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

Autonomous Systems Laboratory

Autonomous operations are critical for the success, safety, 

sustainability, and crew survival of NASA deep space 

missions beyond low-Earth orbit. Future missions to the 

Moon and Mars will consist of spacecraft, landers, habitats, 

satellites, and rovers that must operate independently for 

extended periods because astronauts will not be present at 

all times, and there will be limited or no communication with 

Earth. For the past 10 years, NASA’s Stennis Space Center 

in south Mississippi has been developing and evolving 

an innovative software platform, along with expertise and 

processes required for implementation of autonomous 

operations, that can solve those complex challenges.
• The Stennis Autonomous Systems 

Laboratory group is a SMALL TEAM of 

technologists at NASA’s Stennis Space 

Center designing, testing, and deploying 

capabilities that help critical systems operate 

more autonomously and efficiently.

• For more than 10 years, the Autonomous 

Systems Laboratory team has FOCUSED

on providing capabilities that can be used on 

ground systems, as well as those needed to 

enable sustainable exploration of the Moon 

and beyond.

• Stennis Space Center is DEMONSTRATING 

autonomous operations of the nitrogen system 

at the site’s High Pressure Gas Facility. 

Autonomy technologies that enable fault 

detection, management, and maintenance, 

along with the way the system shares 

information, have potential use in all elements 

required for sustainability of Artemis missions. 

The technology has demonstrated success at 

other NASA centers and with industry partners.

• The Stennis Autonomous Systems Laboratory 

delivers a PARADIGM SHIFT in how NASA 

develops autonomous software by enabling 

cost-effective, comprehensive, “thinking,” and 

evolutionary autonomy for future space and 

ground systems.

• The Stennis Autonomous Systems 

Laboratory RECEIVED TOP HONORS in 

March 2021 from the international Institute 

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

Aerospace Conference for a collaborative 

paper on how to implement health 

management capabilities into an existing 

high-pressure, pump-based system. The 

paper focused on how to use predictive and 

condition-based maintenance on the liquid 

nitrogen pump system at Stennis.

• The Stennis Autonomous Systems 

Laboratory is VALIDATING NASA Platform 

for Autonomous Systems as a platform for 

enabling intelligent, distributed, hierarchical 

autonomy. This capability is required for 

sustainable autonomous operation on the 

Moon and Mars, and includes the ability to 

rapidly evolve and integrate components.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

John C. Stennis Space Center

Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000

(228) 688-3333

www.nasa.gov NASA facts
EXHIBIT 32.2

CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Credence Systems Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John Batty, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|Date: March 10, 2006              
|                                  
|/S/ JOHN BATTY                    
|John Batty Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.5

                            FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
                                eDIETS.COM, INC.
                               STOCK OPTION PLAN


     The eDiets.com, Inc. Stock Option Plan shall be amended, effective October
16, 2001, as follows:

     (1) The first paragraph of Article II shall be deleted, and the following
included in its place:

     "The aggregate number of shares as to which Options may be granted from
time to time shall be 5,000,000 Shares (subject to adjustment for stock splits,
stock dividends, and other adjustments described in Article VII hereof).  The
maximum number of shares as to which Options may be granted in any calendar year
to any one Key Employee shall not exceed 1,000,000 (subject to adjustment for
stock  splits, stock dividends and other adjustments described in Article VII
hereof)."

     (2) The second sentence of Subparagraph 2 of Paragraph F of Article V shall
be deleted, and the following is included in its place:

     "For purposes of this Plan, unless otherwise provided in an employment
agreement with a Participant, cause shall be deemed to include (but shall not be
limited to) wrongful appropriation of funds of the Company or an Affiliate,
divulging confidential information about the company or an Affiliate to the
public, the commission of a gross misdemeanor or felony, or the performance of
any similar action that the Board and the Committee, in their sole discretion,
may deem to be sufficiently injurious to the interests of the Company or an
Affiliate to constitute substantial cause for termination."

     (3) The last sentence of Paragraph I of Article V shall be deleted and the
following inserted in its place:

     "Unless otherwise determined by the Committee, in the event of any failure
to take up and pay for the number of Shares specified in such written notice on
the date set forth therein (or on the extended date as above provided), the
right to exercise the Option shall terminate with respect to such number of
Shares, but shall continue with respect to the remaining Shares covered by the
Option and not yet acquired pursuant thereto."
<PAGE>   1

                                THIRD AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                    NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN


         THIS THIRD AMENDMENT (the "Third Amendment") is made effective as of
January 20, 2000, by PER-SE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation formerly
known as Medaphis Corporation (the "Company").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted the Medaphis Corporation
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, as amended (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has duly authorized an
amendment of the Plan to reflect the recent name change of the Company and to
increase the number of shares available for grant pursuant to the Plan from
33,333 shares (as adjusted to reflect previous stock splits) to 283,333 shares.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the name
"Medaphis Corporation" from the Plan and replacing such name with the name
"Per-Se Technologies, Inc."

         FURTHER, Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the
first sentence thereof in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

         "The Company has authorized and reserved for issuance upon the
exercise of Options pursuant to this Plan an aggregate of 283,333 shares (the
"Shares") of Common Stock."

         ; provided, however, that the increase in shares available for grant
reflected in the foregoing amendment shall be subject to approval by the
stockholders of the Company at the 2000 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or any
adjournment thereof.

         FURTHER, except as specifically amended by this Third Amendment, the
Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Third Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Third Amendment to be
executed as of the day and year first above written.

                                  PER-SE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



                                  By:/s/ ALLEN W. RITCHIE
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Allen W. Ritchie
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer
ATTEST:



By:/s/ RANDOLPH L. M. HUTTO
   ------------------------------
   Randolph L. M. Hutto
   Secretary
EXHIBIT 6



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Cryptologic Inc. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lewis N. Rose, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:  March 28, 2007



/s/LEWIS N. ROSE

Lewis N. Rose

President and Chief Executive Officer









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Cryptologic Inc. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen Taylor, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:  March 28, 2007



/s/STEPHEN B. TAYLOR

Stephen B. Taylor

Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.00


                         COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Three Months Ended         Nine Months Ended
                                             June 30,                   June 30,
                                     ------------------------  --------------------------
                                         1998         1997         1998          1997
                                     ------------  ----------  ------------  ------------
<S>                                  <C>           <C>         <C>           <C>
Net loss                             $(2,343,433)  $(977,448)  $(4,812,811)  $(3,623,573)

Weighted average shares outstanding    5,353,267   5,234,779     5,343,886     4,802,887

Basic loss per share                 $     (0.44)     $(0.19)       $(0.90)       $(0.75)
</TABLE>


Diluted earnings per share are not shown because the results thereof are
anti-dilutive



                                       15
No. 95.

#### Nathan Bass, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Absalom Stevens *et al.*defendants.

[1.] A plea to the jurisdiction being a dilatory plea, must be verified.

' *Certiorari,*from Eloyd Superior Court. Decision by Judge 'Trippe, December Term, 1854.

The point presented by this record is whether, in a Justice’s 'Court, when a plea to the jurisdiction is filed, setting forth that defendant does not reside in the district, it is necessary that the plea be sworn to.

The Court below held, on *certi.ora,ri,*that such a plea cannot be filed except on oath; and this decision is alleged as ■error. The point arose in an action brought by Absalom Stevens against Nathan Bass, in a Justice’s Court, who pleaded non-residence, but did not swear to the plea.

Judgment being given against him in the Justice’s Court, Bass sued out a *certiorari*to the Superior Court, which *certiorari*was dismissed.

It was admitted, in the Superior Court, that Bass did not reside in Eloyd County, but that the point ivas not raised in the Justice’s Court, otherwise than by filing the plea.

Printup, for plaintiff in error.

Underwood, for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion. .

[1.] This is a *certiorari*originating in the 962d district, GL M. Two questions have been discussed, one only of which we hold is legitimately made upon the record. Counsel insists that the account was not. sufficiently proven.. No objection of this kind was taken on the trial. Neither is this ground contained in the notice which the defendant gave to the plaintiff, *574of his intention to apply for a *certiorari.*It comes, therefore, too late.

But concede that this point is properly made. The return of the Magistrate is as'broad as the exception. The complaint is, that the demand was not sufficiently proven. No defect in the proof is specified. The return of the Justice certifies that it was sufficiently proven. If the return was too general, it should have been excepted to and the Magistrate required to answer over.

The only assignment then is, that the Court rendered a judgment without having jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. The facts are, that Bass was served, appeared at the docketing term and filed a plea that he was not a resident of Eloyd, but of Bibb County. The plea was not sworn to. At the trial term, without resistance, the Court awarded judgment to the plaintiff. It could not do otherwise. The plea to the jurisdiction being a dilatory plea, had to be verified. It was not; and for this reason, the Circuit Court dismissed the *certiorari;*and we cannot do otherwise than affirm the judgment.
#### Stanfield and Wife *v.*Fetters.

*Monday, December*8.

Debt lies in this state on a judgment rendered in *Ohio*against the father of a bastard child charging him with a certain sum, payable by instalments, for the child’s maintenance; but the declaration must show that the plaintiff had maintained the child, and thus entitled himself to the money sued for.

ERROR to the *Kosciusko*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

— This was an action of debt by *Stanfield*and his wife, *Sarah,*against *Fetters.*The declaration contains four counts. The first count sets forth a certain portion of the statute of *Ohio,*entitled “An act for the maintenance and support of illegitimate children.” The recited portions of the act prescribe the manner of prosecuting the putative father, and the judgment which shall be rendered against him if found guilty. The count then recites proceedings under the statute by *Sarah,*in *Ohio,*and while sole, in the name of the state, against the defendant on a charge of being the father of her illegitimate child; and alleges that such proceedings were had, that the Court of Common Pleas for *Montgomery*county, on, &c., “ adjudged that the defendant should stand charged as the reputed father of the said child, and should stand charged with the maintenance thereof in the sum of 105 dollars,” (payable in instalments at specified periods, but *559without naming to whom); that execution should issue for any of the instalments if not paid; and that the defendant should give security for the performance of the judgment, &c. It is then averred that the defendant, having failed to give security, was imprisoned; and that he was finally discharged from imprisonment under the insolvent laws of *Ohio,*without having paid any part of the judgment, which still remained in full force, &c. The three other counts are substantially the-same as the first.

*J. H. Bradley,*for the plaintiffs.

The defendant demurred generally to the declaration, and the demurrer was sustained. Judgment for the defendant.

The law of *Ohio,*as recited in the declaration, is the same as our statute of 1831 on the subject of the support of illegitimate children; and this Court has decided that a judgment, similar to that in the record, founded on that statute, would support an action of debt by the party entitled to the payments as they became due. *Cooper*v. *The State,*4 Blackf. 316. But that party is the person who. has maintained the child; and he must show in his declaration how he became entitled to the benefit of the order or judgment for the maintenance of the child. *Harrington et al.*v. *Ferguson,*2 Blackf. 42. See, also, *Beeman*v. *The State,*5 Blackf. 165. The declaration before us is defective for not showing the title of the plaintiffs to the money adjudged for the support of the child. It does not appear that the plaintiffs, or either of them, have been subjected to any expense or trouble in the care and maintenance of it. The declaration is perfectly silent as to what became of the child, whether it lived or died, or who had the custody and support of it. The demurrer was correctly sustained.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed with costs.
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 and S-3 (Nos. 333-112690, 333-83794,
333-107982, 333-58532, 333-93295, 333-118697 and 333-83800) of Somera Communications Inc. of our report dated March 25, 2005 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, and managements assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting which appears in this Form 10-K/A.



|                              
|------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|                              
|Los Angeles, California       
|July 11, 2005
#### Jill Shuler et al., Appellants, v Larry Dupree et al., Respondents.

[789 NYS2d 197]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for constructive eviction, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 27, 2003, which denied their motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement dated July 18, 2002.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the motion to vacate the stipulation of settlement. “[A]n open-court stipulation is an independent contract between the parties (see, *McWade v McWade,*253 AD2d 798), and will be enforced according to its *549terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability” *(Jablonski v Jablonski,*275 AD2d 692, 693 [2000]). General contentions that a party felt pressured by the court are insufficient to establish such a claim *(see Cavalli v Cavalli,*226 AD2d 666, 667 [1996]; *Sontag v Sontag,*114 AD2d 892, 894 [1985]). “[E]ven a stipulation which was improvident will not be set aside unless it is manifestly unfair or unconscionable” *(Cavalli v Cavalli, supra*at 667; *see Wilutis v Wilutis,*184 AD2d 639, 640 [1992]). Here, the plaintiffs’ only allegation of duress was made in an affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs in support of their subsequent motion for leave to reargue which they eventually withdrew. Since the affidavit was never before the Supreme Court with respect to the motion to vacate the stipulation of settlement, it is dehors the record and has not been considered on this appeal *(see*CPLR 5526; *Constantine v Premier Cab Corp.,*295 AD2d 303, 304 [2002]; *Penta v Related Cos.,*286 AD2d 674, 675 [2001]; *cf. Boyar v Goodman,*202 AD2d 541, 542 [1994]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
**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 accompanying Annual Report of Health Systems Solutions,
      Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, B.M. Milvain, Principal Executive Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By:
            /s/
              B. M. Milvain B.M.
                Milvain


Principal
                Executive Officer


March
      29,
      2006
#### Matthieu Maceno, Appellant, v Franklin Hospital Medical Center et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[790 NYS2d 148]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), dated November 13, 2003, as granted the motion of the defendants Franklin Hospital Medical Center and Doctrates G. Demeterio to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness, and granted the separate motion of the defendant Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3216 to the extent of precluding the plaintiff from conducting examinations before trial of the defendants Franklin Hospital Medical Center and Jeffrey Shapiro.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the *664provision thereof granting the motion of the defendant Brook-dale University Hospital and Medical Center to the extent of precluding the plaintiff from conducting an examination before trial of the defendant Jeffrey Shapiro and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently granted the motion to vacate the note of issue and certificate of readiness *(see*22 NYCRR 202.21 [e]). The plaintiff conceded in the certificate of readiness that the case was not ready for trial.

The Supreme Court providently imposed the sanction of preclusion with respect to the examination before trial of the defendant Franklin Hospital Medical Center *(see*CPLR 3126; *cf. Precise Ct. Reporting v Karten,*6 AD3d 412 [2004]). However, the record does not demonstrate that the plaintiff willfully and contumaciously obstructed the progress of disclosure with regard to the examination before trial of the defendant Jeffrey Shapiro *(see Santigate v Linsalata,*304 AD2d 639, 641 [2003]; *Gorokhova v Belulovich,*267 AD2d 202, 203 [1999]). Therefore, the order is modified accordingly. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Smith, and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### MASSEY v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE

No. 382P00-2

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 345

Petition by petitioner appellants for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 October 2001.