alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Augmented Reality (AR) for Operations and Training

A NEW PARTNERING OPPORTUNITY

Reference No: NNJ14ZBH019L

Potential Commercial Applications: energy, chemical, medical, emergency operations

(first responders, rescue, and police), Department of Defense (DoD), hazardous 

operations, aerospace sectors, and others

Keywords: augmented reality, wearable computing and sensor technology, electronic

procedures

Purpose:

NASA JSC seeks to advance Augmented Reality (AR)-based operations and training 

capabilities within these domains. Successful NASA JSC human spaceflight missions 

depend on execution of well-defined operational plans. Astronaut and ground control 

teams receive extensive training in the procedures required to carry out those plans and 

then execute those procedures during the mission. As electronic procedures replace 

paper checklists and longer duration missions are considered, there is a need for software 

technology to lead the way. 

Technology: 

Specific domain expertise and interest areas include:

• AR technology combined with electronic procedures;

• Electronic procedures and AR authoring tools for training and performance 

support;

• Just-In-Time Training (JITT);

• Distributed AR team training;

• AR system architecture development for distributed computing paradigms;

• Machine vision for registration;

• Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) localization and logistics management;

• Wearable computing and sensor fusion technology for Automation and Robotics 

(A&R); and

• A&R interactive control of virtual and real objects with gesture, voice and haptic 

devices.

For more information please visit our website.

R&D Status:

NASA JSC possesses unique software capabilities for prototyping, design, analysis, 

testing and integrating electronic procedures and augmented reality technology to assist 

humans living and working in space. 

Intellectual Property (IP):

This Partner relationship may produce new IP that could be jointly owned by NASA and 

the partner or may become the property of the partner.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7057

STEVEN WHISENANT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID K. SMITH; EDWARD MURRAY; LARRY W. HUFFMAN; HENRY PONTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CA-93-802-R)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Whisenant, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander,

Assistant Attorney General, Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders entering

judgment on the jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action

and denying his motion for judgment as a matter of law. The record

does not contain a transcript of the jury trial. Appellant has the

burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all

parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal.

Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. Local R. 10(c). Appellants proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis are entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f)

(1994). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the

production of a transcript at government expense, Appellant has

waived review of the issues on appeal which depend upon the transcript to show error. Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1025 (1992); Keller v. Prince

George's County, 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). We have

reviewed the record before the court and the district court's

opinions and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the

district court's order entering judgment on the verdict. We also

affirm the district court's order denying Appellant's motion for

judgment as a matter of law because the denial of summary judgment

does not necessitate a finding of a constitutional violation. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
3

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Major, Administrator, *v.*The State, on the Relation of Gappin.

The declaration in debt on a constable’s bond, in assigning a breach, alleged that the constable “ did not make legal service and return ” of an execution placed in his hands, &e. *Held,*that the allegation was insufficient.

ERROR to the *Tippecanoe*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

Debt by the state on the relation of *Gappin*against the administrator of a constable, founded on the constable’s official bond. The declaration alleges that the relator on, &c., recovered a judgment, before a justice of the peace, against certain persons for a certain sum and costs; that on, &c., an execution was duly issued and delivered by *72the justice of the peace to the constable, commanding him that of the goods and chattels of the execution-debtors “ he should make the debt, damages, and costs aforesaid, and make legal service and return of said writ.” It is then averred that the constable “ did not make legal service and return of said writ of execution, but wholly failed and neglected so to do.” The defendant demurred generally to the declaration; the demurrer was overruled; the Court by consent of parties assessed the damages; judgment for the plaintiff.

*D. Mace*and *A. M. Crane,*for the plaintiff.

*H. W. Chase,*for the defendant.

We think the demurrer should have been sustained. To pass over the irregularity in the execution set out in the declaration for want of a return day, and the objection to the allegation that the constable did not make *legal*service and return, as stating a conclusion of law, the breach assigned is still very defective. It is entirely too vague.- If it was meant to charge the constable with failing to serve the writ, the declaration should have shown that the execution-debtors had property within the reach of the constable, which he neglected to take. *The State*v. *Soverns,*6 Blackf. 168. See, also, *Jones*v. *The State,*5 Blackf. 492. If the constable failed to return the writ, he was liable under the statute, but there is no allegation that he did not return the writ. The averment that he did not make service *and*return of the writ would be true, if he failed to levy, though he might have made a return legal in form.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
**Rialto****CAPITAL****2014 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of September 1, 2014 by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Trust Advisor relating to Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2014-C18, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-C18  **(MSBAM 2014-C18)**The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the "Special Servicer") herein certifies to the following: 1.All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer. 2.A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of September 29, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision. 3.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein. Certified by:  /s/ Adam Singer Date:  March 5, 2015       Adam Singer, Managing Director ************
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-335V

Filed: September 8, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SARAH FIELDS, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Shoulder Injury; SIRVA;

* Influenza;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Maximillian J. Muller, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for petitioner.

Althea Walker Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On March 15, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury caused in fact by 

her October 21, 2014 influenza vaccination. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to 

the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On September 7, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she 

concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 

4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, respondent “has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury 

is consistent with shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), and that it 

was caused-in-fact by the flu vaccine she received on October 21, 2014.” Id. at 4. 

Respondent further agrees that no other cause for petitioner’s injury has been identified, 

that petitioner has suffered sequela of her injury for more than six months, and that 

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. 

Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN RAY MILLER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JIM BENEDETTI, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-16906

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00077-LRH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Nevada state prisoner John Ray Miller appeals pro se from the district

court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration he filed pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 60(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

FILED

APR 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-16906

affirm.

Miller contends the district court erred by denying his motion to reconsider. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Miller’s motion to

reconsider because he presented no grounds justifying relief under Rule 60(b). See

Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Miller’s motion to remand the case because the State did not file an

answering brief is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
*

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 20, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 10-8001

v. (D. of Wyo.)

GILBERTO PINON-AYON,

Defendant-Appellant.

(D.C. No. 09-CR-210-CAB)

ORDER

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.*

 

Gilberto Pinon-Ayon was convicted of conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine and appealed the district court’s decision to enhance his

sentence. The United States of America has filed an unopposed motion to vacate

the defendant’s sentence and remand to the district court for a new sentencing

hearing. 

Having jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we GRANT the motion. 

We agree the district court should review the evidence and make specific and

independent findings to justify an obstruction of justice enhancement pursuant to

Appellate Case: 10-8001 Document: 01018481323 Date Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

USSG § 3C1.1. See United States v. Mares, 441 F.3d 1152, 1160–61 (10th Cir.

2006); United States v. Markum, 4 F.3d 891, 897 (10th Cir. 1993). We therefore

VACATE Pinon-Ayon’s sentence and REMAND to the district court for a new

sentencing hearing. Because we are vacating Pinon-Ayon’s sentence, we do not

address his arguments regarding whether the district court erred in including

additional methamphetamine in calculating his relevant conduct. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 10-8001 Document: 01018481323 Date Filed: 08/20/2010 Page: 2
EXHIBIT 31





CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jehu Hand, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Maritime Partners, Ltd.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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 Act Rules 13a-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 is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and



c) 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 based on such evaluation;



5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 the 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 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: February 14, 2006



/s/ Jehu Hand

Jehu Hand

President (chief executive officer) and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, William S. Short, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rent-Way, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly 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 presentedin this quarterly report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchanged Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis quarterly report is being prepared;  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: May 10, 2005      /s/ William S. Short Signature    Chief Executive Officer Title
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM 39288 (f rev)

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Philip H. AIKEN Senior Airman (E

- 4)
, U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United S tates Air Force Trial Judiciary Upon further review
Decided 11 Oc to ber 2018

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Patricia A. Gruen. Approved sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 13 months, and reduction to E

- 1. Sentence adjudged 9 May 2017 by GCM convened at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. For Appellant: Major Todd M. Swensen , USAF. For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Captain Mi

chael T. Bunnell , USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire

. Before HARDING, HUYGEN
, and POSCH, Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

_______ _____ __ __________ PE R CURIAM : We have this case for further review after returning the record of trial to The Judge Advocate General for remand to the convening authority for new post

- trial process ing and action. United States v. Aiken , No. ACM 39288, 2018 CCA LEXIS 366 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 20 Jul. 2018) (unpub. op.)

. New post

- trial processing and convening authority action have been accomplished.United States v. Aiken , No. ACM 39288 (f rev)

2 T he approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appel lant ’ s substantial rights occurred. Arti cles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice
, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 16, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

JADE HICKS, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 10-2028

 (D. C. No. 2:08-CR-01976-JCH-1)

 

ORDER

Appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss appeal is granted. Fed. R. App. P.

46.3(B).

This order shall stand as and for the mandate of the court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-2028 Document: 01018404170 Date Filed: 04/16/2010 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 theQuarterly Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman F. Swanton, Chairman ofthe Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 and results of  operations of the Company. |

 

 
| /s/ Norman F. Swanton         |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Norman F. Swanton             |
| *Chairman of the Board*       |
| *And Chief Executive Officer* |
| * *                      |
| May 3, 2007                   |

 

1

----