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

# NASA to Provide Coverage of Progress 87 Launch, Space Station Docking

### Abbey A. Donaldson

Feb 12, 2024

MEDIA ADVISORYM24-024

NASA Headquarters

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

NASA will provide live coverage of the launch and docking of a Roscosmos cargo spacecraft carrying about three tons of food, fuel, and supplies for the crew aboard the International Space Station.

The unpiloted Progress 87 resupply spacecraft is scheduled to launch at 10:25 p.m. EST Wednesday, Feb. 14 (8:25 a.m. Baikonur time Thursday, Feb. 15), on a Soyuz rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

Live coverage will begin at 10 p.m. on NASA+, NASA Television, the NASA app, YouTube, and the agency’s website. Learn how to stream NASA TV through a variety of platforms including social media.

The Progress spacecraft will be placed into an orbit for a two-day journey to the space station, culminating in an automatic docking to the aft port of the Zvezda service module at 1:12 a.m. Saturday, Feb. 17. NASA coverage of rendezvous and docking will begin at 12:30 a.m.

The International Space Station is a convergence of science, technology, and human innovation that enables research not possible on Earth. For more than 23 years, NASA has supported a continuous U.S. human presence aboard the orbiting laboratory, through which astronauts have learned to live and work in space for extended periods of time. The space station is a springboard for the development of a low Earth orbit economy and NASA’s next great leaps in exploration, including missions to the Moon under Artemis and ultimately, human exploration of Mars.

Learn more about the space station, its research, and crew, at:

**https://www.nasa.gov/station**

-end-

Josh Finch / Claire O’SheaHeadquarters, Washington202-358-1100joshua.a.finch@nasa.gov / claire.a.o’shea@nasa.gov

Sandra JonesJohnson Space Center, Houston281-483-5111sandra.p.jones@nasa.gov

## Share

                  -   
                  -   
                  -   
                  -   

## Details

NASA Headquarters

## Related Terms

                - Expedition 70
                - International Space Station (ISS)
No. 14,092.

#### Boyd et al. *v.*Black School Township.

Filed March 20, 1890.

From the Posey Circuit Court.

*E. D. Owen*and *F. P. Leonard,*for appellants.

Mitchell, C. J.

The questions involved in this appeal are substantially the same as those determined in *Boyd*v. *Black School Township, ante,*p. 1. For the reasons given in the opinion in the case referred to the judgment rendered in the above entitled cause is affirmed, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1663 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1663

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
       To replace certain Coastal Barrier Resources System maps.

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

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM 
              MAPS.

    (a) In General.--The 2 maps subtitled ``NC-07P'', relating to the 
Coastal Barrier Resources System unit designated as Coastal Barrier 
Resources System Cape Fear Unit NC-07P, that are included in the set of 
maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' and referred to in 
section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), 
are hereby replaced by 2 other maps relating to those units entitled 
``Coastal Barrier Resources System Cape Fear Unit, NC-07P'' and dated 
February 18, 2003.
    (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the 
maps referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for inspection 
in accordance with the provisions of section 4(b) of the Coastal 
Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).

            Passed the Senate November 6, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1663

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

       To replace certain Coastal Barrier Resources System maps.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL

OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Howard W. Robin, Chief Executive Officer of Sirna Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company), and I, Martin Schmieg,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge, as follows:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certification this 12 day of November, 2004.



/s/ Howard W. RobinHoward W. RobinPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Martin SchmiegMartin SchmiegSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)




This certification is furnished
and shall not be deemed to be filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section, nor shall such certification be deemed to be incorporated by reference in any
registration statement or other document filed under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except as otherwise stated in such filing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul FREE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50411.

D.C. No. CR-76-00183-1-HBT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 8, 2002.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2003.

Roger W. Haines, Jr., AUSA, USSDOffice of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paul Free, pro se, Atwater, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Free appeals, pro se, the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of error coram nobis challenging his 1976 conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 USC § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Free contends the district court erred in denying his petition for writ of error co-ram nobis because he had valid reasons for not previously attacking his sentence. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of his petition on the basis of laches. *Telink, Inc. v. United States,*24 F.3d 42, 47 (9th Cir.1994). Upon review of the record, and accepting the facts stated by Free as true; we conclude that Free’s approximately 26-year delay was unreasonable, and that the government would be sufficiently prejudiced by the delay. *See id.*at 48. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Free’s petition for writ of error coram nobis, nor in its decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NexCen Brands, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the
undersigned, to the best of his knowledge and in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and





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




/s/
      Kenneth J. Hall
              
              March 26,
      2010Kenneth
      J. HallChief
      Executive Officer/s/
      Mark E. Stanko
              
              March
      26, 2010Mark
      E. StankoChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
NexCen Brands, Inc. and will be retained by NexCen Brands, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ISRAEL MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 13-50389 D.C. No. 3:12-cr-05183-MMA-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 5, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: LIPEZ, ** WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Israel Martinez-Gonzalez appeals his conviction following a jury trial for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. 

# FILED
JUN 02 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Kermit Victor Lipez, Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation.Martinez-Gonzalez challenges the rem oval order underlying his conviction on due process grounds, pursuant to § 1326(d). He contends that his 2009 removal hearing was fundamentally unfair because the Immigration Judge failed to adequately inform Martinez-Gonzalez of his apparent eligibility for voluntary removal and to afford Martinez-Gonzalez an opportunity to apply for that relief. See United States v. Valdez-Novoa , 780 F.3d 906, 913–14 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2)). The Immigration Judge advised Martinez-Gonzalez that he may be eligible for voluntary departure and asked Mar tinez-Gonzalez whether he would like to have a hearing on voluntary departure. This colloquy was not fundamentally unfair. Cf. United States v. Melendez-Castro , 671 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2012). AFFIRMED
.

2
1 min read

# Headquarters and Center Chief Counsel Contacts

### NASA

Jun 24, 2015

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -
#### Jones and Others *v.*The State, on the Relation of Dietz, County Treasurer, &c.

In a suit by the state, on the relation of a county treasurer, on the bond of a collector of county revenue, the treasurer is an incompetent witness for the state on account of his interest in the event of the suit.

If the plaintiff in such suit fail, the judgment should direct the costs to be collected from the property of the county — not from the relator.

*142Monday, *May*27.

ERROR to the *Bartholomew*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

This was 'an action of debt on a bond executed by *William P.*Nelson, and the defendants as his sureties, to the state of Indiana, for the faithful collection and payment of the revenue of *Bartholomew*county for the year 1836.

A general demurrer was filed to the declaration which was overruled by the Court, and judgment was given for -the plaintiff. This is the first error assigned, but we think the declaration good, and that the Court committed no error in overruling the demurrer.

On the execution of the writ of inquiry *David*Dietz, the relator and treasurer of *Bartholomew*county, was offered as a witness for the plaintiff. The defendants objected to his introduction, but the Court permitted him to give testimony.

The plaintiffs in error insist that *Dietz*was not a competent witness for the plaintiff, because he was interested in increasing the amount of moneys to be received and paid out by him as county treasurer. It is not easy to reconcile all the cases, in which a distinction has been made between objections which go to the competency and such as go to the credit only of a witness. Notwithstanding they often appear to be contradictory, one general principle may be drawn from them, and that is this,— where a witness has a legal, certain, and immediate interest, however minute, in the result of the cause, he is disqualified. If in the present case, the witness offered would be a gainer or loser by the event of the cause, the rule will apply to him. The act of assembly establishing the office of county treasurer provides, “ that the county treasurer shall have for his services one and a half *per centum*for all moneys received, and one and a half *per centum*for all moneys paid out for the county.” The compensation of the treasurer depends on the amount received and paid out by him. He is therefore interested in increasing that amount; and where the effect of a witness’ testimony'is to increase a fund in which he takes a beneficial interest, he is incompetent. 1 Carr. & Payne, 253.

It is also insisted that the witness was incompetent, because, being the relator in the case, he was liable for the costs. We think the statute does not apply to a case where *143suit is brought on the relation of a county officer for the benefit of his county. The judgment in such cases should the costs to be collected from the property of the county, and not from the relator. *Sybert et al.*v. Ellis, 3 Blackf. 229.

P. *Sweetser,*for the plaintiffs.

*S. C. Stevens,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the inquisition set aside, at the costs of the county, &c. Cause remanded, &c.
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 Quarterly Report of OCTuS, Inc. (“OCTuS”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), the undersigned, George Ecker, Chief Financial Officer of OCTuS, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OCTuS.
 
 This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to OCTuS and will be retained by OCTuS and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 Date:   September 26, 2011
 
 /s/ GEORGE ECKER
 George Ecker
 Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial Officer)
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
quarterly report of Kankakee Bancorp, Inc (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James M. Lindstrom, Chief Financial
Officer, Senior Vice President and Principal 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/    JAMES M. LINDSTROM                                                                         
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|James M. Lindstrom, Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Principal Financial Officer



August 14, 2003
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Stonepath Group, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-3 (No. 333-64452 and No. 333-91240) and the registration statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-74918 and No. 333-103439) of Stonepath Group, Inc. of our
report dated February 25, 2003, except as to Note 18, which is as of March 10,
2003 and Note 2, which is as of January 7, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Stonepath Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, and
related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31,
2002 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Stonepath Group, Inc.

Our report refers to the Company's restatement of the consolidated statement of
operations for the year ended December 31, 2002.


                                   /s/ KPMG LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
January 19, 2004
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4658

_____________________________ C HRISTOPHER D ELAINE B RYANT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. David Rimmer , Judge

. April 24, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , M AKAR , 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 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, an d Frank X. Moehrle
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF**

# **CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

##### **PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. § 1350**

##### ** **

I, John W. Feray, Chief Financial Officer of Haggar Corp. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                         |  /s/ John W. Feray                            |   |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:  August 11, 2004 |   John W. Feray, Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
Exhibit 1


                                  July 21, 2000






Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Gentlemen:

We were previously principal accountants for E.mergent, Inc., formerly known as
VideoLabs, Inc. and on February 16, 2000 (except for Note 15 as to which the
date is February 28, 2000), we reported on the financial statements of
VideoLabs, Inc. as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for the years then ended.
On July 7, 2000, we were notified that as of July 14, 2000 we were dismissed as
principal accountants of E.mergent, Inc. We have read Emergent, Inc.'s
statements included under Item 4 of its Form 8-K for July 21, 2000, and we agree
with such statements.

Sincerely,

/s/ Boulay, Heutmaker, Zibell & Co., P.L.L.P.


                                     Page 9
rmbl_ex102





  Exhibit 10.2






 






COVID-19 STIMULUS

 



CUSTOMER AGREEMENT

 


In
using the services of Wood & Huston Bank ("Bank"), to submit a
Small Business Interruption Loan Application to the Small Business
Administration ("SBA") under the Cares Act, Wholesale Inc.
("CLIENT") understands and agrees:


 


1.
Client is responsible for instructing Bank regarding the amount of
the loan for which Client wishes to apply.


 


2.
Client is responsible for supporting the requested loan amount with
client's own documentation, information and the accuracy of which
is Client's sole responsibility.


 


3.
Client understands that submission of a loan application does not
guarantee that the SBA will approve or make the requested
loan.


 


4.
Client understands that the requested loan, if approved by the SBA,
may or may not qualify for forgiveness.


 


5.
Client understands that if the requested loan does not qualify for
forgiveness, Client must repay the loan, under the terms contained
in the loan documents.


 


6.
Client understands and agrees that Bank is not liable for delays in
transmission of the application or for any failure by the SBA to
receive the Application.


 


7.
Client understands and agrees that Bank is not responsible for
SBA's approval or disapproval of the Application.


 


8.
Client releases Bank from any claims arising out of Bank's
submission of Client's Application to the SBA.


 


9. If
Client is not an individual, signing agent for Client warrants and
represents that he/she is duly authorized and empowered to execute
this document, the related Loan Application and Promissory Note,
and any other documents in connection with the loan contemplated by
this Agreement.


 


 






	Thomas
Aucamp
	

 

	

 

	
/s/ Thomas
Aucamp


	

 


	
Name

	

 

	

 

	
Signature


	

 







  





5/1/2020


Date
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-KSB for the  period  ending  March 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Alfred Coscina, 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/ Alfred Coscina
Alfred Coscina
Chief Financial Officer
October 14, 2004