alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM  THE INTERIM
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 28, 1997 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-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                             126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       74
<ALLOWANCES>                                        14
<INVENTORY>                                        316
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,041
<PP&E>                                           3,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,002
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,729
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,322)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,346
<SALES>                                            338
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   338
<CGS>                                               75
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       75
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,988
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,769)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,769)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
#### Berry and Others *v.*Bullard.—In error.

A PETITION for execution against a decedent’s real estate, on a judgment for a certain sum against his administrator *de bonis non,*alleged that an execution, issued on the judgment, had been returned no goods of the estate; that said administrator had resigned and another had been appointed in his place; and that there were no assets in the last administrator’s hands. *Held,*that the petition was not objectionable for not showing a revivor of the judgment against the last administrator, the issuing of an execution against him, and a return of the same of no goods in his hands.

*Held,*also, that the petition need not allege that the judgment was *unpaid.Held,*also, that a judgment by default against some of the defendants, no process appearing to have been issued against them nor publication made, was erroneous. *Held,*also, that to justify notice to a defendant by publication, it should appear that he was a non-resident. *Held,*also, that a final judgment on default against an infant *400jn this case, the record not showing the petition to have been proved, was erroneous. *Held,*also, that answers and cross-bills are not admissible in such case, this being a proceeding law.

In this case, some of the terre-tenants set up as a defence, 1. A purchase of the real estate of the deceased from the heirs without notice; 2. That notice of the judgment was never filed in the office of the clerk of the Probate Court; 3. That one of the heirs, from whom these defendants purchased, had a judgment against the deceased himself, constituting a lien on the real estate in question prior to that of the plaintiff’s, *jHeld,*that these grounds of defence were insufficient.
Front view 

.750 

2.000 

T2 T1 

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

Bottom view Side view 

Ru-shan Gao 

NOAA Aeronomy Lab 

Feb. 05, 2002 
Boundary-layer probe locations
 

Fight 981203
 Fight 981204
 Fight 981202
 

Ru-shan Gao 

NOAA Aeronomy Lab 

Feb. 5, 2002 
17.5" 

Front view 

17.5"
 

Side view, probe at the bottom. Side view, probe on the side. 

Ru-shan Gao 

NOAA Aeronomy Lab 

Feb. 5, 2002 
40 

Differential pressure (mb) 

30 20 

Flight of 981202Differential pressures (ra

10 Port 1 Port 3 Port 2 Port 4

 Port 5 Port 6 Port 7 Port 8 Port 9 Port 1 Port 11 Port 1Static Pressure at por

0 

65.2 65.4 65.6 65.8 66.0 66.2 66.4 66.

UT (x103 s) 
50 

Differential pressure (mb) 

40 30 20 

Flight of 981203

10 Differential pressures (ram - static)

 Port 1 Port 2 Port 3 Port 4 Port 5 Port 6 Port 11 Port 12Static Pressure at port 12 0 

58.0 58.5 59.0 59.5 60.0 

UT (x103 s) 
50 

Differential pressure (mb) 

40 30
 20
 

Flight of 981204


Differential pressures (ram - static)


 Port 1 Port 2
 Port 3 Port 4
 Port 5 Port 6
 10
 Port 7 Port 8


 Port 9 Port 10
 Port 11 Port 12
Static Pressure at port 12
 

0 

55.4 55.6 55.8 56.0 56.2 56.4 56

UT (x103 s)
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.                  

###### Agency for International Development

# SUMMARY:

                        U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has submitted the following information collections to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Comments should be sent via e-mail to                         *Ross_A._Rutledge@omb.eop.gov*                         or fax to 202-395-3086. Copies of submission may be obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*OMB Number:*                     OMB 0412-0565.                

*Form Number:*                     N/A.                

*Title:*                     Applicant's Certification that it Does not Support Terrorist Organizations or tIndividuals.                

*Type of Submission:*                     Renewal of Information Collection.                

*Purpose:*                     The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) needs to require applicants for assistance to certify that it does not and will not engage in financial transactions with, and does not and will not provide material support and resources to individuals or organizations that engage in terrorism. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that USAID does not directly provide support to such organizations or individuals, and to assure that recipients are aware of these requirements when it considers individuals or organizations are subrecipients.                

## Annual Reporting Burden

*Respondents:*                     2,000.                

*Total annual responses:*                     4,000.                

*Total annual hours requested:*                     1,500 hours.                

Dated: October 21, 2010.

Beth Salamanca,

Acting Director, Office of Management Services, Bureau for Management.

[FR Doc. 2010-27369 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
#### Carl Benit COOPER, Appellant, v. John D. ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, et al., Appellees.

No. 02-5412.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Aug. 28, 2008.

Carl Benit Cooper, Pro Se.

Before GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s final judgment filed November 6, 2002, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed for failure to state a claim appellant’s complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. *See Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Appellant’s attempt to argue *Heck*does not apply is unavailing.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00294

- CV

Kerstin Jones v. Roderick Darryl Jones
On Appeal from the 267th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Cause No. 13

- 2

- 74418

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its opinion

. No costs are assessed as appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay co sts

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 11 , 2014
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL 

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

————————————————— 

IN RE RANDY JUNIOR SALAZAR, 

former officer, director, shareholder RTS 

Fencing Contractors, Inc., also known as 

Randy T. Salazar, Jr., officer, director, 

shareholder Colorado's Fence Company, 

former officer, director, shareholder RTS 

Custom Fencing & Concrete Contractors, 

Inc., former officer, director, shareholder 

RTS FEN-CRETE Contractors, Inc., and 

LOUELLA A. SALAZAR, also known as 

Louella Salazar, former officer, director, 

shareholder Colorado Fence Pros, Inc., 

 Debtors. 

__________________________________ 

YOUNGER BROTHERS LUMBER & 

GENERAL CONTRACTORS, LLC, 

 Appellant, 

 v. 

RANDY JUNIOR SALAZAR, 

LOUELLA A. SALAZAR, and JEFFREY 

L. HILL, Trustee, 

 Appellees. 

BAP No. CO-10-029 

Bankr. No. 10-18777 

Chapter 7 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

May 26, 2010 

————————————————— 

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by Appellant 

Younger Brothers Lumber & General Contractors, LLC on May 26, 2010 (“Motion”). 

BAP Appeal No. 10-29 Docket No. 7 Filed: 05/26/2010 Page: 1 of 2
It is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

(1) The Motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(c)(2); 10th Cir. 

BAP L.R. 8016-4(a)(8). 

(2) Any deadlines previously set by the Court are VACATED. 

(3) This appeal is DISMISSED. 

(4) The mandate shall issue immediately. A certified copy of this Order 

shall constitute the mandate on appeal. 

 For the Panel: 

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court 

 By: 

 

 Gregory Wright 

Deputy Clerk 

2

BAP Appeal No. 10-29 Docket No. 7 Filed: 05/26/2010 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SUB-SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Sport-Haley, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, the undersigned ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do each certify,to our respective knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Dated:  February 12, 2003 |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
|                           |   |
|                           |   |
|                           |   |
| /s/ Kevin M.  Tomlinson        |   |
| Kevin M.  Tomlinson            |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer       |   |
|                           |   |
|                           |   |
|                           |   |
| /s/ Patrick  W. Hurley         |   |
| Patrick W.  Hurley             |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer       |   |

 

1

----
# STS-91

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. -- The last mission of the Shuttle-Mir program begins as the Space Shuttle Discovery lifts off...

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FLA. -- The Space Shuttle's first super lightweight external tank is on its way into Kennedy Space...

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. -- The STS-91 flight crew poses for a group portrait in front of Space Shuttle Discovery...

Space Shuttle Discovery sits atop a mobile launcher platform at Launch Complex 39A after its move this morning from Vehicle...

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. -- The STS-91 flight crew poses for a group portrait on the 217-foot level of Launch...

STS091-727-059 (2-12 June 1998) --- White clouds and blue ocean waters form the backdrop for this view of Russia's Mir...

STS091-362-005 (2-12 June 1998) --- Four of the seven STS-91 crew members check the morning mail on the mid deck...

NASA Administrator Dan Goldin congratulates Phase I Shuttle/Mir Program Manager Frank Culbertson on the successful conclusion of Phase I of...

The SPACEHAB Single Module is raised by crane from a transporter in KSC's Space Station Processing Facility, where it will...

Technicians assist in moving the alpha-magnetic spectrometer (AMS-1) from its protective shipping case in KSC’s Multi Payload Processing Facility (MPPF)....

STS-91 Mission Commander Charles J. Precourt (at microphone) presents an American flag, a special wrench, and an optical disc to...

STS-91 Mission Specialist Wendy B. Lawrence (Cdr., USN) arrives at Kennedy Space Center's Shuttle Landing Facility aboard a T-38 jet....

STS091-708-077 (2-12 June 1998) -- The cloud shadows grew long as the STS-91 astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery approached...

STS091-718-012 (2-12 June 1998) --- The seven crew members of STS-91 assume a "star burst" pose for their traditional in-flight...
StHealth Capital Investment Corp. 10-K



EXHIBIT
32.2



Certification
of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant
to U.S.C. Section 1350

As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), the undersigned officer of CompanyName a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such
officer’s knowledge, that:



The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2018 of the Company (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: August 27, 2019 |    
|--------------------- | ---
|                      | By:
|                      |
THE MEETING WILL BE VIRTUAL ONLY - SEE DETAILS BELOW.

10:00 to 10:15 AM Welcome and Announcements

10:15 AM to 11:45 AM Capability and Workforce Strategic Planning 

11:45 AM to 12:45 PM Lunch (non-public)

12:45 - 1:45 PM COVID and Cabin Air Flow Modelling

1:45 to 3:15 PM Autonomy Plans

3:15 to 3:30 PM Break

3:30 to 4:30 PM Low Boom Flight Demonstrator Mission Update

4:30 to 5:25 PM Software Usage Licensing 

5:25 to 5:30 PM Public Comment Period

5:30 to 6:00 PM Committee Deliberations

6:00 PM Adjourn

JOIN WEBEX MEETING https://nasaenterprise.webex.com/

10-Nov-20

Meeting number: 199 494 0997 

Meeting password: mX47WJPMW8$

JOIN BY PHONE 888-769-8716 

Passcode: 6813159

Tuesday, November 10 (Sessions are public except as noted) All Times Eastern Time

NAC Aeronautics Committee Public Agenda (FINAL)

Tuesday, November 10, 2020

NASA Headquarters
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                          PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying annual report on Amendment No. 1 to Form
10-KSB of Championlyte Holdings, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2003,
David Goldberg, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
Championlyte Holdings, Inc. hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1. Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003,
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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period
ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Championlyte Holdings, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Championlyte Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


CHAMPIONLYTE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: March 15, 2005

By: David Goldberg
    --------------------
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
#### ROBERT MALONE v. JAMES L. FENDER.

June 27, 1978.

Petitions for certification granted. (See 158 *N. J. Super.*190)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 29, 2014

p0721

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2014

149132

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149132

COA: 313677

Macomb CC: 2012-000990-FC

DEON LAMONT TAYLOR,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
ROBERT “RED” JENSEN

UAS TECHNICIAN

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS

1.	 What is Red’s official job at NASA Armstrong?

2.	 Where does Red do most of his work?

3.	 Describe the items that you would hear or see at work in the Armstrong Model Lab.

4.	 Summarize the different paths discussed in the story in order to be hired for a dream jo

5.	 What was it that was consistent through Red’s journey through school and work?

6.	 Why did Red see himself growing up to be an engineer?

7.	 DId Red give up on his dream aviation after he decided college wasn’t for him? What did he do instead of college?
ROBERT “RED” JENSEN

UAS TECHNICIAN

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS

8.	 Why do you think the hobby store owner sold his business to Red?

9.	 What did Red use the money for that he earned from his hard work at the hobby store?

10.	What skills did the people at NASA Armstrong notice about Red?

11.	In addition to his many projects at the Model Shop at Armstrong, what else does Red do?

12.	Describe some of the drone research that is being done at NASA Armstrong.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 3, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: MARK SIMONS, JOYCE W.

SIMONS,

Petitioners.

No. 10-4032

(D.C. No. 2:06-CV-00750-CW-SA)

(D. Utah)

ORDER

Before KELLY, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Mark Simons and Joyce W. Simons seek a writ of mandamus requiring the

district court to strike the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on the

parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. A writ of mandamus is a drastic

remedy, to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances. In re Antrobus,

519 F.3d 1123, 1124 (10th Cir. 2008). It “is used only to confine an inferior

court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise

its authority when it is its duty to do so.” In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.,

568 F.3d 1180, 1186 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). “To be eligible for

mandamus relief, the petitioner must establish (1) that he has a clear right to

relief, (2) that the respondent’s duty to perform the act in question is plainly

defined and peremptory, and (3) that he has no other adequate remedy.” Rios v.

Ziglar, 398 F.3d 1201, 1206 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). 

Appellate Case: 10-4032 Document: 01018361043 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Page: 1
-2-

The Simons’ request for relief fails to satisfy any of the three mandamus

requirements. The district court’s procedure on summary judgment is entirely

proper. The parties’ consent to the designation of the magistrate judge was not

required because the magistrate judge did not preside over a trial and order entry

of judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Rather, he held a hearing and issued a report

and recommendation, id. § 636(b)(1)(B), which the district court will review de

novo in light of the Simons’ objections, id. § 636(b)(1). 

The petition for a writ of mandamus is DENIED, as is the Simons’ request

for an order removing the district court judge from further involvement in

summary-judgment proceedings. The request for a stay of district court

proceedings pending this court’s decision on the mandamus petition is DENIED

as moot. 

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-4032 Document: 01018361043 Date Filed: 02/03/2010 Page: 2