alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NASA Strategic Plan and Education 

Beverly Girten, Ph.D 

Senior Advisor to the Associate
 

Administrator for Education 

NAC Ad Hoc Task Force
 

for STEM Education 

April 3, 2015 
 

NASA Strategic Plan 2014
 

Our Vision 

We reach for new heights and reveal the unknown for 

the benefit of humankind. 

Our Mission 

Drive advances in science, technology, aeronautics, and space 

exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, 

economic vitality, and stewardship of Earth 
NASA Strategic Plan 2014
 

Our strategic goals are: 

1. Expand the frontiers of knowledge, capability, and

 opportunity in space. 

2. Advance understanding of Earth and develop technologies

 to improve the quality of life on our home planet. 

3. Serve the American public and accomplish our Mission by effectively

 managing our people, technical capabilities, and infrastructure. 
Overarching Approach 

Invest in next-generation technologies and approaches to spur innovation; 

Inspire students to be our future scientists, engineers, explorers, and educators through 

interactions with NASA’s people, missions, research, and facilities; 

Expand partnerships with international, intergovernmental, academic, industrial, and 

entrepreneurial communities, recognizing them as important contributors of skill and creativity 

to our missions and for the propagation of our results; 

Commit to environmental stewardship through Earth observation and science, and the 

development and use of green technologies and capabilities in NASA missions and facilities; 

Safeguard the public trust through transparency and accountability in our 

programmatic and financial management, procurement, and reporting practices 

26 
 

Strategic Goal 2 & Education Objective
 

Strategic Goal 2 

Advance understanding of Earth and develop technologies to 

improve the quality of life on our home planet. 

Objective 2.4 

Advance the Nation’s STEM education and workforce pipeline by 

working collaboratively with other agencies to engage students, 

teachers, and faculty in NASA’s missions and unique assets. 

27 
NASA Education Vision & Mission 

NASA Education Vision 

To advance high quality STEM education using NASA’s 

unique capabilities. 

NASA Education Mission
 

Align efforts to national priorities and NASA’s mission and vision. 

Involve students, educators, and institutions in NASA’s missions. 

Impact the public using NASA’s unique content, people and facilities. 

28 
Thank you!
 

www.nasa.gov
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 13, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

PHILIP N. JAAX,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES

AMERICAS, LLC.,

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 10-3017

(D.C. No. 2:08-CV-02490-KHV-JPO)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the parties to voluntarily dismiss the captioned appeal, this

appeal is dismissed. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).

Each party will bear its own costs on appeal. A copy of this order will stand as the

mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-3017 Document: 01018421469 Date Filed: 05/13/2010 Page: 1
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 Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry A. Goldstone, President and Chief Operating 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/    LARRY A.
GOLDSTONE            
|Larry A. Goldstone                   
|President and Chief Operating Officer
|                                     
|May 6, 2005
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed November 15, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22

- 2054 Lower Tribunal No. 18

- 25610

________________ 

### Antonio Scognamillo , Appellant,

vs. 

### Tiffany Jamison, f/k/a Tiffany Scognamillo , Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Jason E. Dimitris , Judge. Antonio Scognamillo , in proper person. Marti Goldstein, P.A., and Marti Goldstein , for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON and GORDO , JJ. GORDO, J

.2 Antonio Scognamillo (“the Father”) appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage to his former wife, Tiffany Scognamil lo (“the Mother”)

. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). For the following reasons, we affirm. In October 2018, the Mother filed a petition for dissolution marriage

. A trial was held on the issues raised in the petition and the trial court entered

a final judgment in November 2022. The Father did not file a motion for rehearing. The Father alleges various errors on appeal all related to the trial court’s factual findings. “[W] here an error by the court appears for the first time on the face of a final order, a party must alert the court of the error via a motion for rehearing or some other appropriate motion in order to preserve it for appeal. ” Williams v. Williams , 152 So. 3d 702, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)

. Here, any arguments as to the trial court’s factual findings are not preserved for appeal. The Father was required to alert the trial court of any alleged error via a motion for rehearing or some other appropriate motion in order to preserve his arguments for appellate review and did not do so

. See Moody v. Newton , 264 So. 3d 292, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (“Because the alleged error first appeared in the final judgment, [the] Former [spouse] was required to bring this matter to the lower court ’ s attention in a motion for rehearing.”)

.3 Equally fatal to the instant appeal is the lack of a transcript. “In the absence of an adequate transcript on appeal, a judgment that is not fundamentally

err oneous must be affirmed. ” Haddad v. Khan , 54 So. 3d 524, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)

. Finding no fundamental error on the face of the trial court’s
order , w e affirm as the Father failed to meet his burden to demonstrate
reversible error. See Applegate v. Barn ett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“ In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to
demonstrate error. ”)

. Affirmed.
#### Larry RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles COZART, Defendant, and George Vaughn; Craig County Board of County Commissioners, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-5189.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 12, 2003.

M. Bryce Lair, Clint Ward, Ward and Lair, Vinita, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert S. Lafferrandre, Pierce, Couch, Hendrickson, Baysinger & Green, Robert M. Anthony, Michael J. Heron, Jason Michael Henderson, Pierce Couch Hendrick*887son, Johnston *&*Baysinger, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant.

Chris J. Collins, Jason C. Wagner, James L. Gibbs, II, Collins, Zorn, Wagner & Gibbs, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MURPHY and PORFILIO, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

JOHN C. PORFILIO, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

After being sued by plaintiff Larry Russell, defendants Sheriff George Vaughn and the Board of County Commissioners of Craig County, Oklahoma, moved for summary judgment on Mr. Russell’s federal and state law claims. In response to the motions for summary judgment, Mr. Russell failed to specifically controvert the factual statements of the movants in violation of Local Rule 56.1(B) of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. That rule provides “[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the statement of the opposing party.” Because of this rule, the district court accepted as true each of the facts set forth in the motions and, after doing the analysis required by Fed. R.Civ.P. 56, granted summary judgment to both Sheriff Vaughn and the Board.1 Mr. Russell appeals.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court. *Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs.,*165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.1999). After this plenary review, we affirm the district court for the reasons stated in its order of October 22, 2002.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. This court’s Show Cause Order of November 25, 2002, is discharged.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1

. The district court certified the order for immediate appeal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 accompanying Annual Report of Nimbus Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, CARLOS DE MIGUEL, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


By: /s/ MITCHELL MORGAN
    -------------------
    MITCHELL MORGAN
    Principal Financial Officer
    April 15, 2003

                                       50
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                           
<ARTICLE>                                       5
                                                 
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   303,122
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          2,076,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               0
<PP&E>                                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       101,620,979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          0
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                            61,949,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         101,620,979
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       5,540,937
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       3,774,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          55,409
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       770,699
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          940,438
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      940,438
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                             940,438
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0
        
 

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24E0063. WASEEM ANAS DAKER v. SCOTT HALPERIN, AS CIRCUIT

DEFENDER OF COBB COUNTY.

On March 11, 2024, the Superior Court of Cobb County entered an order,

pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), denying pro se prisoner Waseem Anas Daker’s

petition to file a civil action. On April 17, 2024, Daker filed by mail in this Court an

emergency motion under Court of Appeals Rule 40 (b) seeking a 30-day extension to

file an application for discretionary appeal. We may not grant such relief, however, as

“[n]o extensions of time will be granted to file a discretionary application unless a

motion for extension is filed on or before the application due date.” Court ofAppeals

Rule 31 (i). The order Daker wishes to appeal was filed on March 11, 2024, and the

due date for an application for discretionary appeal was April 10, 2024. See OCGA §

5-6-35 (d). Accordingly, Daker’s emergency motion is hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

April 23, 2024

04/23/2024
# Sitemap

## December 12, 2016

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2016
- 12
- December 12, 2016

            - NASA Targets Wednesday for Launch of Small Satellite Constellation
            - ‘Hidden Figures’ Film Celebration
            - Watching the Wavemaker
            - NASA Mission to Search for Rare Asteroids
            - The Coolest Landscape on Mars (or Earth)
            - NASA Invites Media to Hidden Figures Book Discussion in Washington
            - CYGNSS Launch Aboard Pegasus XL Rocket Postponed
            - Cape Canaveral’s Launch Control Center
            - Space Station Experiment Marks Five Years Probing Cosmic Ray Mysteries
            - L-1011 Stargazer Takes Off with CYGNSS, Pegasus XL Rocket
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On September 20, 2010, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of permit application received. A permit was issued on October 21, 2010 to:                

Mahlon C. Kennicutt, II, Permit No. 2011-017.

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-27463 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 12, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL R. GADD, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

BARBARA A. SCHWARTZKOPF;

DONNA NICHOLS; JAMES A.

EDDINGTON; TOM A. HEMRY, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

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

MARIE M. MCMAHON, 

 Movant - Appellant.

No. 09-8100

(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-00127-ABJ)

(D. of Wyoming)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-8100 Document: 01018347660 Date Filed: 01/12/2010 Page: 1
No. 15,276.

#### Wallis *v.*Cooper, Administrator.

*Administrator.*— Appointment *of.*— Discretion *of Circuit Court as to.*— The circuit court has a wide discretion in matters concerning the appointment of administrators, and the appellate court will not control that discretion, -nor interfere with its exercise, except where it has been abused.

From the Gibson Circuit Court.

*J. H. Miller*and *S. M. Holcomb,*for appellant.

*H. A. Yeager,*for appellee.

Elliott, J.

The appellee was appointed administrator *de bonis non*of the estate of Catherine Wallis, deceased, by the clerk of the Gibson Circuit Court on the 14th day of September, 1889, and the letters and the bond were subsequently reported to the court for confirmation and approval. Over the objection of the appellant the appointment was confirmed. The appellant thereupon petitioned the court to appoint her the administrator of the estate of the decedent, but her petition was denied.

The circuit court has a wide discretion in matters concern*41ing the appointment of administrators, and the appellate court will not control that discretion nor interfere with its exercise except where it has been abused. We think that in this instance there was no abuse of discretion, and that the circuit court wisely and justly exercised its authority.

Filed March 21, 1890.

Judgment affirmed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10395

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20613-JLK-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VLADIMIR LOUISSANT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 28, 2016)

Case: 15-10395 Date Filed: 07/28/2016 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before WILSON and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and WOOD,

∗ District 

Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

Vladimir Louissant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in furtherance 

of a crime of violence resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), 

(j)(1). The district court sentenced him to life imprisonment. Louissant now 

appeals that sentence. He argues that his sentence should be vacated because the 

district court violated 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1) by not stating a reason for imposing 

life imprisonment.

We review de novo a defendant’s § 3553(c)(1) challenge, “even if the 

defendant did not object below.” United States v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1181 

(11th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Parks, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 15-

11618, slip op. at 9–12 (11th Cir. May 20, 2016). Under § 3553(c)(1), when a 

defendant is subject to a United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) range 

that “exceeds 24 months,” the district court must “state in open court . . . the reason 

for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the range.” See 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(c)(1). 

Here, Louissant’s Guidelines range was 360 months to life—a range that 

triggers § 3553(c)(1)’s requirement that the court state its reason for choosing the 

 ∗ Honorable Lisa Godbey Wood, United States District Chief Judge, for the Southern 

District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 15-10395 Date Filed: 07/28/2016 Page: 2 of 3 
3

particular point within the range at which it has imposed the sentence. However, 

during Louissant’s sentencing proceedings, the district court “offered no reason for 

the life sentence it elected to impose.” See United States v. Williams, 438 F.3d 

1272, 1274 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Accordingly, the district court failed to 

comply with § 3553(c)(1), and we must therefore vacate and remand for 

resentencing.

1

 See Parks, slip op. at 14. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

 1 Louissant also argues that his case should be reassigned on remand. We disagree. 

“Reassignment is an extraordinary order” that is not warranted here. See United States v. 

Shaygan, 652 F.3d 1297, 1318 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation mark omitted).

Case: 15-10395 Date Filed: 07/28/2016 Page: 3 of 3
Program Overview 

NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) operates two WB-57 aircraft out of 

Ellington Field in Houston, Texas. The WB-57 is a mid-wing, long-range 

aircraft capable of operation for extended periods of time from sea level to 

altitudes well in excess of 60,000 feet. Two crewmembers are positioned at 

separate tandem stations in the forward section of the fuselage. The pilot 

station contains all the essential equipment for flying the aircraft while the 

sensor operator station contains both navigational equipment and controls 

for the operation of the payloads that are located throughout the aircraft. 

The WB-57 can fly for approximately 6.5 hours and has a range of 

approximately 2500 miles. 

Payload Integration Locations 

The WB-57 aircraft can carry up to 6000 lbs. of payload. Typical payload 

integration locations are detailed above. The WB-57 employs a pallet 

system in the main fuselage area. The pallet system consists of 

interchangeable pallet modules. Pressurized and unpressurized pallets are 

available. The pallet system will carry a total of 4000 lbs. including pallet 

weight. Lighter payloads can also be carried in the aft fuselage, tail cone, 

wing pods, wing hatches, and/or the nose cone. 

The University of Colorado 

CORE (Chlorine Oxides in 

Rocket Exhaust) instrument 

in a three-foot unpressurized 

pallet. 

The Harvard University 

Water Vapor Instrument 

in the left wing pod. 

Below: The crew members of the WB-57. 

The NOAA PALMS (Particle 

Analysis by Laser Mass 

Spectrometry) instrument in 

the nose cone.