alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EDWARD H. WHITE, II (LIEUTENANT COLONEL)

NASA ASTRONAUT (DECEASED)

PERSONAL DATA: Born in San Antonio, Texas, on November 14, 1930. Died 

January 27, 1967, at NASA Kennedy Space Center, Florida, in the Apollo spacecraft 

fire. He is survived by his wife Patricia and their two children. 

EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science degree from United States Military Academy; 

Master of Science degree in Aeronautical Engineering, University of Michigan.

ORGANIZATIONS: Associate member of Institute of Aerospace Sciences; 

Member of Sigma Delta Psi, athletic honorary; and Member of Tau Beta Pi, 

engineering honorary.

AWARDS: Posthumously awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor.

SPECIAL HONORS: Golden Plate Award; Honorary Doctorate degree in Astronautics, University of Michigan; NASA 

Exceptional Service Medal and Senior Astronaut Wings; Medalha Bandeirantes va Cosmonautica; Firefly Club Award; Ten 

Outstanding Young Men of the Nation for 1965; Five Outstanding Young Texans for 1965; The John Fitzgerald Kennedy 

Trophy; Aerospace Primus Club; 1966 Achievement Award, National Aviation Club; General Thomas White Award.

EXPERIENCE: White, an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, received flight training in Florida and Texas, following his 

graduation from West Point. He then spent 3-1/2 years in Germany with a fighter squadron, flying F-86’s and F-100’s.

He attended the Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, California, in 1959.

White was later assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, as an experimental test pilot with the Aeronautical 

Systems Division. In this assignment he made flight tests for research and weapons systems development, wrote technical 

engineering reports, and made recommendations for improvement in aircraft design and construction. 

He logged more than 3,000 hours flying time, including more than 2,200 hours in jet aircraft.

NASA EXPERIENCE: White was named as a member of the astronaut team selected by NASA in September 1962. He 

was pilot for Gemini 4, which was a 66-revolution, 4-day mission that began on June 3, and ended on June 7, 1965. During 

the third revolution, he carried out the first extra vehicular activity in the United States manned space flight program. He was 

outside Gemini 4 for 21 minutes, and became the first man to control himself in space during EVA with a maneuvering unit. 

Other highlights of the mission included cabin depressurization, opening of cabin doors, and 12 scientific and medical 

experiments. He received the NASA Exceptional Service Medal and the U.S. Air Force Senior Astronaut Wings for this 

Flight. On March 21, 1966, he was named as one of the pilots of the AS-204 mission, the first 3-man Apollo flight. 

Lieutenant Colonel White died on January 27, 1967, in the Apollo spacecraft flash fire during a launch pad test at Kennedy 

Space Center, Florida. 

DECEMBER 1997

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Biographical Data

 Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

 Houston, Texas 77058
F. CURTIS MICHEL

NASA ASTRONAUT (DECEASED)

PERSONAL DATA: Born June 5, 1934, in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Died on February 26, 

2015. He is survived by his wife and his two children. His hobbies included photography, 

and tennis, handball, and baseball.

EDUCATION: Graduated from C. K. McClatchey High School, Sacramento, California; 

received a Bachelor of Science degree with honors in Physics in 1955 and a Doctorate in 

Physics in 1962, both from the California Institute of Technology.

ORGANIZATIONS: Member of the American Physical Society, the American Geophysical 

Union, and the American Astronomical Society.

EXPERIENCE: Michel was a junior engineer with the Firestone Tire and Rubber 

Company’s Guided Missile Division before joining the Air Force in 1955. As an AFROTC 

graduate, he received flight training at Marana Air Force Base, Arizona, and at Laredo and 

Perrin Air Force Bases in Texas. During his three years of military service, he flew F-86D 

Interceptors in the United States and in Europe.

Following his tour of active duty in the Air Force, he was a research fellow at the California Institute of Technology---doing 

experimental and theoretical work in nuclear physics. He came to Houston in July 1963 and became a member of the faculty at 

Rice University. His efforts there were directed to researching and teaching space sciences, such as the interaction of solar 

winds and the lunar atmosphere.

He has accumulated 1,000 hours flying time and 900 hours in jet aircraft.

Dr. Michel was selected as a scientist-astronaut by NASA in June 1965. He resigned in September 1969 to return to teaching 

and research, and was Department Chairman of the Space Physics and Astronomy Department at Rice University in Houston, 

Texas, from 1974 to 1979. He has been the Andrew Hays Buchanan Professor of Astrophysics since 1974. He was named a 

Guggenheim Fellow to the University of Paris, France, from 1979 to 1980, and has been awarded an Alexander von Humboldt, 

Senior U.S. Scientist Award to study in Heidelberg, from 1982 to 1983.

This is the only version available from NASA. 

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

April 2015

Biographical Data

 Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

 Houston, Texas 77058
#### Chandler *v.*The State.

If a recognizance, entered into by several persons, be not joint but several only, a joint *scire facias*against the recognizors cannot be sustained; and the objection, when shown by the scire facias, may be assigned for error.

*472*Thursday, January*14, 1841.

APPEAL from the *"Warren*Circuit Court.

*R. A. Chandler,*for the appellant.

*W. J. Peaslee,*for the appellee.

Blackford, J.

This was a *scire facias*issued on behalf of the state against *William Hess, Elisha L. Hess, Duvalt Hess,*and *Robert A. Chandler.*The *scire facias*states that on, &c., the defendants entered into a recognizance in the sum of 50 dollars each, for the appearance of the said *William, Elisha,*and *Duvalt Hess,*at the then next term of the Circuit Court, &c. to answer to a charge, &c.; and that the recognizance was afterwards declared forfeited. The *scire facias*concludes by commanding the sheriff to summon the defendants to appear and show cause, if any they had, why the state should not have execution against them in that behalf. The writ was executed on Chandler, and returned w not found” as to the other defendants. *Chandler*appeared, and pleaded *nul tiel record.*The Court awarded execution against all the defendants for the sum of 150 dollars and costs.

The recognizance described in the *scire facias*is not joint but several only. By the judgment of forfeiture, each of the defendants became liable to the. state in the sum of 50 dollars, the amount for which he was bound; and, of course, each could be separately sued on his obligation. But the state cannot sustain this joint suit against the defendants, as they have not entered into a joint recognizance. And this objection, which is shown by the *scire*facias, may be assigned for error.

In ordinary cases on contract, if there be too many defendants, and the objection appear on the pleadings, either of the defendants may demur, move in arrest of judgment, or support a writ of error. 1 Chitt. PI. 50. And we think the same rule is applicable to suits commenced by *scire facias.*

*Per Curiam.*

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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1834

To waive time limitations in order to allow the Medal of Honor to be 

awarded to Gary Lee McKiddy, of Miamisburg, Ohio, for acts of valor 

while a helicopter crew chief and door gunner with the 1st Cavalry 

Division during the Vietnam War. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 6, 2003

Ms. STABENOW introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To waive time limitations in order to allow the Medal of 

Honor to be awarded to Gary Lee McKiddy, of 

Miamisburg, Ohio, for acts of valor while a helicopter 

crew chief and door gunner with the 1st Cavalry Division 

during the Vietnam War.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO AWARD MEDAL OF HONOR TO 

4 GARY LEE MCKIDDY FOR VALOR DURING THE 

5 VIETNAM WAR. 

6 (a) WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.—Notwith7 standing the time limitations in section 3744(b) of title 
2

•S 1834 IS 

1 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation, the 

2 President is authorized and requested to award the Medal 

3 of Honor under section 3741 of such title to Gary Lee 

4 McKiddy, of Miamisburg, Ohio, for the acts of valor re5 ferred to in subsection (b). 

6 (b) ACTION DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor referred 

7 to in subsection (a) are the conspicuous acts of gallantry 

8 and intrepidity at the risk of his life and beyond the call 

9 of duty of Gary Lee McKiddy, between October 25, 1969, 

10 and May 6, 1970, and particularly on May 6, 1970, the 

11 day he died during a combat operation in Cambodia while 

12 serving as a Specialist Four in the 1st Cavalry Division 

13 of the United States Army. 

14 (c) POSTHUMOUS AWARD.—The Medal of Honor may 

15 be awarded under this section posthumously as provided 

16 in section 3752 of title 10, United States Code.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32



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





In connection with the Annual Report of Pacific Land and Coffee Corporation  (the "Company") on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Andrew V.  Reid, Chief Executive and Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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





October 12, 2010

/s/ Andrew V. Reid

Andrew V. Reid

Chief Executive and Financial Officer

(Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)



|Date
|----
|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector GURROLA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-20945

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 28, 2003.

James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Jeffery Aan Babcock, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Hector Gurrola-Martinez appeals the sentence of supervised release imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 21 months of imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Among the conditions of supervised release contained in the written judgment is a ban on GurrolaMartinez’ possession of “a firearm, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon.” Gurrola-Martinez challenges only the condition that he not possess “any other dangerous weapon” because it was not included, inherently or expressly, in the oral pronouncement of sentence.

The case is remanded for the district to amend the written judgment to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence by striking “or any other dangerous weapon” from the judgment. *See United States v. Martinez,*250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir.2001).

REMANDED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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.
EXHIBIT 11.1

# RIMAGE CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK

Basic net income per common share is
determined by dividing net income by the weighted average number of shares of common stock
outstanding. Diluted net income per common share is determined by dividing net income by
the weighted average number of shares of common stock and common share equivalents
outstanding, unless the result is anti-dilutive. A total of 833 and 1,981 assumed
conversion shares for the three months ended March 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively, were
excluded from the net income per share computation, as their effect is anti-dilutive. The
following is a summary of the weighted average common shares outstanding and assumed
conversion shares:

|                                                     |  | Three months ended
March 31,
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|
|Shares outstanding at end of period                  |  |                             
|                                                     |  |                             
|                                                    
|Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding  |  |                             
|                                                    
|Weighted average shares of assumed conversion shares |  |                             
|                                                     |  |                             
|                                                    
|Weighted average shares of common stock and assumed  |  |                             
|conversion shares                                    |  |                             
|                                                     |  |                             
|                                                    
|Net income                                           |  |                             
|                                                     |  |                             
|                                                    
|Basic net income per common share                    |  |                             
|                                                     |  |                             
|                                                    
|Diluted net income per common share                  |  |                             
|                                                     |  |                             

20
#### Cyrus Riddle *v.*Simpson Oldham.

Discontinuance of Suit — Cross-petition.

When Lindsey discontinued his suit against Oldham, who was thereby put out of court, his cross-petition against Riddell had no basis upon which to stand, therefore fell dead.

APPEAL PROM GRANT CIRCUIT COURT.

September 25, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Bobebtson :

Oldham’s cross-petition against Riddle sought a judgment against him only in the event of a rescission of his contract and a loss of his land in the suit of Lindsey against Riddle and himself, and Kendal and others.

But Lindsey discontinued his suit as against Oldham, who was thereby .put out of court, and, therefore, there neither was, nor could have been, any decree against him. Consequently, his cross-petition having no basis to stand on, fell dead and could not have been revived without a supplement allegation, that notwithstanding his abandonment of his suit against him, had afterward so proceeded as to recover his land. But the record does not show any such supplemental averment, and *does*show that Lindsey’s decree did not touch Oldham or his interest.

Wherefore, according to the record now before us, there was no foundation for the judgment in Oldham’s favor against Riddle which the latter now seeks to reverse.

*253
      *W. T.*Simmons, *for appellant.*

That judgment, being thus baseless and palpably erroneous, is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to adjudge expressly a formal dismission of Oldham’s cross-petition against Riddle.
S. 1687

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the preservation

and interpretation of the historic sites of the Manhattan Project for potential

inclusion in the National Park System.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Manhattan Project National

Historical Park Study Act’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior.

(2) STUDY.—The term ‘‘study’’ means the study authorized

by section 3(a).

(3) STUDY AREA.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘study area’’ means the

historically significant sites associated with the Manhattan

Project.

(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘study area’’ includes—

(i) Los Alamos National Laboratory and townsite

in the State of New Mexico;

(ii) the Hanford Site in the State of Washington;

and

(iii) Oak Ridge Reservation in the State of Tennessee.

SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY.

(a) STUDY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the

Secretary of Energy, shall conduct a special resource study

of the study area to assess the national significance, suitability,

and feasibility of designating 1 or more sites within the study

area as a unit of the National Park System in accordance

with section 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5(c)).

(2) ADMINISTRATION.—In conducting the study, the Secretary shall—

(A) consult with interested Federal, State, tribal, and

local officials, representatives of organizations, and members of the public;

(B) evaluate, in coordination with the Secretary of

Energy, the compatibility of designating 1 or more sites

within the study area as a unit of the National Park
S. 1687—2

System with maintaining the security, productivity, and

management goals of the Department of Energy and public

health and safety; and

(C) consider research in existence on the date of enactment of this Act by the Department of Energy on the

historical significance and feasibility of preserving and

interpreting the various sites and structures in the study

area.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date on which

funds are made available to carry out the study, the Secretary

shall submit to Congress a report that describes the findings of

the study and the conclusions and recommendations of the Secretary.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are

necessary to carry out this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Memorandum
------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Office of the CEO


Date:          June 7, 1999

To:            Manfred Wittler

From:          Jim Meadlock

Subject:       Employee Agreement/Addendum to U.S. Contract

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

Manfred,

The following summarizes our agreement:

1.   Your annual salary base will be increased by $10,000
     per month effective May 31, 1999.

2.   Intergraph will pay reasonable relocation costs for
     essential household goods to be shipped from Germany.

3.   Your housing allowance will be discontinued in the
     Netherlands and will be replaced by the same amount
     (after conversion to U.S. dollars).

4.   At termination of employment with Intergraph,
     Intergraph will ensure that you did not lose money on
     the buying and reselling of the residence that you
     currently have under contract.

5.   You will be provided a company car.

6.   Your overseas travel will be business class.

7.   In the event that your employment is terminated by
     Intergraph prior to your retirement, you will receive
     one (1) year severance.

Additionally, I will recommend to the Intergraph Board that
you receive a seat on the Intergraph Board.

Apart from the above, all other employment conditions remain
in effect.


/s/  Jim Meadlock                   /s/  Manfred Wittler
-----------------                   --------------------
Jim Meadlock                        Manfred Wittler


------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

Elevation of Communications Coordinating Committee 

2012-02-03 (EPOC-01) 

Recommendation: 

The Council recommends that building on the success of the Education Coordinating Committee 

(ECC), the Communications Coordinating Committee (CCC) should be elevated to a Council, 

moving it from a coordination role to strategic and decisional function. 

Major Reasons for the Recommendation: 

The ECC has been successful in bringing together Center education resources to coordinate their 

activities and present a higher profile, integrated presences to the public. A similar opportunity 

exists now for communication. 

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation: 

Duplicative messaging to the public, lack of message coordination, less "wood" behind more 

"arrows," leading to public confusion. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs. This is consistent with recommendations made to NASA's Executive Council 

on February 8, 2012, regarding the need for a cohesive, strategic communications function, to 

include elevating the existing Communications Coordinating Committee to council status to 

enable the council to set strategic direction and to oversee the communications portfolio. The 

final charter for the new Communications Coordinating Council was finalized on June 18, 2012 

(NC.1 000-31). 

Enclosure