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

# WRANGL3R – Water Regolith ANalysis for Grounded Lunar 3d Reconnaissance

### Loura Hall

Mar 18, 2021

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

**Alian Wang***Washington University in Saint Louis*

LuSTR20 Overview Chart Wang.pdf

WRANGL3R – Water Regolith ANalysis for Grounded Lunar 3d Reconnaissance – is an ultra-compact laser spectroscopy system equipped with a fiber optic sensing probe that is embedded in a drill bit.  WRANGL3R includes (1) a rotary-percussive drill with a hollow drill stem (1 m length, 25 mm diameter); (2) a novel miniature (<5 mm diameter; <50 mm length) optical probe to perform in-situ Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS); (3) automated water-content quantitative analyses routines, combining hardware designs and deep learning algorithms to enable unprecedented measurements: rapid, direct, depth-resolved downhole quantitation of water content while drilling.Mounted on a small rover, WRANGL3R enables in-situ 3D mapping of water content on the Moon surface and subsurface directly with low detection limits (< 1 wt%) and low spatial resolution (< 1 cm depth resolution).Our R/R&D effort will combine, for the first time, drilling and laser spectroscopy into an integrated tool. Each partner contributes complementary know-how and expertise: (1) Lunar science and spectroscopy by Washington University in St. Louis; (2) Design and development of high-TRL lasers and spectrometers and relevant resource exploration R&D by Impossible Sensing.

******Back to LuSTR 2020******

## Discover More Topics From STRG

Space Technology Mission Directorate

STMD Solicitations and Opportunities

Space Technology Research Grants

About STRG
# Sitemap

## August 21, 2005

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2005
- 08
- August 21, 2005

            - Titan Flyby 6 (T-6): Aug. 22, 2005
# Payload bay activity during second EVA of STS-72 mission

STS072-393-022 (17 Jan. 1996) --- In the Space Shuttle Endeavour's cargo bay, astronaut Winston E. Scott waves to crew mates inside the crew cabin during his extravehicular activity (EVA) on January 17, 1996.  Scott was joined by astronaut Leroy Chiao for the EVA.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-sts072-393-022/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenJanuary 16, 1996ProducerJSCSize1920x1254pxPIA NumberSTS072-393-022The 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
#### Eakle and Another *v.*Oliver.

The plea of *nil debet,*in an action of debt on a bond, cannot bo treated as a nullity, nor rejected on motion. It is bad, however, in such case, or) demurrer.

*4*Monday, November*19.

ERROR to the *Marion*Circuit Court.

*P. Sweetser*and *H. Brown,*for the plaintiffs.

*C. Fletcher*and 0. *Butler,*for the defendant.

Sullivan, J.

This is an action of debt on a bond for the

delivery of certain property levied on by a constable in *Marion*^pounty. The defendants pleaded *nil debent.*The plaintiff moved to reject the plea, to which the defendants objected; but the Court sustained the motion and rejected the plea. Final judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.

The plea of *nil debet*is not a good plea in debt where a deed is the foundation of the action. It is not however a nullity. It is adapted to the nature of the action, and goes to the substance of it. If the plaintiff take issue upon it, the defendant may prove any special matter of defence under it, which he might prove under the same plea in debt on simple contract. To avoid the plea in an action founded on a bond, the plaintiff must demur, and rely upon the conclusion of law, that the defendant is estopped by his deed from saying that he is not indebted. *Coppin*v. Carter, 1 T. R. *462.*—Thellusson v. Smith, 5 T. R. 152.—3 Ch. G. P. 752.—Gould’s Pl. 310.—1 Ch. Pl. 552.-2 Ch. Rep. 239-*Baily*v. Edwards, Cas. Temp. Hardw. 179 (1).

In the progress of this cause, other exceptions were taken by the defendants, but we think they cannot be sustained.

For the reason given, the judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the plea set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

*Trimble*v. *The State,*Vol. 4 of these Rep. 435 and *note.*—Love v. *Kidwell,*Idem, 553.

If the plea be not adapted to the nature of the action, as *nil debet*in assumpsit, or 'non-assumpsit in debt, the plaintiff may treat it as a nullity, and sign judgment. But the plea of not guilty in debt on a penal statute, is not such a nullity as will warrant the plaintiff in signing judgment; nor is the plea of *nil debet,*in an action of debt on a judgment, a nullity. Where the plea, though informal, goes 'to the substance of the action, as *nil debet*to debt on bond, the plaintiff should demur, and not sign judgment. 1 Chitt. Plead. 552.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27022]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending October 2, 2010

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations(See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to 
ModifyScope are set forth below for each application. Following the 
Answer periodDOT may process the application by expedited procedures. 
Such proceduresmay consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a 
tentative order, or inappropriate cases a final order without further 
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0242.
    Date Filed: September 28, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion To Modify 
Scope:October 19, 2010.
    Description:
    Application of Compass Airlines, Inc. (``Compass'') requesting the 
Department ofTransportation disclaim jurisdiction over the corporate 
reorganization of Compass inwhich Compass will be converted from a 
Delaware corporation to a Delaware limitedliability company bearing the 
name Compass Airlines, LLC, and immediately thereaftertransfer 
Compass's certificate of public convenience and necessity, exemptions, 
designations,and any related operating authorities to Compass Airlines 
LLC, a Delaware Limited LiabilityCompany.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations,Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-27022 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
Filed 12/3/14 P. v. Bybee CA4/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

DONALD EUGENE BYBEE, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 D066164 

 (Super. Ct. No. RIF139205) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Michele D. 

Levine, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

 In 2008 Donald Bybee was convicted of one count of grand theft of an automobile 

(Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a)1/Veh. Code, § 10851) and, in a bifurcated proceeding, the 

court found true the allegations that Bybee had been convicted of five offenses for which 

 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 
2 

he served a term in state prison within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b), and 

that two of those offenses constituted serious or violent felony strike convictions within 

the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12. After his motion 

pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 was denied, Bybee 

was sentenced to 25 years to life. 

 In January 2013, Bybee, acting in propria persona, filed a motion to recall his 

sentence pursuant to the recently enacted Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (§ 1170.126 

et seq.). After counsel was appointed for Bybee, and both the People and Bybee filed 

papers opposing and supporting the petition, the court held an evidentiary hearing. The 

evidence indicated that, while incarcerated, Bybee had pleaded guilty in 2009 to 

assaulting another inmate, and in 2010 assaulted another inmate with a shank. The court 

found Bybee posed an unreasonable risk to public safety, within the meaning of section 

1170.126, subdivision (f), and denied the petition. 

DISCUSSION 

 Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below. 

Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for 

error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California

(1967) 386 U.S. 738. We granted Bybee permission to file a supplemental brief on his 

own behalf, but he has not responded. 
3 

 A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and 

Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate 

issues. Bybee has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal. 

DISPOSITION 

 The order is affirmed. 

McDONALD, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

McCONNELL, P. J. 

McINTYRE, J.
Exhibit
10.5


 


SUSTAINABLE
OPPORTUNITIES ACQUISITION CORP.


1601
Bryan Street, Suite 4141


Dallas,
Texas 75201


 


May
[●], 2020


 


Sustainable
Opportunities Holdings LLC


1601
Bryan Street, Suite 4141


Dallas,
Texas 75201


 


Ladies
and Gentlemen:


 


This
letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the
registration statement (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of the securities of Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until
the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation
(in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination
Date”), Sustainable Opportunities Holdings LLC (the “Sponsor”), shall take steps directly
or indirectly to make available to the Company certain office space, secretarial and administrative services as may be required
by the Company from time to time, situated at 1601 Bryan Street, Suite 4141, Dallas, Texas 75201 (or any successor location).
In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay the Sponsor a sum of $10,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly
thereafter until the Termination Date. The Sponsor hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of
any kind (a “Claim”) in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust
Account”) that may be established upon the consummation of the IPO and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the
future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company and will not seek recourse
against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


This
letter agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto in respect of its subject matter and
supersedes all prior understandings, agreements, or representations by or among the parties hereto, written or oral, to the extent
they relate in any way to the subject matter hereof or the transactions contemplated hereby.


 


This
letter agreement may not be amended, modified or waived as to any particular provision, except by a written instrument executed
by the parties hereto.


 


The
parties may assign this letter agreement and any of their rights, interests, or obligations hereunder at any time upon five days’
notice to the other party.


 


This
letter agreement shall be governed by, construed in accordance with, and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of New
York, without giving effect to its choice of laws principles.


 


[Signature
Page Follows]


 






     


     


    

 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES ACQUISITION CORP.
	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:	                




 


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:


 


	SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES HOLDINGS LLC	 
	 	 
	By:	 	 
	Name:		
	Title:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-95001) pertaining to the Cysive, Inc. Amended and Restated
1994 Stock Option Plan, of our reports dated January 31, 2000 with respect to
the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Cysive, Inc.,
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia
February 18, 2000
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF ATLAS PIPELINE PARTNERS, L.P.



|                                           |  |             
|------------------------------------------ |  | ------------
|Name                                       |  | Jurisdiction
|Atlas Pipeline Operating Partnership, L.P. |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Holdings II, LLC            |  | Delaware    
|APL Laurel Mountain, LLC                   |  | Delaware    
|APC Acquisition, LLC                       |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Tennessee, LLC              |  | Pennsylvania
|Setting Sun Pipeline Corporation           |  | Delaware    
|Anadarko Midkiff/Chaney Dell, LLC          |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent LLC           |  | Delaware    
|Saddleback Pipeline, LLC                   |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent KansOK, LLC   |  | Delaware    
|Elk City Oklahoma Pipeline, L.P.           |  | Texas       
|Elk City Oklahoma GP, LLC                  |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Finance Corp.               |  | Delaware    
|NOARK Energy Services, LLC                 |  | Oklahoma    
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent WestOk, LLC   |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Pipeline Mid-Continent WestTex, LLC  |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Chaney Dell, LLC                     |  | Delaware    
|Atlas Midkiff, LLC                         |  | Delaware    
|ECOP Gas Company, LLC                      |  | Delaware
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 North Coast Partners, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending August 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mel
Venkateswaran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ Mel Venkateswaran
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Mel Venkateswaran, Chief Executive Officer
                                     November 30, 2005

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1999 
<CASH>                                 1,660,500 
<SECURITIES>                                   0 
<RECEIVABLES>                             92,400 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0 
<INVENTORY>                              147,300 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,965,000 
<PP&E>                                 3,547,300 
<DEPRECIATION>                          (373,600)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         6,490,900 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  1,673,300 
<BONDS>                                        0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     13,800 
<PREFERRED>                                    0 
<COMMON>                                  15,500 
<OTHER-SE>                             4,788,300 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           6,490,900 
<SALES>                                        0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          31,100 
<CGS>                                          0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          2,103,100 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         6,600 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (2,078,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (2,078,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0 
<CHANGES>                                      0 
<NET-INCOME>                          (2,078,600)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (0.13) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.13) 
                                                 


</TABLE>
1 min read

# NASA Glenn Teams Up with Cleveland Monsters 

### Doreen Zudell

#### Editor

Apr 24, 2024

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

 NASA’s Glenn Research Center joined the Cleveland Monsters to celebrate their total solar eclipse-themed game against the Rochester Americans at the Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse in Cleveland on March 30. NASA Glenn staff were on hand to discuss the total solar eclipse and NASA’s presence at Great Lakes Science Center’s Total Eclipse Fest 2024, April 6-8. NASA also provided a photobooth for guests to use, Eva the astronaut mascot made rounds, and Glenn showcased its Graphics and Visualization Lab through virtual reality glasses experiences and hands-on demos. The Monsters also showed a 2024 Eclipse Countdown Kickoff video during the game.  

 

**Credit: NASA/John Oldham**

## Explore More

4 min readCalifornia Teams Win $1.5 Million in NASA’s Break the Ice Lunar ChallengeArticle										16 hours ago									

2 min readAmes Research Center Democratizes Space Biosciences Research with First Commercial Astronaut DataArticle										1 day ago									

1 min readSpace Omics and Medical Atlas (SOMA) PackageArticle										1 day ago
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Lynn HOLT, Appellant.

No. 03-1319.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 27, 2003.

Decided Sept. 3, 2003.

Patrick J. Reinert, Cedar Rapids, IA, Charles William Larson, Sr., U.S. Attorney, Sioux City, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Lynn Holt, Florence, CO, pro se.

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Lynn Holt (Holt) appeals the district court’s1 imposition, upon revocation of his supervised release, of a 14r-month prison term followed by service of the remainder of his original supervised release term. On appeal, Holt argues that the district court violated his due process rights by failing to provide him with a written statement detailing its reasons for revoking his supervised release, and that his revocation sentence violates 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

After careful review of the record, we find that the written judgment sufficiently advised Holt of the reasons for revocation of supervised release, *cf. United States v. Smith,*767 F.2d 521, 524 (8th Cir.1985) (due process requires district court identify bases for its decision to revoke probation), and that the revocation sentence is within the limits of section 3583 and does not constitute plain error, *see United States v. Prendergast,*4 F.3d 560, 561 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (claims not raised before district court are reviewed for plain error); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b), (e), (h). Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2014

p0721 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2014

149132

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149132

COA: 313677

Macomb CC: 2012

- 000990

- FC

DEON LAMONT TAYLOR,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIE D, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN, ETC., ET AL. v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF HUNTERDON.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BRUCE CUNNINGHAM.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.