-64 Landing at Edwards

The Space Shuttle Discovery settles to the main runway at Edwards, California, at 2:13 p.m. (PDT) 20 September 1994, to conclude mission STS-64. The spacecraft, with a crew of six, was launched into a 57-degree high inclination orbit from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, at 3:23 p.m. (PDT), 9 September 1994. The mission featured the study of clouds and the atmosphere with a laser beaming system called Lidar In-Space Technology Experiment (LITE), and the first untethered space walk in over ten years. A Spartan satellite was also deployed and later retrieved in the study of the sun's corona and the solar wind. The mission was scheduled to end Sunday, 18 September, but was extended one day to continue science work. Bad weather at the Kennedy Space Center on September 19, forced a one-day delay to September 20, with a weather divert that day to Edwards. Mission commander was Richard Richards, the pilot Blaine Hammond, while mission specialists were Jerry Linenger, Susan Helms, Carl Meade, and Mark Lee.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-ec94-42750-4/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenSeptember 20, 1994ProducerAFRCImage CreditNASASize1920x1505pxPIA NumberEC94-42750-4The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 11, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         925,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,564,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    98,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,776,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,284,000
<PP&E>                                         353,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,202,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,637,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,615,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 14,442,000
<COMMON>                                    11,053,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,637,000
<SALES>                                      1,827,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,827,000
<CGS>                                        1,536,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,543,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (749,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (749,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

                                   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 annual report of Cozumel Corporation
(the  "Company)  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30,  2003,  Jehu
Hand 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 the best of
his knowledge:

            (1)   The annual  report fully complies with the  requirements of
                  Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (2)   The  information  contained  in the annual  report  fairly
                  presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Jehu Hand

Jehu Hand
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
(principal executive and financial officer
September 1, 2004





<PAGE>
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 Annual Report of Pacific Land and Coffee Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March  31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John L Hales, Chief Executive  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Dated:  September 22, 2010
By  /s/ John L. Hales
-----------------------------
     John L. Hales
     Chief Executive Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer)
Order filed, June 30, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00360-CV

____________

HECTOR GIANACOVO, Appellant

V.

JUAN A. BONILLA, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1072623

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due June 13, 2016. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Lisa Fort, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
# Spacelab Illustration

The primary purpose of the Spacelab-3 mission was to conduct materials science experiments in a stable low-gravity environment. In addition, the crew did research in life sciences, fluid mechanics, atmospheric science, and astronomy. Spacelab-3 was equipped with several new mini-labs, special facilities that would be used repeatedly on future flights. Two elaborate crystal growth furnaces, a life support and housing facility for small animals, and two types of apparatus for the study of fluids were evaluated on their inaugural flight. The instruments requiring direct exposure to space were mounted outside in the open payload bay of the Shuttle. Spacelab represented the merger of science and marned spaceflight. It opened remarkable opportunities to push the frontiers of knowledge beyond the limits of research on Earth. Scientists in space performed experiments in close collaboration with their colleagues on the ground. On the Spacelab-3 mission, managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center, this versatile laboratory entered routine operation service for the next two decades. Spacelab-3 (STS-51B mission) was launched aboard Space Shuttle Orbiter Challenger on April 29, 1985.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-8109342/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenJanuary 1, 1981ProducerMSFCSize1920x1392pxPIA Number8109342The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Jul 14, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Michele Ostovar								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
# Sitemap

## September 18, 2020

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2020
- 09
- September 18, 2020

            - Events
            - Special Session with Dr. Franklin Chang Díaz, Former NASA Astronaut
            - HACE
            - NASA Invites Media to Launch of Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich Satellite from West Coast
            - NASA Space Apps COVID-19 Challenge Winners Share Stories of Innovation
            - Astronaut Chris Cassidy poses with two Astrobee robotic assistants
            - Astronaut Chris Cassidy poses with two Astrobee robotic assistants
            - In Case You Missed It: A Weekly Summary of Top Content from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center
            - Hardware Testing Heats Up at Marshall Test Laboratory
            - Everyday Effects of the Solar Cycle
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALBERT CROWLEY.

February 6, 1987.

Petition for certification granted.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS SCHNEIDER.

May 19, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.