alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

In fiscal year 2022, NASA’s Stennis Space Center reached 37 

Mississippi counties that represent 75% of the state’s total 

population. Each star identifies a Mississippi county reached by NASA

Stennis through public engagement programs and/or institutional grant 

funding.

NASA Stennis Engagements
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASA Stennis Engagements

Public Engagement

• Reached a total of 22,694 participants through 114 in-person, virtual, and hybrid 

events across 28 Mississippi counties

*Speakers Bureau: 29 events with 10,165 participants

*Outreach: 85 events with 12,864 participants

• Counties served: Bolivar, Calhoun, DeSoto, Forrest, George, Grenada, Hancock, 

Harrison, Hinds, Itawamba, Jackson, Jefferson, Kemper, Lamar, Lauderdale, 

Lee, Lincoln, Lowndes, Madison, Monroe, Oktibbeha, Panola, Pearl River, 

Quitman, Rankin, Simpson, Warren, Washington

NASA ASTRO CAMP® Collaborative Partners Program (ACCP)

• Reached a total of 31,704 participants through 176 in-person, virtual, and hybrid 

events across 16 Mississippi counties

• Conducted 27 NASA ACCP Educator Professional Development (EPD) events, 

impacting 599 formal and informal educators

• Counties served: Attala, Bolivar, Copiah, Forrest, Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, 

Jefferson Davis, Jones, Lauderdale, Lowndes, Madison, Neshoba, Pearl River, 

Rankin, Warren

NASA ACCP Robotics in Education

• Reached a total of 1,634 participants through 10 in-person, virtual, and hybrid 

robotics events across 20 Mississippi counties

• Marked the 21st year that NASA Stennis has been a primary sponsor of the 

FIRST® Robotics program in the region

• Conducted three NASA ACCP Robotics in Education EPD events, impacting 37 

formal and informal educators across 10 Mississippi counties

• NASA Robotics Alliance Project supported 11 NASA House Teams* with grants 

across five Mississippi counties

* A NASA “House Team” is a team that has an ongoing, extended relationship with one of the NASA field centers and 

has direct participation by NASA engineers as team mentors.

• Counties served: Adams, Copiah, Forrest, Grenada, Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, 

Jefferson Davis, Jones, Lafayette, Lauderdale, Lincoln, Lowndes, Madison, 

Neshoba, Pearl River, Pike, Rankin, Sunflower, Warren

FY22 Mississippi Grantees

• Awarded 10 research/STEM education grants to University of Mississippi

• Awarded three research grants to University of Southern Mississippi

• Awarded two research grants to Mississippi State University

• Awarded one research grant to University of Mississippi Medical Center

Mississippi Space Grant Consortium Highlights

• Funded 12 graduate research fellows, 155 student awards, and six STEMfocused mini-grants to K-12 schools across Mississippi
www.nasa.gov

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, LOGAN

4-H Moon to Mars Tetrathlon

Deborah Ivie

7/01/23 - 9/30/24

Students will explore the moon, and Mars

Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech

This four-part curriculum series, to be implemented 

through Utah 4-H, aims to provide underserved youth 

with experiential “Moon to Mars” based space activities 

and informal educators with a series of activities that 

can be used in stand-alone format or as a learning 

series. It will also provide a two-tiered approach by 

training and utilizing high-school age youth as near 

peer mentors. The curriculum and kits will support four 

thematic experiential activities: Drone challenges to 

introduce space travel to the moon and Mars; Robotics 

challenge where students program robots simulating a 

rover on the surface of the moon and Mars, gathering 

data and overcoming obstacles; a project challenge 

using teamwork and engineering design to create 

solutions to space-based concerns; and a healthy living 

component utilizing physical and mental health in space 

to draw correlations with health on Earth. 

List of Partners:

• Utah 4-H

• Utah Afterschool Network

The material contained in this document is based upon 

work supported by a NASA grant or cooperative 

agreement award #80NSSC23K0797, under the Teams 

Engaging Affiliated Museums and Informal Institutions 

(TEAM II) activity of NASA’s Next Gen STEM Project.

Explore TEAM II Products 

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/search/
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certifications**

 

I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Petro Holdings Financial Corporation; 

 

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 tomake 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; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 29, 2005
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 Annual Report of WorldStar Energy,  Corp. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ended  December  31,  2006,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
Tay, President 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:

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

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


                                              /s/    "RICHARD TAY"
                                                 _________________
                                                     Richard Tay
                                                     President

                                                     March 30, 2007

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  WorldStar  Energy,  Corp.  and will be retained by the company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 55.

#### Sidney Horshaw, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The Lessee of William Cook, defendant in error.

£1.] The mere absence of his Counsel, with the title papers of a defendant, is. not a sufficient ground for a continuance.

Ejectment in Union Superior Court. Tried before Judge Irwin, April Term, 1854.

Horshaw, the defendant below, moved a continuance in this case, on the ground that A. J. Hansell, Esq. was employed for the defence, and had in his possession the title papers for the lot of land in dispute, under which defendant held, showing title out of the lessors of the plaintiff; and that he had promised to-attend the Court with the papers, without Providential hindrance; that he did not attend the Court regularly but frequently ; and the cause of his absence was not known. W- H. Stánsell, of Counsel for defendant, farther.stated, in his place, that hie conversed with General Hansell a. short time previous to the-Court, and that he had spoken of certainly attending the Court.

The Court over-ruled the motion, '-and this decision is assigncd as error.

Milner,', for plaintiff in’-error.

J. W. H. Underwood, for defendant.

*By the Court.*

Starnes J.

delivering the opinion.

This Court has decided, and upon sound principles, that the •. mere absence of Counsel is not a sufficient ground for the continuance of a cause. See *Allen vs. the*State, (11 *Ga. R.*85) and the cases there cited. It has recognized the absence of the leading Counsel from Providential cause, as sufficient to authorize a continuance; but nothing short of this. It does -not appear that General Hansell was even the leading Counsel *527in this cause; and it is to be presumed he was not, or it would-have been shown; nor does the cause of his absence appear.

The fact that he had defendant’s -title papers with'him, cannot help the showing. The law required the defendant to have these papers at Court, that he might be in readiness for trial. It was at his own risk, therefo) ft, and "manifested a.lwant of proper diligence, when he permitted, another, especially .one who was not his leading Counsel, to keep them in his possession, •and away from Court.

Let the judgment be affirmed.
#### Melvyn DeVore, Appellant, v Gilbert S. Lederman et al., Respondents.

[789 NYS2d 507]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), dated January 27, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the 90-day notice dated November 19, 2001, served by the defendants on the plaintiff properly conformed to the provisions of CPLR 3216 *(cf. Airmont Homes v Town of Ramapo,*69 NY2d 901, 902 [1987]; *Schuering v Stella,*243 AD2d 623, 624 [1997]). Furthermore, the additional language contained in the notice demanding that the plaintiff comply with all previous discovery demands did not render the 90-day notice null and void nor did it exceed the scope of the statute since both parties had the right to conduct further discovery even after the 90-day notice was served *(see Allone v*
      *649
      *University Hosp. of N.Y. Univ. Med. Ctr.,*249 AD2d 430, 432 [1998]; *Baxt v Cohen,*96 AD2d 661 [1983]; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3216:22).

Having been served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 and having failed to comply with the notice by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and the existence of a meritorious cause of action *(see Walters v Hoboken Wood Flooring Corp.,*6 AD3d 696, 697 [2004]; *Estate of Hamilton v Nassau Suffolk Home Health Care,*1 AD3d 474 [2003]; *Hayden v Jones,*244 AD2d 316, 317 [1997]). The plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216. H. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Ritter, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Patrick Rodgers, Chief Financial Officer of Empire Financial Holding
Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Empire Financial Holding
Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
         controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
         that material information relating to the registrant, including its
         consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
         entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
         being prepared;

         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
         of the period covered by this report and based on such evaluation;

         c) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
         registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or
         is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

         a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
         or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting.

 Date: April 6, 2005

 /s/ Patrick Rodgers
 -------------------
 Patrick Rodgers,
 Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF HARRIS INTERACTIVE INC.



| |  | GSBC Ohio Corporation, an Ohio Corporation
|- |  | ------------------------------------------



| |  | Louis Harris & Associates, Inc., a New York Corporation
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Harris Interactive International inc., a Delaware Corporation
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Harris Interactive Japan K.K., a Japanese Corporation
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------



| |  | Total Research Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
|- |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  | Total Research Holdings Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Total Research Acquisitions Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Total Research Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation
|- |  | ----------------------------------------------------



| |  | Romtec Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation
|- |  | --------------------------------------------



| |  | Research Europe Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------



| |  | Market Research Solutions Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | IRB International Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------



| |  | Telesolutions Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------



| |  | Teligen Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------



| |  | HI Global Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------



| |  | HI Europe Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------



| |  | Novatris, S.A., a French Corporation
|- |  | ------------------------------------
#### CLONTECH LABORATORIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INVITROGEN CORPORATION (formerly Life Technologies, Inc.), Defendant-Appellant. Clontech Laboratories, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Invitrogen Corporation (formerly Life Technologies, Inc.), Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 03-1464, 03-1484.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 14, 2003.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

PROST, Circuit Judge.

Clontech Laboratories, Inc. moves to “partially dismiss” Invitrogen Corporation’s appeal 03-1464 as premature. Invitrogen responds and moves to stay proceedings in these appeals “until after the District Court has issued a final judgment on the False Marking claim.” Clontech replies and responds. Invitrogen replies. The court considers whether Clontech’s “contingent cross-appeal” should be dismissed.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion and order concluding, among other things, that Invitrogen violated the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DDTPA) and engaged in false marking. The district court entered an injunction against Invitrogen pursuant to the finding of the DDTPA violation, but did not decide any penalty for false marking. Invitrogen appealed, 03-1464, seeking review of the injunction based on the DDTPA violation and the finding that it engaged in false marking. “As a precautionary measure,” Clontech filed a contingent cross-appeal, 03-1484, acknowledging that “if Invitrogen’s appeal [related to false marking] is premature, Clontech’s notice of appeal is also premature and should be dismissed[.]”

Invitrogen timely appealed the injunction under the DDTPA and, thus, its appeal is appropriate. However, to the extent that it, and Clontech, seek review of the interlocutory false marking ruling, such review is premature. Thus, we deem the better course is to stay 03-1464 pending the district court’s final judgment relating to the false marking claim and to consolidate any future appeals so that the entire case can be heard as a whole.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Clontech’s motion to dismiss 03-1464 is denied.

(2) Invitrogen’s motion for a stay is granted. The parties are directed to move for consolidation within 14 days of any appeal of the district court’s final judgment on the false marking claim.

(3) Appeal 03-1484 is dismissed.

*894(4) Each side shall bear its own costs in 03-1484.
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                           PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying annual report on Amendment No. 3 to Form
10-KSB of Championlyte Holdings, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2003,
David Goldberg, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
Championlyte Holdings, Inc. hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1. Such Amendment No. 3 to Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003,
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in such Amendment No. 3 to Form 10-KSB for the
period ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Championlyte Holdings, Inc.

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

CHAMPIONLYTE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: May 24 , 2005

By: David Goldberg(6)
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

----------
(6) Effective May 12, 2005, David Goldberg resigned as Principal Executive
Officer and Principal Financial Officer.