alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). G T / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T D A V I D M . SH I PP, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. K A T H L E E N S E B E L IU S , S ecret ary, D epartm entof H ea l th and H um an S erv i ces, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 35168 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 4 6 0 - R AJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R i c ha r d A . J one s , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED MA R 08 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSG T / Res ea r ch 09- 35168 2 D a vi d M a tthe w S hi pp, af orm e rf e de r a l e m pl oy e e , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is a c tio n a g a in s t th e D e p a rtm e n t o f H e a lth a n dH u ma n Se rv i c e s ( “ D e p a rtme n t ” ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w f

o rc le a re rr o rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s r e le v a n t to its d e te rm in a tio n th a t it la c k e ds u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n , A uter y v . U ni ted States , 424 F . 3d 94 4, 95 6 (9th C i r. 20 05 ), and revi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s l egal d e te rm in a tio n , s e e W

a s h in g to n v . G a rr e tt, 1 0 F .3 d1 4 2 1 , 1 4 2 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed S hi pp ’ s a ct i on for l ac k o f s ubj ec t m att erj uri sdi ct i on because S hi pp soug htre vi ew of a deci si on of the M er i tS ys t em P ro tectio n B o ar d(“M S P B ”) th at d idn o t ad ju d icate th e m er it s o f S h ip p ’s d is c r im in a tio n c la im s a g a in s t th e D e p a rtm e n t. Se e i d. ( “ [ O ] nl ythe C ourtof A ppe a l s f

orthe F e de r a l C i r c ui tc a n r e vi e w M S P B de c i s i ons i n c a s e s tha tdo not e n ta il d is c r im in a tio n c la im s [ .]” ) ; Slo a n v. W est , 14 0 F . 3d 12 55 , 12 61 -62 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( di sc ussi ng i m po rt ance of un i form i ty of M S P B -r el at ed ca se l aw ). S hi pp ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. W e d en y al l p en d i n g m o t i o n s. A FFI R M ED .
Beverly Girten, Ph. D.

Senior Advisor to the Associate

Administrator for Education

NASA Advisory Council 

Task Force on STEM 

Education Meeting

July 16, 2015
• Brochure completed and delivered this month

• Two banners with same theme completed

 used format of six Agency communication campaign themes

 will be able to be utilized in many future Agency events

 used on Hill for Deputy Administrator’s swearing in ceremony

• Adding chapter 4 delayed plan, but it is a stronger plan

• Printing cover outside and content inside

 will save printing costs

 will allow frequent updates and flexibility

 expect to complete it by end of month

• Good progress being made on on-line version of plan 2

NASA Education Materials Update
• Additional input from ECC in May

• Ten copies hand delivered to AA offices at HQ

• Additional copy edits being completed this week

• Most input incorporated and document stronger

• Hope to go to print by end of July

• Covers printed at outside vendor with

• Covers will have attractive texture to make features stand out 

• Will have a reflective visor on the helmet on the inside back 

cover so people can see themselves in the visor

3

Two More Rounds of Input Complete
• Will have more content (65-70 pages vs.55)

• Additional text content will be details important to workforce who 

is implementing the plan, will add chapters in future

• Using a format that can be updated fairly easily

• Creating a webpage as way to access on-line Plan and 

supplemental material

• Supplemental material will be six areas that will have an appeal 

to a broad range of audiences

• Supplemental material will be more interactive, multimedia and 

dynamic rather than just additional text information

4

On-Line Implementation Plan
• Thank your for your previous input on plan and brochure

 Reduced narrative in brochure

 Plan less bureacratic

 Working on content for different audiences for on-line 

 Changed vision to mission statement

 Still like to work on more visionary vision in future

• Going Forward

 Any final input on this version today

 Additional help on vision in future

 Input for 6 month update of plan 5

NAC Task Force Input on Plan
www.nasa.gov

Thank you again!
- FOIA Home
- FOIA Contacts
- FOIA Guidance
- Access NASA Records   - NASA FOIA Reports
  - FOIA E-Libraries
  - Submit a Request

# 							SACOM Contracts						

      - SACOM Contracts (NNS15A01C)          - SACOM Modification 1          - SACOM Modification 2          - SACOM Modification 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Income
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         4,914,067
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        4,044,780
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          4,341,824
<EQUITIES>                                     289,183
<MORTGAGE>                                         239
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    1,573
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               9,525,251
<CASH>                                          35,998
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             131,872
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         998,346
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,004,783
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              8,957,367
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                234
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  52,370
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          111,867
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                187,207
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     80,000
<COMMON>                                       312,940
<OTHER-SE>                                     987,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,004,783
<PREMIUMS>                                     499,661
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            595,286
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              21,074
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  87,461
<BENEFITS>                                     892,843
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     44,234
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            88,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                178,389
<INCOME-TAX>                                    62,891
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            115,498
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   115,498
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.27
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6050

In re: RAPHAEL MENDEZ,

Petitioner,

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

(5:91-HC-350-BR)

Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 23, 2006

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raphael Mendez, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Certiorari dismissed, June 5, 2006
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Raphael Mendez petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks

an order compelling the district court to expedite the date of his

scheduled competency hearing and to have him appear in person

rather than by video conferencing. 

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Assn., 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus

is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary

circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S.

394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). 

Because there is no indication Mendez has a clear right

to the requested relief, we deny his petition. Accordingly,

although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the

petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Proposed subsequent arrangement.

# SUMMARY:

This notice has been issued under the authority of Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States of America and the European Atomic Energy Community.

                        This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 441,176.5 kg of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride (68.00% U), 300,000 kg of which is uranium, from Areva Resources Canada, Inc. (Areva Resources) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, to URENCO in Capenhurst, United Kingdom. The material, which is currently located at Areva Resources,                               ( print page 67087)                            will be transferred to URENCO-Capenhurst for enrichment and use as fuel in civilian nuclear power programs in the United States and France. The material was originally obtained by Areva Resources from the Feed Component Substitution Implementing Contract.                    

In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and security.

This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice.

Dated: October 1, 2010.

For the Department of Energy.

Thomas P. D'Agostino,

Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.

[FR Doc. 2010-27499 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

Separation of Vision and Mission 

2013-01-07 (EPOC-01) 

Recommendation: 

NASA should, as part of its strategic planning process, create a short inspirational "vision 


statement" that embodies NASA's aspirational goals. In addition, NASA should rewrite the 


current vision statement to be clearer, more focused, more NASA-specific and reposition it to 


replace the agency's current "mission statement." 


Major Reasons for Proposing the Recommendation: 


The current vision statement is long, unmemorable, generic, and does not resonate with or 


inspire the public. Even as such a longer articulation ofNASA's goals may be appropriate for 


internal dissemination, but a shorter, inspiring vision statement will be more effective in 


increasing awareness ofNASA. 


Consequences of No Action on the Proposed Recommendation: 


Continuing public confusion about the overarching theme which binds all NASA programs 


together. 


NASA Response: 


NASA is in the process ofre-evaluating the vision and mission statements contained in the 


2011 Strategic Plan. To this end, NASA has set up a cross-Agency Team, including 


representation from mission directorates and offices at HQ as well as Centers. The Team has 


performed an in-depth assessment ofthe 2011 vision and mission statements in light of external 


subject matter expert input, benchmarking with other institutions, and best practices. The Team 


has formulated several options. One option for the mission statement is to add the words 


"space" and "aeronautics." For the vision, the Team has crafted several different options 


according to guidelines received by the Agency leadership: 


• Maintain the current 2011 vision statement and add a memorable motto/slogan; 

• 	 Maintain key elements ofthe 2011 vision statement, but add a preamble to make it 

specific to NASA; and 

• Focus less on the existing vision statement and more on developing a motto/slogan. 

NASA will consult each of its Centers to ask for their input for the options. Then, the Team 

will work with the NASA Communications Coordination Council, chaired by the Associate 

Administrator for Communications, to incorporate the Center inputs into specific wording 

proposals and better integrate them into the overall Strategic Plan narrative. Final decisions on 

the options will be made by the Agency senior leadership before the final submission ofthe 

Strategic Plan in the fall of2013. 

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1003

VIRGINIA M. RHODES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORTEL, a/k/a Northern Telecom, Incorporated,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District

Judge. (CA-98-761-5-BR)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 2, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig James, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank P.

Ward, Jr., Terence D. Friedman, MAUPIN, TAYLOR & ELLIS, P.A.,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Virginia Rhodes appeals the district court’s order striking

her response to the employer’s motion for summary judgment and

granting summary judgment in favor of her employer in this age

discrimination action. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the

joint appendix, the first amended supplemental appendix, and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rhodes

v. Nortel, No. CA-98-761-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 23, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The State, on the Relation, &c., *v.*Bottorff and Others.

Debt on a county treasurer’s bond. Breaches assigned: 1. The treasurer’s failure to pay over money, &c.; 2, 3, and 5. His' non-payment of county orders; 4. His failure to make a return and settlement, his non-payment over of the money in his hands according to the statute, and his failure to have the money before the board of county commissioners; 6. His failure to pay over certain money in his hands, being the county revenue, &c., to his successor in office. *Held,*that the 6th breach was good and the others bad.

*338ERROR to the *Clark*Circuit Court.

*J. G. Marshall,*for the plaintiff.

*R. Crawford,*for the defendants.

Blackford, J.

This was an action of debt against *Bottorff*and his sui’eties on a bond dated in *August,*1841, conditioned that *Bottorff,*who had been elected county treasurer, should pay over all moneys that should come into his hands for state, county, road, or other purposes. The declaration, after alleging *Bottofff’s*election, &c., his giving bond, &c., avers that assessors were appointed, &c.; that the rate of taxes for 1841 was fixed, &c.; that the duplicate and precept were delivered to *Bottorff*in *September*in that year; that the county revenue amounted to the sum of, &c.; that *Bottorff*collected the same, &c.; that the board of commissionérs, in 1842, removed *Bottorff*from office and appointed one *Mitchell*in his place, &c. There are six breaches assigned, which were all demurred to, and the demurrers sustained. Judgment for the defendants.

The first breach is, that *Bottorff*had failed to pay over money, &c. This breach is bad for omitting to state to whom *Bottorff*had failed to pay the money. The second, third, and fifth breaches are for the non-payment of county orders. The orders are not sufficiently described. The fourth breach alleges that *Bottorff*had failed to make a return and settlement, &c. The condition of the bond has no reference to such matters. This breach alleges that *Bottorff*did not pay over the money in his hands according to the statute; but that is too general. It also says that he had failed to have the money before the board of county commissioners; but he was not bound to have the money there. The sixth breach is, that *Bottorff*had failed to pay over certain money in his hands, being the county revenue of 1841, to his successor in office. We see no objection to this breach.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                      OBJECTIVE SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS, INC.
                  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               THREE MONTHS ENDED                        NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                     MARCH 31,                                MARCH 31,
                                                            ------------------------------            -----------------------------
                                                              1997                  1996               1997                  1996
                                                            --------               -------            -------               -------

<S>                                                         <C>                    <C>                <C>                   <C>
Net income (loss)                                           $(5,942)               $ 2,183            $(3,055)              $ 7,292

                                                            ========               =======            =======               =======


Weighted average common and preferred shares
outstanding                                                   32,304                30,648             31,948                28,638

Equivalent shares from options granted during
   twelve month period prior to the Company's
   initial public offering                                         -                   788                  -                   788

Equivalent shares attributed to options, (treasury
   stock method)                                                   -                 3,912                  -                 3,688
                                                            --------               -------            -------               -------

Weighted average common and equivalent shares                 32,304                35,348             31,948                33,114
                                                            ========               =======            =======               ========
Net income (loss) per share                                 $  (.18)               $   .06            $  (.10)              $   .22

                                                            ========               =======            =======               =======


</TABLE>