alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66788-66789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27321]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Proposed 
Move of Listed Property

    Pursuant to section 60.14 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being 
accepted on the following properties listed on the National Register of 
Historic Places that are being considered for relocation. Comments may 
be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register 
of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., MS 2280, 
Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of 
Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, 
Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed 
comments should be submitted by November 15, 2010.
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your

[[Page 66789]]

comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including your 
personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any 
time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal 
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we 
will be able to do so.

J. Paul Loether,
Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks 
Program.
    Request to MOVE has been made for the following resource:

FLORIDA

Orange County

Apopka Seaboard Air Line Railway Depot, 36 E Station St., Apopka, 
93000134.

[FR Doc. 2010-27321 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Caddell Construction Co. (DE), LLC ) ASBCA No. 62424

)

Under Contract No. N69450

- 14

- C

- 1756 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : James K. Bidgood

, Jr., Esq.

Jonathan R. Mayo, Esq.

Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP

Atlanta, GA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Ellen M. Evans, Esq.

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: August 3, 2021

LAURA J. EYESTER

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62424

, Appeal of Caddell

Construction Co. (DE), LLC , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: August 3, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David J. Mickelson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      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 results of operations
            of the Company.

      A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: November 12, 2004

                                         BY: /s/  David J. Mickelson
                                             ----------------------------------
                                               David J. Mickelson
                                               Executive Vice President,
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               and Chief Operating Officer
Update to the

NASA Advisory Council

From Task Force on STEM 

Education

April 1, 2016

Anita Krishnamurthi, Chair
Status update

• Recap: The STEM Education Task Force made and 

presented three observations to the NAC in December 

2015.

1. Revise the NASA Education Implementation Plan (NEIP). 

2. Strengthen the structure of NASA’s education efforts and its 

ability to execute and communicate about them. 

3. Competitive allocation of funds to elicit projects that meet the 

objectives of the NASA Education Implementation Plan (NEIP).

• NASA Education has responded with preliminary actions 

and clarifications.
Key Questions Driving Our 

Conversations

1. What is the role of BSA vis-à-vis NASA education? How 

does their work intersect with the Taskforce and the 

Taskforce’s observations and forthcoming 

recommendations?

2. How should NASA articulate crisp and prioritized goals 

for education that are commensurate with the allocated 

budget? (Should the next iteration of NEIP define these?)

3. Given NEIP goals, how can NASA organize education 

programs offered across the agency so it is a joint effort?
Next Steps

• Understand the funding profiles of programs (including 

mandatory programs, statutory requirements, and grant 

cycles).

• Explore the implications of “going deep” vs. being “spread 

wide” on education investments.

• Hold joint meeting with the Science Committee per 

request of the Chair (Dr. Bradley Peterson).

• Discuss the goal of efforts targeted at broadening 

participation in STEM fields. 

• Translate observations into concrete recommendations.
# 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 Supreme Court for further consideration

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

of Philip D. Jones’s sentence in accordance with Booker 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

desires to resentence Jones. We invited both parties to file any arguments concerning the appropriate

disposition of this case in light of t he 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 challenges to his conviction, see

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

R EMAND the case for resentencing, which must be conducted in conformity with Booker

. UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
#### M. M. McManama *v.*Laura Grimsley.

¡Specific Performance — Exchange of Land.

Specific performance of an executory contract for the exchange of lands when neither party is in position to convey the legal title will not be enforced.

APPEAL FROM BOONE CIRCUIT COURT.

June 12, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

This proceeding was instituted to enforce the specific performance of an executory contract for the exchange of real estate.

The written contract filed by appellant, as the foundation of his action, recites that the consideration for the fifty-four acres of land which appellee’s ancestor covenanted to convey to appellant was a house aud lot in Hamilton, valued by the parties at $600.

It is not alleged by appellant in the original petition that he had conveyed the house and lot in Hamilton to appellee, or to her father, or that he is able and willing to make the conveyance.

In the answer it is admitted that Peter Grimsley, the father of appellee, did not have the legal title to the land at the time of the sale or exchange, and never had it, and it is charged that the legal title is not in appellee and that she is unable to convey the same.

*181It is furthermore charged in the answer that appellant has never conveyed the house and lot in the town of Hamilton, either to the father of appellee in his lifetime, or to her since his death; and that he has no title thereto, and is unable to convey the same, that the parties are not in a condition to convey the respective parcels of land to each other, and to carry out said agreement as was intended at the time it was made, and a rescission of the contract is prayed for.

The contract was rescinded by the court below and appellant complains of that judgment.

By an amended petition it is alleged that the personal representatives of Carneal by a proceeding in the same court were asserting a lien on the land for unpaid purchase money, and they are made defendants in this action, and the plaintiff alleges that he has a lien on the house and lot in Hamilton and prays for an enforcement of it, and although that amended petition was filed nearly three years after the answer was filed in which it was alleged that he had no title to the house and lot in Hamilton, he neither denies the allegation nor alleges that he had conveyed said house and lot, or was able and willing to do so.

After this amendment was'filed the case was submitted for trial before Oameal’s, executors were brought before the court.

. From the foregoing statement it is apparent that appellant was not in a condition to demand a specific performance of the contract nor to enforce a lien on the house and lot in Hamilton for the alleged price he was to receive for it.

As, therefore, the judgment of rescission was proper and upon equitable principles the same is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7864

JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LARRY BUCKNER, SR., Service Distributing,

Incorporated,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 95-7865

JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

R. CRANDALL, (C.O.); LIEUTENANT WILCOX,

(O.I.C.); JOHN R. DEWAN, Superintendent;

WESTERN TIDEWATER REGIONAL JAIL,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

No. 95-7866

JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

S. R. SMITH, R.N. (at D.M.C.C.); ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden; DEEP MEADOW CORRECTIONAL CENTER

MEDICAL; DEEP MEADOW CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 95-7867

JEFFREY ALAN TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DENNIS WAYNE SPINDLE; STAFFORD COUNTY; J. T.

DONNELLY, JR., Captain (Chief Jailor); R. M.

WILLIAMS, Sheriff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-95-395-2, CA-95-397-2, CA-95-398-2, CA-95-399-2)

Submitted: March 19, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996
3

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Alan Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Alan Taylor appeals from district court orders refusing to modify orders imposing partial filing fees. Although the

orders are appropriately before us, see Roberts v. United States,

339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950) (orders denying in forma pauperis status

immediately appealable), we find the appeals meritless. We, therefore, deny in forma pauperis status and dismiss the appeals.

The district court assessed partial filing fees in accordance

with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied,

454 U.S. 1153 (1982). The fees imposed in each case were less than

the twenty percent of account deposits allowed by local rule. E.D.

Va. R. 28(C)(4). The fees were, therefore, appropriate. Taylor did

not pay the fees and objected to the amounts, citing his personal

hygiene spending needs and his several federal lawsuits as bases

for lowering the fees. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the cited bases inadequate to necessitate modification. See Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951,

954 n.3 (4th Cir. 1995).

We deny informa pauperis status and dismiss the appeals. We

also deny Taylor's motions for appointment of counsel and to remand

the case. 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.

DISMISSED
MARIA CABALLERO

CONSULTING ENGINEER

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

READING RESPONSE & COMPREHENSION CHOICE BOARD

VISUALIZATION

Imagine the summer Maria’s worked 

with her family in the fields. Draw 

a “day in the life” describing Maria’s 

responsibilities. Include as many details 

from the story as you can.

INTERESTING FACT

Explain the most important thing you 

learned from Maria’s story. Why did it 

stand out to you? Cite evidence from 

the text.

ANALYZING

What do you think is the main idea 

of Maria’s story? Use textural evidence 

from the story to help explain your 

reason.

OPINION

Write a letter to your school newspaper 

on why you think Maria’s story should 

be shared with other students. 

SUMMARIZATION

Create a list of the most important 

events of the story that took place from 

first to last. Summarize these events in a 

well-written paragraph.

VOCABULARY

Pick 5 vocabulary words that are important to understanding Maria’s Story. 

Create a word cloud with these words to 

visually convey a theme of the story. 

CRITIQUING

What additional illustrations or pictures 

would help to tell the story of Maria 

Caballero?

WHAT I LEARNED?

What are 4 new things you learned from 

reading the Maria’s story?

MAKING CONNECTIONS

What characteristics or traits made 

Maria successful? Do you share any of 

them? If not, which characteristic do 

you most admire?

TWEET IT!

Maria Caballero is considered a #ModernFigure by NASA because she is 

an inspiration to anyone who wants 

a successful STEM career. Write an 

imaginary Tweet conversation between 

yourself and Maria Caballero. Don’t 

forget to include some unique hashtags. 

JOURNAL ENTRY

Create a journal entry as if you were Maria when she was having a difficult time 

in college. What would she say? Include 

some details from the story to enhance 

your entry. 

3,2,1

Identify 3 things you learned, 2 things 

you have questions about, and 1 reaction 

after reading Maria Caballero’s Story.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Action Performance
Companies, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
R. David Martin, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, and Treasurer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or 78o(d)); and  
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ R. David Martin

R. David Martin
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, and Treasurer
January 31, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Hector Dominguez

,
Appellant

,

v.

Marvin Dominguez

,
Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 118

- C V

Appeal from the

210 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2014

- DCV0981 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Mr. Aldo Lopez ’s motion to withdraw as counsel for

Appellant

, Hector Dominguez

. The motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that if Appellant

, Hector Dominguez

, retains new counsel

, he must immediately

notify the Court. The Appellate Record and Briefs for this appeal have been filed , but a

submission date has not yet been determined. The par ties will be provided with ad vanced notice

of the setting. S EE TEX

. R

. APP

. P

. 39.8.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 th day of Dec ember , 201 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SHIRLEY LEVINGSTON THOMAS,

also known as Shirley L. Thomas, also

known as Shirley Ann Thomas,

Debtor.

BAP No. WO-10-010

SHIRLEY LEVINGSTON THOMAS, 

Appellant,

Bankr. No. 07-10442

Adv. No. 07-01087

 Chapter 13

v. ORDER VACATING ORDER

DENYING ELECTION TO U.S.

DISTRICT COURT AND

DISMISSING APPEAL

HARMON FAMILY TRUST,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

and

JUDITH ANN CARMICHAEL,

Successor Trustee of the Harmon

Family Trust, 

 Appellee,

 v.

JOHN D. WAGNER, 

 Defendant.

February 19, 2010

On February 18, 2010, this Court entered an Order Denying Appellant’s

statement of election to the United States District Court for the Western District

of Oklahoma, on the grounds that it was not filed with the notice of the appeal. 

The bankruptcy court docket now reflects that the statement of election was filed

BAP Appeal No. 10-10 Docket No. 6 Filed: 02/19/2010 Page: 1 of 2
-2-

with the notice of appeal, on February 16, 2010. Thus, the election was timely

under 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1). The appeal before this Court is therefore

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All deadlines previously ordered in this

appeal are vacated, and the mandate shall issue forthwith.

For the Panel:

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court

By:

Deputy Clerk

BAP Appeal No. 10-10 Docket No. 6 Filed: 02/19/2010 Page: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1699 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1699

      To amend the Head Start Act to require parental consent for 
             nonemergency intrusive physical examinations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 2003

  Mr. Inhofe introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Head Start Act to require parental consent for 
             nonemergency intrusive physical examinations.

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

SECTION 1. HEAD START ACT AMENDMENT IMPOSING PARENTAL CONSENT 
              REQUIREMENT FOR NONEMERGENCY INTRUSIVE PHYSICAL 
              EXAMINATIONS.

    The Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
the end the following new section:

``SEC. 657A. PARENTAL CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR NONEMERGENCY INTRUSIVE 
              PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.

    ``(a) In General.--A Head Start agency shall obtain written 
parental consent before administration of any nonemergency intrusive 
physical examination of a child in connection with participation in a 
program under this subchapter.
    ``(b) Definition.--The term `nonemergency intrusive physical 
examination' means, with respect to a child, a physical examination 
that--
            ``(1) is not immediately necessary to protect the health or 
        safety of the child involved or the health or safety of another 
        individual; and
            ``(2) requires incision or is otherwise invasive, or 
        involves exposure of private body parts''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the quarterly report of Centrue Financial Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, James M. Lindstrom, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (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. /s/ James M. LindstromJames M. LindstromChief Financial Officer
 May 12, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Financial Tax Credits Fund VII (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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 results of operations of the Fund.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street VIII, Inc. as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Tax Credits Fund VII,


A Limited Partnership








Date:  February 14, 2011








A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.