alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

www.nasa.gov 

NASA Wallops Flight Facility Visitor Center 

On Site Program Request Booking Form 

Name of 

School/Organization

Title 1 (Y/N/NA) 

Grade/Ages 

Visiting Date

Time of Arrival 

Contact Name

Contact Email

Contact Phone

City

State

Zip Code 

Program 1

Program 2

Additional Information

(Learning goals, special requests, participants’ level of knowledge of program topic, etc.)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

www.nasa.gov 

NASA Wallops Flight Facility Visitor Center

Onsite Program Booking Form

Organization

Date

Time of Arrival

Program 1 

Program 2

Activity Start Time End Time Number of 

Participants

Program 1 

Include 15-minute reset period for a second activity of the same type.

Program 2 

.

When complete, you may return this document to Wff-nasa-visitor-center@mail.nasa.gov.

Below line to be filled out by Visitor Center staff only. Outreach is not guaranteed until group receives confirmation.

VC Staff

Activity Students Adults Total
# Sitemap

## October 08, 2004

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2004
- 10
- October 08, 2004

            - Significant Event Report for Week Ending 10/8/2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

             CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that:

            (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
      for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2005 (the "Report") fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

            (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

      Dated: December 13, 2005             /s/ Sandra B. Cochran
                                           -------------------------
                                           Sandra B. Cochran
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                             9,878
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        972
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                        2,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  15,478
<PP&E>                                            17,948
<DEPRECIATION>                                     3,419
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    33,575
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             16,111
<BONDS>                                              480
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                        4,514
<COMMON>                                             112
<OTHER-SE>                                        11,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      33,575
<SALES>                                            2,415
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   2,415
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      4,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    1,764
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                1,764
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,764
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .10
        


</TABLE>
A04A1618.

#### GUTTER-PARKER v. PRIDGEN.

(601 SE2d 707)

Eldridge, Judge.

Attorney B. Thassanee Gutter-Parker filed a lien against Pamela J. Pridgen’s house for legal fees owed. The Superior Court of DeKalb County entered an order dismissing the attorney’s lien, and Gutter-Parker appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The portion of the attorney’s lien statute relevant to this case reads, “Upon all *actions for the recovery of real or personal property*and upon all judgments or decrees for the recovery of the same, attorneys at law shall have a lien for their fees on the *property**206*recovered,*superior to all liens except liens for taxes.”1 Lien laws such as the attorney’s lien statute are in derogation of common law and must be strictly construed.2 Such strict construction has long included the principle that the subject matter against which the lien is attached must be “the fruit of the labor of the attorney.”3 One who claims a lien must bring herself clearly within the law, and the statute will not be construed so as to apply to any factual situation not strictly within its wording.4 Thus, unless the “fruit of the labor” of attorney Gutter-Parker was the recovery of Pridgen’s house, an attorney’s lien against the house will not lie.5

Decided June 9, 2004

Reconsideration denied June 30, 2004.

B. Thassanee Gutter-Parker, *pro se.*

*Charles F. Peebles,*for appellee.

Gutter-Parker represented Pridgen in *Pridgen v. Pinnacle Constr. Co.,*Civil Action No. 99-6115-2. The lawsuit sought recovery of money damages for, primarily, breach of contract and negligent construction. The final settlement between the parties resulted in the construction company’s re-purchase of Pridgen’s house and a mediated agreement of a monetary amount above the purchase price. By brief, Gutter-Parker refers to this as “recovery of the real property,” even while recognizing that such “recovery” was of the purchase price plus additional monies — not the house, itself. Accordingly, the purchase price plus additional monies were the “fruit” of Gutter-Parker’s labor, not Pridgen’s house. That issues relating to Pridgen’s house may have given rise to the cause of action does not authorize an attorney’s lien against the house when recovery of the house was not sought. Here, the cause of action sought recovery of money damages, and the dismissal of Gutter-Parker’s attorney’s lien against Pridgen’s house was not error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Ruffin, P. J., and Adams, J., concur.*

1

 (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA§ 15-19-14 (c).

2

*Ellis, Funk, Goldberg, Labovitz & Dokson, P.C. v. Kleinberger,*235 Ga. App. 360, 361 (1) (509 SE2d 660) (1998).

3

*Law Office of Tony Center v. Balter,*185 Ga. App. 809, 810 (366 SE2d 167) (1988).

4

*Woodward v. Lawson,*225 Ga. 261,262 (2) (167 SE2d 660) (1969); *White v. Aiken,*197 Ga. 29, 33 (28 SE2d 263) (1943); *May v. May,*180 Ga. App. 581, 582 (349 SE2d 766) (1986).

5

*Middleton v. Westmoreland,*164 Ga. 324 (138 SE 852) (1927).
#### Cooper, Assignee, *v.*Drouillard.

*Wednesday, May*29.

Tlie declaration in a suit by the assignee against the maker of a promissory note, after stating the execution of the note on, &c., averred that the payees, *John Greenfield Sc Son,*then and there indorsed the note to *J. V. Greenfield Sc Co.,*who then and there indorsed the same to the plaintiff. *Held,*on general demurrer, that the averment was sufficient.

APPEAL from the *Miami*Circuit Court. — The judgment of the Circuit Court was in favour of *Drouillard*who was the defendant.

Sullivan, J.

This was an action of assumpsit. There are two counts in the declaration. The first is on a promissory note; the second is a common indebitattis assumpsit count for goods sold and delivered. The averments in the first count are that *Drouillard*on, &c., at, &c., made his promissory note in writing bearing date, &c., and then and there delivered the same to *John Greenfield fy*Son, and thereby promised to pay, &c., and the said *John Greenfield*dp *Son*then and there *indorsed*the same to *J. V. Greenfield Co.*or order, who then and there *indorsed*the same to the plaintiff, &c. (1)

The defendant filed a general demurrer to the first count, which was sustained by the Court. This is the first error assigned by the plaintiff.

The objection taken to the declaration is, that it does not set forth such an assignment as is required by the statute to *153enable the assignee to sue in his own name. We think the objection is not tenable. The averment that the payees indorsed the note to *J. V. Greenfield Sf Co.,*is substantially an averment that they assigned it to them by a writing on the back of the note, under their own hands. The statute makes such notes assignable “by indorsement thereon under the hand or hands of the person or persons to whom they have been made payableand if the pleader thinks proper to use the word indorse, or any other word that imports all that the statute' requires, there can be no valid objection to his doing so (2).

*H. Cooper,*for the appellant.

On the second count an issue to the country was made. Exceptions to the opinion of the Court were taken on the trial, but there is nothing in them.

The Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the first count, and the judgment must for that reason be reversed.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the demurrer set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 It was not necessary to set out the names of the persons composing the firms that indorsed the note. *Stout et al*v. *Hicks, ante,*p. 49, and note.—*Budd*v. *Wilkinson, May*term, 1840, *post.*

(2)

 Accord. *Harter*v. *Ellis,*Vol. 6 of these Rep. 154.
**EXHIBIT
      (23)**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**











We
      have
      issued our report, dated February 27, 2007, accompanying the consolidated
      financial statements incorporated by reference in the Annual Report of Peoples
      Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
      2006. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in
      the
      Registration Statement of Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. on Form S-3
      (File No. 333-43426, effective August 10, 2000), and on Form S-8 (File No.
      333-46860, effective September 28, 2000).











/s/ PORTER KEADLE MOORE, LLP











Atlanta,
      Georgia


March
      15,
      2007
# Deep Space Station 14

Deep Space Network, Deep Space Station 14, a 230-foot-wide antenna at Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in Barstow, California.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/goldstone-dss14-02/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareImage CreditNASASize1920x1280pxThe 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:								  								Aug 07, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
#### Fatima RAZIUDDIN-CYCLEWALA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-60685.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 11, 2003.

Firooz Namei, McKinney *&*Namei, Cincinnati, OH, for Petitioner.

Anthony W. Norwood, John Ashcroft, David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Terri Jane Scadron, Anthony P. Nicastro, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Fatima Raziuddin-Cyclewala (“Raziuddin”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of her motion to reopen her deportation proceedings. She argues 1) that the BIA should have liberally construed her motion and should have forgiven her failure to serve the Office of the District *421Counsel and to include the appropriate application for relief and 2) that her situation warranted equitable tolling of the limitations period for filing a motion to reopen.

We “will defer to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration regulations if the interpretation is reasonable.” *Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft,*268 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir.2001). Motions to reopen immigration proceedings are disfavored. *Lara v. Trominski,*216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir.2000). “There is no statutory provision for reopening; the authority to reopen derives solely from regulations promulgated by the Attorney General.” *Id.*“We therefore apply a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.” Id.

Raziuddin’s motion to reopen did not include an application seeking a change of status or the documentation demonstrating her entitlement to such relief. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.2(c)(1), 3.23(b)(1) (1997) (renumbered 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2 and 1003.23(b)). She did not serve the District Counsel with the motion, and the INS filed an opposition to the motion. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.2(g)(2) (1997). The BIA’s dismissal of Raziuddin’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of her motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. See *Matter of Yewondwosen,*21 I & N Dec. 1025, 1025-26 (1997).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS PART OF
THE ANNUAL REPORT ON 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,205
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    102,547
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               181,291
<PP&E>                                         128,862
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 251,404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,968
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           856
<OTHER-SE>                                     164,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   251,404
<SALES>                                        102,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,471
<CGS>                                           71,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (203)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 872
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,838
<INCOME-TAX>                                       708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,130
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,130
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
**DM** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0 338 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. TYLER JEFFREY COLE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 6 0
-day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including July 5 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 1 2020

05/01/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0338
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CRAIG PRISTELL.

May 19, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Document

Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement   


This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”) to the NON-SALES PERSONNEL EMPLOYMENT, INVENTION ASSIGNMENT, NON-COMPETITION, NON-SOLICITATION, & CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made as of October 17, 2019 (“Amendment Effective Date”) by and between GTT Americas, LLC (formerly Global Telecom & Technology Americas, Inc.) (“Employer”) and Daniel Fraser (“Employee”).


A.Employer and Employee have entered into the Agreement on March 10, 2014.
B.Employer and Employee desire to amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this  Amendment.


Accordingly, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:


All existing equity grants, including restricted stock, stock options, and all other equity grants of any type, will immediately vest upon the “Change of Control” of GTT Communications, Inc. (the “Company”).  For purposes of this Agreement, “Change of Control” shall mean: (i) the Company is merged, consolidated or reorganized into or with another corporation or other legal person (an “Acquirer”) and, as a result of such merger, consolidation or reorganization, less than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding voting securities entitled to vote generally in the election of directors of the surviving, resulting or acquiring corporation or other legal person are owned, directly or indirectly, in the aggregate by the stockholders of the Company immediately prior to such merger, consolidation or reorganization, other than by the Acquirer or any corporation or other legal person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Acquirer; (ii) the Company sells all or substantially all of its business and/or assets to an Acquirer, of which less than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding voting securities entitled to vote generally in the election of directors are owned, directly or indirectly, in the aggregate by the stockholders of the Company immediately prior to such sale, other than by any corporation or other legal person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the Acquirer; or (iii) any other transaction or series of related transactions having an economic effect substantially equivalent to any of the foregoing in subsections (i) or (ii) immediately above.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following types of transactions shall not be deemed to be a Change of Control: (a) any transaction entered into among or between the Company and stockholders of the Company if immediately prior to such a transaction, the acquiring stockholders held thirty percent (30%) of the outstanding voting securities; or (b) any acquisition by the Company or any of its subsidiaries.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to be effective as of the Amendment Effective Date stated above.


GTT AMERICAS, LLC


By: _________________________________                         By: ___________________________
Print Name:__________________________                                       Name: Daniel Fraser
Print Title:___________________________
#### STEPHEN KENNEDY v. AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

May 4, 1987.

Certification is vacated as improvidently granted. (See 107 *N.J.*71 (1987))
#### Hill *v.*Wilson.

Case by a father for debauching his daughter, whereby she became pregnant, &e. Plea, not guilty. The following instructions to the jury, asked for by the defendant, were refused: 1. Criminal connection may take place between the parties without seduction; 2. If seduction was not proved, damages for it should not be given. *Meld,*that the instructions should have been given. !

ERROR to the *Grant*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

This was an action on the case brought by *Wilson*against *Hill*for debauching the plaintiff’s daughter, whereby she became pregnant, &c. Plea, not guilty. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

On the trial, the defendant asked the Court to instruct the jury as follows: 1. Criminal connection may take place between the parties without *seduction;*2. If seduction was not proved, damages for it should not be given. The Court refused to give these-instructions.

The foundation of this action is the plaintiff’s loss of his daughter’s service, occasioned by the defendant’s carnal intercourse with her, by which she became pregnant; and evidence of such loss, so occasioned, must therefore be sufficient to support the suit, where there was no connivance by the plaintiff Other circumstances, however, such as seduction, *124the previous respectability of the plaintiff’s family, &c., may be proved to increase the damages. This being the nature of the action, it appears to us that the instructions asked ought to have been given. Supposing the daughter to have been unchaste, and the alleged carnal intercourse to have been occasioned as much by her misconduct as by that of the defendant, the lat.ter would not then have been guilty of seduction. That would be a case of criminal connection without seduction, and one in which, though the suit for loss of service could be sustained, the damages would not be aggravated on the ground of a seduction. *Akerley*v. *Haines,*2 Caines’ R. 292.

J9. *D. Pratt*and *J. Brownlee,*for the plaintiff'.

*J. Smith,*for the 'defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.