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

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

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

| Date: January 13, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Indira Kalieva                           |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Indira Kalieva                               |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer                      |
|                   |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1766 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1766

 To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to prohibit the use of certain 
    conservation funding to provide technical assistance under the 
                     conservation reserve program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 21, 2003

    Mr. Leahy (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Burns, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
Lautenberg, and Mr. Dodd) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
                                Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to prohibit the use of certain 
    conservation funding to provide technical assistance under the 
                     conservation reserve program.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF CERTAIN CONSERVATION FUNDING FOR 
              TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

    Section 1241(b)(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
3841(b)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
following: ``(other than the conservation reserve program under 
subchapter B of chapter 1)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mills *v.*Carter and Others.

Letters of administration granted in vacation, within thirty days after the intestate’s death, to any other person than his widow (she not having relinquished in writing her right to administer), should, on her application, be revoked at the next term of the Probate Court, and letters granted to her.

ERROR to the *Fountain*Probate Court.

Perkins, J.

Petition to the Probate Court of *Fountain*county for the revocation of letters of administration granted to the defendants, and for a re-grant of the same to the petitioner. Petition denied.

The facts are, that *James F. Mills*of *Fountain*county, on the 19th of *June,*1845, departed this life intestate, leaving a widow. On the 5th of *July*following, being less than thirty days from *Mills's*death, *Samuel Carter, John Gilfillan,*and *John L. Mills,*without having first procured from the widow *204a written relinquishment of her right to administer, obtained in her absence through fraud, and against her wishes, from the clerk of *Fountain*county, letters of administration on said *James F. Mills’s*estate.

*G. W. Lawson,*for the plaintiff.

*W. II. Mallory,*for the defendants.

On the first day of the next succeeding term of the *Fountain*Probate Court, the widow of the deceased, *Silence Mills,*appeared, and, on the coming in of the clerk’s report of his vacation appointment for confirmation, filed her petition that the same be not confirmed, but repealed and re-granted to herself; and, in support of her petition, she made proof of the foregoing facts, and that she had failed to apply for letters within thirty days from her husband’s death, owing to the previous grant to the defendants and her supposal that she was bound thereby. No proof was adduced tending to show that the widow was incompetent to discharge the duties of the appointment.

The Court erred in refusing the petition. By our statute, the right of administration is given first to the widow to the exclusion of all others. R. S. 1843, p. 503, s. 93. Letters cannot rightly be issued to any other person till after the expiration of thirty days from the death of the husband, unless upon the written relinquishment of her right by the widow. *Id.*pp. 503, 4, ss. 93, 95. If they are granted to another within that time, in the absence of such relinquishment, the grant is irregular and voidable, and may be revoked at the succeeding term of the Probate Court. *Id.*p. 507, s. 108. The widow might, perhaps, have applied within the thirty days and obtained letters, notwithstanding the previous grant; but we think she pursued the preferable course in waiting 'for the revocation of that grant. In Toller on Executors, 126, it is said: “Some authorities maintain that if the ordinary commit administration to the wrong party, and then commit it to the right, the second grant is a repeal of the first without any sentence of revocation; but in other cases it is held that the first is not avoided except by judicial sentence. And the practice is to call in and revoke the first administration before the second is granted.”

*Per Curiam.-*

'The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, David J. Mickelson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10–Q of Redhook Ale Brewery, Incorporated; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a–15(e) and15d–15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions); (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 13, 2007         BY: /s/ David J. Mickelson             David J. Mickelson      *            President*      *            and Chief Operating Officer*
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 30, 2010 (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: December 9, 2010





/s/ Douglas G. MarkhamDouglas G. MarkhamExecutive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
Reply to Attn of:

National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001

August 27, 2021

General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the Space
Policy Institute/George Washington University Dinner on September 7, 2021

On September 7, 2021, the Space Policy Institute (SPI) of George Washington University’s
(GWU), a not-for-profit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Service Code, will hold a dinner at the DACOR Bacon House in Washington, DC, from
6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. SPI is in control of planning, organizing, and issuing invitations for
this event. The guest speaker at the event will be Dr. Simonetta Di Pippo, Director of the
UN Office of Outer Space Affairs.

Approximately 40 people are expected to attend the event. Attendees will have a diversity
of views or interests and will include personnel from other federal agencies, members of
the legislative branch, and representatives from academia, industry, and foreign
government. The estimated cost of the event, including all food and beverages, is
approximately $80 per person. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to
exchange information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the
requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2).

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the
event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and
views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees —
including NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign an ethics
pledge under Executive Order 13989 — who do not have a significant role in a matter
affecting the interests of SPI or GWU may accept an invitation for free attendance to the
event. In those circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs
any concern that the individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the
performance of their duties.

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting
the interests of the sponsor, such as procurement duties, program management, or
negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination
from their local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. Attendees
are reminded to exercise COYID-19 precautions appropriate to their individual situation.

Adam F, Greenstoné
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6512

ORLANDO DAVID ALMOND, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVE ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-314) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 10, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orlando David Almond, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West 1993 & Supp. 2001). 2 PER CURIAM: Orlando David Almond seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order* denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Almond’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties in a civil action, in which the United States is not a party, are accorded thirty days after the entry of the magistrate judge’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the magistrate judge extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket on January 22, 2002. Almond’s notice of appeal was filed on March 25, 2002. Because Almond failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Almond’s motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
*

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 25, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 09-7075

v. (Case No. 08-CV-00349-JHP)

DANIEL RAY GRAYSON, (E.D. Okla.)

Defendant-Appellant.

 

ORDER*

Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Defendant, a federal prisoner represented by appointed counsel, seeks a

certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2255

habeas petition. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to

possess narcotics with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 360 months’

imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. See

United States v. Grayson, 258 F. App’x 170 (10th Cir. 2007). Defendant then

filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on, inter

alia, trial counsel’s alleged failure to convey a plea offer made by the

prosecution. After appointing counsel to represent Defendant in the habeas

Appellate Case: 09-7075 Document: 01018354782 Date Filed: 01/25/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

proceeding, the district court held an evidentiary hearing at which trial counsel,

Defendant, and the prosecuting attorney testified. Following this hearing, the

court concluded that trial counsel had made no error warranting reversal, and the

court therefore denied the habeas petition. Defendant now seeks a certificate of

appealability regarding the alleged failure of trial counsel to convey or discuss the

plea offer with him.

At the evidentiary hearing, Defendant testified that he never received any

information from counsel concerning a plea offer, while trial counsel testified that

he discussed the government’s plea offer and the benefits of entering a plea of

guilty with Defendant. The district court’s decision to credit trial counsel’s

testimony over Defendant’s is reviewable by this court only for clear error. See

United States v. Carr, 80 F.3d 413, 417-18 (10th Cir. 1996). After thoroughly

reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not

debate the district court’s resolution of this credibility question under clear error

review. We further conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district

court’s ultimate determination that Defendant had not satisfied the Strickland

standard for demonstrating that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. See

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-89 (1984). We therefore DENY

Appellate Case: 09-7075 Document: 01018354782 Date Filed: 01/25/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

Defendant’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. 

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-7075 Document: 01018354782 Date Filed: 01/25/2010 Page: 3
Exhibit
31.2





NEXCEN
BRANDS, INC.


SECTION
302 CERTIFICATION





I, Mark
E. Stanko, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of NexCen Brands, Inc.; and





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.


Date:    
April 29, 2010





/s/
      Mark E. StankoChief
      Financial Officer
Exploration,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

enabled.

Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN)
Space Communications

Exploration, enabled.

Space communication is critical to every NASA mission. Scientists, engineers, 

mission controllers, and astronauts depend on the reliable exchange of data 

between satellites in space and facilities on the ground.

Presently, more than 100 NASA and non-NASA missions rely on NASA Space 

Communications and Navigation (SCaN) to enable their success. Some spacecraft 

monitor Earth’s weather and effects of climate changes, and others study the Sun’s 

influence on our home planet. Some uncover untold mysteries of the Moon, 

while others peer back in time to understand the origins of the Universe.

The Near Space Network (NSN) contains a set of worldwide NASA and 

commercial ground stations providing two-way communications and 

ground-based tracking services to missions in low-Earth orbit (LEO) and 

High-Earth orbit (HEO) as far out as the Moon. The network also contains 

a constellation of geosynchronous satellites named the Tracking and Data 

Relay Satellite (TDRS) which can provide near-constant communication 

links between the ground and orbiting satellites.

The Deep Space Network (DSN) provides communications, tracking, 

and radio science services with missions that explore from beyond 

geosynchronous orbit to the other planets and into interstellar space. 

It consists of three ground station complexes spaced approximately 

equally around the globe so that at least one complex is always in view 

of distant spacecraft. The DSN also serves as a planetary radar and 

radio observatory for direct science measurements.

www.nasa.gov/scan @NASASCaN

(BACK) TRACKING AND DATA RELAY SATELLITE (TDRS)

(FRONT) DEEP SPACE STATION (DSS-14)

Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex

ALASKA SATELLITE FACILITY

Fairbanks, Alaska

NASA Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) manages 

the Near Space Network and the Deep Space Network. SCaN also 

ensures the availability and allocation of the radio frequency spectrum for 

all NASA programs. NASA missions rely on specific radio frequencies to 

communicate, navigate, and make scientific measurements in support 

of research and exploration.

SCaN is also responsible for developing an integrated space 

communications and navigation architecture to support exploration and 

science programs through 2040, as well as exciting new technologies 

that will make it possible. This roadmap will improve existing architecture 

and deploy future mission-enhancing capabilities such as space 

internetworking, optical and quantum communications.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

*Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Sport-Haley, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, theundersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,do each certify, to our respective knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:*

* *

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  May 24, 2004

 

 
| /s/ Kevin M. Tomlinson  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Kevin M. Tomlinson      |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Patrick W. Hurley   |   |
| Patrick W. Hurley       |
| Chief Financial Officer |
|                         |        |  |

 

1

----