alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Images
- NASA+
- Podcasts
- e-Books
- Games and Interactives
- Mobile & Desktop Apps

# NASA Images

NASA has always told its story through its images, a few of which have become icons of human history.

## 

#### 

#### 

### Today

## Image Of The Day

Sea Ice Swirls

Floating fragments of sea ice spun into intricate patterns as ocean currents carried them south along Greenland’s east coast in spring 2024. The MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured a moment of this dizzying journey on June 4, 2024.

				Browse Image Archive                			

### Today

## Image Of The Day

				View image                			

## NASA HQ PHOTO: Best of 2023

The 100 best images from 2023 as captured and selected by the NASA HQ PHOTO office at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
				View Images                                     about NASA HQ PHOTO: Best of 2023

## 				NASA Image Resources			

## Images and Videos

Images, videos, and audio files from NASA's programs throughout the agency's history.

## Image and Media Guidelines

Access and use of NASA's images and media assets for educational, informational, and commercial purposes.

## NASA HQ PHOTO Office

The official Flickr account for the award-winning photography team at NASA Headquarters in Washington.

## Kennedy Space Center

The official Flickr account for the Kennedy Space Center.

## Faces of NASA

The Faces of NASA series combines stunning portraiture with interviews of NASA's workforce.

## Planetary Photojournal

Publicly released images from several solar system exploration programs.

## Earth Observatory

Images of Earth that emerge from NASA satellite missions, in-the-field research, and models.

## Training To Be An Astronaut

38 Images

Go To Gallery

Go To Gallery

## Discover More Topics From NASA

NASA Interactives

NASA Blogs

NASA Newsletters

NASA History
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 330 

Authorizing and directing certain authorizing committees to review laws within 

their jurisdiction and submit to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform changes in such laws necessary to eliminate excessive 

Executive Branch discretion in the application of those laws. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2017 

Mr. DAVIDSON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing and directing certain authorizing committees to 

review laws within their jurisdiction and submit to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

changes in such laws necessary to eliminate excessive 

Executive Branch discretion in the application of those 

laws. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE ACTIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Within 6 months after the date 

4 of adoption of this resolution, the committees listed in sub5 section (b) shall review laws within their jurisdiction and 

6 submit to the Committee on Oversight and Government 


rfrederick on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 330 IH 

1 Reform changes in those laws sufficient to eliminate exces2 sive Executive Branch discretion in the application of 

3 those laws. 

4 (b) COMMITTEES SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (a).— 

5 The following committees shall comply with subsection (a): 

6 (1) Committee on Agriculture. 

7 (2) Committee on Armed Services. 

8 (3) Committee on the Budget. 

9 (4) Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

10 (5) Committee on Education and the Work11 force. 

12 (6) Committee on Financial Services. 

13 (7) Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

14 (8) Committee on the Judiciary. 

15 (9) Committee on Natural Resources. 

16 (10) Committee on Oversight and Government 

17 Reform. 

18 (11) Committee on Science, Space, and Tech19 nology. 

20 (12) Committee on Small Business. 

21 (13) Committee on Transportation and Infra22 structure. 

23 (14) Committee on Veterans Affairs. 

24 (15) Committee on Ways and Means. 


rfrederick on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 330 IH 

1 (16) Permanent Select Committee on Intel2 ligence. 

3 SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE. 

4 Upon receiving all the recommendations made pursu5 ant to section 1, the Committee on Oversight and Govern6 ment Reform shall expeditiously report legislation carrying 

7 out all such recommendations without any substantive re8 vision. The short title of this legislation shall be the Article 

9 One Restoration Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chiu M. Chan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 results of operations of the Company.

July 15, 2010

|                                    
|------------------------------------
|                                    
|/s/ Chiu M. Chan                    
|Chiu M. Chan Chief
Executive Officer

This certification is made solely pursuant to the requirement of Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C., and is
not for any other purpose.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 947 V

Filed: June 19, 20 19

UNPUBLISHED

SANDRA WILLIAMS

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Bridget Candace McCullough , Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA , for petitioner.

Voris Edward Johnson , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On June 29, 2018 , petitioner 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 she suffered Guillain

- Barre Syndrome ( “ GBS ” ) as a result

of the adverse effects of the influenza ( “ fl u ” ) vaccine administ ered on November 16,

2015 . Petition at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office

of Special Masters.

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This

means the ruling 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 inv asion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this

case, undersigned is 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).

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

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012).On June 19, 2019

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) R eport in whic h he concedes

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

at 1. Specifically, respondent concludes that petitioner suffered the Table injury of GBS

following a flu vaccine within the Table time period, and there is not a preponderance of

the medical evidence that petitioner’ s GBS was due to a factor unrelated to the

vaccination. Id. at 11 . Respondent further agrees that petitione r experienced sequ elae

of her GBS for more than six months

. Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS LOZADO.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 23.1


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


            Board of Directors
            BSD Software, Inc.


            We consent to the incorporation by reference of our Report of
            Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated September 28,
            2005 on the consolidated balance sheet as of July 31, 2005, and the
            related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive
            loss, cash flows, and shareholders' deficit for the year ended July
            31, 2005, included in this Form 10-KSB.


            /s/ STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON, INC.
            ------------------------------

            CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

            Irvine, California
            November 10, 2005
#### Cole and Another *v.*Peniwell and Others.

*Monday, November*18.

Where the process states a special capacity in which the plaintiff sues, the declaration must conform to it; but where the writ is general, the declaration may describe the parties in a particular character.

The dismissal of a suit, after the writ has been quashed, is a nullity.

The quashing of the writ puts an end to the suit, and is a final judgment which may be reversed on appeal or writ of error.

APPEAL from the *Warren*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

The appellants declared in debt in the Court below, and described themselves as late partners doing business under the firm, &c.; two of the defendants (there being others) are also described in the declaration as co-partners, and are alleged to have executed the promissory note, which is the foundation of the action, in the name and style of their firm. The *capias ad respondendum*omits these two descriptions of co-partnership, but in other respects corresponds with the declaration in the names of the parties. The Court below, on motion of the defendants, quashed the writ for a supposed variance between it and the declaration in the description of the parties. The plaintiffs prayed an appeal to this Court, which was refused; they then moved for leave to dismiss their suit; this motion was granted, and judgment for costs rendered against them, upon which they renewed their prayer for appeal, and it was allowed.

We think the Court erred in quashing the writ. There was no material variance. The law is, that where the process states a special capacity in which the plaintiff sues, the declaration must conform to it, and cannot be more general; but where the writ is general, it is no cause for setting aside *176the proceedings, that the declaration describes the parties in a particular character. The defendant has no right to complain of that mode of declaring, for it confines the demand which he is required to answer to more narrow limits. 1 Chitt. Pl. 253.—*Canning*v. Davis, 4 Burr. *2417.*—Rogers v. Jenkins, 1 B. & P. 383, and note *b.*—Lloyd v. *Williams,*2 Bl. Rep. 722.—*The Weavers’ Co.*v. *Forrest,*2 Str. 1232.—Tidd’s Pr. *403.*—Duvall v. *Craig,*2 Wheat. 45.

*J. Pettit,*for the appellants.

*R. A. Chandler,*for the appellees.

The appellees contend that the appellants are not entitled to maintain this appeal, notwithstanding the error of the Circuit Court in quashing the writ, because the suit was, after-wards, dismissed on their own motion. We cannot sustain this objection. ' The- motion to *dismiss*and the granting of it were nullities. The cause had been previously dismissed against the consent of the appellants. The quashing of the writ puts an end to a suit, and is a final judgment whieh may be reversed on appeal or writ of error. 5 Mass. Rep. 193. — Gould’s Pl. 300.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the motion to quash the'writ set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT BYRD.

May 19, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
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 Annual Report of Pacific Land and Coffee Corporation  (the "Company") on Form  10-K for the  period  ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Tyrus C. Young, Chief Financial 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 and 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.  /s/ Tyrus C. Young By: Tyrus C. Young Chief Financial  Officer September 22, 2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41723

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEJANDRO LICEA-CERDA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-747-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejandro LiceaCerda has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Licea-Cerda has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 12, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41723 Document: 00514069793 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2017
No. 15-41723

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-41723 Document: 00514069793 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2017
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 OCTuS, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
David S. Pere, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of
his knowledge, 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.





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




/s/
      David S. PereDavid
      S. Pere
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
                  December
      18, 2008
#### Pierson *v.*Holman.

The record of a cause in which there were a judgment by default, writ of inquiry, &c., did not show that process had been served, but stated that *the*parties appeared by their attorneys. At a term subsequent to that in which the final judgment was rendered, the defendant, on affidavits that he had had no notice of the suit, that he had not authorized the appearance, and that he had a good defence, moved that the judgment be set aside. *Held,*that the motion ought not to be granted, but that an order should be made giving the defendant leave to plead in bar, on or before the calling of the cause at the next term after the order was made, and staying, in the mean time, all proceedings under the judgment, &c.

*Thursday, January*28, 1841.

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

Pierson sued *Holman*in assumpsit in the *Allen*Circuit Court. The declaration was filed in *February,*1837. It does not appear that process was served on the defendant; but the record states that at the *September*term, 1837, the parties appeared by their attorneys. At the *March*term, 1839, judgment was rendered against the defendant by default, the damages assessed by a jury, and final judgment entered accordingly. At the term next after the judgment, viz. the *September*term, 1839, the defendant moved the Court to set aside the judgment. The motion was founded on several affidavits, stating that no process had been served on the defendant; that he had had no notice of the suit; that he did not appear in person or by attorney; that he did not authorize any agent or attorney to appear for him; and that *483he had a good defence to the suit. The Court set aside the Judgment, and the plaintiff excepted.

*T. Johnson,*for the plaintiff.

*H.*Cooper, for the defendant.

The questions involved in this case are fully discussed in *Denton*v. *Noyes,*6 Johns. R. 296, and in *Critchfield*v. *Por*ter, 3 Ohio R. 518, to which we have been referred by the defendant in error. According to those decisions, the judgment in the case before us ought not to have been interfered with further than to let the defendant in to a defence to the action; and that is the opinion we entertain on the subject. We think, therefore, that the judgment should not have been set aside; but that all proceedings under it should have been stayed, until the defendant could have had an opportunity to plead to the action, and have a trial of the cause. The judgment must accordingly be reversed, with instructions to the Circuit Court to make an order that the defendant have leave, on or before the calling of the cause at the next term after the order is made, to plead in bar to the suit; that, in the mean time, all further proceedings under the judgment be stayed on the part of the plaintiff; and in default of such plea, that the plaintiff be at liberty to proceed on the judgment.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, with instructions, &c.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 0 964

_____________________________ A NTONIO M ILLS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County

. James M. Colaw , Judge

. February 23, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , C.J., and R AY and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

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

.

_____________________________2 Stacy A. Scott, Public Defender, and Susan Ward, Assistant Public Defender, Starke
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27064]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Availability for Non-Exclusive or Partially-Exclusive Licensing 
of Invention Concerning Obstetrics Simulation and Training Method 
System

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the 
invention set forth in U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/670,250, 
entitled ``Obstetrics Simulation and Training Method and System,'' 
filed January 22, 2010. Foreign rights are also available for licensing 
(PCT/US2008/076725). The United States Government, as represented by 
the Secretary of the Army, has rights to this invention.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth 
Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul 
Mele, Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA), (301) 619-
6664, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention relates generally to an 
obstetrics simulation system. An embodiment of the invention provides 
an obstetrics simulation system compromising an articulating maternal 
birthing simulator that is a full size and full body female having an 
intubeable airway with a chest rise component, a forearm having a 
medication receiving component, and/or a fetal heart sound component. 
Additionally, the maternal birthing simulator includes a head descent 
and cervical dilation monitor, a placenta positionable in at least two 
locations, two or more removable dilating cervices, and/or postpartum 
vulval suturing inserts.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-27064 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information 
extracted from the financial statements contained in 
the body of the accompanying Form 10-Q of MUZAK 
CAPITAL CORPORATION and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001013763
<NAME> MUZAK CAPITAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         1
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0