alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE MEETING WILL BE VIRTUAL ONLY - SEE DETAILS BELOW.

10:00 to 10:10 AM Welcome and Announcements

10:10 to 11:40 AM FY21 ARMD Strategy and Budget Overview

11:40 AM to 12:40 PM Lunch (non-public)

12:40 - 1:25 PM Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)

1:25 - 2:15 PM NASA Aeronautics Facilities

2:15 to 2:30 PM Break

2:30 to 4:30 PM Materials and Structures

4:30 to 5:00 PM Committee Deliberations

5:00 to 5:05 PM Public Comment Period

5:05 to 5:15 PM Work Plan and Schedule Review

5:15 PM Adjourn

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

17-Mar-20

Meeting number: 907 869 281 

Meeting password: mE38h7RW2h@

JOIN BY PHONE

Toll Free: 1.888.769.8716

Passcode: 6813159

Tuesday, March 17 (Sessions are public except as noted)

NAC Aeronautics Committee Public Agenda (FINAL)

Tuesday, March 17, 2020

NASA Headquarters
No. 14,436.

#### The State, ex rel. Ely, Drainage Commissioner, *v.*Smith et al.

*Drainage.*— Insufficient *Description of Property Assessed. —Deformation.—A*drainage commissioner, on a showing that in the original petition there was an insufficient description of the property upon which the assessment was levied, is entitled to have the description so corrected, or reformed, as to make the assessment effective.

From the Huntington Circuit Court.

*T. E. Ellison,*for appellant.

*J. B. Kenner*and *J. I. Dille,*for appellees.

*303Filed March 18, 1890;

petition for a rehearing overruled June 6, 1890.

Elliott, J.

The relator’s complaint is the same in its essential features as that in the case of *Chaney*v. *State, ex rel.,*118 Ind. 494, except that it shows that in the original petition there was an insufficient, or erroneous, description of the property upon which the assessment was levied. The decision in the case cited settles all the questions involved in the present case, except that arising on the allegations concerning the erroneous description, and the prayer that the assessment be enforced against the property benefited by a true and accurate description.

We can perceive no valid reason why the relator may not have the description made accurate and specific, and thus enforce the assessment against the property actually benefited. It is to be kept in mind that the commissioner is required to file a complaint to enforce the assessment, in a superior court of general jurisdiction, and the property owner is entitled to notice in the action thus instituted. The parties have, therefore, an opportunity to litigate all proper questions, and the court can render an effective decree, justly adjudicating upon the merits of the controversy. We think it may reform a description, for the parties are before it, and it has jurisdiction of the subject. Certainly, justice requires this, for the property actually benefited should bear its proportion of the expense of constructing the drain; and where the court can ascertain the true and full description of that property it ought to reform mistakes and correct errors so that the assessment can be enforced. We regard the complaint as sufficient to require an answer.

Whether the appellee may controvert the validity of the assessment, upon the ground that she was misled by the description, or whether she may interpose other defences, we do not decide. All that we decide is that, *prima facie,*the relator was entitled to have the description so corrected, or reformed, as to make the assessment effective.

Judgment reversed.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of
ATEL Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 13, 2007



|                                             |  | 
|-------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                       |  | 
|Paritosh K. Choksi                           |  | 
|Executive Vice President of General Partner, |  | 
|Principal Financial Officer of Registrant    |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and
will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31(c)

CERTIFICATION

I, William D. Johnson, certify that:

|1. |  | I have reviewed this
      Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
      Progress Energy, Inc. as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on February 29, 2012; 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: March 30, 2012 | By:/s/ William D.
      Johnson                      
|-------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|                     | William D. Johnson                                   
|                     | Chairman, President and Chief Executive
      Officer

---
#### Munly *v.*The State.—In error.

*Saturday, December*27.

THE defendant’s right, in the case of an indictment, to challenge a juror peremptorily, remains open until the juror is sworn. See *Beauchamp*v. *The State,*6 Blackf. 299.—1 Chitt. C. L. *545.*—Hooker v. *The State,*4 Ohio, 348.
Transonic
UFUSS-|Braceeé!
WITS)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 1, 2022

No. 04-22-00072-CV

JMI CONTRACTORS, LLC,

Appellant

v.

Jose Manuel MEDELLIN,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-05983

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s brief is currently due by November 1, 2022. On October 26, 2022, appellee 

filed an opposed motion requesting permission to exceed the word limit. After consideration, we 

grant the motion.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
20020862.20090455/2282086.1

No. 14-15-00695-CV

In The Fourteenth Court Of Appeals

Houston, Texas

GARDEN RIDGE, L.P., Appellant

V.

CLEAR LAKE CENTER, L.P., Appellee

From the 215th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Cause No. 2009-58038, consolidated with Cause No. 2012-46099

Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Brief

Appellee/Cross-Appellant Clear Lake Center, L.P. (“Appellee/CrossAppellant”) files this motion for extension of time to file its Appellee’s brief and 

its Cross-Appellant’s brief pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) 

and 38.6(d). 

Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s Brief is was due on December 2, 2015. This is 

the second request for extension. 

This motion is not brought for purpose of delay, rather that justice may be 

done.

ACCEPTED

14-15-00695-cv

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/9/2015 4:27:27 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

ACCEPTED

14-15-00695-cv

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/9/2015 4:27:27 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/9/2015 4:27:27 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
20020862.20090455/2282086.1 2

Appellee/Cross-Appellant requests a 15 day extension to file 

Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s Brief. Reasons for this extension include the 

following:

a. While preparing the briefs, omissions of materials from the 

Reporter’s Record were discovered. Notwithstanding the 

Reporter’s prompt and gracious assistance, time was lost.

Appellee/Cross-Appellant respectfully asks the Court to extend the time for 

filing Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s brief for an additional 15 days or such other 

period as the Court may determine. 

Respectfully submitted,

HIRSCH & WESTHEIMER, P.C.

By:/s/ Michael D. Conner

Eric Lipper

State Bar No. 12399000

elipper@hirschwest.com

Michael D. Conner

State Bar No. 04688650

mconner@hirschwest.com

1415 Louisiana, 36th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Telephone: 713-223-5181

Facsimile: 713-223-9319

Attorneys for Appellee/Cross-Appellant 

Clear Lake Center, L.P.
20020862.20090455/2282086.1 3

Certificate of Compliance

I do hereby certify that this document complies with the typeface 

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(e) because it has been 

prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2013 in 14 

point Times New Roman font.

/s/ Michael D. Conner

Michael D. Conner

Certificate of Conference and Certificate of Service

On December 9, 2015, I e-mailed Heidi Bloch, attorney representing 

Appellant. She is not opposed to this Motion.

I hereby certify that on this 9th day of December, 2015, a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing document was served as follows: 

Stephen W. Lemmon

Heidi Bloch

Husch Blackwell LLP

111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400

Austin, Texas 78701

Phone: 512.472.5456

Fax: 512.479.1101

Stephen.Lemmon@huschblackwell.com

heidi.bloch@huschblackwell.com

Via E-Service

/s/ Michael D. Conner

Michael D. Conner
2 min read

# Solar System-Scale VLBI to Dramatically Improve Cosmological Distance Measurements

### Loura Hall

Jan 04, 2024

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

**Matthew McQuinn***University of Washington, Seattle*

Measurements of the distance to extragalactic sources allow us to infer the major energy constituents of our Universe. Two decades ago such measurements revealed that most of the energy in the Universe is in `dark energy’ — a discovery that has had immense implications for fundamental physics. Currently there is a 10% discrepancy in cosmic distances inferred with the two most accepted techniques, despite 1-2% errors claimed on both methods, with the 

model that is most successful at reconciling this discrepancy being an earlier era where something like dark energy was again important. Interpreting mild tensions can be challenging and ideally a much more precise measurement would be performed. Such a measurement could also lead to entirely new discoveries.

An experiment was proposed by Boone & McQuinn 2023 that has the potential to improve current constraints by an order of magnitude or more. This experiment is ambitious, involving placing satellites on other sides of the Solar System to constrain cosmic distances by timing the arrival of fast radio bursts to measure the curvature of their electromagnetic wavefront. This idea builds off the technology that underlies the tremendous successes of global navigation satellite systems and very long baseline interferometry. However, the initial calculations for this idea can be significantly improved. The proposed work would investigate and simulate different mission concepts to firm up the specifications needed for transformative cosmology constraints and evaluate the space readiness of this concept.

Additionally, this mission concept could precisely measure the mass distribution in the outer Solar System, detect micro-Hertz gravitational waves (which are not targeted by other gravitational wave observatories), constrain dark matter models, and resolve pulsar magnetospheres to distinguish between pulsar emission models. This proposal would also develop the cases for these potential ancillary applications.

**2024 Phase I Selection**

## Discover More NIAC Topics

Space Technology Mission Directorate

NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts

NIAC Funded Studies

About NIAC
#### RAYMOND FEDELIN v. BOARD OF REVIEW.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>














                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending December 31,2002, the quarterly report, I, Deborah F. Ricci, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     (4). The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.




/s/ Deborah F. Ricci
--------------------
Deborah F. Ricci
Chief Financial Officer
February 14, 2003
#### Emma Lair *v.*Isaac Keys et el.

Executors and Administrators — Transfer of Property.

Where personal property is absolutely transferred to a testator’s widow, the legal title at her death passed to her administrator, who alone could make a transfer of it.

Same — Liability of Administrator for Default in Transferring Property.

Where an administrator refuses to make a transfer of stock left by an estate, though through an erroneous impression, whereby a suit is necessary to enforce said transfer, the administrator will be held liable for the costs of court.

APPEAL PROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

*Gurry,*for Appellant.

Rodman, for Appellees.

June 28, 1867.

Opinion op the Oourt by

Judge Eobertson :

The stock having been absolutely transferred to the testator’s widow, the legal title, on her death, passed to her administrator, who alone could transfer it to the appellant, who was, in fact, the beneficial owner of it. He, erroneously thinking that he had nothing to transfer, because he admitted the equitable title of the appellant, refused to make the transfer, and the officers of the Commercial Bank properly required his transfer as necessary for vesting the legal title in her. This suit, therefore, became necessary. And the judgment of the Circuit Court is erroneous for two reasons: 1st, because the appellee, Keys, instead of the bank, ought to have been required to make the transfer; and 2d, because the default of the administrator having made the suit proper, he, and not the appellant, ought to pay the costs.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a decree conformable with this opinion.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 29, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH WAYNE STIGER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

 

No. 10-5011

(D.C. No. 4:09-CV-0194-CVE)

(D.C. No. 4:00-CR-00126-CVE-7)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER

Before MURPHY, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Judgment was entered on Kenneth Wayne Stiger's § 2255 motion on November

19, 2009. A notice of appeal was due within 60 days following the entry of judgment. 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The 60th day after November 19, 2009 was January 18, 2010,

which was a federal holiday, making the notice of appeal due on January 19, 2010 by

operation of Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). In this case, the notice of appeal was not filed

in the district court until February 5, 2010, making it 17 days late. 

The court permitted Mr. Stiger to show cause why the appeal should not be

dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Mr. Stiger suggests initially that weekends

and holidays should not be counted in computing the 60-day deadline, but that rule only

applies when the time period for the deadline is less than 11 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

Appellate Case: 10-5011 Document: 01018393185 Date Filed: 03/29/2010 Page: 1
2

6(a)(2); Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(a)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(2) (2009 versions). 

He further argues that he should not be obligated to file a notice of appeal until

after the district court acts on his request for a certificate of appealability. Mr. Stiger cites

no authority in support of this proposition, nor could he. The Supreme Court has

expressly held that the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a prerequisite to this court’s

exercise of jurisdiction in a case of this nature. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 205-06

(2007). The time for filing a notice of appeal is based on the date “the judgment or order

appealed from is entered.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER

Clerk of Court

by:

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-5011 Document: 01018393185 Date Filed: 03/29/2010 Page: 2
#### F. E. Cox *v.*J. P. Winston.

Default Judgment — Value of Rent.

If the record had shown that there was a trial in the court below, so that it might at least be inferred that the allegations of the value of rent had not been exclusively relied upon to determine the amount of the judgment, it might have been sustained; but as it does not show that fact we must conclude that the requirements of section 153, Civil Code, had not been complied with.

APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 5, 1865.

Opinion or the Court by

Judge Peters:

This action was brought in the court below by appellee against ■appellant and .Thomas Greer upon a supersedeas bond, in which, *337amongst other things, the obligors undertook to pay to appellee all rents, hire, or damage which, during the pendency of the appeal, may accrue on any property of which appellee is kept out of possession by reason of the appeal, etc., in case the judgment superseded should be affirmed.

It is alleged in the petition that said judgment was affirmed, and that the rents of the land of which appellee was kept out of the possession by reason of the appeal and bond aforesaid were worth $500, and the costs incurred by him for which he recovered a judgment in this court amounted to $47.20, which was unpaid, and he prayed judgment for both said sums.

At the June term, 1862, of the court below, judgment was rendered against appellant by default for the sum of $547.09, and he has appealed.

If the record had shown that there was a trial in the court below, so that it might at least be inferred that the allegation of the value of rents had not been exclusively relied upon to determine the amount of the judgment, it might have been sustained, but as it does not show that fact we must conclude the requirements of section 153, Civil Code, were not complied with. Daniel *v.*Judy, 14 B. Mon. 393.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a trial and further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Exhibit
32.2











CERTIFICATON
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to


§
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending December 31, 2007, the (“Report”), I ,Catherine M. Davidson, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 906 1350, 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.














/s/Catherine M.
Davidson


Catherine
M. Davidson


Financial
Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)








February
14, 2008




















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

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 2, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT COTNER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JUSTIN JONES; SUSAN MINGUS;

RON ANDERSON,

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 10-7037

(D.C. No. 6:10-CV-00079-JHP-SPS)

ORDER

Before BRISCOE, Chief Circuit Judge.

This matter is before me on Plaintiff Robert Cotner’s response to the show

cause order entered on May 18, 2010. Pursuant to Cotner v. Boone, 48 Fed.

Appx. 287 (10th Cit. 2002), I have carefully reviewed this response and conclude

that he has failed to comply with the filing restrictions imposed. 

Accordingly, this matter is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 10-7037 Document: 01018433279 Date Filed: 06/02/2010 Page: 1
#### F. P. Benningfield *v.*Martha Christie et al.

*Land*— Older Title — Interference — Rescission.

The interference by an older title to about five aeres is not so essential as to justify a rescission.

Same — Eviction — Adverse Occupancy.

As there has been neither eviction nor adverse occupancy the appellant should accept a conveyance with general warranty.

Same.

Where the sale is by the acre the grantee is entitled to a credit for the deficit.

APPEAL FROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT.

October *5,*1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson :

The interference by an older title to the extent of about five acres and the deficit of about the same quantity do not appear to be- so essential as to justify a recession of the contract. And, as there has been neither eviction nor adverse occupancy during so long a lapse of time, the appellant should not refuse, on account of the apparent conflict of title, to accept a conveyance with general warranty, or expect compensation until eviction.

But, as the sale was by the acre, the appellant is entitled to a credit for the value of the deficit in the quantity sold, small as it may appear. And, on the facts exhibited, that value is the price given per acre.

In not allowing credit to that amount, it seems to this court that the Circuit Court erred.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a judgment conformable with this opinion.