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

###### Overseas Private Investment Corporation

# TIME AND DATE:

Thursday, December 9, 2010, 10 a.m. (open portion); 10:15 a.m. (closed portion).

# PLACE:

Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

Meeting open to the Public from 10 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Closed portion will commence at 10:15 a.m. (approx.).

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 

1. President's Report

2. Approval of September 23, 2010 Minutes (open session)

3. Confirmations: Judith D. Pryor as Vice President, External Affairs

# FURTHER MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

(Closed to the public 10:15 a.m.)

1. Reports

2. Finance Project—Democratic Republic of Congo

3. Approval of September 23, 2010 Minutes (closed session)

4. Pending Major Projects

Written summaries of the projects to be presented will be posted on OPIC's web site on or about November 4, 2010.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:

Information on the meeting may be obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.

Dated: October 28, 2010.

Connie M. Downs,

Corporate Secretary, Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

[FR Doc. 2010-27632 Filed 10-28-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 3210-01-P
# STATEOFLOUISIANA 

# COURTOFAPPEAL,

# Fl,STCIRCUIT

ANREAWILLIAMS
VERSUS NO. 2023 CW 0327

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE SYSTEM 

### APRIL 13, 2023

In Re: Board of Supervisors of Southern University & Agricultural & Mechanical College, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, ParishofEast BatonRouge, No. 652810.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, AND GREENE, JJ.
STAY DENIED. WRIT GRANTED. The portion of the trial court's April 3, 2023 judgment converting the jury trial scheduled for April 17, 2023 to a bench trial is reversed. Board of Supervisors of Southern University & Agricultural & Mechanical College ("Southern University") is statutorily exempt from posting any bond whatsoever in any judicial proceedings arising from activities within the scope of its duties. La. R.S. 13:4581; Sylve v. Kappa Alpha PSI Fraternity, 2001-2726 (La. 10/10/01), 803 So.2d 960, 961. Furthermore, Southern University "shall not be required to post any bond, cash deposit, or other charge whatsoever to obtain a trial by jury." La. R . S . 13:510 5 ( E ) ; Sy1ve, 8 0 3 So. 2 d at 961.

In addition, the portion of the trial court's April 3, 2023 judgment denying the motion for summary judgment filed by Southern University is vacated. The portion of the trial court's April 3, 2023 judgment denying Southern University's motion to continue trial is reversed. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966(C)(1) provides that "[u]nless otherwise agreed to by all of the parties

### J'and the court

... [a] contradictory hearing on the motion f o summary judgment shall be set

... not less than thirty days prio

.to the trial date." As discussed, trial is scheduled in this matter for April 17, 2023, and the trial court set Southern University's motion for summary judgment for hearing on April 3, 2023, less than thirty days prior to trial. Accordingly, Southern University's motion to continue trial is granted, and this matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to set, notice, and conduct a hearing on Southern University's motion for summary judgment withinthe deadlinesprovidedinLa. Code Civ. P. art. 966(C).

Mcclendon, J., concurs. P. art. 966(C)(3) provides judgment on the motion not trial." GH HG

I further note that La. that "[t]he court shall

less than twenty days

COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT Code Civ. render a prior to
Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











We
      consent to the use of our report dated December 15, 2006, except for Note P
      which is dated February 18, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance
      sheet
      of Tribeworks, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2005,
      and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and
      stockholders’ deficit for the year then ended, which are included in the Form
      10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 2) for the year ended December 31, 2005.











/s/
      Williams & Webster, P.S.


Williams
      & Webster, P.S.


Spokane,
      Washington


April
      4,
      2007
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Norman F. Swanton, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Warren
Resources, Inc.;  2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;  3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;  4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting;  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over the financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of registrants board of directors:  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. /s/ Norman F. SwantonNorman F. Swanton,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
 December 7, 2004 A signed original of this original statement required by Section 302 has been provided to Warren
Resources, Inc., and will be retained by Warren Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 3
#### Milford T. French v. The Common Council of the Village of South Haven.

*Highivays*— Obstruction—Mandamus.

In this case, the Court finding it difficult to determine from the petition and return whether the street which relator seeks to have opened is or is not a public highway, its legality being contested in good faith by á stranger to the record, and the relator having an ample remedy in equity if the facts stated in his petition are true, as also other remedies, both at law and under the statutes, a *mandamus*is denied.

*Mandamus.*

Submitted February 24, 1891.

Denied February 27, 1891.

Delator applied for *mandamus*to compel the removal of certain obstructions in an alleged highway in respondent village. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Boudeman é Adams,*for relator.

*Oslorn é Mills*and *William N. QooTc,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

This is an application for *mandamus*to compel the common council of the village of South Haven to commence proceedings to remove certain obstructions in an alleged public highway or street in the yillage of South Haven, and to open the said street for public travel, and to keep the same unobstructed for the use of the public.

The obstructions were placed in the street by one Arthur W. Tufts, who claims to own the land in the street, and who denies the existence of a legal highway. We find it difficult to determine upon the petition and return whether or not there is a public highway, as claimed by the relator. Its legality seems to be con*136tested in good faith by Mr. «Tufts, who is not a party to the proceeding before us. The relator has an ample remedy in equity if the facts are as stated in his petition. See *Wayne Co. Savings Bank v.*Stockwell, 84 Mich. 586. He has also other remedies, both at law and under the statutes.

The writ of *mandamus*will be denied.
#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaiah David QUAITES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-60804

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 28, 2003.

*386Robert Henry Norman, Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gregory Scott Park, Oxford, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Isaiah David Quaites pleaded guilty to four counts of causing another person to make false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms. He appeals the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence of 16 firearms that were seized during a stop of the vehicle driven by him. Because the Government conceded that it did not intend to rely on *Terry v. Ohio,*392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), as a basis for the stop, Quaites’s arguments that the stop violated *Terry*are irrelevant.

“A district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard as to the facts and *de novo*for questions of law.” *United States v. Buchner,*7 F.3d 1149, 1154 (5th Cir.1993) (citation omitted). “[U]nder the automobile exception police may conduct a warrantless search of an automobile and any containers therein if they have probable cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of a crime.” *Id.*(citing *California v. Acevedo,*500 U.S. 565, 579-80, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991)). Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been committed. *United States v. Mendez,*27 F.3d 126, 129-30 (5th Cir.1994). A probable cause determination should be based on the “totality of the circumstances,” and the evidence in support of such “must be viewed in light of the observations, knowledge, and training of the law enforcement officers involved in the warrantless search.” *Buchner,*7 F.3d at 1154 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

It was not unreasonable for the stopping officer to conclude that Quaites and his accomplice had committed an offense and that evidence of that offense was in *387Quaites’s car. Although Quaites disputes each individual rationale offered by the officer in support of a determination of probable cause, it is the totality of the circumstances that must be examined. *See Buchner,*7 F.3d at 1154. The totality of the circumstances revealed that:

(1) Quaites and his accomplice had purchased an unusual number of handguns in a manner that several dealers found suspicious;

(2) two of the handguns previously purchased by the accomplice had been used in connection with crimes in Chicago; and

(3) Quaites was driving a car that bore Illinois license plates and that was registered to Quaites at an Illinois address. The district court did not clearly err in denying the motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1 min read

# Collaborate with CoECI: Crowdsourcing Vendors

### Sarah Douglas

Jul 10, 2023

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

The NASA Tournament Lab (NTL) offers a variety of open innovation platforms through the NASA Open Innovation Services 2 (NOIS2) contract. This is a multiple-award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract — solicitation number 80JSC020R0030.

The scope of NOIS2 includes delivery of technical solutions, multimedia, data science, software, engineering design, crowd program formulation, and public engagement campaigns. Vendors on the contract use one or more of the following methodologies to meet federal requirements: Crowd-based challenges and prize competitions, Crowd-based freelance projects, Crowd-based micro-task projects, or Other crowd-based methods.

NOIS2 also includes an on-boarding clause that allows NASA to award additional contracts under the same solicitation. Follow the solicitation on beta.sam.gov to receive updates about on-boarding opportunities.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 28, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CHRIS TILLOTSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. 

BARRY CAPE; KELLY MARTIN;

JANELLEE BALL,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1023

(D.C. No. 1:04-CV-0552-ZLW) 

ORDER

Before TACHA, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

This appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff previously filed an appeal from the

district court orders entered in this matter. See Tillotson v. Cape, No. 09-1081

(10th Cir. Mar. 2, 2009) (dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction). The

plaintiff is not entitled to two appeals. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 10-1023 Document: 01018357926 Date Filed: 01/28/2010 Page: 1
#### Ellen Green *v.*Alexander Ray.

Husband and Wife — Dower — Equitable Interest.

Where the husband holds only an equity in land, the wife has no dower interest.

APPEAL EROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

January 9, 1867.

Per Curiam :

Wilson, the only witness in the case, proves that at the timé he purchased the land of Green the latter said he did not have the title, but that it was in Bledsoe; this seems to be fortified by the fact that Green then gave Wilson his title bond, who assigned it to Beaumont; Green some fourteen years after his sale of the land conveyed by special warranty to Beaumont; Green, therefore, was only the holder of an equity when he sold and his wife had no dower interest in the land. Therefore the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          13,418
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   420
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     27,428
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             677
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               699
<LOANS>                                        258,622
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 318,954
<DEPOSITS>                                     275,533
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,100
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,802
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,942
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,399
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 318,954
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,389
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  899
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    82
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,370
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,369
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,902
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,468
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      290
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,086
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,086
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,038
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.63
<LOANS-NON>                                        520
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,126
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,250
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,825
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       31
<RECOVERIES>                                        65
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,149
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,149
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### The State *v.*Smith.

An indictment against a constable for failing to return an execution, must state the substance, at least, of the execution.

*Tuesday, June 2.*

ERROR to the *Marion*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Indictment against a constable for failing to return an alias execution.

The indictment describes a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace in favour of *Folke*against *Vanblaricum,*and states that an execution issued thereon, which was returned levied on certain goods that remained unsold. The indictment further states that the justice, on, <fec., issued an alias execution, and delivered it to the defendant; and that the defendant unlawfully and knowingly failed' to return the alias execution according to law, to the damage of the judgment-creditor, &c.

*328*W. J. Peaslee,*for the state.

The Circuit Court, on the defendant’s motion, quashed the indictment.

There is a fatal defect in this indictment. It does not contain any description whatever of the alias execution. The substance, at least, of that execution ought to have been given, in order that the Court might see whether it was, on its face, such an execution as the defendant was bound to execute and return.

Per *Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed.
# Sitemap

## March 1993

- Home
- Sitemap
- 1993
- March 1993

            - 08
Miaanwe ll
#### MARGOT MROZEK SCHNEIDER v. JOSEPH M. MROZEK.

July 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
Recommendation: 

NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) 

Planetary Protection Lessons Learned Report 

2012-01-07 (SC-03) 

The Council recommends the preparation of an extensive "lessons-learned" report be completed 

while the MSL Planetary Protection team remains intact and available for preparation of the 

report. The report should include: 

1. Issues with spacecraft materials and contamination control that may affect measurements 

made either in situ or after return. 

2. Key elements of a bioburden accounting software package that can be developed jointly 

for use in the Mars Sample Return (MSR) campaign. 

3. Publication of the Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) assay as related to the NASA Standard 

Assay, to facilitate adoption of this assay for bioburden accounting on MSR elements. 

4. Research needed to improve the assessment of proposed landing sites in the context of 

concerns for liberation of fluids from hydrated or frozen ground in the presence of a 

Radioisotope Power System. 

Major Reasons for the Recommendation: 

Planetary protection engages numerous competing needs, including science and engineering 

considerations, general contamination control, materials compatibility with bioburdenlorganic 

reduction, etc. Plans for future Mars Sample Return missions will rely on heritage hardware, 

held to higher bio-cleanliness standard than any mission since Viking, for both planetary 

protection and science. Viking planetary protection "lessons-learned" report was a valuable 

resource for transmitting knowledge and practice to subsequent projects. It is important that the 

transmission oflessons-Iearned from ongoing missions, especially MSL, to developers of the 

MSR campaign be accomplished. 

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation: 

NASA's withdrawal from the Mars Sample Return campaign as previously structured and 

formulated for initiation during the 2018 Mars launch opportunity makes the recording of lessons 

from the MSL project experience all the more important. The now potentially long hiatus in U.S. 

Mars surface operations for sample return threatens an especially severe loss of accumulated 

knowledge and experience. 

NASA Response: 

NASA concurs. NASA will work to capture the planetary protection lessons learned for MSL on 

a non-interference basis, ensuring that this lessons-learned activity does not interrupt or affect 

mission critical operations. 

Enclosure