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

From astronauts to scientists to leaders, African-Americans have played a vital role in NASA’s 

achievements. Learn more about their contributions by visiting the image gallery at the link below to fill 

in the crossword puzzle. 

Black History Month—NASA Images https://www.nasa.gov/image-gallery/black-history-month

Across 

4. First African-American astronaut

5. African-American astronaut who became 

NASA administrator 

6. Presidential Medal of Freedom-winning 

“human computer”

8. First African-American woman to fly in space

9. Dorothy Vaughan, the NACA’s first 

African-American ________________

10. Former astronaut and NASA education chief

Down

1. Number of African-Americans in the 1978 

Astronaut Class

2. First African-American in space

3. Scientist who improved sunspot cycle 

predictions

7. Astronaut Victor Glover will fly on the 

SpaceX _____________
ANSWER KEY

Black History Month

From astronauts to scientists to leaders, African-Americans have played a vital role in NASA’s 

achievements. Learn more about their contributions by visiting the image gallery at the link below to fill 

in the crossword puzzle. 

Black History Month—NASA Images https://www.nasa.gov/image-gallery/black-history-month

Across 

4. First African-American astronaut

5. African-American astronaut who became 

NASA administrator 

6. Presidential Medal of Freedom-winning 

“human computer”

8. First African-American woman to fly in space

9. Dorothy Vaughan, the NACA’s first 

African-American ________________

10. Former astronaut and NASA education chief

Down

1. Number of African-Americans in the 1978 

Astronaut Class

2. First African-American in space

3. Scientist who improved sunspot cycle 

predictions

7. Astronaut Victor Glover will fly on the 

SpaceX _____________
EXHIBIT 10.29

                           FUTURE COM SOUTH FLORA, NC.
                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$150,000.00                                                   Austin, Texas
                                                              September _ , 1999

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  the undersigned  ("Maker') promises to pay to Uni-Call
Communications,  Inc.,  _  ("Payee"),  the  principal  sum of One Hundred  Fifty
Thousand Dollars  ($l50,000.00)  plus interest on the unpaid principal amount at
the rate of eight per cent (8%) per annum.,  until the entire  principal  amount
shall have been raid in full.  Maker shall make  payments  to Payee  pursuant to
this  Promissory  Note at such  times  that  the  Board  Of  Directors  of Maker
determines in its sole discretion that Maker has sufficient  funds available for
such payments,  provided however,  that all unpaid amounts owed pursuant to this
Note shall be due and payable upon demand made by Payee on or after September _,
2004.

     Payments  received  from  Maker  first  shall be  applied  against  accrued
interest and then against  principal.  Payments  shall be  considered  made when
Payee receives delivery at the address set forth above of a check for the amount
of the  payment,  prodded  that such check  subsequently  is honored  when first
presented to Maker's bank. This Promissory Note maybe prepaid at any time.

     Presentment  for payment,  notice of dishonor and protest are hereby waived
by Maker  guarantors  and any  endorse-s  hereof.  No extension of payment shall
release any Maker, guarantor or endorser if given without his consent.

     THIS  PROMISSORY NOTE AND THE Payments TO BE MADE BY MAKER PURSUANT TO THIS
PROMISSORY NOTE MAY NOT BE ASSIGNED BY PAYEE,

                                           Maker:

                                           Future Com South. Florida, Inc.
                                           By.  /s/: William Gale
                                           ----------------------
                                                     William Gale, President and
                                                     Chief: Executive Officer



     The undersigned  Payee agrees that this Promissory Note represents  payment
in full of all amounts owed by Maker to Payee as of the date of this  Promissory
Note.

                                           Uni-Call Communications, Inc.

          Date:                            By:   /s/: Warren Blanck
                                           ------------------------
                                                      Signature


                                                      Warren Blanck, President
                                                      Printed Name and Title

                                       91
No. 22.

#### Benjamin F. White, plaintiff in error, *vs.*James T. Wallen, defendant in error.

[1.] The order in which evidence is to be introduced, is for the discretion of' the Court.

[2.] A party moves for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and supports his motion by an affidavit of his own, in which he swears that A had told him that be, A, had beard B say that he, B, had heard the other party say that which is, presented as the newly discovered evidence: *Held,*that the ground of the motion is not sufficiently verified.

Complaint, in Harris Superior Court. Tried before JudgeCraweord, at September Term, 1854.

Wallen sued White on a note for $125, payable to Igon or-bearer. The defence was, partial failure of consideration. On the. trial, defendant introduced a witness to prove the failure-of consideration, which, on motion, the Court rejected until defendant-first proved that the note was transferred after due-To this decision defendant excepted. Defendant proved by one Wilkinson that a person representing himself as the agent for Igon presented the note for payment in his presence; he-thought in the Spring of 1852; he was not certain when. The-note fell due in June, 1852. Defendant then offered again to *107prove the failure. The Court rejected the evidence, and defendant excepted.

Defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence in this — that the defendant has been informed, since the trial, by one Benjamin Miller, that one Dennis Miller told him that Igon had acknowledged to him, since the ■commencement of the suit, that he was still the owner of the note. The affidavit of defendant verified this motion. The 'Court refused the motion, and defendant excepted.

On these several exceptions error has been assigned.

Mobley & Hill, for plaintiff in error.

Ramsey & King, for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The order in which a party is to introduce his evidence, is to be regulated by the discretion of the Court.

In this case, no special reason was assigned to the Court, for the wish to prove, first of all, the partial failure of consideration pleaded. Had any such reason been assigned, it would, it is to be presumed, have been listened to by the Court. The refusal of the Court, therefore, to let proof of the partial failure of consideration come first, is not to be disturbed.

So the second refusal to admit the evidence, is not to be disturbed. When this refusal was given, the state of the defendant’s case, with respect to proof, had not changed. He had tried to prove the note not to have been transferred, until after it had become due; but he had failed to prove it.

The ground of the motion for a new trial, viz: newly discovered evidence, was not sufficiently verified. In addition to the affidavit of the party himself, there should have been the affidavit of one, if not of both the Millers.

In disregarding a motion resting on no better a foundation than this, we cannot see in what the Court- erred. -
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-15T11:28:53Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-15T11:28:54Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-15T11:28:54Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="12600">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-15T11:28:53Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OPINION W O-7510 WAS NEVER ISSUED OK 
</p>
<p>WAS WITHDRAWN. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
#### Jane Lowden *v.*L. F. Boulmore et al.

Attachment — Deed Lodged for Record Before Attachment Issue — Fraudulent or Voluntary Conveyance — Pleading.

When land has been sold and deed lodged for record before an attachment issues and there is no pleading in the cause assailing_ the deed as fraudulent or voluntary, the attachment will be discharged.

Minors — Next Friend — Defense.

A next friend cannot defend for minor children; none but a guardian can do this.

APPEAL PROM HENRY CIRCUIT COURT.

June 21, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

The deed of April 23, 1864, of J. IT. Lowden to his wife and children for the land attached was lodged for record before these suits were brought by his creditors and the issual of the attachments. No pleading in the causes assail this deed as either fraudulent or voluntary; and notwithstanding the mere nominal valuable consideration of one dollar, and then the love and affection for his *445wife and children is set out in the deed, yet appellant in her petition to become a party sets out that it was upon a valuable consideration, that is the sale of her own real estate derived from her father with a promise by her husband to vest its proceeds in other lands for her.

All but one of the children were minors; therefore, upon the filing of their petition the plaintiffs should have been ordered to make them parties. Process, service, and guardian *ad litem*should have been had and then unless the deed had been assailed the attachments should have been discharged as to this land.

We cannot determine upon the petition, which was regarded as their answer, and exhibits of Mrs. Lowden and her children that said deed was either fraudulent or voluntary.

Nor could she as next friend defend for her minor children; none but guardian can do this.

The judgment ordering a sale of the land was erroneous and is, therefore, reversed with directions for further proceedings as herein indicated.
National Space Council

Users’ Advisory Group 

Public Meeting Agenda

April 8, 2019

Broadmoor Hotel International Center

Colorado Springs, CO

All times Mountain Time

Telecon:

Dial: 888-566-6150

Code: 1725248

WebEx

https://nasaenterprise.webex.com 

(Home Tab)

Meeting Number: 907 418 615 

Code: 5mXNcyk@

1:00 – 1:30 Opening Remarks & Committee Business

Jim Ellis, Jr. 

UAG Chairman

Selected Subcommittee Chairs with proposed Findings & Recommendations

1:30 – 2:15 The Emergence of the Space Force

Doug Loverro 

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy

Mark Berkowitz

Vice President for Space Security, Lockheed Martin

2:15 – 2:50 Space Spectrum: Challenge & Opportunity

Jennifer Warren

Vice President for Technology Policy & Regulation, Lockheed Martin

Jennifer Manner

Senior Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, EchoStar

2:50 – 3:00 Public Comment & Closing Remarks

Jim Ellis, Jr.

UAG Chairman
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1768 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1768

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

                                 An Act

 
             To extend the national flood insurance program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Flood Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

    (a) Extension.--The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended 
as follows:
        (1) Authority for contracts.--In section 1319 (42 U.S.C. 4026), 
    by striking ``December 31, 2003'' and inserting ``March 31, 2004''.
        (2) Borrowing authority.--In the first sentence of section 
    1309(a) (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)), by striking ``December 31, 2003'' and 
    inserting ``the date specified in section 1319''.
        (3) Emergency implementation.--In section 1336(a) (42 U.S.C. 
    4056(a)), by striking ``December 31, 2003'' and inserting ``on the 
    date specified in section 1319''.
        (4) Authorization of appropriations for studies.--In section 
    1376(c) (42 U.S.C. 4127(c)), by striking ``December 31, 2003'' and 
    inserting ``the date specified in section 1319''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall be 
considered to have taken effect on December 31, 2003.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Barbara L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 77-3324.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 9, 1980.

*1111Jack D. Warner, Theodore R. Gibson, II, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

Joseph Z. Fleming, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellee.

Before JONES, BROWN and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, Barbara L. Williams, a black woman, had been an employee of the appellee, Western Electric Company, at its shop in Miami, Florida. She was discharged on May 31, 1974. On August 31, 1976, she brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Western Electric asserting that the discharge was racially motivated and wrongful. She sought reinstatement, back pay, damages and other relief. Western Electric moved to dismiss on the ground that the claim was barred by the Florida Statute of Limitations. The statute provided that “An action to recover wages or overtime or damages or penalties concerning payment of wages and overtime” shall be brought within two years. Fla.Stat. § 95.11(4)(e).

The disposition of this appeal is controlled by the decision of this Court in *Cutliff v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.,*5th Cir. 1977, 558 F.2d 803.1 There it was held that the Florida Statute of Limitations relating to wages is applicable in actions such as this. That statute required actions to be brought within one year, the period of the statute then in force. *See also Johnson v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.,*5th Cir. 1974, 491 F.2d 1364. It follows therefore that the judgment of the district court should be and it is

AFFIRMED.

1

. We are aware of the prior decisions in *Page v. U. S. Industries, Inc.,*5th Cir. 1977, 556 F.2d 346, and *Ingram v. Steven Robert Corp.,*5th cir. 1977, 547 F.2d 1260. However we consider ourselves bound by the latest panel decision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Condensed  Balance  Sheet at September  30, 1996  (unaudited)  and the Condensed
Statement of Income for the nine months ended September 30, 1996  (unaudited) and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000892160                         
<NAME>                            Derma Sciences, Inc.                       
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         32,659
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,411,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                   901,549
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            4,780,734
<PP&E>                                        209,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              5,824,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,536,796
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       40,542
<OTHER-SE>                                  4,033,769   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                5,824,673
<SALES>                                     3,807,934
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            3,807,934
<CGS>                                         766,945
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 766,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             47,092
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (372,910)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (50,302)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (322,608)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (322,608)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        


</TABLE>
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 17, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

WAYNE E. CRAWFORD,

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-5068

(D.C. No. 4:08-CV-00635-TLW)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the parties “Stipulation of Dismissal.” The

stipulation is granted. This appeal is dismissed Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). 

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-5068 Document: 01018442676 Date Filed: 06/17/2010 Page: 1
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**WARRENRESOURCES, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Norman F. Swanton, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, 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.

 

 
| /s/ Norman F. Swanton                                 |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Norman F. Swanton                                     |
| *Chairman of the  Board  And Chief Executive Officer* |
|                                                  |
| May 12, 2004                                          |

 

A signed original of this original statement required by Section 906has been provided to Warren Resources, Inc., and will be retained by WarrenResources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
No. 87-160.

#### Grant, Superintendent, Corrections Camp Program *v.*Casper.

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari denied.
#### Hough and Others *v.*Canby.

Process should be served on infant defendants in chancery in the same manner as if they were adults; and to enable them to plead, answer, or demur, a guardian *ad litem*for them should be appointed.

A decree in chancery against infant defendants, without proof of the matters alleged in the bill, is erroneous.

A bill in chancery to enforce a vendor’s lien on real estate should fully describe the contract of sale, and aver the non-payment of the purchase-money.

ERROR to the *Jefferson*Circuit Court.

Deavey, J.—

*Canby*brought a bill in equity against the heirs of *Orson E. Hough*on a contract of sale of a certain lot of ground, made by *Orson E. Hough*and the complainant. The object of the bill was to enforce the vendor’s lien. The defendants were minors. It does not appear that process was served upon them. On the filing of the bill, the Court appointed a guardian *ad litem*for the defendants. The guardian appeared, but did not answer. The Court for want of a defence (no evidence being adduced on either side) decreed a sale of the premises contracted to be sold, and appointed a commissioner to make the sale, &c.

This decree is erroneous. Process should have-been served upon the infant defendants in the same manner as if they had been adults. 1 Smith’s Ch. Pr. 14G. And to enable them to plead, answer, or demur, an, assignment of a guardian was necessary. *Id.*255. It was irregular, according to the *English*practice, to assign a guardian for the infants before ser*302vice of process upon themselves. But wé do not mean to say that, under our practice, it is essential that the service of process should precede the appointment of a guardian; the record however must show both to have been done. Such not being the fact in the cause before us, it was erroneous to proceed to a decree.

*O. H. Smith*and *T. L. Sullivan,*for the plaintiffs.

It was also erroneous to decree against infants without proof of the matters alleged in the bill. *Hough et al.*v. *Doyle,*at this term.

It should be remarked that the bill is defective for not setting out the contract of sale with sufficient fulness, and for not averring that the purchase-money was not paid.

*Per Curiam.*

The decree is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.