alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA Advisory Council Science, Technology, 

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) 

Engagement Committee 

AGENDA 

October 29, 2019 

12:00 noon – 4:30 pm ET 

VIRTUAL MEETING 

Webex and Call-In Information Below 

12:00 Introduction to Meeting B. Girten 

12:02 Opening Remarks by Chair (acting) D. Dumbacher 

12:05 National STEM Updates M. Kincaid/R. Mellado/R. LaSalvia 

Federal Coordination (FC) in STEM 

STEM Advisory Panel 

National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education 

12:25 Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM) Updates M. Kincaid/K. Brown 

Optimizing Operational Model 

12:25 Overview/Budget/Matching Investments/Congress/Artemis M. Kincaid 

1:05 MAP and Sphere 1 Activities K. Brown 

Connecting Nation’s STEM to NASA’s Mission 

1:20 STEM Partnerships/Apollo 50th Anniversary/Next Gen STEM B. Girten/D. DeTroye 

1:40 Sparking Interest in STEM R. LaSalvia 

2:20 Break All 

2:30 Discuss/Finalize Findings and Recommendations Members 

4:30 Adjourn Meeting B. Girten 

For audio, please be sure to use the phone number and participant passcode. Use webex to see the slides. 

844–467–6272 or toll access number 720–259–6462, and then the participant passcode: 423307 followed by the # sign. 

WebEx link is https://nasaenterprise.webex.com/nasaenterprise/j.php?MTID=ma7b804f95249ba640235d6365e78f8a1

The WebEx meeting number is 907 492 943 and the password is NACStem#29 (case sensitive)
## This page has permanently moved.

### If redirect does not occur in 5 seconds, click the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Investigation.html?#id=1731
1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2835

___________ Ilester Malone, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Hennepin County Medical Center, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 24, 2001 Filed: April 27, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ilester Malone appeals from the district court’s 1 dismissal with prejudice of his employment-discriminationcase for failure to comply with a court order. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, as Malone exhibited a pattern of intentional delay by repeatedly failing to adhere to pretrial and hearing schedules. See Hunt v. City of Minneapolis , 203 F.3d 524, 527 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review; dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) should be used only in-2-

cases of willful disobedience of court order or where litigant exhibits pattern of intentional delay; district

court need not find appellant acted in bad faith, but only that he acted intentionally as opposed to accidentally or involuntarily). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1389050/000138905016000

Exhibit 10.1
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
April 24, 2020
​
[Name] 
[Address]
​
​
​
Re:Compensation Changes
​
Dear [Name]:
​
In light of current market conditions and actions taken by Archrock, Inc. (the “Company”) to reduce costs and improve cash flow, you and the Company have agreed to implement a [  ]% reduction in your base salary. In connection with this reduction, effective as of June 7, 2020, your annual base salary will be $[  ​ ​].
​
For purposes of calculating any other payments or benefits, including without limitation for purposes of calculating your severance payments and benefits if you incur a Qualifying Termination of  Employment (as  defined  in  your  CoC  Agreement  or Severance  Agreement  (each  defined  below),  as  applicable), whether under the CoC Agreement or Severance Agreement (as applicable), or otherwise, but excluding 401(k) contributions and benefits (which must be tied to actual compensation levels), the Company will apply your pre-reduction base salary. For purposes of this letter, (i) “CoC Agreement” means the change of control agreement between you and the Company and (ii) “Severance Agreement” means the severance benefit agreement between you and the Company. Similarly, if you die or become  disabled,  then  for  purposes  of  calculating  your  life,  accidental  death  and  disability,  short-term disability and long-term disability insurance benefits provided or made available by the Company or its affiliates, the Company will apply your pre-reduction base salary, to the extent permitted by the Company’s insurers.
​
Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary in the CoC Agreement or the Severance Agreement, by signing this letter, you hereby waive any right you may have to resign your employment with the Company for “Good Reason” for purposes of such agreements due to a material reduction in your base salary based on the changes to your compensation that are described in this letter. However, in the event of any subsequent reduction in your base salary, the cumulative impact of the subsequent reduction and the compensation changes described in this letter may be taken into account for purposes of determining whether “Good Reason” exists under the CoC Agreement or the Severance Agreement (as applicable).
​
Please acknowledge your acceptance of, and agreement to, the terms and conditions set forth in this letter by signing and dating this letter in the space provided below and returning it to the Company. Should you have any questions about this letter, please contact [                      ] at [              ].
​
​
​
​
​
​
​

​



​
​
​
​
​
​
Sincerely,
​
ARCHROCK, INC.
​
​
​
​
By: ​ ​​ ​ [Name] [Title]
​
Acknowledged and Agreed:
​
​
​
By: ​ ​
​
Print Name: ​ ​​ ​ Date: ​ ​

​
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Fred W. Wagenhals, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Action PerformanceCompanies, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, theregistrants internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize, and report financialinformation; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
/s/ Fred W. WagenhalsFred W. Wagenhals
#### Rodney EVANS, Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections; Steve Long, Assistant Division Director, Missouri Department of Corrections; Michael Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center; Gloria Gourley, Assistant Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center; Cecilroy Pettus, Functional Unit Manager Potosi Correctional Center; Robert Martin, Caseworker Assistant, Potosi Correctional Center; Patricia Houseman, Caseworker, Potosi Correctional Center, Individually and in their Official Capacity, Appellees.

No. 02-4025.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 3, 2003.

Decided Aug. 26, 2003.

*679Rodney Evans, Jefferson City, MO, pro se.

James R. McAdams, Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, Deborah Bell Yates, Attorney General’s Office, St. Louis, MO, John Francis Cooney, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Rodney Evans appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude summary judgment was proper — for the reasons explained in the district court’s order — as to Mr. Evans’s claims that he was unconstitutionally exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS); that he was subjected to retaliatory cell searches, a disciplinary, and transfer; and that his legal papers were destroyed. We thus affirm the dismissal of these claims. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

However, Mr. Evans’s claim that defendant Patricia Houseman threatened to send him to segregation if he did not stop filing complaints about ETS warrants remand. *See Burgess v. Moore,*39 F.3d 216, 218 (8th Cir.1994) (threat of retaliation is sufficient injury if made in retaliation for inmate’s use of prison grievance procedure); *Madewell v. Roberts,*909 F.2d 1203, 1206 (8th Cir.1990) (actions taken by prison officials against prisoner which would otherwise be proper become unconstitutional when taken in retaliation for prisoner’s exercise of constitutional right). Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of this retaliation claim against Ms. Houseman and remand for further proceedings; in all other respects, we affirm.

A true copy.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1671 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1671

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 10701 Abercorn Street in Savannah, Georgia, as the ``J.C. Lewis Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2003

  Mr. Miller (for himself and Mr. Chambliss) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 10701 Abercorn Street in Savannah, Georgia, as the ``J.C. Lewis Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. J.C. LEWIS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 10701 Abercorn Street in Savannah, Georgia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``J.C. Lewis Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the J.C. Lewis 
Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 9, 2011*

Decided February 9, 2011

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

   

No. 10‐1848

LARRY EASON,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

RUTH NOLAN, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.                 

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Western Division.

No. 07 C 50015

Frederick J. Kapala,

Judge.

O R D E R

Larry Eason sued several employees of the Illinois Department of Children and

Family Services and the Childrenʹs Home and Aid Society of Illinois under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

but only his retaliation claim under the First Amendment survived the defendants’ motions

to dismiss.  After the defendants moved for summary judgment, Eason opposed the motion,

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 10‐1848 Page 2

and in his response to their statements of material facts he incorporated additional facts.

But Eason did not submit a separate statement of additional facts as required by Local Rule

56.1(b)(3), and so the district court refused to consider any of the new facts in his response.

See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Bay Area Bus. Council, Inc., 423 F.3d 627, 633 (7th Cir. 2005).  Even if

it had considered those facts, the court added, Eason still had not presented sufficient

evidence of retaliation, and so the court granted summary judgment for the defendants.

On appeal Eason insists that his response “could be construed as complying” with

Rule 56.1 because it incorporated additional facts.  But district courts may demand strict

compliance with Rule 56.1, and a party runs afoul of the rule by commingling the separate

requirements into one response.  Ciomber v. Coop. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643‐44 (7th Cir.

2008).  Thus the district court did not abuse its discretion when it disregarded the additional

facts that Eason included in his response.  Id.; Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., 401 F.3d 803,

809‐10 (7th Cir. 2005).  

Eason also maintains without elaboration that the district court ignored the “piles of

facts sufficient to establish” his retaliation claim.  But we do not consider such generalized

assertions of error, even from pro se litigants.  See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545

(7th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION - CEO

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Plains Exploration & Production Company
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Flores, 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, after reasonable investigation:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: May 8, 2008



/s/ James C. FloresJames C. FloresChief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1506

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

FINISAR CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant.

David J. Silbert , Keker & Van Nest, LLP, of San Francisco, California, argued for

plaintiff-appellee. With him on th e brief were Daralyn J. Durie , and Ajay S. Krishnan

.

Larry R. Laycock , Workman Nydegger, of Salt Lake City, Utah, argued for

defendant-appellant. Of counsel were Charles L. Roberts , C.J. Veverka , and David R.

Todd

.

Appealed from: United Stat es District Court for the No rthern District of California

Judge William H. AlsupNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1506

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

FINISAR CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States District C ourt for the Northern District of California

in CASE NO 3:06-CV-04206.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (BRYSON, CLEVENGER, and LINN, Circuit Judges .)

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R.36

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: April 10, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

                    By Notice dated October 21, 2009 and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 28, 2009, (74 FR 55586), Archimica, Inc., 2460 W. Bennett Street, Springfield, Missouri 65807-1229, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Tapentadol (9780, a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.                

The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substance in bulk for distribution to its customers.

One comment objecting to the granting of registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed to this applicant was received. However, after a thorough review of this matter, DEA has concluded that the issues raised in the comment and objection do not warrant the denial of this application.

DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Archimica, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Archimica, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.

Dated: October 19, 2010.

Joseph T. Rannazzisi,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 2010-27035 Filed 10-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
- Home
- Learning Resources
- NASA’s Picture…

- For Kids and Students   - Kids and Students Home
  - NASA Kids’ Club
  - NASA Kids Science
  - Students Grades K-4
  - Students Grades 5-8
  - Students Grades 9-12
  - Internships and Fellowships
  - STEM Opportunities For Students
- For Educators   - Educators Home
  - Search STEM Resources
  - Educators Grades K-4 
  - Educators Grades 5-8
  - Educators Grades 9-12
  - Internships and Fellowships
  - Outside the Classroom
- For Colleges and Universities   - Colleges Home
  - Internships and Fellowships
  - EPSCoR
  - Minority University Research 
  - Space Grant
  - STEM Opportunities For Students 
  - Search STEM Resources
- For Professionals
- Learning Resources   - Learning Resources Home
  - About NASA STEM Engagement
  - Science for Everyone

# 							Welcome Young Explorers!						

						Are you ready for an A-B-C adventure? 					

## NASA’s Picture Dictionary

# Check out all the letters…

Click the letters below to find word definitions and pictures related to space, flight and more. Take a trip through the alphabet — from Aerodynamics to Zarya — and learn new words along the way!

A – D

E – H

I – L

M – P

Q – T

U – X

Y – Z

## A – D

				Go back up                			

### A

A is for …

### B

B is for …

### C

C is for …

### D

D is for …

## E – H

				Go back up                			

### E

E is for …

### F

F is for …

### G

G is for …

### H

H is for …

## I – L

				Go back up                			

### I

I is for …

### J

J is for …

### K

K is for …

### L

L is for …

## M – P

				Go back up                			

### M

M is for …

### N

N is for …

### O

O is for …

### P

P is for …

## Q – T

				Go back up                			

### Q

Q is for …

### R

R is for …

### S

S is for …

### T

T is for …

## U – X

				Go back up                			

### U

U is for …

### V

V is for …

### W

W is for …

### X

X is for …

## Y – Z

				Go back up                			

### Y

Y is for …

### Z

Z is for …