alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002* In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cronos Global Income Fund XIV, L.P. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Dennis J. Tietz, the President
and Chief Executive Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, and
John Kallas, the Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., certify, based on their
knowledge, that:  (i)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Partnership. May 13, 2005 By
    
    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp.,General Partner of the Partnership/s/ John KallasJohn Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of CronosCapital Corp., General Partner of thePartnership
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.   *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as
required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to
the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
# INTRO

# GRAD

# UNDERGRAD
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATALIA ALEKSEEVNA STOLKOVA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70858

Agency No. A075-633-741

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Natalia Alekseevna Stolkova, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen and rescind

her in absentia removal order. Our jurisdiction is controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

JAN 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JBG 2 07-70858

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888,

890–91 (9th Cir. 2002), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Stolkova received proper

notice of the time and place of her hearing because Stolkova acknowledged that

she was personally served a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), and the NTA complied

with the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a); FloresChavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150, 1156 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Current law does

not require that the Notice to Appear . . . be in any language other than English.”).

Contrary to Stolkova’s contention, her motion to reopen based on

exceptional circumstances was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(b)(5)(C)(i).

Stolkova failed to raise her remaining arguments, including her due process

challenge, before the BIA. Thus, they are not exhausted, and we lack jurisdiction

to review them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676–78 (9th Cir. 2004)

(holding that a petitioner’s failure to raise an issue to the BIA generally constitutes

a failure to exhaust, and that a due process challenge must be exhausted when it

involves a procedural error). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### ELEANOR BLASI & ANTHONY JOSEPH BLASI v. ART STOCK ENTERPRISES, INC.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
NASA is pleased to release this summary of the agency's recent work on future 

human space exploration capabilities and missions, largely performed by our Human 

Exploration Framework Team (HEFT). 

The agency established the HEFT last year to analyze exploration and technology
 

concepts and provide inputs to the agency's senior leadership on the key components 

of a safe, sustainable, affordable and credible future human space exploration 

endeavor for the nation. The team's work helps provide a context for the next stage of 

NASA's diverse portfolio of activities and a basis for ongoing architecture analysis 

and program planning. HEFT's analysis focused on affordability, cost, performance, 

schedule, technology, and partnership considerations, while also identifying 

capabilities and destinations for future exploration as we move out, step by step, into 

the solar system. 

HEFT has found that the most robust path for NASA in human space flight is a 

capability-driven approach where evolving capabilities would enable increasingly
 

complex human exploration missions over time. A capability-driven framework also 

provides increased flexibility, greater cost effectiveness, and sustainability. Our 

strategy will open up many potential destinations for human spaceflight throughout 

the solar system, including the moon, near Earth asteroids, and Mars. 

In NASA's framework, the four initial priorities are: 

1) a human-rated Space Launch System, or heavy lift rocket; 

2) a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle; 

3) commercial crew and cargo services to low Earth orbit, including the International 

Space Station; and 

4) mission-focused technologies to support expanded exploration capabilities in the 

future. 

This summary provides information to facilitate discussions as the agency moves 

into the implementation phase of its new direction established in the NASA 

Authorization Act of 2010. Our intention is to provide effective assessment of the 

available information to support a roadmap that is affordable, sustainable and 

realistic. In line with future budget allocations and policy, we will continue to refine 

our strategic approach to short, mid and long term plans that will be leveraged by
 

increasing capabilities and deepening partnerships with other nations. As we 

continue our analysis, NASA looks forward to working closely with the Congress 

and the public to build a space program that is forward thinking and also serves 

critical needs of the American people today.
****60 Years**OverviewBeginningsAeronauticsEarthTechnologySpaceflightUniverseSolar SystemFuture

EventsVideosAnniversary LogoTimeline

OverviewBeginningsAeronauticsEarthTechnologySpaceflightUniverseSolar SystemFutureEventsVideosAnniversary LogoTimeline

# **60 Years and Counting**

# **60 Years and Counting**

# **60 Years and Counting**

# **- Beginnings -**

Does this scenario sound familiar? Technological advances in other countries have become a major concern to the United States government. Lagging behind would put America not only at a technical disadvantage, but also an economic and perhaps even military one. To focus U.S. technological research, Congress and the President create a new federal agency.

The creation of NASA following the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik? Yes, certainly. But it had happened before. Even though Americans had flown the first airplane in 1903, by the beginning of World War I in 1914, the United States lagged behind Europe in airplane technology. In order to catch up, Congress founded the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics on March 3, 1915, as an independent government agency reporting directly to the President.

For 40 years, the NACA (with each individual letter always pronounced, never as an acronym like “NASA”) conducted aeronautical research that was ultimately transferred to the nascent aerospace industry, which led the U.S. economy into the late 20th century. In the 1950s, as pilots were taking experimental vehicles like the X-15 faster and higher than ever before, to the edge of space, NACA engineers began thinking about sending humans into space. NACA developed a plan that called for a blunt-body spacecraft that would reenter with a heat shield, a worldwide tracking network, and dual controls that would gradually give the pilot of the craft greater control.

NASA opened for business on Oct. 1, 1958, with T. Keith Glennan, president of Case Institute of Technology in Ohio, as its first administrator. NACA director Hugh Dryden served as the first deputy administrator, and NACA veteran Robert Gilruth ultimately headed the Space Task Group and the Mercury program before becoming the director of NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center (now the Johnson Space Center) in Houston.

President Dwight Eisenhower (center) presents commissions to T. Keith Glennan (left) and Hugh L. Dryden (right), NASA's first administrator and deputy administrator respectively. In July 1958, Eisenhower had signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, creating the agency, which opened for business on Oct. 1, 1958.*Image Credit: NASA*

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Official: Brian Dunbar 

Go To Top**
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM WORLDTEX,
INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 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>                                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                 MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                             5,228
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     51,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       6,707
<INVENTORY>                                                       56,590
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 112,039
<PP&E>                                                           158,173
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    51,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   309,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             65,452
<BONDS>                                                          182,417
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                             147
<OTHER-SE>                                                        48,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     309,132
<SALES>                                                           73,934
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  73,934
<CGS>                                                             63,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     63,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     134
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 5,173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (1,013)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          62
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (1,075)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (1,075)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                        (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      (.08)


</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00318-CR

PEDRO ENRIQUE BARZOLA GARCIA

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-1753-18-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed in part, rendered in 

part, and affirmed in part. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED 

IN PART, RENDERED IN PART, and AFFIRMED IN PART. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 30, 2020
* 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 F ED

. R. A PP

. 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 Children ʹ s 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. 32.1No. 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.
****60 Years**OverviewBeginningsAeronauticsEarthTechnologySpaceflightUniverseSolar SystemFuture

EventsVideosAnniversary LogoTimeline

OverviewBeginningsAeronauticsEarthTechnologySpaceflightUniverseSolar SystemFutureEventsVideosAnniversary LogoTimeline

# **60 Years and Counting**

# **60 Years and Counting**

# **60 Years and Counting**

# **- Videos -**

"Message from the Administrator: Celebrating NASA's 60th Birthday"

"NASA: 60 Years in 60 Seconds"

"How It All Began"

"NASA 60th: What’s Out There"

"NASA 60th: The Leading Edge of Flight"

"NASA 60th: Trailblazing Technology"

"NASA 60th: Home, Sweet Home"

"NASA 60th: Humans in Space"

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Official: Brian Dunbar 

Go To Top**
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00098-CR

____________________

IN RE DWAYNE T. DAVIS

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Dwayne T. Davis filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he seeks to 

compel the trial court to vacate an order denying Davis’s request for time credit on 

his sentence for possession of a deadly weapon in a penal institution and to sign a 

judgment nunc pro tunc giving Davis credit on his sentence from the date of his 

arrest, July 18, 1996, to the date of his indictment, June 5, 1997. “A motion for 

judgment nunc pro tunc or a writ of mandamus to the appellate court if such a 

motion is denied will provide a remedy only if the right to pre-trial jail-time credit 

is absolutely indisputable under the terms of Article 42.03, Section 2(a)(1).” In re 
2

Brown, 343 S.W.3d 803, 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see also Tex. Code Crim. 

Proc. Ann. art. 42.03, § 2(a)(1) (West Supp. 2012). A prisoner confined by another 

jurisdiction is confined for purposes of article 42.03 “only if a detainer or hold is 

lodged against him.” Nixon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 

Davis has not shown that he was in constructive custody of Polk County when he 

was confined in prison prior to his indictment in this case. See Ex parte Kuban, 763 

S.W.2d 426, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Davis failed to establish that he has a 

right to relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

 

 PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered March 27, 2013

Do not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
M.G.R., Inc. d/b/a Air Plus Limited, Distribution Services, Inc.,
  and Contract Air, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-3 (No. 333-64452 and No. 333-91240) and the registration statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-74918 and No. 333-103439) of Stonepath Group, Inc. of our
report dated September 24, 2001, with respect to the combined statements of
operations, changes in shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash
flows of M.G.R., Inc. d/b/a Air Plus Limited, Distribution Services, Inc., and
Contract Air, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in
the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Stonepath Group, Inc.

                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
August 27, 2003
Order entered December 5, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01465-CV

BARON ABLON, Appellant

V.

BARI ABLON CAMPBELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-11-271-1

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s December 2, 2013 Objection to Court’s Order of Mediation to 

the extent it requests withdrawal of the Court’s mediation order. We VACATE our November 

20, 2013 mediation order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
NAC Tracking Number 2010-04-13 (SOC-02) 


Sharing NASA's "Know-How" with Commercial Developers 


NASA Advisory Council Recommendation: 

The NAC recommends that the impressive NASA capabilities and background available at the 

Human Spaceflight Centers be offered to the bidders ofthe commercial crew vehicle. A 

mechanism can be set up to share this know-how in the most efficient and useful way. to 

expedite development and safe operation of commercial spacecraft. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs. In accordance with existing statutes and an Agency-level policy. NASA 

makes available to industry its technologies and resources, including skills, knowledge, lessons 

learned. facilities, property. and equipment. Each NASA Field Center has established a process 

to enable commercial partners (CPs) to request and obtain NASA's available assets. These 

processes were advertised to potential CPs in the announcement/solicitation for Commercial 

Crew Development Round 2. NASA will ensure that these processes are communicated to 

industry in future announcements/solicitations. 

Enclosure 3
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

MELVIN LYNNE BOMPREZZI,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

COLORADO,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 10-1090

(D.C. No. 1:07-CV-02028-WDM-KMT)

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to dismiss this matter is granted. Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).

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

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1090 Document: 01018421500 Date Filed: 05/13/2010 Page: 1
584 A.2d 204

#### WILLIAM R. GEIGER v. E. CALVIN NEUBERT.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge 

Deanthony Brown 

Nguyen & Lay 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

      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/A of the Company for
   the quarterly period ended July 31, 2004 (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: April 28, 2005                      /s/ Clyde B. Anderson
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Clyde B. Anderson
                                              Executive Chairman of the Board

                                       31
# Sitemap

## September 19, 2012

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2012
- 09
- September 19, 2012

            - Home From Space, NASA Astronaut Joe Acaba Set for Interviews
            - Phobos in Transit
            - James Webb Space Telescope Mirror ‘Cans’
            - On the Road to Glenelg
            - Dark Bands Run Through Light Layers
            - Comparing Phobos Views
            - ‘Jake Matijevic’ Contact Target for Curiosity
            - Landing Pads Being Designed for Extraterrestrial Missions
            - Cassini Significant Events 09/12/2012 – 09/18/2012
            - Sol 43 Update on Curiosity from USGS Scientist Ken Herkenhoff: Transits