alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

Hidden Words 

Directions: The 15 highlighted words from the paragraph at the bottom of the page can be found 

in the large grid of letters below. Each word can be found by connecting letters horizontally 

and/or vertically (the letters do not connect to one another diagonally). Note that, 

unlike a word search, the word will not be found in a straight line. The small grid 

to the right provides an example of how the word “NASA” could be hidden.

Each letter can ONLY be used for one word! Once you have found all 15 words, the remaining 

letters in the grid will spell out a word or phrase. Enjoy!

L E N N S N T N A T A

G L E F A E A L I S S

E L S I C I N P R A E

W E F F Q A E S E Q U

X A M I U R E L E C T

S M R E L A O A R N R

T A A T U N R E C H I

R O N G Y G E S T E C

S E R S E L I A B L I

E P U O C O L P X S S

M A S N I R E L A N E

NASA Aeronautics conducts research to help make airplanes more safe, efficient, quiet, and

reliable. The work is completed at different NASA facilities around the country including Ames, 

Armstrong, Glenn, and Langley. Part of this work includes designing X-planes like the X-57 

(Maxwell), an electric powered plane, and the X-59 (QueSST), a supersonic plane that doesn’t 

produce a loud sonic boom.
Answer Key
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

Hidden Words 

Directions: The 15 highlighted words from the paragraph at the bottom of the page can be found 

in the large grid of letters below. Each word can be found by connecting letters horizontally 

and/or vertically (the letters do not connect to one another diagonally). Note that, 

unlike a word search, the word will not be found in a straight line. The small grid 

to the right provides an example of how the word “NASA” could be hidden.

Each letter can ONLY be used for one word! Once you have found all 15 words, the remaining 

letters in the grid will spell out a word or phrase. Enjoy!

L E N N S N T N A T A

G L E F A E A L I S S

E L S I C I N P R A E

W E F F Q A E S E Q U

X A M I U R E L E C T

S M R E L A O A R N R

T A A T U N R E C H I

R O N G Y G E S T E C

S E R S E L I A B L I

E P U O C C L P X S S

M A S N I R E L A N E

The hidden phrase is: “NASA” Aeronautics

NASA Aeronautics conducts research to help make airplanes more safe, efficient, quiet, and

reliable. The work is completed at different NASA facilities around the country including Ames, 

Armstrong, Glenn, and Langley. Part of this work includes designing X-planes like the X-57 

(Maxwell), an electric powered plane, and the X-59 (QueSST), a supersonic plane that doesn’t 

produce a loud sonic boom.
NO. 07-06-0175-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	MARCH 5, 2007

	______________________________

	DAVID MATTHEW LAYTON, APPELLANT

	V.

	WARREN CLARK, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 94,288-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, David Matthew Layton, appeals from an order denying his request to take the deposition of Warren Clark pursuant to a request filed under the authority of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202.1(b).  We dismiss the appeal.

	Appellant was represented by the proposed deponent, Warren Clark, in 1996; specifically Clark was the trial attorney for appellant during appellant’s trial from May 2, 1996 until May 9, 1996.  The trial court denied appellant’s request to depose Clark without a hearing.  Appellant urges a number of constitutional grounds which he asserts would require this court to reverse.  However, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

	Appellant maintains, on appeal, that his request was not intended to be a deposition in anticipation of filing a law suit against Clark, but rather to investigate an actual innocence claim.  However, despite the representations made by appellant in his brief, the clerk’s record reveals that his original petition alleges that he “seeks to depose Mr. Warren L. Clark, in order to investigate a potential claim arising out of the trial of Petitioner. . ., wherein the deponent may have committed legal malpractice resulting from his representation of Petitioner.”  

	Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure permits the taking of a deposition to either perpetuate or obtain testimony for use in anticipation of suit, or to investigate a potential claim or suit.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.1 (a)-(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005).  The ruling of a trial court is a final appealable order if the deposition sought is against a third party against whom suit is not contemplated.  IFS Security Group, Inc. v. Am. Equity Ins., 175 S.W.3d 560, 563 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2005, no pet.); Thomas v. Fitzgerald, 166 S.W.3d 746, 747 (Tex.App.–Waco 2005, no pet.).  On the other hand if the request for discovery is sought from a person against whom there is a suit contemplated or pending, the ruling of the trial court is interlocutory.  IFS Security Group, 175 S.W.3d at 563; Thomas, 166 S.W.3d at 747.  In this case the record clearly demonstrates that appellant is seeking discovery from his former lawyer with an intent to file a legal malpractice case and, accordingly, the order of the trial court is interlocutory in nature.

	Our jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals is specified by statue.  Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998).  There is no statute authorizing interlocutory appeal from an order denying a deposition against a person suit is contemplated against; therefore, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.  The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.        

						Mackey K. Hancock

						        Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from September
30, 1996 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,928
<SECURITIES>                                 2,557,903
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,124
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,582,516
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,364,236
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           161
<OTHER-SE>                                     218,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,582,516
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,089
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,328
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,328
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
        

</TABLE>
# An Annotated Bibliography of the Apollo Program



### Compiled by Roger D. Launius and J.D. Hunley

Go to the Table of Contents.



|NASA Logo | Monographs in Aerospace History
Number 2
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA History Office
NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC
Published July 1994
|--------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

HTML revised: March 1, 1996
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 18, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

EARL CROWNHART,

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

LARRY REID, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-1007

 (D.C. No. 1:08-CV-00692-PAB-KLM)

ORDER

Appellant has failed to file any preliminary documents since this matter was

opened on January 13, 2010. All mailings from the court to appellant have been returned

to the court indicating appellant has been paroled, and a search on the inmate locator

system disclosed that appellant has been paroled. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for

failure to prosecute. See 10th Cir. R.3.3 (B) and 10th Cir. R. 42.1. 

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

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1007 Document: 01018387224 Date Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 1
Order entered September 29, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00784 - CV GALOVELHO, LLC, Appellant

V. GREG ABBOTT, ET AL., Appellee s On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219 - 02595 - 2020

ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s September 25, 2020 motion for an extension of time to file its brief on the merits which is currently due on October 4th
. Appellant requests a forty

- five day extension to allow for the filing of a supplemental clerk’s record and this Court’s reconsideration of its September 18, 2020 order denying its motion to order the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The requested supplemental clerk’s record has now been filed. Appellant has not filed a motion to reconsider this Court’s September 18th order.Appellees are agreeable to only a twenty
- one day extension. We GRANT

appellant’s motion to the extent that it sha ll file its brief on or before November 3, 2020
. /s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1011

MELINDA SCOTT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ANDREW CARLSON; JOSHUA CONNER MOON , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Big Stone Gap

. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 2:18

- cv - 00047

- JPJ

- PMS )

Submitted : April 22, 2019 Decided: July 2, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Melinda L. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Carlson, Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Melinda Scott seeks to appea l the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012)

. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant ’s brief mu st raise all the issues she wishes th is court to review. Fed. R. App. P. 28 . The failure to raise an issue results in its abandonment on appeal. See Hensley on behalf of N. Carolina v. Price , 876 F.3d 573, 580 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) . Accordingly, we will review only the issues that Scott appellant has identified in her brief.
Scott challenges only the district court’s “ruling that she has not stated a constitutional invasion of privacy claim based on the alleged violation of her Fou rth Amendment rights by Defendant Carlson and Defendant Moon.” Appellant’s Brief 7. As the district court noted , Scott’s complaint contain s no indication that either Defendant Carlson or Defendant Moon could be considered a state actor capable of violati ng her Fourth Amendment rights. For the reasons explained by the district court , we affirm

. We deny Scott’s motion to waive PACER fees and Appellee Andrew Carlson’s motion to suspend the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. We dispense with oral argum ent because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1643 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1643

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2003

    Referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To exempt certain coastal barrier property from financial assistance 
 and flood insurance limitations under the Coastal Barriers Resources 
           Act and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.

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

SECTION 1. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE; FLOOD INSURANCE.

    The limitations on Federal expenditures or financial assistance in 
section 5 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3504) and the 
limitations on flood insurance coverage in section 1321(a) of the 
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4028(a)) shall not 
apply to lots 15, 16, 25, and 29 within the Jeremy Cay Subdivision on 
Edisto Island, South Carolina, depicted on the reference map entitled 
``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Edisto Complex M09/
M09P'' dated January 24, 2003.

            Passed the Senate November 6, 2003.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Reply to Attn of:

John F. Kennedy Space Center

Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899

CC

February 23, 2022

TO: Distribution

FROM: CC/Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the GOES-T 

Launch Viewing Reception, March 1, 2022

L3Harris will host the GOES-T Launch Viewing Reception at the OSB II - Building 

M6-0493, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on March 1, 2022. The reception is to 

recognize the success of the GOES-T Mission. Approximately 200 guests will attend the 

reception. These guests include corporate executives, representatives of aerospace contractors 

and other organizations, and representatives of state and Federal government. The 

approximate value of the dinner is $31 a person. 

 

In accordance with 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g), Gifts of Free Attendance at Widely Attended 

Gatherings, I find this event meets the requirements of a widely attended gathering, and I 

further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend this event 

because their participation will further agency programs and operations. Specifically, this 

event allows NASA employees to show support for a mission program. This event also 

provides a forum for the attendees to disseminate information on NASA's ongoing activities 

and to discuss matters of interest to NASA with a diverse group of fellow attendees. Because 

of these benefits to NASA, and having considered the factors enumerated in 5 CFR § 

2635.204(g)(4), I also find that the Agency's interest in the invited NASA employees' 

attendance outweighs the concern that such employees may be, or may appear to be, 

improperly influenced in the performance of official duties. 

 

However, NASA employees whose duties may substantially affect any of the event sponsor, 

such as by way of contracting duties, should seek an individual determination pursuant to 5 

C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(3)(i), regarding participation in this event from their local ethics 

counselor. Moreover, NASA employees who are in non-career positions in which Executive 

Order 13989 requires signing an ethics pledge may only accept the meals if they reimburse 

the sponsor the value of the event for themselves and their guest. 

 

 
2

Accordingly, I have determined that NASA invitees may accept their invitations for 

complimentary attendance at this event without violating the ethics rules. However, in 

accordance with the Deputy Associate Administrator's September 17, 2021 direction, NASA 

invitees must obtain approval from the agency Covid-19 Executive Response Team to attend 

these events because they will have more than 50 attendees. Attendees are reminded to 

exercise any COVID-19 precautions appropriate to their individual situation.

Daniel P. Shaver 

Agency Designee

DANIEL SHAVER Digitally signed by DANIEL

SHAVER

Date: 2022.02.23 15:30:33 -05'00'
#### Geo. Smith et al. *v.*Jno. Seaton.

Landlord and Tenant — Holding over after Expiration of Lease — Notice — Adverse Possession — Instructions.

An open and adverse holding after a lease expires, authorizes the presumption of notice to the landlord, and it is error to instruct the •jury that actual notice must be given by the adverse claimant in possession.

Same.

Tenant cannot deny title under which he enters, if the lease covered the land in controversy; the lessee became tenant of , the lessor and cannot deny the title under which he held without an adverse possession of fifteen years.

Champerty.

The Statutes of Champerty do not apply until tenant has held adversely to his landlord for fifteen years.

APPEAL FROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

March 2, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judos Williams:

The instructions were wrong and misleading on the first trial, therefore, the court properly granted a new trial.

*495Ireland, for Appellants.

*Dulin,*for Appelltte.

The first and second instructions given at plaintiff’s instance on the last trial were correct; the third one should also have been given with a modification.

Logan was a mere renter from Clark for a year; he disclaimed both possession and claimed he should, therefore, not be held responsible for all the damages which may have resulted to plaintiff by reason of the detention of the possession, use, cutting timber, etc.

The fourth instruction was erroneous and useless as the first properly expounded the law of the case.

Open and notorious adverse holding after lease expired authorized the presumption of notice to the landlord, and to instruct that actual notice must be given by the adverse claimant in possession is erroneous.

The first and second instructions asked by defendant were properly rejected, and the third properly given.

If the written obligation between Berry and Clark covered the land in contest, then Clark became tenant and cannot deny the title under which he held without an adverse possession of fifteen years. Nor does the Statute of Champerty apply until his title may be matured by such adverse holding as decided in Baley *v.*Deakin, 5 B. Mon. 161.

On another trial the jury should be permitted to *sever*the damages, and if the plaintiff should recover the judgment may be for the land as well as for damages.

Bor these errors the judgment is reversed with directions for a new trial, and further proceedings as herein indicated,
CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  The
undersigned, Denis Corin, the Chief Executive Officer of TapImmune Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her
knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date: May
8, 2009
  By:      /s/ Denis
Corin
 Denis Corin
 President, Chief Executive
Officer,
 Principal Executive Officer and a
director
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1



                                  EGROUPS, INC.
                             A DELAWARE CORPORATION

NUMBER <<CERTNUMBER>>                                    *<<NOOFSHARES>>* SHARES
                                                                COMMON STOCK


        This certifies that <<NAME>> is the record holder of <<NOOFSHARES>>
shares of COMMON STOCK of EGROUPS INC. transferable only on the books of said
corporation by the holder, in person, or by duly authorized attorney, upon
surrender of this certificate properly endorsed or assigned.

        This certificate and the shares represented hereby are issued and shall
be held subject to all of the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation and
the Bylaws of the corporation and any amendments thereto, a copy of which is on
file at the officer of the corporation and made part hereof as fully as though
the provisions of the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws were imprinted in
full on this certificate, to all of which the holder of this certificate, by
acceptance hereof, assents.

        The corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so
requests, the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating,
optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and
the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or
rights.

        WITNESS, the Seal of the corporation and the signatures of its duly
authorized officers this <<Day>> day of <<Month>>, 2000.



-----------------------------------          -----------------------------------
Marjorie Sennett, Chief Financial            Michael Klein, President
Officer