alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# View of Space Shuttle Atlantis during approach and docking to Mir Space Station

NM21-401-012 (28 March 1996) --- The Space Shuttle Atlantis is backdropped over the darkness of space, and partially over clouds and open ocean waters on Earth, as it and Russia’s Mir Space Station begin their relative separation following several days of joint operations. This 35mm film was exposed by astronaut Shannon W. Lucid as she was beginning her record-setting stay aboard Mir, as a cosmonaut guest researcher. Onboard with Lucid were her Mir-21 crew mates, cosmonauts Yuriy I. Onufriyenko, commander; and Yuriy V. Usachov, flight engineer. Onboard Atlantis were Kevin P. Chilton, STS-76 mission commander; Richard A. Searfoss, pilot; along with Linda M. Godwin, Ronald M. Sega and Michael R. (Rich) Clifford, mission specialists.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-nm21-401-012/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenMarch 28, 1996ProducerJSCSize1250x1920pxPIA NumberNM21-401-012The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 03, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
#### Ransom *v.*Pomeroy, Administrator.

If two partners bo indebted for goods sold and delivered, and one die in the lifetime of the other, the administrator of the deceased partner may, by statute, bo sued at law for the debt.

*Tuesday, November*24.

ERROR to the *Marshall*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Assumpsit. The declaration states that *Evan B. Hobson*and *Niles*Gregory, trading in the name of *Hobson*& *Gregory, .were*indebted to the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered in the sum of 300 dollars, and in consideration thereof promised to pay, &c.; that *Hobson*afterwards died, and the defendant is his administrator, *Gregory*being still living; that payment has not been made, &c. General demurrer to the declaration and judgment for the defendant.

The defendant contends that this suit could only be sustained against the surviving partner; and that is, no doubt, the common law. Bac. Abr. tit. Obi. D. 4. But our statute has changed the law on this subject. On the death of *Hob-son,*the plaintiff' had his choice either to sue *Gregory*or the administrator of *Hobson.*The circumstance that this is an unwritten contract does not, we think, make any difference. The defendant is the representative of *Hobson,*who was *384jointly bound with *Gregory*for the payment of a debt; and to such a case the statute applies. R. S. 1838, p. 358.

*J. B. Niles,*for the plaintiff.

*J. S.*Newman, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs, to be levied, &c. Cause remanded, &c.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 333 

Expressing support for States to adopt ‘‘Racheal’s Law’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2017 

Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico (for herself and Mr. BEN

RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for States to adopt ‘‘Racheal’s Law’’. 

Whereas there are approximately 293,000 victims of sexual 

assault every year; 

Whereas 82 percent of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a 

non-stranger; 

Whereas 46 percent of rapists who were released from prison 

were re-arrested within 3 years of their release for another crime, of which 18.6 percent was for a violent offense; 

Whereas victims of sexual assault are 3 times more likely to 

suffer from depression, 6 times more likely to suffer from 

post-traumatic stress disorder, 13 times more likely to 

abuse alcohol, 26 times more likely to abuse drugs, and 

4 times more likely to contemplate suicide; and 


SSpencer on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 333 IH 

Whereas victim interaction with their offender can cause further emotional trauma: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) encourages States to ensure that victims of 

3 rape or sexual assault can file and obtain a restrain4 ing order against the guilty party for an indefinite 

5 period of time without the necessity of renewal or re6 filing; and 

7 (2) encourages States to ensure that victims of 

8 rape or sexual assault can be represented by an at9 torney instead of being physically present during 

10 hearings involving their convicted attacker. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 Berkeley  Technology  Limited on
Form 10-Q for the period  ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the U.S.  Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Ian K. Whitehead, as Chief Financial
Officer of the registrant,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 registrant.



Date:  August 5, 2004                            By:    /s/  Ian K. Whitehead

                                                        Ian K. Whitehead
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
2 min read

# NASA Awards Contract for Cold Stowage II

### NASA

Dec 17, 2020

CONTRACT RELEASEC20-036

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

NASA has awarded a contract to the University of Alabama at Birmingham to provide a suite of freezers to maintain a controlled temperature environment for science samples aboard the International Space Station, as well as to and from low-Earth orbit.

Cold Stowage II is a single award, cost-no-fee contract with cost-no-fee and firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity task orders. The new contract’s base period begins Friday, Jan. 1, 2021, and runs through Sept. 30, 2022, followed by two additional one-year options and one additional 14-month option that may be exercised at NASA’s discretion. The maximum potential value of the contract, including all options and incentives, is $48.3 million.

The contract will support maintenance, sustaining engineering, integration, and operations of the freezers in support of researchers’ objectives involving temperature-controlled science. This fleet of hardware is used to maintain sample integrity aboard the space station and during transit aboard current and future visiting spacecraft. The suite of freezers, built by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, includes Polar, Glacier, Iceberg, Cryo Chiller, Glovebox Freezer, and MERLIN (owned by University of Alabama) and their equivalents. A dynamic combination of these lockers is being used on the station, supporting critical science.

The awardee will perform work under the contract at University of Alabama Birmingham.

For information about NASA and agency programs, visit: 

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

-end-

Monica WittHeadquarters, Washington202-358-1100monica.j.witt@nasa.govLeah CheshierJohnson Space Center, Houston281-483-5111​leah.d.cheshier@nasa.gov
#### Barbee *v.*Inman and Others.

The answer to a bill in equity for a specific performance of a contract under seal stated, *inter alia,*conversations, &e. of the parties which occurred before and at the time of the execution of the contract, varying its terms, &c. *Held,*that that part of the answer should be struck out as impertinent.

The defendant, also, instead of stating directly in answer to the bill whether he had or had not executed the contract, merely alleged that he could not recollect whether the contract set out in the bill was a correct copy of the agreement he had signed. *Held,*that that part of the answer was also exceptionable.

If, in such suit, there be any good reason why the .defendant should have an inspection of the instrument, to enable him to give a direct answer as to his execution of it, he may, on affidavit, have an order for such inspection.

*Saturday, November 28.*

SUIT in chancery certified from the *St. Joseph*Circuit Court. ‘

Blackford, J.

Bill for a specific performance of a contract under seal for the conveyance of real estate. The bill makes proferí of the instrument.

The answer of *Inman, inter alia,*states conversations and parol agreements of the parties made previously to, and at the time of, the execution of the contract, varying its terms and adding conditions not noticed in the instrument. This defendant, also, instead of stating directly in answer to' the bill whether he had or had not executed the contract, merely *440says that he cannot recollect whether the contract set out in the bill is a correct copy of the agreement which he signed. These parts of *Inman’s*answer are excepted to.

So much of the answer as relates to the conversations and parol agreements to which we have alluded, must be struck out as impertinent. Those matters are inadmissible as evidence, and ought not to be in the answer. The part of the answer respecting the execution of the instrument, is insufficient. The excuse given for not answering positively on the subject is not valid. If there were any good reasons why the defendant should have had an inspection of the instrument, to enable him to give a direct answer as to his execution of it, he might, on affidavit, have had an order for such inspection. The exception to this part of the answer is allowed; and the defendant must answer further as to the execution of the instrument by the first day of the next term.
*

After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 14, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

STEWART A. WEBB,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KATHRYN H. VRATIL, in her

official capacity of Chief Judge for the

United States District Court for the

District of Kansas; and UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-3371

(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-2603-FJG)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before MURPHY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Stewart A. Webb filed suit against the United States District Court for the

District of Kansas, and against Kathryn Vratil, in her official capacity as the

Chief Judge of that court. In a thorough six-page order, the district court denied

Appellate Case: 09-3371 Document: 01018402117 Date Filed: 04/14/2010 Page: 1 
- 2 -

Mr. Webb’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, concluding that the lawsuit was

legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Accordingly, the district

court dismissed the case without prejudice to the filing of a pre-paid complaint.

Mr. Webb appeals this decision and seeks permission to proceed on appeal

in forma pauperis. For substantially the same reasons set out by the district court

in its order, this court concludes that this appeal is frivolous or malicious. See

also Price v. Vratil, No. 09-3172, 2010 WL 558555, at *1 (10th Cir. Feb. 18,

2010) (unpublished) (reaching same result in similar appeal with similar

complaint). Accordingly, we hereby dismiss this appeal and deny the request to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he

court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines . . . the . . . appeal

is frivolous or malicious.”). 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-3371 Document: 01018402117 Date Filed: 04/14/2010 Page: 2
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWARD ROSS.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
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 Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Garrett Thornburg, 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:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|                                                     
|/s/ Garrett Thornburg                                
|Garrett Thornburg Chief Executive Officer May 9, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,757
<SECURITIES>                                    74,758
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                        64
<INVENTORY>                                     13,268
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,581
<PP&E>                                          38,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,578
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,996
<BONDS>                                          5,020
<COMMON>                                           162
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     110,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,447
<SALES>                                         22,026
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,026
<CGS>                                           16,437
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                       855
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,528
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,528
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WESLEY R. BOLTON.

May 19, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________
No. 95-11086 Summary Calendar

_______________________

IN THE MATTER OF: ELDON GORDON

Debtor.

ELDON GORDON,

Appellee,

versus

CITY OF GARLAND, TX,

Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

3:93-cv-1542-X

_________________________________________________________________ June 12, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge: *

It is u nfortunate that no end is yet in sight for this

dispute that began in 1989 between Gordon and the City of Garland,

for this court is unable to resolve the issues the parties have put

before us. This court lacks jurisdiction, because the district2

court’s order, which reversed the default judgment entered by the

bankruptcy court and remanded for further proceeding s, is not a

final judgment. The appeal must be dismissed, and a brief

explanation will suffice.

As appellant’s brief makes plain, the bankruptcy court

entered a default judgment against Gordon and denied Gordon’s

motion to set aside the default judgment. Gordon filed a notice of

appeal to the district court on June 2, 1993. More than 2 years

later, the dist rict court “held that the default judgment should

have been set aside and therefore reversed the orders of the

Bankruptcy Court and remanded the case to the Bankruptcy Court for

further proceedings” consistent wit h its opinion. Brief of

appellant at 6.

Courts of appeals have juris d iction only over final

decisions of the district court sitting in r eview of bankruptcy

matters. 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). This circuit has held that when a

district court reverses and remands for “further signif icant

proceedings” an order of the bankruptcy court, the district court’s

order is not final. In re County Management, Inc. , 788 F.2d 311,

313-15 (5th Cir. 1986). So it is here. This court is powerless to

review the district court’s decision.

Although this court lacks jurisdiction, we sincerely hope

that the case will proceed with dispatch back in the bankruptcy

court.

Appeal DISMISSED

.
Exhibit 31.1I, Thomas A. Daiber, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Centrue Financial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [intentionally omitted]  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: August 15, 2005 /s/ Thomas A. Daiber         Thomas A. Daiber    Chief Executive Officer
WAUTARA D. WRIGHT,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2703

Opinion filed August 11, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction.

Wautara D. Wright, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.