alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Terri A. Blatt

Business and Information Systems Services Office Chief

Terri A. Blatt currently serves as Chief, Business and Information Systems Services Office (BISSO) within the Human Health and Performance (HH&P) Directorate. The Business and Information Systems Services Office facilitates management of the HH&P organizational infrastructure and support of new business opportunities, to enable the mission of HH&P to be the world’s leader in understanding the opportunities, capabilities, and limitations of humans living and working in space. 

## Education

Terri Blatt received her M.B.A. in Master of Business Administration Field Of Study Business Administration and Management from Rice University – Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business.
Exhibit
10.29 


 


Office
Space Use Agreement


  


Party
A: Nanjing Cultural and Art Property Exchange Co., Ltd.


 


Party
B: Kashi Longrui Business Management Services Co., Ltd.


 


In
view of the cooperative relationship between Party A and Party B, both parties hereby enter into the following contract regarding
Party B’s use of Party A’s office space for office use on the basis of equal cooperation and mutual benefit.


 


First:
Term of Cooperation: From January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020.


 


Second:
Rights and Obligations of Both Parties


 


1、Party
A shall provide Party B with office space, including office space, office equipment, broadband, etc.


 


2、Party
B shall pay Party A a monthly use fee of RMB 90,000 yuan (say ninety thousand Yuan only) before the 10th day of each month, and
Party B may use the office space and office appliances provided by Party A.


 


3、Party
A shall have the ownership of the fixed assets and facilities of the business site, and shall be responsible for the coordination
of external relations with the property right entity, industry and commerce administration, taxation, law, etc.


 


4、The
maintenance, additions to the facilities and equipment in the office, and hiring cleaning staff and related costs shall be borne
by Party A.


 



     


     


    




5、Both
parties shall jointly maintain the sanitation and safety of the office environment.


 


6、Both
parties shall operate legally and jointly abide by relevant rules and regulations of property rights and national policies and
regulations.


 


Third:
Liability for Breaching of Contract


 


If
Party B commits any of the following acts, Party B shall be deemed to have breached the contract and Party A shall have the right
to terminate the contract:


 


1、Late
payment of rent for more than a month.


 


2、Party
A suffers losses due to Party B’s improper operation.


 


Fourth:
Others


 


1、This
contract shall come into force upon being sealed and signed by both parties. Other matters not mentioned herein shall be settled
through friendly negotiation by both parties. A supplementary agreement may be entered upon reaching an agreement through negotiation.
The supplementary agreement shall have the same effect as this agreement.


 


2、Any
dispute arising from the performance of this contract shall be settled by both parties through friendly negotiation. If no agreement
can be reached through negotiation, either party may file a lawsuit with the People’s Court in the place where party A is located.


 


3、This
contract is made in duplicate, with each party holding one copy and having the same agreement.


 


Seal
by Party A:


 


Signature
of legal person/representative:


 


Seal
by Party B:


 


Signature
of legal person/representative:
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, Andrew V.  Reid, Chief Executive and 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.





November 2, 2010

/s/ Andrew V. Reid

Andrew V. Reid

Chief Executive and Financial Officer

(Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)



|Date
|----
|
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2736]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form 18-K; OMB Control No. 3235-0120; SEC File No. 270-108.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 18-K (17 CFR 249.318) is an annual report form used by foreign 
governments and political subdivisions that have securities listed on a 
U.S. securities exchange. The information to be collected is intended 
to ensure the adequacy of information available to investors in the 
registration of securities and assures public availability. The 
information provided is mandatory. Form 18-K is a public document. Form 
18-K takes approximately 8 hours to prepare and is filed by 
approximately 143 respondents for a total annual reporting burden of 
1,144 hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed 
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9fac1c8cedccfddc8f6e8c1c4cccde9c6c4cb87ccc6d987cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f9aa91989e8c9f8d98a6b891949c9db996949bd79c9689d79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>; and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, Securities 
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, 
Alexandria, VA 22312, or send an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#78282a3927351911141a1700380b1d1b561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80d0d2c1dfcde1e9ece2eff8c0f3e5e3aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: February 1, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2736 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
- JPL Home
- About JPL   - History
  - JPL Achievements
  - Careers
  - Press Kits
  - Media Contacts
  - Doing Business with JPL
- Missions   - Current
  - Past
  - Future
- News
- Multimedia   - Images
  - Video
  - Podcasts
- Visit JPL   - Public Tours
  - Virtual Tour

## Doing Business With JPL

### Working With the JPL Innovative Partnerships Program

The focus of the Program is to form partnerships with the U.S. private sector to develop and transfer technology to U.S. companies. JPL does not compete with U.S. industry; thus, all work done through the Innovative Partnerships Program involves the special innovations and developments derived from JPL’s work for NASA and other government agencies.

Within this context, the JPL Innovative Partnerships Program can help you identify JPL-developed technologies that meet your organization’s technology needs, connect you to JPL technical staff, and guide you through various technology commercialization processes.

For licensing of JPL technologies, please visit our Acquisition and Supplier Resources website.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 22, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RONALD CHARLES HESS, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

MIKE MULLIN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-5176

(D.C. No. 4:09-CV-00257-GKF-TLW)

ORDER

Before TACHA, BRISCOE, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on appellant’s “Motion to Withdrawal (sic),” which

is construed as a motion to dismiss. As construed, the motion is granted pursuant to 

Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of the

court.

Entered for the Court

:

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-5176 Document: 01018388215 Date Filed: 03/22/2010 Page: 1
#### Olney *v.*Shepherd and Others.

The return of a sheriff of one county of an attachment directed to the sheriff of another county is void.

An attachment was issued in favour of *A.*Pending the suit *B.*filed in the case an affidavit of a debt, &c., and a bond, &c. The writ was afterwards dismissed as to *A.*Held, that the suit was at an end.

ERROR to the *Knox*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

In *September,*1839, *Thomas Bishop*having filed in the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court of *Knox**147county, an affidavit that *Benjamin Olney*was indebted to him in a certain sum, and was a non-resident, &c., and having filed bond, &c., took out there two writs of foreign attachment against the lands, &c., of said *Olney;*one of which writs'was directed to the sheriff of *Knox*county, and the other to the sheriff of *Posey*county: the former writ was returned levied on certain land, &c.; the return to the latter was, that it was not received until after the return-day. In *March,*1840, another writ was issued in the case directed to the sheriff of *Knox*county, which was returned by the sheriff of *Posey*county levied on certain land, *Sec.*In *August,*1840, *Shepherd*filed an affidavit that *Olney*was indebted to him, &c.: he also filed a bond, &c. At the *September*term, 1840, it was ordered “ that the sheriff’s return on the writ directed to the sheriff of *Knox*county be set aside,” and that *an alias*issue. In *December,*1840, an *alias*attachment was issued directed to the sheriff of *Knox*county, which was returned levied on certain land. In *September,*1841, *Buntin*filed in the case an affidavit of a debt, &c., and a bond, &c. At the *March*term, 1842, publication of the pendency of the attachment was proved. In *October,*1842, an affidavit of a debt, *Sec.,*a bond, &c., were filed in the case by the executors of *Harper.*At the *September*term, 1842 (5th *October),*the plaintiff by his attorney, and also *Buntin, Shepherd,*and the executors of *Harper,*by their attorneys, appeared, and on motion the attachment as to *Bishop*was dismissed at his costs.

Afterwards, at the last-named term, the defendant having been called and his default entered, damages were assessed against him in favour of *Buntin, Shepherd,*and *Harper's*executors, and judgments were rendered accordingly.

These judgments in favour of *Buntin, Shepherd,*and *Harper's*executors, must be reversed. The return of the sheriff of *Posey*county is void, the writ under which he acted not being directed to him. In the writ under which the land in *Knox*county was attached, there was no plaintiff but *Bishop,*and when the writ was dismissed as to him, the suit was at an end. It could not be dismissed as to the only plaintiff, and remain pending as to any other persons. If the Court *148committed an error in dismissing the attachment, the parties aggrieved may resort to a writ of error.

*J. Law*and *O. H. Smith,*for the plaintiff.

*S. Judah,*for the defendants.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgments are reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
SET ASIDE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed January 14, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01424

- CV

ORIENTAL BUILDING SE RVICES, INC. , Appellant
V.
RENE LEDUC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 10

- 05687

- M



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O’Neill, Myers, and Brown Opinion by Justice O’Neill
Before the Court is appellant’s agreed m otion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant has

informed the Court that the parties have settled their differences. In accordance with the parties’

agreement, we set aside the trial court’s judgment dated September 21, 2012 without regard to

the merits and re mand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with

their agreement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

121424F.P05 /Michael J. O'Neill/
MICHAEL J. O’NEILL JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ORIENTAL BUILDING SERVICES, INC., Appellant

No. 05

- 12

- 01424

- CV V.

RENE LEDUC, Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 10

- 05687

- M. Opinion delivered by Justice O ’Neill. Justices Myers and Brown, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we SET ASIDE the trial court’s judgment dated September 21, 2012 without regard to the merits and remand this case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of the appeal.

Judgment entered this 14th day of January, 2014.

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O’NEILL
JUSTICE
# Small Steps, Giant Leaps – NASA

Official National Aeronautics and Space Administration Website
1
                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL
                          EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of EMPS Corporation, on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Mirgali Kunayev, Principal 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) 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.



Date: April 14, 2004                 /s/ Mirgali Kunayev
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Mirgali Kunayev, Principal Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32

# CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

|(1) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
          2005 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 accompanying report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  May 6, 2005 | /s/ Bernard P. Aldrich
President and ChiefExecutive Officer
|------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                  
|                  
|Date:  May 6, 2005 | /s/ Robert M. Wolf
 Chief Financial Officer                

23
#### Hutchens *v.*Smith.

Action of debt commenced in the Circuit Court. Two counts; one for less than 50 dollars really due; the other for more, but of which (the general issue being pleaded) there was no proof. *Held,*that, under the statute of 1838, judgment might be rendered for the plaintiff for the sum claimed in the first count, but that the defendant should have judgment for costs.

ERROR to the *Randolph*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

Debt commenced in the Circuit Court. Two counts in the declaration; one on a promissory note for 26 dollars and 68 cents, and the other for work and labour, &c., to the amount of 51 dollars. Demurrer to the first count overruled. To the second count pleas of *nil debet*and payment, on which there were issues. On the trial, the plaintiff offered no evidence to sustain his second count. Judgment for the plaintiff on the first count, and for costs on that count; and for the defendant on the second count, and for costs on that count. The defendant moved the Court to tax costs in his favour on. the first count, but the motion was overruled.

The statute of 1838, which governs this cause, authorizes debt or assumpsit to be brought in the Circuit Courts when the sum “due or demanded” does not exceed" fifty dollars, but it provides that in such cases the plaintiff shall pay the costs. *Proctor*v. *Bailey,*5 Blackf. 495. If a plaintiff can *123recover costs in the Circuit Courts, where the sum really due is less than fifty dollars, simply by inserting an count for a fictitious demand, and thus make his claim appear to be over fifty dollars, the statute can be easily evaded. In the present cause, the plaintiff' by making no effort to sustain his second count and no excuse for the omission, showed that his *demand*was confined to the sum really due, which was the amount of the note set out in the first count. We think, therefore, that the defendant should have had a judgment for full costs.

*J. Perry,*for the plaintiff.

*J. Smith,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

That part of the judgment which gives costs to the plaintiff is reversed with costs, &c. Cause remanded, &c.
**Exhibit31(b)**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, John W. Feray, certifythat:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Haggar Corp.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date: May 10,  2005 |
|---------------------|
|                |   |
|                |   |
|                | /s/ John W.  Feray |   |
|                | John W. Feray |
|                |   |
|                | Chief Accounting  Officer |

 

----