alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             JUL-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                  JUL-30-2000
<CASH>                                                            77,315
<SECURITIES>                                                       1,872
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 139,538
<PP&E>                                                           378,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    72,423
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   576,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            383,969
<BONDS>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                         124,485
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                       (46,821)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     576,295
<SALES>                                                          624,909
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 624,909
<CGS>                                                            489,295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    489,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               1,743,054
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 2,175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (1,608,185)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (1,608,185)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (1,608,185)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       (.13)



</TABLE>
# STS-43 TDRS-E / IUS is deployed from OV-104’s payload bay (PLB)

STS043-72-059 (2 Aug 1991) --- The Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS-E), leaves the payload bay of the earth-orbiting Atlantis a mere six hours after the Space Shuttle was launched from Pad 39A at Kennedy Space Center, Florida.  TDRS, built by TRW, will be placed in a geosynchronous orbit and after on-orbit testing, which requires several weeks, will be designated TDRS-5.  The communications satellite will replace TDRS-3 at 174 degrees West longitude.  The backbone of NASA's space-to-ground communications, the Tracking and Data Relay satellites have increased NASA's ability to send and receive data to spacecraft in low-earth orbit to more than 85 percent of the time.  The five astronauts of the STS 43 mission are John E. Blaha, mission commander, Michael A. Baker, pilot, and Shannon W.  Lucid, G.  David Low, and James C. Adamson, all mission specialists.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-s43-72-059/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenAugust 2, 1991ProducerJSCSize1917x1920pxPIA Numbers43-72-059The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Aug 10, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 22, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. 

GWEN BERGMAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-1244

(D.C. No.1:04-CR-0180-WDM-1) 

ORDER

Appellant’s “Voluntary Motion for Dismissal of Appeal” is granted. 10th Cir. R.

27.3(A)(9) and 42(b).

This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of an appeal when a final judgment

or otherwise appealable interlocutory order is issued in connection with this case.

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: 10-1244 Document: 01018445098 Date Filed: 06/22/2010 Page: 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

THEODORE MARTIN,

Petitioner

v.

THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, ET AL.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 83 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8

th day of February, 2024, the “Petition for the Issuance of a Writ 

of Mandamus and/or Prohibition,” the “Motion for Leave to File a Petition for the Issuance 

of a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition,” and the Application for “Permission to File 

Supplemental Pleading of Facts” are DENIED.
# Propulsion Systems Laboratory

The Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) is NASA’s only test facility that simulates true flight conditions for experimental research on aircraft engines and propulsion systems. Using compressors, exhausters, and heating and cooling systems in two test chambers, PSL accurately creates temperature and pressure inlet conditions that propulsion systems experience in high-speed, high-altitude flight. The facility also provides data critical to understanding the performance and operability of jet engines at extreme conditions.Click on the arrows or any of the icons to learn more about the amazing capabilities of these chambers and see testing in action.

**CLICK Anywhere To Start Tour**

    PSL: Shop Area

    PSL: PSL-3

    PSL: PSL-4

    PSL: Control Room

    PSL: Spray Bars

# 

Touch and drag to view the 360-degree image
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 Huttig Building Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Lupo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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/ Michael A. LupoMichael A. LupoChief Executive OfficerMarch 9, 2004




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

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED
                                   ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement of
BioSyntech,  Inc. on Form S-8 filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on April 3, 2001, pertaining to the BioSyntech,  Inc. and Bio Syntech Canada Inc.
Stock Option Incentive Plans, of our report dated May 24, 2002,  except for note
18 as to which  the date is June 26,  2002,  with  respect  to the  consolidated
financial  statements of BioSyntech,  Inc.  included in this Annual Report (Form
10-KSB), for the year ended March 31, 2002.

Montreal, Canada                                      /s/Ernst & Young LLP
July 16, 2002                                         Chartered Accountants
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1613

MARY CHIU FEBEH, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: January 29, 2009 Decided: February 26, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kell Enow, ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for 

Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, 

William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Jem C. Sponzo, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Mary Chiu Febeh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration 

judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

 Febeh first challenges the determination that she 

failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain 

reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an 

alien “must show that the evidence [s]he presented was so 

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the 

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and 

conclude that Febeh fails to show that the evidence compels a 

contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that 

she seeks. 

 Additionally, we uphold the denial of Febeh’s request 

for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for 

withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though 

the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is 

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding 

of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 

378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Febeh failed to show 

that she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher 

2 
3 

standard for withholding of removal. For the same reasons, we 

also uphold the denial of Febeh’s request for protection under 

the Convention Against Torture. 

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
#### Lockwood and Another *v.*The State.—In error.

*Tuesday, June*10.

A JOINT *scire facias*will not lie on a several recognizance. *Thompson et al.*v. *The State,*4 Blackf. *188*.—Hil*dreth*v. *The State,*5 *id.*80. And the objection, when shown by the *scire facias,*may be assigned for error. *Chandler*v. *The State,*5 Blackf. 471.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN RE FRANK'S OILFIELD SERVICE,

INC., doing business as Frank's Well

Service,

Debtor.

BAP No. NM-13-063

JESUS VILLALOBOS,

Appellant,

Bankr. No. 06-10826

Chapter 11

v. DISMISSAL ORDER

ROBERT L. FINCH, Chapter 11

Trustee, UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,

and ELM RIDGE EXPLORATION

CO., LLC,

Appellees.

June 2, 2014

Before NUGENT, ROMERO, and SOMERS, Bankruptcy Judges.

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal

(“Motion”) filed by Appellant Jesus Villalobos. The Motion requests that this

appeal be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) The Motion is GRANTED. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(c)(2).

(2) Any deadlines previously set by the Court in this appeal are

VACATED.

(3) Oral argument scheduled for this appeal on Tuesday, June 3,

2014, is VACATED.

(4) This appeal is DISMISSED.

BAP Appeal No. 13-63 Docket No. 40 Filed: 06/02/2014 Page: 1 of 2
(5) The mandate shall issue immediately.

For the Panel:

Blaine F. Bates

Clerk of Court

-2-

BAP Appeal No. 13-63 Docket No. 40 Filed: 06/02/2014 Page: 2 of 2
#### Morris v. Lucas.

A judgment in a suit on a sealed note in favour of the maker, where the only plea was a failure of consideration, is no evidence of such failure in a subsequent suit against the indorser, who had no notice of the first suit.

ERROR to the *Tippecanoe*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

Morris sued *Lucas*in assumpsit before a justice of the peace, on the assignment of a sealed note for the payment of money. Plea, non assumpsit. • Judgment by the justice, and an appeal to the Circuit Court. The note and assignment, with a written statement that the plaintiff had sued the maker of the note befogs a justice of the peace, and that the maker had obtained judgment, owing to the failure of consideration, were filed before the justice as a cause of action. On the trial in the Circuit Court, the plaintiff proved the note and indorsement. He also introduced the transcript of the justice’s judgment in favour of the maker of the note. The defendant then gave in evidence the following and only plea filed .by the maker of the note in the suit against him, viz., that the note was given in part payment of a house and lot, &c., for which the payee could not *10make a good title. There was no other evidence. The Circuit Court gave judgment for the defendant.

*D. Mace,*for the plaintiff.

*J. Pettit*and *S. A. Huff,*for the defendant.

The ground of this action is, that the defendant assigned the plaintiff a note, which the maker was not liable to pay, the consideration having failed. The evidence did not support the cause of action. The plaintiff was bound to prove that the consideration of the note had failed. The judgment for the maker, supposing it to have been rendered by a competent Court, was no evidence of such failure in the suit against *Lucas,*who does not appear to have had notice of the suit against the maker. The judgment as to *Lucas*was *res inter alios acta.*Had the plaintiff relied on the inability of the maker of the note, a judgment in his favour against the maker'would have been admissible, because there the object of the evidence would have been merely to prove the existence of such a judgment. But this is a different case, the plaintiff’s object being to prove, not merely the existence of a judgment, but the fact that the consideration of the note had failed, which it was supposed the judgment established. See *Howell*v. *Wilson, 2*Blackf. 418.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 08, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18A0057. CHARLES EMORY COUNTS, JR. v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On August 21, 2017, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than August 31, 2017. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a). Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995): This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a notice of appeal from that order.Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 08, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37253

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

CARLOS PAZ

- HEREDIA ,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpublished Opi nion No. 602

Filed: August 24, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, St ate of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three ye ars , for rape , affirmed

.

Daniel S. Brown of Fuller Law Offices, Twin Falls, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for res pondent.

________________________________________________
Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GRATTON, Judge

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Carlos Paz

- Heredia was convicted of rape , Idaho Code § 18

- 6101 . The district court

imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years

.
Paz

- Heredia appeals, contending that the sentence is excessive.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho2

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Paz

- Heredia ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ANN KLEIN, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification granted.
EXHIBIT 99.1



                         CRUSADE MANAGEMENT LIMITED
                    OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE


     The undersigned officer of Crusade Management Limited, a company
organized under the laws of New South Wales, Australia ("CML"), hereby
certifies on behalf of CML and on his own behalf for purposes of the
Crusade Global Trust No. 1 of 1999 Class A-1, Class A-2, and Class A-3
Mortgage Backed Floating Rate Notes (the "Notes"), as follows:

     1.    I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Officer of CML;

     2.    I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's
           Certificate on behalf of CML; and

     3.    To the best of my knowledge, the Issuer Trustee has complied
           with all conditions and covenants under the Transaction
           Documents, for the Crusade Global Trust No. 1 of 1999 issue of
           Notes for the period between September 17, 1999 and the end of
           the Manager's fiscal year on September 30, 1999.

     Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
assigned to such terms in the Note Trust Deed related to the
above-referenced issue of Notes.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 31, 2000.




                                    /s/ Michael Bowan
                                   ---------------------------
                                   Name:  Michael Bowan
                                   Title: Company Secretary
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67364-67365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition 
to the Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS 
decision to designate a class of employees from the Blockson Chemical 
Company, Joliet, Illinois, as an addition to the Special Exposure 
Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program Act of 2000. On September 3, 2010, as provided for 
under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following 
class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All Atomic Weapons Employer employees who worked at the Blockson 
Chemical Company in Joliet, Illinois from March 1, 1951 to June 30, 
1960, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, 
occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination 
with work days within the parameters established for one or more 
other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on October 3, 2010, as provided 
for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on October 3, 2010, 
members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, 
became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can

[[Page 67365]]

also be submitted by e-mail to [email protected].

John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-27595 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
```