alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1723 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1723

  To suspend temporarily the duty on plasma display panels for use in 
                 plasma flat panel screen televisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 14, 2003

 Mr. Santorum introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on plasma display panels for use in 
                 plasma flat panel screen televisions.

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

SECTION 1. PLASMA DISPLAY PANELS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.85.23       Plasma display       Free       No change        No change        On or before 12/
                          panels for use in                                                 31/2006           ''
                          plasma flat screen                                                                   .
                          televisions
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          8529.90.53).......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 22, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: RICKEY WHITE,

Petitioner.

No. 10-7048

(D.C. No. 6:09-CV-00450-FHS-KEW)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER

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

On June 21, 2010, Rickey White filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 

directing the district court to take action on his pending request for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 8, the district court

entered an order denying petitioner’s habeas petition and all pending motions,

including requests for an evidentiary hearing. Mr. White has therefore received

all the relief he sought in his mandamus petition.

After entry of the district court’s order, Mr. White filed a motion in this

mandamus action requesting an evidentiary hearing on the issues underlying the 

habeas petition. A party seeking mandamus “must establish that (1) ‘no other

adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires,’ (2) the party’s ‘right to

issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable,’ and (3) ‘the writ is appropriate

under the circumstances.’” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705, 710 (2010)

Appellate Case: 10-7048 Document: 01018461855 Date Filed: 07/22/2010 Page: 1
-2-

(quoting Cheney v. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-381 (2004)). Because

Mr. White may appeal the district court’s denial of his motions for an evidentiary

hearing, mandamus relief is inappropriate.

 The petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED as moot. To the extent

Mr. White’s subsequent motion amended his petition to seek an evidentiary

hearing, the petition is DENIED. 

Further, Mr. White’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of

costs or fees is DENIED. See McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809,

812 (10th Cir. 1997) (requiring petitioner seeking leave to proceed without

payment of fees and costs to “show a financial inability to pay the required fees

and the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in

support of the issues raised on appeal”) (quotation omitted). We remind Mr.

White of his obligation to pay the mandamus filing fee. See Kinnell v. Graves,

265 F.3d 1125, 1129 (10th Cir. 2001) (dismissal of an appeal does not relieve

appellant of the obligation to pay the filing fee in full).

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-7048 Document: 01018461855 Date Filed: 07/22/2010 Page: 2
Enclosure

NASA Advisory Council Recommendation

Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS)

2022-02-06

Name of Committee: Science Committee

Chair of Committee: Dr. Ellen Williams

Date of Council Public Deliberation: August 10, 2022

Short Title of Recommendation: Commercial Lunar Payload Services 

(CLPS)

Recommendation:

The Council recommends that:

• The Science Mission Directorate (SMD) continue to support and evaluate the commercial

delivery service model and develop lessons-learned for application to future missions and

destinations.

• NASA create a strategy to educate the public on the benefit of innovative projects with

mission risk in advance of the CLPS launches.

Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

• The CLPS program to accelerate delivery of scientific payloads via development of a

commercial space transport network has been well planned and executed. The program is

a visionary approach to improving mission performance.

• Maturation of exploration policies (domestic and international) to enable complementary

government and commercial sector Lunar operations is necessary building on principles

within the Artemis Accords and Lunar Treaty.

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

Failure to address the need for robust operational policy frameworks will lead to ad hoc solutions 

resulting in possible detrimental consequences to SMD objectives when unexpected conditions 

arise during operation on the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

NASA Response:

NASA concurs with this recommendation. NASA continues to support the CLPS and document 

lessons learned as the commercial delivery model is exercised. NASA will create a strategy to 

inform the public on the benefits and mission risk of this model, prior to the first two CLPS 

landings.
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

February 3, 2021

Reply to Attn of: Office of Chief Information Officer

TO: Officials in Charge, Center Directors, CIOs, CISOs

FROM: NASA Chief Information Officer and Senior Agency Official for 

Controlled Unclassified Information

SUBJECT: Waiver of Controlled Unclassified Information Marking Requirements for Legacy 

Information and Data

This memorandum provides NASA policy guidance pertaining to Executive Order 13556, Controlled 

Unclassified Information (CUI). The CUI program standardizes the way the Federal Government 

handles how sensitive information is marked, managed, and shared, while ensuring the information 

remains appropriately protected. The digital and physical information assets of NASA are vast and 

applying the requirement to “re-mark” existing or “legacy” information would be extremely 

burdensome in time and require significant financial resources to meet this requirement.

Therefore, existing or “legacy” Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information is exempt from the CUI 

marking requirements contained in NID 2810.135, Controlled Unclassified Information. You may 

continue to use existing markings, (e.g. For Official Use Only, Sensitive But Unclassified, Law 

Enforcement Sensitive, etc.), as long as the information remains within and under NASA control. 

Documents created prior to October 1, 2021 and prior to NASA CUI implementation are considered 

legacy information and are not required to be reviewed and re-marked unless they contain 

information that qualifies as CUI AND the information is reused and expected to be transmitted 

outside of NASA. This waiver will be reviewed on an annual basis for determination of continued 

applicability.

Please direct any questions about this waiver or CUI safeguarding requirements to the NASA CUI 

Program Manager, Stayce Hoult, at 256.544.7705, stayce.d.hoult@nasa.gov and/or NASACUI@mail.nasa.gov. 

_________________________ ___________________________

Jeffrey M. Seaton Date

NASA Chief Information Officer

cc: CUI Program Manager
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0190]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Infant Formula Requirements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Infant Formula Requirements'' has 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Johnny Vilela, Office of Information 
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, 
Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-7651, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c08ab5a1aeada1aeb5a5acee96a9aca5aca180a6a4a1eea8a8b3eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c68cb3a7a8aba7a8b3a3aae890afaaa3aaa786a0a2a7e8aeaeb5e8a1a9b0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of August 10, 2010 
(75 FR 48350), the Agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0256. 
The approval expires on October 31, 2013. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: October 25, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-27849 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARTIN WORTHY.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Ransdall *v.*B. Tristler.

Writ of Possession.

A writ of possession can only authorize the dispossessing of the parties to the suit; it *has no effect on a*stranger.

APPEAL PROM MERGER CIRCUIT COURT.

June *7,*1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams :

Mrs.. Tristler and Mrs. Hall occupied different parts of the tract of land claimed by appellant, their possession was separate and independent of each other, wherefore the proceedings and judgment of Eansdall against Mrs. Hall and her children in no wise affected Mrs. Tristler or her son, B. Tristler, and the court properly rejected the record of this suit as evidence on the motion of B. Tristler to quash the sheriff’s return on the writ of possession.

The writ of possession issued on the judgment of Ransdall *v.*Hall could only authorize the dispossessing the Halls and their families, and the attempted dispossessing of B. Tristler, by virtue thereof, was wholly unauthorized.

Mrs. Tristler was an original defendant to Ransdall’s suit, but she died during its pendency, and the suit abated as *to*her, and was never revived against her heirs, hence they are not bound by the litigation; therefore the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,000
<PP&E>                                           3,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          203,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    19,271,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (22,314,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (55,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (55,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Johns *v.*De Rome.—In error.

Thursday, *November*26.

A SECTION of land was reserved by an Indian treaty for certain minors — they having no right to sell it, however, without the consent of the president of the *U. States.*The land was afterwards located, and a part of it sold and conveyed, under an order of the Probate Court, for the support of the minors; but the land thus sold being imperfectly described in the deed, the president refused his assent to the sale.' *Held,*that the purchaser might, by a bill filed in the Probate Court, obtain a correct survey and conveyance of the land.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



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 Transition Report of SINA CORPORATION (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the transition period from July 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Daniel Mao, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2002 and
results of operations of the Company for the transition period from July 1, 2002
to December 31, 2002.

Date: March 28, 2003




By:  /s/ Daniel Mao
    -----------------------------------------------
     Daniel Mao
     Chief Executive Officer and Director
<PAGE>
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 Transition Report of SINA CORPORATION (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the transition period from July 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Charles Chao, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2002 and
results of operations of the Company for the transition period from July 1, 2002
to December 31, 2002.

Date: March 28, 2003




By:  /s/  Charles Chao
    -----------------------------------------------
     Charles Chao
     Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6590

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DAVIN LAMONT SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-02-17-F)

Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004

Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Davin Lamont Smith, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Cortes, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Davin Lamont Smith appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See United States v. Smith, No. CR-02-17-F

(E.D.N.C. Feb. 23, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-21-0000343

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

IN THE MATTER OF MAUI KUPONO BUILDERS, LLC, Appellant-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF HAWAI # I; DESIREE L. HIKIDA, Appellees-Appellees, a nd GRACE PACIFIC, LLC, Appellee-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

( CIVIL NO. 1CCV-21-0000438)
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Fujise, JJ.) Upon consideration of the Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice of Appeal of All Claims and Parties, filed August 11, 2021, by Appellee-Appellant Grace Pacific, LLC, the papers in support, and the record, it appears that (1) the appeal has been docketed; (2) the parties stipulate to dismiss the appeal with prejudice and bear their own attorneys' fees and costs; (3) the stipulation is signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the appeal; and (4) dismissal is authorized by Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation is approved and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs on appeal.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, August 27, 2021. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge /s/ Alexa D.M. Fujise Associate Judge

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-21-0000343 27-AUG-2021 08:45 AM Dkt. 43 OAWST
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 3/31/97 FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          50,628                  50,628
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,903                  30,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,196                   4,196
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,879                  93,879
<PP&E>                                          14,484                  14,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,007                   8,007
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,454                 115,454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,949                  14,949
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        81,386                  81,386
<OTHER-SE>                                       (673)                   (673)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   100,505                 100,505
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,633                  47,210
<CGS>                                            5,687                  14,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,881                  54,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (646)                 (1,908)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,602)                 (4,910)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,660)                 (1,855)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,942)                 (3,055)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,942)                 (3,055)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)                   (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)                   (.10)
        

</TABLE>
United Launch Alliance Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) Space Act Agreement

NNK11MS05S

ULA CCDev2 Space Act Agreement

ULA SAA Amendment 01

<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Stonepath Group, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-3 (No. 333-64452 and No. 333-91240) and the registration statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-74918 and No. 333-103439) of Stonepath Group, Inc. of our
report dated February 25, 2003, except as to Note 18, which is as of March 10,
2003 and Note 2, which is as of August 25, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Stonepath Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, and
related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31,
2002 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Stonepath Group, Inc.

Our report refers to the Company's restatement of the consolidated financial
statements as of and for the years ended December 31, 2002 and 2001.

                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
August 27, 2003