alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Journal Home Page


# Apollo Lunar Quarantine

## A 50th Anniversary View

#### © 2019 Johannes Kemppanen. All rights reserved.



---

## Introduction






## The Concerns- Who Are We Protecting From Who?






















## A System Takes Shape














## The Rock Box














## On The Moon and In-Flight
















## Recovery


















## From one Aluminum Tin to Another - the Mobile Quarantine Facility





















## Transport to Houston















## The Lunar Receiving Laboratory




















indefinite










primary barrier secondary barrier


















## Crew Reception Area






















## The Handing of Lunar Samples






2 -6
























































## The First Men to the Moon and Back

Mission:  Duration:  Crew:  Quarantine period:  Lunar samples:







Hornet







Columbia




























Columbia





















## The Bio Challenge











Biomedical results of Apollo




















Biomedical results of Apollo










## Apollo 12 - The Second Run

Mission:  Duration:  Crew:  Quarantine period:  Lunar samples:


Surveyor III



















Surveyor III


## Apollo 13 and 14

Mission:  Duration:  Crew:  Quarantine period:  Lunar samples:









087:50:48 Lousma:


087:51:37 Lovell:


087:51:46 Lousma:


New Orleans


Mission:  Duration:  Crew:  Quarantine period:  Lunar samples:















## End of the Lunar Quarantine





Mission:  Duration:  Crew:  Quarantine period:  Lunar samples:    Mission:  Duration:  Crew:  Quarantine period:  Lunar samples:    Mission:  Duration:  Crew:  Quarantine period:  Lunar samples:





## First The Moon, Then Other Worlds













---

### Further reading



Biomedical Results of Apollo (SP-348, 1975)


Lunar Receiving Laboratory Project history (NASA/CR–2004–208938) Magnus and Larsen, 2004


When Biospheres Collide (NASA, Michael Meltzer)


Journal Home Page
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2307

RODEL R. TURNER, JR.,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JACOB LOWDEN; BANK OF AMERICA,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:12-cv-01372-RDB)

Submitted: February 24, 2014 Decided: March 6, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodel R. Turner, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Daniel Davey, 

MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, Craig Robert 

Haughton, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert R. Turner, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order setting aside entry of default and dismissing this action 

alleging unjust enrichment and breach of contract. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Turner v. Lowden, No. 1:12-cv-01372-RDB (D. Md. Oct. 15, 2013). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 446 

Of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Attorney General to 

transmit, respectively, certain documents to the House of Representatives 

relating to the removal of former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2017 

Ms. JAYAPAL (for herself and Mr. CICILLINE) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Attorney General to transmit, respectively, certain documents 

to the House of Representatives relating to the removal 

of former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director 

James Comey. 

1 Resolved, That the President is requested, and Attor2 ney General of the United States is directed, to transmit, 

3 respectively (in a manner appropriate to classified infor4 mation, if the President or Attorney General determines 

5 appropriate), to the House of Representatives, not later 

6 than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolu7 tion, copies of any document, record, audio recording, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 446 IH 

1 memo, correspondence, or other communication in their 

2 possessions, or any portion of any such communication, 

3 that refers or relates to the following: 

4 (1) The firing of Director James B. Comey of 

5 the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

6 (2) The participation of Attorney General Jef7 ferson Sessions in the removal of Director Comey. 

8 (3) The scope or application of Attorney Gen9 eral Sessions’ recusal from ‘‘any existing or future 

10 investigations of any matters in any way related to 

11 the campaigns for President of the United States’’. 

12 (4) The application of Attorney General Ses13 sions’ recusal to the removal of Director Comey. 

14 (5) The scope or application of executive privi15 lege as applied to the June 13, 2017, testimony of 

16 Attorney General Sessions before the Senate Select 

17 Committee on Intelligence. 

18 (6) President Donald J. Trump’s statement, 

19 communicated via Twitter on May 12, 2017 at 8:26 

20 a.m.: ‘‘James Comey better hope that there are no 

21 ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking 

22 to the press!’’. 

23 (7) Any system used by the White House to se24 cretly record conversations between President 

25 Trump and Director Comey. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 446 IH 

1 (8) Any contemporaneous account of any meet2 ing between President Trump and Director Comey. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
|US
    Bank(logo) | All
    of us serving you
|----------------- | -------------------------









Annual Statement of Compliance

Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Trust 2014-C18



VIA: EMAIL



Morgan Stanley Capital I
Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York, New York 10036

Attention: Stephen Holmes

stephen.holmes@morganstanley.com



Re:	      Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of September 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”) between Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as the Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as the Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as
the Trust Advisor, U.S. Bank National Association, as the Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating
Agent and Custodian.



I, Michael Farrell, a Senior Vice President
of U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian, as a certifying servicer hereby certify that:



(1) A review of the activities
of the Custodian during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of the performance of the Custodian
under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and



(2) To the best of my knowledge,
based on such review, the Custodian has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
Reporting Period.



Capitalized terms used but not
defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



Date: March 8, 2017



|U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian
|--------------------------------------------
|                                            
|By:                                         
|                                            
|
3 min read

# Brad Pitt to Speak with NASA Astronaut on Space Station about Artemis Program

### NASA

Sep 15, 2019

MEDIA ADVISORYM19-098

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

As NASA prepares to send the first woman and next man to the Moon by 2024 under the Artemis program, Brad Pitt is playing an astronaut in his latest film. Now the actor will have the opportunity to discuss what it’s truly like to live and work in space with a NASA crew member living aboard the International Space Station. 

Pitt’s Earth-to-space call will air live at 11:35 a.m. EDT Monday, Sept. 16 on NASA Television and the agency’s website. 

NASA astronaut Nick Hague will answer questions from the actor. For nearly 20 years, astronauts have continuously lived and work on the International Space Station, testing technologies, performing science and developing the skills needed to explore farther from Earth. 

In Ad Astra, which Hague and his Expedition 60 crewmates recently watched during their downtime aboard the orbiting laboratory, Pitt travels across the solar system, including to the Moon and Mars. Without providing spoilers, the parallels between the movie and the current state of human spaceflight stop there, making the film more science fiction than reality. However, the agency did provide visuals for the film and some technical expertise. 

“We reviewed a script of Ad Astra early in production,” said Bert Ulrich, the agency’s liaison for film and TV collaborations at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “Although there was no NASA storyline, we provided some of the exciting images and footage for the film especially of the Moon and Mars. Sci-fi films like Ad Astra, the Martian, Interstellar, and Gravity take movie audiences out of this world incorporating some of NASA’s most inspirational photography and footage.”

Inspiring the next generation of explorers – the Artemis Generation – ensures America will continue to lead in space exploration and discovery. Additional information about working with the agency on a feature or fictional film is available online under the Media Usage Guidelines.

The agency is planning to return astronauts to the Moon in the next five years with commercial and international partners. First, NASA will send a suite of new science instruments and technology demonstrations to the Moon on commercial landers.

Following the 2024 crew landing, NASA will send astronauts to the Moon about once per year thereafter and establish sustainable lunar exploration by 2028. After gaining experience at the Moon testing new systems, such as NASA’s Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, Gateway, and human landers, NASA will take humanity’s next giant leap, sending astronauts to Mars.

Follow America’s Moon to Mars exploration at:

-end-

Cheryl WarnerHeadquarters, Washington202-358-2975cheryl.m.warner@nasa.gov
#### R. D. THAGGARD et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Ronald N. ASHLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF JACKSON et al., Defendants-Appellees. R. D. THAGGARD et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF JACKSON et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 78-2980, 78-3642.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 2, 1980.

*273Ronald N. Ashley, pro se, Dixon L. Pyles, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellants.

John E. Stone, City Atty., Jackson, Miss., Gerald S. Hartman, Drew S. Days, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., David L. Rose, S. Theodore Merritt, Attys., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Employment Sec., Civil Rights Div., Washington, D. C., Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for defendants-appellees.

Before HATCHETT and TATE, Circuit Judges, and GROOMS *, District Judge.

*

 Senior District Judge of the Northern District of Alabama sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

In this consolidated action, appellants, Thaggard and Ashley, appeal a district court dismissal of their reverse discrimination suits which challenge the hiring and promotional practices of the City of Jackson, as set forth in earlier consent decrees. Because, we find appellants’ challenges impermissible collateral attacks, we affirm.

The question whether appellants may intervene in the original actions is not before us. Rather , the question is whether appellants may collaterally attack the City of Jackson’s compliance with two lawfully entered consent decrees. We hold that such collateral attacks are impermissible under *Prate v. Freedman,*430 F.Supp. 1373 (W.D.N.Y.), *aff’d,*573 F.2d 1294 (2nd Cir. 1977), *cert. denied*436 U.S. 922, 98 S.Ct. 2274, 56 L.Ed.2d 765 (1978); *O’Burn v. Shapp,*70 F.R.D. 549 (E.D.Pa.), *aff’d,*546 F.2d 417 (3rd Cir. 1976), *cert. denied,*430 U.S. 968, 97 S.Ct. 1650, 52 L.Ed.2d 359 (1977). Cf. *Smith v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.,*615 F.2d 683 (5th Cir. 1980). *(Smith*involved a Rule 60(b) challenge upon a lawfully entered “Agreed Order.” This court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The court also stated that to allow Rule 60(b) reevaluations of civil rights settlements, in this instance two years after settlement, would violate both the finality and integrity of the settlement process.)

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.

AFFIRMED.
#### VI-CONCRETE COMPANY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      2,472,813
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        975,644
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              200,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                              783,240
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                24,615,314
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     21,387,386
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       20,877,840
<LOANS>                                   101,329,214
<ALLOWANCE>                                   695,064
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            155,478,819
<DEPOSITS>                                134,053,266
<SHORT-TERM>                                3,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         1,755,211
<LONG-TERM>                                   734,815
<COMMON>                                    4,796,555
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 11,027,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             15,823,971
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             6,245,875
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           2,090,617
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              114,161
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            8,540,653
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          4,712,261
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          4,847,515
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       3,603,138
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  91,632
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            240,368
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             3,132,590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               937,689
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    937,689
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  590,173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .54    
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.25
<LOANS-NON>                                         0
<LOANS-PAST>                                  459,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                             1,400,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              671,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  70,000
<RECOVERIES>                                    2,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             695,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       695,000
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 11Nano-Proprietary, Inc.Computation of Income (Loss) Per Share**

|                                                    |   | Three Months ended Sept. 30,    |   | Nine Months ended Sept. 30,     |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|
|                                                    |   | 2003                            |   | 2002                            |   | 2003 |   | 2002 |
|                                                    |   |                            |   |                            |   |   |   |   |
| Computation of loss per common share:                   |   |                            |   |                            |   |   |   |
|                                                    |   |                            |   |                            |   |   |   |
|    Net loss applicable to common  shares |   | $(1,212,280)                    |   | $(1,451,354)                    |  | $(2,679,305) |  | $(4,345,754) |
|                                                    |   |                            |   |                            |   |   |   |   |
|    Weighted average number of common shares   |   | 88,590,429                 |   | 66,041,136                 |   | 84,656,310  |   | 63,971,176  |
|                                                    |   |                            |   |                            |   |   |   |   |
|    Net income (loss) per common share         |   | $(0.01)     |   | $(0.02)     |   | $(0.03)     |   | $(0.06)     |
|                                                    |   |                            |   |                            |   |   |   |   |
|                                                    |   |                            |   |                            |   |   |   |   |
| Computation of income ( loss ) per common               |   |                            |   |                            |   |   |   |   |
|    share assuming full dilution**             |   |                            |   |                            |   |   |   |   |
|                                                    |   |                            |   |                            |   |   |   |   |
|                                                    |   |                            |   |                            |   |   |   |   |

 

** No computation of diluted loss per common share is included for any period because suchcomputation results in an antidilutive loss per common share.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Presidential Documents 67013 

Presidential Determination No. 2011–12 of August 26, 2010 

Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Resulting 

from Violence in Kyrgyzstan 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and 

Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the ‘‘Act’’), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601(c)(1)), 

I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important 

to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount 

not to exceed $9.5 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and 

Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent 

refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, 

governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of 

the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs resulting from recent 

violence in Kyrgyzstan. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

WASHINGTON, August 26, 2010 

[FR Doc. 2010–27672 

Filed 10–29–10; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PRESDOCO1OB#1.EPS</GPH>
Exhibit 10.17


 


VERIFYME,
INC.


 


Amendment
to NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment (the
“Amendment”), dated as of April 16, 2020, by and between VerifyMe, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”),
and Norman Gardner (the “Optionee”), amends the Non-Qualified Option Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated
January 2018 by and between the Company and the Optionee. Terms used herein and otherwise undefined have the meanings given such
terms in the Agreement.


 


Whereas,
the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved a three-year extension of the expiration date of the
award granted pursuant to the Agreement such that the options expire eight years from the date of grant instead of five years.


 


Now,
Therefore, in consideration of the agreements contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.             Section
3(a) of the Agreement is amended to provide that subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the Expiration Date of the
Options will be until 6:00 p.m. New York time eight years from the Grant Date.


 


2.             Except
as specifically modified or amended by the terms of this Amendment, the Agreement and all provisions contained therein are, and
shall continue, in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed. All references in the Agreement to itself shall
be deemed references to the Agreement as amended hereby.


 


 


[Signature page follows.]


 






    	 	 	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed effective as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	VERIFYME, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Marshall Geller 
	 	 	
        Marshall Geller

        Chair, Compensation Committee



  


ACCEPTANCE


 


I, Norman Gardner,
hereby certify that I have read and fully understand the foregoing Amendment. I hereby execute this Amendment to indicate my acceptance
of the Amendment and my intent to comply with the terms thereof.


 


	 	/s/ Norman Gardner
	 	Optionee
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

October 6, 2005

Before

HON. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

HON. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

HON. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 03-2513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PHILIP D. JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

 District Court for the

 Central District of Illinois.

No. 02-20014-001

Michael P. McCuskey, Chief Judge.

O R D E R

This case originally came to us on remand from the SupremeCourt forfurther consideration

in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We previously ordered a limited remand

of Philip D.Jones’ssentence in accordancewithBooker and Paladino so that the district court could

determine whether it believed Jones’s sentence remains appropriate now that Booker has relegated

the United States Sentencing Guidelines to advisory status.

The district court has replied that, now knowing that the Guidelines are not mandatory, it

desiresto resentence Jones.We invited both partiesto file any arguments concerningthe appropriate

disposition of this case in light of the district court’s decision. Both parties have filed statements

agreeing that the case should be remanded to the district court for resentencing.

Therefore, while we reaffirm our decision rejecting Jones’s challengesto his conviction,see

United States v. Jones, 389 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2004), we hereby VACATE Jones’s sentence and

REMAND the case for resentencing, which must be conducted in conformity with Booker.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53